Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 05/04/2021
AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP & OPEN PODIUM TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2021 CITY CENTER 5:00 – 6:25 PM, HERITAGE ROOMS 6:30 – 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Ron Case, Council Members Kathy Nelson, Mark Freiberg, PG Narayanan, and Lisa Toomey CITY STAFF: City Manager Rick Getschow, Police Chief Greg Weber, Fire Chief Scott Gerber, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, Administrative Services/HR Director Alecia Rose, Communications Manager Joyce Lorenz, City Attorney Maggie Neuville, and Recorder Katie O’Connor Workshop - Heritage Rooms I and II (5:30) I. 2020 AUDIT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (5:30-6:15 p.m.) II. FINANCIAL POLICIES (6:15-6:30 p.m.) Open Podium - Council Chamber (6:30) III. OPEN PODIUM IV. ADJOURNMENT City of Eden Prairie Audit Presentation May 4, 2021 Independent Auditor’s Reports ●Independent Auditor’s Report “unmodified” or “clean” opinion. ●Independent Auditor’s Report in accordance with Government Auditing Standards –no significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in internal control, no compliance findings ●Federal Single Audit –no compliance findings ●Independent Auditor’s Report on Minnesota Legal Compliance – no compliance findings 2 General Fund 3 Revenues General Fund 4 Expenditures General Fund 5 Budgetary Comparison Original Actual Amounts Revenues General Property Taxes and Assessments $35,959,740 $35,959,740 $36,283,374 323,634$ Licenses and permits 3,854,780 3,854,780 4,996,872 1,142,092 Intergovernmental revenue 1,299,222 1,299,222 6,238,109 4,938,887 Charges for services 6,331,556 6,331,556 2,464,886 (3,866,670) Fines and forfeitures 417,000 417,000 230,341 (186,659) Investments 200,000 200,000 536,716 336,716 Miscellaneous revenues 183,690 183,690 253,315 69,625 Total revenues 48,245,988 48,245,988 51,003,613 2,757,625 Expenditures Administration 4,752,098 4,768,398 4,547,110 (221,288) Community Development 2,427,180 2,461,952 2,431,612 (30,340) Police 15,686,374 15,686,374 15,357,194 (329,180) Fire 6,289,857 6,316,169 6,378,338 62,169 Public Works 6,379,781 6,389,781 5,991,750 (398,031) Parks and Recreation 13,041,401 13,041,401 11,084,484 (1,956,917) Debt Service 60,765 60,765 60,765 - Total expenditures 48,637,456 48,724,840 45,851,253 (2,873,587) Excess of revenues over (under) disbursements (391,468) (478,852) 5,152,360 5,631,212 Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers in 411,468 411,468 411,468 - Transfers Out (20,000) (20,000) (4,696,486) (4,676,486) Total other financing sources (uses)391,468 391,468 (4,285,018) (4,676,486) Net change in fund balances -$ (87,384)$ 867,342$ 954,726$ Variance With Final Budget - Final Budget General Fund 6 Operations Water Fund 7 Operations Water Fund 8 Cash and Investment and Unrestricted Net Position Wastewater Fund 9 Operations Wastewater Fund 10 Cash and Investment and Unrestricted Net Position Stormwater Fund 11 Operations Stormwater Fund 12 Cash and Investment and Unrestricted Net Position Liquor Fund 13 Operations Liquor Fund 14 Operations 2020 Metro City of City of City of City of City of Municipal Eden Prairie**Eden Prairie**Edina*Richfield*Savage*Average* Sales and operating revenue 11,711,560$ 10,977,643$ 13,094,407$ 12,678,003$ 5,871,098$ 7,479,118$ Costs of sales 8,299,999 7,843,984 9,124,351 9,439,556 4,330,240 5,482,733 Gross profit 3,411,561 3,133,659 3,970,056 3,238,447 1,540,858 1,996,385 Operating expenses 2,297,060 2,379,148 2,825,506 2,445,292 1,032,954 1,493,159 Operating income 1,114,501 754,511 1,144,550 793,155 507,904 503,226 Gross profit percentage 29.1%28.5%30.3%25.5%26.2%26.7% 2019 Liquor Fund 15 Cash and Investment and Unrestricted Net Position Governmental Activities 16 Revenue and Expenditures Per Capita Year 2018 2019 2020** Population 2,500-10,000 10,000-20,000 20,000-100,000 63,726 63,456 63,726 Property taxes 514$ 489$ 512$ 585$ 601$ 618$ Tax increments 30 28 44 36 31 34 Franchise fees and other taxes 45 50 50 61 65 65 Special assessments 54 38 53 50 45 42 Licenses and permits 40 35 51 64 77 66 Intergovernmental revenues 342 297 201 47 232 168 Charges for services 135 108 115 94 97 39 Other 89 78 79 97 104 108 Total revenue 1,249$ 1,123$ 1,105$ 1,034$ 1,252$ 1,140$ Governmental Funds Revenue Per Capita with State-Wide Averages by Population Class City of Eden Prairie December 31, 2019 State-Wide* Governmental Activities 17 Revenue and Expenditures Per Capita Year 2018 2019 2020** Population 2,500-10,000 10,000-20,000 20,000-100,000 63,726 63,456 63,726 Current Administration 152$ 128$ 107$ 70$ 70$ 71$ Community development 54 55 78 81 75 78 Police 216 205 215 230 245 244 Fire and other public safety 84 76 91 95 92 100 Public works 146 149 119 94 95 96 Parks and recreation 103 124 106 191 199 175 Other 20 20 18 - 1 2 Total current 775$ 757$ 734$ 761$ 777$ 766$ Capital outlay and construction 438$ 376$ 355$ 154$ 379$ 210$ Debt service Principal***168$ 182$ 88$ 61$ 54$ 59$ Interest and fiscal 43 41 28 16 14 14 Total debt service 211$ 223$ 116$ 77$ 68$ 73$ Governmental Funds Expenditures Per Capita December 31, 2019 State-Wide*City of Eden Prairie with State-Wide Averages by Population Class Tax Capacity, Levy, and Rates 18 19 19 Questions? Andrew Grice, CPA 952-563-6862 Andrew.Grice@berganKDV.com THANK YOULET’S DO MORE, TOGETHER. 20 21 bergankdv.com | #starthere BerganKDV is a leading professional services firm with a contagious culture; where growth is fostered and making a difference means something. Our values drive our decisions, and our passion is empowering people and creating a wow experience for our clients. We are powered by people who do business the Midwest way delivering comprehensive business, financial and technology solutions including business planning and consulting, tax, assurance and accounting, technology, wealth management and turnaround management services. From tax reform to technology, we go beyond so you can… DO MORE. 21 City of Eden Prairie Financial Policies CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP –MAY 4, 2021 Objectives: Protect and Enhance the City Council’s Policy-making Ability: •By ensuring that important policy decisions are not constrained, impacted, or controlled by financial problems or emergencies •By providing accurate information on the full costs of current operations, new proposals and capital requests •By providing accurate and timely information on the City’s financial conditions •Provide, improve, and maintain essential public facilities in order to assist in long-term cost-effective provision of City services. •Ensure the legal use and protection of all City funds through a good system of financial and accounting controls •Protect and enhance the City’s credit rating Financial Management •The City will develop two-year budgets. In the second year of the two year budget process, the previously developed budget for the following year will be fine-tuned as necessary. •The City will adopt a balanced budget with current revenues equal to or greater than current expenditures. It is not the City’s policy to finance ongoing operations with one-time revenues. One-time revenues will be used for one-time expenditures. •The City, through its capital and operating budgets, will provide for the adequate maintenance, replacement and improvement of the City’s physical assets in order to protect the City’s capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. •The City will maintain a budgetary control system to ensure adherence to the budget and will prepare quarterly reports (excluding March 30th) comparing actual revenues and expenditures to budgeted amounts. Revenue •The City will conservatively estimate and budget for its annual revenues. Fees and charges will be reviewed to ensure that reasonable rates are set and at a minimum are adjusted for inflation. •The City, recognizing the potential cash flow problems associated with property tax collections, will budget 98% of the amount levied for tax revenue. •The City will set fees and user charges for the utility enterprise funds which includes water, wastewater, and stormwater, at a level that fully supports the total costs including operations, capital, and debt service payments. Replacement (or bonding for replacement) of enterprise infrastructure will be paid for from accumulated (or annual) earnings of the particular system. Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting •The City will establish and maintain the highest standard of accounting practices, in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and with recommended best practices as promulgated by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). •The City will contract with an independent audit firm to perform an annual audit of the financial statement of the City. •The City will attempt at all times to maintain the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting of the Government Finance Officers Association. Debt Policy •The City will confine long-term borrowing to capital improvements, equipment, or projects that have a life of more than five years and cannot be financed from current revenues. •The City will endeavor to keep the total maturity length of general obligation bonds below 20 years and at least 50% of the principal shall be retired within 10 years. In all cases, the maturity shall be shorter than the life of the related assets. •The total debt levy paid by general obligation taxes shall remain under 15% of the general fund budget. •All debt will be issued with a fixed rate, no variable rate debt will be issued. •Future debt issuance impacting the City’s tax levy will be planned through the Capital Improvement Plan process. •To minimize the need for debt, the City will maintain a strong pay-as-you-go program for capital purchases. Capital Improvement •The City will develop a ten-year Capital Improvement Plan for all projects over $25,000 and will update the plan every two years. •The City will identify the estimated cost and potential funding sources for each project and determine the most effective financing method for the proposed project. •Liquor profits are a dedicated funding source of the Capital Improvement Plan. Fund Balance Policies ◦General Fund ◦Working Capital ◦50% of next years budgeted tax revenue ◦Contingency ◦10% -Emergency, Bond Rating ◦5% to 7% -Budget Balancing ◦Utility Funds ◦90 days operating ◦Next years debt payment ◦Two Years Capital ◦Unspent WAC/SAC •Questions AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2021 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Ron Case, Council Members Kathy Nelson, Mark Freiberg, PG Narayanan, and Lisa Toomey CITY STAFF: City Manager Rick Getschow, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, City Attorney Maggie Neuville, and Council Recorder Jan Curielli I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. OPEN PODIUM INVITATION IV. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS A. ACCEPT THE 2020 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT B. SENIOR AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS VI. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2021 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2021 VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CODE AMENDMENT FOR GYMNASIUMS by City of Eden Prairie. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Gymnasiums (Ordinance) B. 7076-7078 SHADY OAK FAÇADE REMODEL by SOT G OWNER LLC. Resolution for Site Plan Minor Amendment Review on 6.31 acres; Development Agreement (Resolution for Site Plan Minor Amendment Review, Development Agreement) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA May 4, 2021 Page 2 C. APPROVE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5.36 RELATING TO LICENSING OF COLLECTORS OF WASTE AND ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY ORDINANCE D. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA FOR PURCHASE OF NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT E. AWARD CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION OF CITY CENTER BOILERS REPLACEMENT TO JOHNSON CONTROLS INC. F. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2021 SURFACE SEAL PROJECT TO CORRECTIVE ASPHALT MATERIALS, LLC G. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2021 PAVEMENT REHAB PROJECT TO BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS, INC. H. APPROVE PSA WITH BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION FOR 2021 PAVEMENT REHAB PROJECT I. DECLARE POLICE SQUAD #239 SURPLUS PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZE REPLACEMENT VEHICLE PURCHASE J. APPROVE PSA WITH BLUE WATER SCIENCE FOR 2021 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM K. APPROVE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC MODEL L. APPROVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH XCEL ENERGY FOR STREET LIGHTING FACILITIES ON TECHNOLOGY DRIVE IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS A. NOBLE HILL (2021-02) by Pulte Homes. Resolution of Findings and Facts for Citizen Petition EAW Request; Resolution for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres; First Reading of an Ordinance for Planned Unit Development with waivers and a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres; Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 3 Parcels into 50 Lots and 4 Outlots for 27.51 acres (Resolution for Findings and Facts for Citizen Petition EAW Request, Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Change, Resolution for Preliminary Plat) X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA May 4, 2021 Page 3 XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS XVI. ADJOURNMENT ANNOTATED AGENDA DATE: April 30, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Rick Getschow, City Manager RE: City Council Meeting for Tuesday, May 4, 2021 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2021 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. OPEN PODIUM INVITATION Open Podium is an opportunity for Eden Prairie residents to address the City Council on issues related to Eden Prairie city government before each Council meeting, typically the first and third Tuesday of each month, from 6:30 to 6:55 p.m. in the Council Chamber. If you wish to speak at Open Podium, please contact the City Manager’s Office at 952.949.8412 by noon of the meeting date with your name, phone number, and subject matter. If time permits after scheduled speakers are finished, the Mayor will open the floor to unscheduled speakers. Open Podium is not recorded or televised. If you have questions about Open Podium, please contact the City Manager’s Office. IV. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS A. 2020 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT Synopsis: Minnesota statutes require that the City prepare an annual financial report and statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The attached report meets these requirements. The report was prepared by the Finance Division and audited by the independent auditing firm of BerganKDV. BerganKDV issued an unmodified opinion which is the highest level of opinion the City can receive and means the auditor believes the financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects. Andrew Grice, audit partner for the accounting firm will make a presentation of the financial report. MOTION: Move to accept the 2020 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). B. SENIOR AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION ANNOTATED AGENDA May 4, 2021 Page 2 V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Move to approve the agenda. VI. MINUTES MOTION: Move to approve the following City Council minutes: A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2021 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2021 VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Move approval of items A-L on the Consent Calendar. A. CODE AMENDMENT FOR GYMNASIUMS by City of Eden Prairie. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Gymnasiums (Ordinance) B. 7076-7078 SHADY OAK FAÇADE REMODEL by SOT G OWNER LLC. Resolution for Site Plan Minor Amendment Review on 6.31 acres; Development Agreement (Resolution for Site Plan Minor Amendment Review, Development Agreement) C. APPROVE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5.36 RELATING TO LICENSING OF COLLECTORS OF WASTE AND ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY ORDINANCE D. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA FOR PURCHASE OF NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT E. AWARD CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION OF CITY CENTER BOILERS REPLACEMENT TO JOHNSON CONTROLS INC. F. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2021 SURFACE SEAL PROJECT TO CORRECTIVE ASPHALT MATERIALS, LLC G. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2021 PAVEMENT REHAB PROJECT TO BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS, INC. H. APPROVE PSA WITH BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION FOR 2021 ANNOTATED AGENDA May 4, 2021 Page 3 PAVEMENT REHAB PROJECT I. DECLARE POLICE SQUAD #239 SURPLUS PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZE REPLACEMENT VEHICLE PURCHASE J. APPROVE PSA WITH BLUE WATER SCIENCE FOR 2021 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM K. APPROVE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC MODEL L. APPROVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH XCEL ENERGY FOR STREET LIGHTING FACILITIES ON TECHNOLOGY DRIVE IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS A. NOBLE HILL (2021-02) by Pulte Homes. Resolution of Findings and Facts for Citizen Petition EAW Request; Resolution for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres; First Reading of an Ordinance for Planned Unit Development with waivers and a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres; Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 3 Parcels into 50 Lots and 4 Outlots for 27.51 acres (Resolution for Findings and Facts for Citizen Petition EAW Request, Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Change, Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Synopsis: The applicant is requesting approval to develop 50 single-family lots on 27.51 acres located at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road. The property currently includes a single family home and a former Christmas tree farm. There is nearly 150 feet of grade change from east to west on the property. Riley Creek runs through a portion of the west side of the property. There are significant wooded areas on the site. The primary access point is from Spring Road with the proposed streets in the neighborhood both terminating with a cul-de-sac. The proposal includes 4 outlots. The adjacent land uses include conservation land to the south, residential to the east, conservation land and one residential building to the west and conservation land to the north. The applicant has requested authorization for the issuance of an early Land Alteration Permit. With Council’s authorization, an early Land Alteration Permit can be issued prior to approval of the Development Agreement, but it is at the developer’s risk. An early Land Alteration Permit will not be issued until the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District has approved the Stormwater Management Plan and City staff has reviewed the application for the Land Alteration Permit. The City has received a Citizen Petition requesting that an EAW be completed for the project. The City must make a decision on the petition request prior to taking action on the development project applications. ANNOTATED AGENDA May 4, 2021 Page 4 MOTION: Option 1 Move to: Close the Public Hearing; and Adopt a Resolution Denying Citizen Petition for Preparation of an EAW Adopt a Resolution for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres Approve the 1st Reading of the Ordinance for a Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres Adopt a Resolution for a Preliminary Plat to divide 3 parcels into 50 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Commission recommendations and Council conditions Authorize the issuance of an early Land Alteration Permit for Noble Hill at the request of the Developer subject to the conditions outlined in the permit. Option 2 Move to: Close the Public Hearing; and Adopt a Resolution Granting Citizen Petition for Preparation of an EAW Direct Staff to prepare Findings of Fact Supporting Grant of Citizen Petition for Preparation of an EAW Postpone Indefinitely Action on the Following Items: Resolution for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review of 27.51 acres 1st Reading of the Ordinance for a Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres Approval of Preliminary Plat to divide 3 parcels into 50 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres Issuance of an early Land Alteration Permit for Noble Hill X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Move approval of Payment of Claims as submitted (Roll Call ANNOTATED AGENDA May 4, 2021 Page 5 Vote). XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS XVI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Move to adjourn the City Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Presentations DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Sue Kotchevar, Office of the City Manager/Finance ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2020 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) ITEM NO.: IV.A. Requested Action Move to: Accept the 2020 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). Synopsis Minnesota statutes require that the City prepare an annual financial report and statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The attached report meets these requirements. The report was prepared by the Finance Division and audited by the independent auditing firm of BerganKDV. BerganKDV issued an unmodified opinion which is the highest level of opinion the City can receive and means the auditor believes the financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects. Andrew Grice, audit partner for the accounting firm will make a presentation of the financial report. Attachments 2020 ACFR 2020 Internal Control Letter 2020 Communications Letter ReportComprehensive Annual Financial For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota 11 This page is intentionally left blank 22 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT of the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE MINNESOTA For The Year Ended December 31, 2020 Rick Getschow, City Manager Prepared by THE FINANCE DIVISION Sue Kotchevar, Chief Financial Officer 33 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Table of Contents Page Introductory Section Letter of Transmittal................................................................................................................................................... 8 GFOA Certificate of Achievement ......................................................................................................................... 14 Organizational Chart ................................................................................................................................................. 15 List of Principal Officials .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Financial Section Independent Auditors’ Report ............................................................................................................................... 18 Management’s Discussion and Analysis ............................................................................................................. 21 Basic Financial Statements Government-wide Financial Statements Statement of Net Position ............................................................................................................................ 36 Statement of Activities .................................................................................................................................. 38 Fund Financial Statements Balance Sheet-Governmental Funds ........................................................................................................ 42 Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Net Position .......................................................................................................... 45 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Governmental Funds .............................................................................................. 46 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities ................................. 48 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual – General Fund ...................................................................... 49 Statement of Net Position – Proprietary Funds ................................................................................... 52 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position – Proprietary Funds ......... 53 Statement of Cash Flows – Proprietary Funds ..................................................................................... 54 Statement of Fiduciary Net Position ....................................................................................................... 56 Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position ................................................................................. 57 Notes to Financial Statements .......................................................................................................................... 60 Required Supplemental Information Modified Approach for Infrastructure Assets ....................................................................................... 108 Schedule of Changes in the City’s Total OBEB Liability and Related Ratios ............................. 109 Schedule of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability Public Employees General Employees Retirement Fund ................................................................. 110 Public Employees Police and Fire Fund .................................................................................................. 111 Eden Prairie Fire Relief.................................................................................................................................. 112 Schedule of Contributions Public Employees General Employees Retirement Fund ................................................................. 113 Public Employees Police and Fire Fund .................................................................................................. 114 Eden Prairie Fire Relief.................................................................................................................................. 115 44 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Notes to Required Supplemental Information Notes to Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liabilities and Related Ratios ........................... 116 Combining Fund Statements Combining Balance Sheet – Nonmajor Governmental Funds ......................................................... 128 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Nonmajor Governmental Funds ........................................................................... 136 Combining Statement of Net Position – Internal Service Funds .................................................... 144 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position – Internal Service Funds .................................................................................................. 146 Combining Statement of Cash Flows – Internal Service Funds ...................................................... 148 Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position ................................................................................ 154 Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position .......................................................... 155 Statistical Section Government-wide Net Position by Category ......................................................................................... 159 Changes in Net Position - Total................................................................................................................... 160 Changes in Net Position – Governmental Activities ........................................................................... 161 Changes in Net Position – Business-type Activities ............................................................................ 162 Fund Balances – Governmental Funds .................................................................................................... 163 Changes in Fund Balances – Governmental Funds ............................................................................. 164 Assessed/Tax Capacity Value and Estimated Market Value of Property ................................... 165 Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates .......................................................................................... 166 Principal Property Taxpayers ..................................................................................................................... 167 Property Tax Levies and Collections ........................................................................................................ 168 Legal Debt Margin ............................................................................................................................................ 169 Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type ......................................................................................................... 170 Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding ......................................................................................... 171 Computation of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt ..................................................................... 172 Demographic and Economic Statistics .................................................................................................... 173 Principal Employers........................................................................................................................................ 174 Employees by Function ................................................................................................................................. 175 Operating Indicators ....................................................................................................................................... 176 Capital Assets Statistics by Function ........................................................................................................ 177 55 This page is intentionally left blank 66 INTRODUCTORY SECTION 77 April 26, 2021 To the Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council and the Citizens of the City of Eden Prairie: The comprehensive annual financial report of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, for the year ended December 31, 2020, is hereby submitted. The report was prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) as established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board and meets the requirements of the State Auditor’s Office. The report consists of management’s representations concerning the finances of the City. Consequently, management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of all information presented within this report. To provide a reasonable basis for making these representations, management of the City has established internal controls designed to protect the City’s assets from loss, theft or misuse and to provide sufficient information for the preparation of these financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Because the cost of internal controls should not outweigh the benefits, the City’s internal controls have been designed to provide reasonable rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material misstatements. As management, we assert that to the best of our knowledge and belief this financial report is complete and reliable in all material respects. The City’s financial statements have been audited by BerganKDV, Ltd, Certified Public Accountants. The goal of the independent audit was to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements of the City for the year ended December 31, 2020, are free of material misstatement. The independent audit involved examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates used by management; and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Based upon the audit, the independent auditor concluded that there was reasonable basis for rendering an unmodified opinion that the City’s financial statements, for the year ended December 31, 2020, are fairly presented in conformity with GAAP. The independent auditors’ report is present in the financial section of this report. GAAP requires that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to accompany the basic financial statements in the form of Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement the MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. The City’s MD&A can be found in the financial section of this report immediately following the report of the independent auditors. 88 City Profile Eden Prairie is a suburban community of 63,726 people located in the southwest corner of Hennepin County in a setting of rolling hills and picturesque lakes and creeks. Eden Prairie has a convenient location, a comprehensive system of highways, and is a short distance from downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Incorporated in 1974 as a city, the City of Eden Prairie operates under a Statutory Plan B form of government. Policymaking and legislative authorities are vested in the governing council, which consists of a mayor and a four-member council. The governing council is responsible, among other things, for passing ordinances, adopting the budget, appointing committees and hiring the government's manager and attorney. The council is elected on a nonpartisan basis. The mayor and council members are elected to four-year staggered terms. The City Manager is responsible for carrying out the policies and ordinances of the governing council, for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the government, and to assign appropriate responsibility and authority to City staff for the efficient and effective delivery of City services. With a staff of around 278 regular, full-time equivalent employees, the City provides its residents and businesses with a full range of municipal services consisting of police and fire protection, street maintenance, recreation programs, park maintenance, community and economic development, building inspections, and a water, wastewater and storm water services. The City is also financially accountable for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), which is included in the City’s financial statements as a blended component unit. Additional information on the HRA is located in Note 1 in the notes to the financial statements. The biennial budget serves as the foundation for the City’s financial planning and control. Departments submit budget requests to Finance in May and the City Manager presents the proposed budget to the City Council for review prior to September 30th of each year. A budget workshop is usually held with the City Council in June or July. The City Council holds a public meeting on the proposed budget and adopts the final budget in December each year. During the first year of the two-year budget process, both years’ budgets are developed and the City Council adopts the first year’s budget. During the second year of the two-year budget process, budget work is minimized. Staff updates the budget for any significant budget developments and the council then reviews and adopts the second year budget. The budget is prepared by department and division. The City’s directors and division managers may make transfers of appropriations within a division. Transfers of appropriations between departments require the approval of the City Manager. Any changes in the total budget must be approved by the City Council. 99 Economic Conditions and Outlook Eden Prairie is a suburban community located in the southwest corner of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan area. With the last update of the comprehensive plan and the trend towards condensed multi-family housing in the downtown area, it is expected that Eden Prairie’s population will grow to 82,400 by 2040 an increase 29% from 2020. The City experienced significant impact from the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) in 2020. Similar to other cities and following the Governor’s orders, work from home when you can was in place for 2020. The Council and staff worked together to continue service to citizens in a safe and effective manner. Financially, we felt the impact of increased costs and revenue reductions but we also received federal funding to cover expenditures. We finished the year with positive financial performance. Below summarizes the City’s market value since 2012. The City’s tax base increased from $10.6 billion to $11.1 billion from 2019 to 2020. In 2021, the market value increased to $11.4 billion. Eden Prairie’s unemployment rate is 3.4%, which is less than the State rate of 5.1% and the Federal rate of 6.8%. We are had another strong year in licenses and permits and Inspections issued permits with a value of $187,909,951. The largest projects were Central Middle School with a value of $28,115,527, Applewood Pointe COOP a multi-family housing project with a value of $26,340,648, and Opus for a new industrial/warehouse building valued at $6,741,300. In addition there were many large remodel projects ranging from $200,000 to $1,000,000 in value. They issued 7,756 permits versus 6,427 last year. Eden Prairie serves as the corporate headquarters location for many national and international businesses including CH Robinson World Wide, Tennant Company, Optum, numerous multi-tenant office building partnerships, Lifetouch/ShutterFly Inc., United $0 $2,000,000,000 $4,000,000,000 $6,000,000,000 $8,000,000,000 $10,000,000,000 $12,000,000,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Market ValueYear 1010 Natural Foods Inc. (UNFI), American Family Mutual Insurance, Starkey Labs, MTS systems Corporation, and others. Eden Prairie also has key locations for retailing including the City’s mall which has approximately 1.5 million square feet of shopping. The mall is part of the City’s “Major Center Area” or downtown. Stores include a 160,000 square foot Von Maur Department Store, Scheels, a Barnes and Noble Bookstore, an 18-screen AMC Movie Theater, and numerous restaurants. Due to its strong and healthy local economy, Moody’s Investors Service has assigned a rating of Aaa to the City of Eden Prairie’s (MN) bond for every debt issue since 2003, the highest rating from Moody’s. Standard & Poor’s has also assigned a rating of AAA to the City of Eden Prairie’s bonds outstanding, their highest rating as well. This ensures the City receives the most competitive interest rates. The City’s bond ratings reflect Eden Prairie’s extensive and diversified tax base, low amount of rapidly amortized debt, and capably managed operations. Long-term Financial Planning The City has implemented various financial policies to guide the Council and staff when making financial decisions. This helps to ensure the long-term stability and flexibility of City finances and operations. These policies include the following: • The original budget should be balanced with revenues equal to expenditures, • One-time revenues will be used for one-time expenditures, • The City will maintain fund balance for working capital in the general fund at 50% of the next year’s budgeted tax revenue, • The City will also maintain 10% of the next year’s budget in fund balance for budget stabilization and 5% of the next year’s budget for budget balancing in the general fund, • The City will confine long-term debt to capital improvements or projects that cannot be financed from current revenues, and • The City will maintain a ten-year capital improvement plan to provide for capital asset acquisition, maintenance, replacement, and retirement. The City has consistently followed our financial policies. Major Initiatives Light Rail Transit (LRT) The Southwest Light Rail Transit (LRT) line is a high-frequency train serving Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis. It is part of the Green Line, which includes the Central Corridor LRT. Therefore, riders of Southwest LRT will be able to continue into St. Paul via the Central Corridor without changing trains. 1111 The Southwest LRT line will also connect to other rail lines (Hiawatha, Northstar, and the future Bottineau) and high-frequency bus routes in downtown Minneapolis, providing access to the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, Mall of America, the State Capitol, downtown St. Paul, Big Lake, and eventually the northern Twin Cities suburbs. Connections to other rail lines will occur at the Intermodal Station in downtown Minneapolis. Construction began in 2019 with expected completion in 2023. There are currently four Light Rail stations under construction in Eden Prairie. In 2020, about 75% of the utility and underground work and 100% of the piling on the four bridges in Eden Prairie were completed. Eden Prairie’s LRT projects include planning and development of the stations, park-and-ride facilities, local roadway improvements, sidewalks, trails, streetscape and other infrastructure. The station areas also have great potential for additional housing, employment and shopping opportunities via infill or redevelopment. New Water Storage Reservoir The City identified that additional water storage was necessary to support the expansion of water service for future growth areas and maintaining adequate water supply under emergency situations. Construction of a new four million gallon 140-foot diameter pre-stressed concrete ground storage reservoir and associated pump station was completed in 2020. The City used $4,920,000 in bond proceeds and $4,500,000 in water access revenue to pay for the project. Certificate of Achievement The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Eden Prairie for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Certificate of Achievement is a prestigious national award-recognizing conformance with the highest standards for preparation of state and local government financial reports. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government unit must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report whose contents conform to program standards. Such comprehensive annual financial report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year. The City of Eden Prairie has received a Certificate of Achievement every year since 1990. We believe our current report continues to conform to the Certificate of Achievement program requirements, and we are submitting it to GFOA. In addition, the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented the Distinguished Budget Presentation award to the City of Eden Prairie for its Two Year Budget for the fiscal years beginning January 1, 2020 and 2021. In order to 1212 receive this award, a government unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan and a communications device. The award is valid for a period of two years only. The City of Eden Prairie has received a Distinguished Budget Presentation award for every budget since 1998. Also, the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) has given an Award for Outstanding Achievement in Popular Annual Financial Reporting to the City of Eden Prairie for its Popular Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Award for Outstanding Achievement in Popular Annual Financial Reporting is a national award recognizing conformance with the highest standards for preparation of state and local government financial reports. In order to receive an Award for Outstanding Achievement in Popular Annual Financial Reporting, a government unit must publish a Popular Annual Financial Report, whose contents conform to program standards of creativity, presentation, understandability, and reader appeal. An Award for Outstanding Achievement in Popular Annual Financial Reporting is valid for a period of one year only. The City of Eden Prairie has received the award annually since 1998. We believe our current report continues to conform to the Popular Annual Financial Reporting requirements, and we are submitting it to GFOA. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Mayor and Council Members for their continued support in planning and conducting the financial operations of the City in a responsible and progressive manner. We would also like to express our appreciation to the employees of the Finance Division for their contribution to the preparation of this report. Respectfully submitted, Rick Getschow Sue Kotchevar City Manager Chief Financial Officer 1313 Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to City of Eden Prairie Minnesota For its Comprehensive AnnualFinancial Report For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2019 Executive Director/CEO 1414 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 City Council City Manager Administration Administrative Services City Clerk Facilities Human Resources & Support Services Information Technology Communications Finance & Liquor Operations Community Development Assessing Economic Development Housing & Community Services Planning Public Works Engineering Fleet Services Streets Maintenance Utilities Police Investigations Patrol Support Fire Building Inspections Fire Prevention Fire Suppresion Parks & Recreation Community Center Parks & Natural Resources Recreation Services 1515 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Principal Officials Elected Officials: Mayor (Term expiration 12/31/22) Ron Case Council Member (Term expiration 12/31/20) Brad Aho Council Member (Term expiration 12/31/22) Mark Freiberg Council Member (Term Expiration 12/31/20) PG Narayanan Council Member (Term expiration 12/31/22) Kathy Nelson Appointed Officials: City Manager Rick Getschow City Attorney Maggie Neuville Departments: Chief of Police Greg Weber Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah Fire Chief Scott Gerber Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer Public Works Director Robert Ellis 1616 FINANCIAL SECTION 1717 1 Independent Auditor's Report Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, Minnesota Report on the Financial Statements We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business- type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2020, and the related notes to financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as listed in the Table of Contents. Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements The City of Eden Prairie’s management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the City's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions. 18 2 Opinions In our opinion, the financial statements referred to on the previous page present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as of December 31, 2020, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof, and the budgetary comparison for the General Fund for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Report on Summarized Comparative Information The prior year partial comparative information has been derived from the City’s 2019 financial statements audited by other auditors. In their report dated April 8, 2020, they expressed unmodified opinions on the respective financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information. Other Matters Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management's Discussion and Analysis, which follows this report letter and the Required Supplementary Information as listed in the Table of Contents, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the Required Supplementary Information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Other Information Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City of Eden Prairie's basic financial statements. The introductory section, combining fund financial statements, and statistical section are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. 19 3 The combining fund financial statements are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the combining fund financial statements are fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. The introductory section and statistical section have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on them. Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated April 26, 2021, on our consideration of the City of Eden Prairie's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City of Eden Prairie's internal control over financial reporting and compliance. Minneapolis, Minnesota April 26, 2021 20 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Management’s Discussion and Analysis As management of the City of Eden Prairie, this section of the City’s comprehensive annual financial report presents a discussion and analysis of the City’s financial activities during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. This discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the transmittal letter in the introductory section of this report. Financial Highlights The City as a Whole • The assets and deferred outflow of resources of the City exceeded liabilities and deferred inflows of resources by $412,844,057. Of this amount, $66,782,585 (unrestricted net position) may be used to meet the City’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors, $327,742,021 is invested in capital assets, and $18,319,451 is restricted. • The City’s total net position increased by $14,977,703 or 3.7%. The key factors in this increase were positive general fund results and bond proceeds that were received in December. The City was able to transfer positive General Fund results to the Capital Improvement and Maintenance Fund as one-time revenue to support the Capital Improvement Plan. • The City’s total long-term liabilities increased by $4,124,933 or 6.4% in comparison with the prior year. Contributing to the increase was the refinancing of bonds in 2020 that were paid off in 2021. In addition the City’s pension liability increased. Offsetting the increase was the current year retirements of outstanding debt. Using This Annual Report This annual report consists of a series of financial statements. The Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities provide information about the activities of the City as a whole and present a longer-term view of the City’s finances. For governmental activities, the fund financial statements tell how these services were financed in the short term as well as what remains for future spending. Fund financial statements also report the City’s operations in more detail than the government-wide statements by providing information about the City’s most significant funds. The remaining statements provide financial information about activities for which the City acts solely as a trustee or agent for the benefit of those outside of the government. Reporting the City as a Whole The Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities One of the most important questions asked about the City’s finances is “Is the City as a whole better off or worse off as a result of the year’s activities?” The Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities report information about the City as a whole and about its activities in a way that helps answer this question. These statements include all assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities and deferred inflows of resources using the accrual basis of accounting, which is similar to the accounting used by most private-sector companies. All of the current year’s revenues and expenses are taken into account regardless of when cash is received or paid. 2121 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Management’s Discussion and Analysis These two statements report the City’s net position and changes in them. You can think of the City’s net position – the difference between assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources – as one way to measure the City’s financial health, or financial position. Over time, increases or decreases in the City’s net position is one indicator of whether its financial health is improving or deteriorating. You will need to consider other nonfinancial factors, however, such as changes in the City’s property tax base and the condition of the City’s roads, to assess the overall health of the City. In the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities, we divide the City into two kinds of activities: • Governmental Activities – Most of the City’s basic services are reported here, including general government, public safety, public works, and parks and recreation. Property taxes, charges for services, and capital grants and contributions finance most of these activities. • Business-type Activities – The City charges a fee to customers to help it cover all or most of the cost of certain services it provides. The City’s utility system (Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Funds) and liquor operations are reported here. Reporting the City’s Most Significant Funds Fund Financial Statements The fund financial statements provide detailed information about the most significant funds – not the City as a whole. Some funds are required to be established by State law and by bond covenants. However, the City Council establishes many other funds to help it control and manage money for particular purposes or to show that it is meeting legal responsibilities for using certain grants and other money. The City’s two kinds of funds – governmental and proprietary – use different accounting approaches. • Governmental funds – Most of the City’s basic services are reported in governmental funds, which focus on how money flows into and out of those funds and the balances left at year-end that are available for spending. These funds are reported using an accounting method called modified accrual accounting, which measures cash and all other financial assets that can readily be converted to cash. The governmental fund statements provide a detailed short-term view of the City’s general government operations and the basic services it provides. Governmental fund information helps to determine whether there are more or fewer financial resources that can be spent in the near future to finance the City’s programs. We describe the relationship between governmental activities (reported in the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities) and governmental funds in a reconciliation provided after the fund financial statements. • Proprietary funds – When the City charges customers for the services it provides – these services are generally reported in proprietary funds. Proprietary funds are reported in the same way that all activities are reported in the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities. 2222 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Management’s Discussion and Analysis The City of Eden Prairie maintains two different types of proprietary funds. • Enterprise funds are the same as the business-type activities reported in the government-wide statements but provide more detail and additional information, such as cash flows. • Internal service funds are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs internally among the City’s various functions. The City uses internal service funds to account for activities pertaining to employee benefits, workers compensation, personal time off accruals, property insurance, facilities, fleet services, and information technology. The City as Trustee Reporting the City’s Fiduciary Responsibilities All of the City’s fiduciary activities are reported in a separate Statement of Fiduciary Net Position and Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position. The City is fiduciary for resources collected and owed to others including developers and governmental agencies. We exclude these activities from the City’s other financial statements because the City cannot use these assets to finance operations. The City is responsible for ensuring that the assets reported in these funds are used for their intended purposes. The accounting used for fiduciary funds is much like that used for proprietary funds. The City as a Whole The City’s combined net position increased from $397,866,354 to $412,844,057 and maintained its financial position. A large part of this increase was due to positive general fund performance and $7,417,000 of bond proceeds that were received in December. The City received federal funds of $4,821,082 as part of the CARES ACT which was used to reimburse General Fund costs related to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). In addition the General Fund had positive performance in licenses and permits, property tax revenue, and interest income. By far the largest portion of the City of Eden Prairie’s net position, $327,742,021 (approximately 80%) reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g. land, buildings, machinery, and equipment) less any related debt used to acquire those assets that is still outstanding. The City of Eden Prairie uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City’s investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. An additional portion of the City’s net position $18,319,451 (approximately 5%), represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net position, $66,782,585 (approximately 15%), may be used to meet the City’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City is able to report positive balances in all of the categories of net position reported for the government as a whole. 2323 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Management’s Discussion and Analysis The following schedule provides a summary of the City’s net position as of December 31, 2020 (in thousands): Key elements of these changes are shown on the following page. 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 Current and Other Assets 104,565$ 88,814$ 34,764$ 33,467$ 139,329$ 122,281$ Capital Assets 233,922 235,088 120,560 118,722 354,482 353,810 Total Assets 338,487 323,902 155,324 152,189 493,811 476,091 Deferred Outflows 6,832 10,609 293 254 7,125 10,863 Total Assets and Deferred Outflows 345,319 334,511 155,617 152,443 500,936 486,954 Long-Term Liabilities Outstanding 58,902 54,221 9,866 10,422 68,768 64,643 Other Liabilities 5,961 7,597 2,699 1,813 8,660 9,410 Total Liabilities 64,863 61,818 12,565 12,235 77,428 74,053 Deferred Inflows 10,440 14,368 224 667 10,664 15,035 Total Liabilities and Deferred Inflows 75,303 76,186 12,789 12,902 88,092 89,088 Invested in Capital Assets 207,182 204,564 120,560 114,243 327,742 318,807 Restricted 18,319 20,532 - - 18,319 20,532 Unrestricted 44,515 33,230 22,268 25,297 66,783 58,527 Total Net Position 270,016$ 258,326$ 142,828$ 139,540$ 412,844$ 397,866$ Governmental Activities Business-Type activities Total 2424 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 Revenues: Program Revenues Charges for Services 8,356$ 12,992$ 30,971$ 28,529$ 39,327$ 41,521$ Operating Grants and Contributions 7,376 2,462 117 69 7,493 2,531 Capital Grants and Contributions 10,282 11,342 2,328 945 12,610 12,287 General Revenues Property Taxes 39,865 38,204 - - 39,865 38,204 Tax Increment 2,194 1,936 - - 2,194 1,936 Grants and Contributions 1,788 1,719 - - 1,788 1,719 Investment Income 1,651 1,747 730 695 2,381 2,442 Total Revenues 71,512 70,402 34,146 30,238 105,658 100,640 Expenses: Administration 5,555 4,827 - - 5,555 4,827 Community Development 4,767 4,772 - - 4,767 4,772 Police 15,189 15,022 - - 15,189 15,022 Fire 6,132 7,191 - - 6,132 7,191 Public Works 14,982 19,518 - - 14,982 19,518 Parks and Recreation 13,135 15,459 - - 13,135 15,459 Interest on Long Term Debt 796 835 - - 796 835 Water - - 9,481 9,708 9,481 9,708 Wastewater - - 7,496 7,679 7,496 7,679 Stormwater - - 2,538 2,414 2,538 2,414 Liquor - - 10,609 10,233 10,609 10,233 Total Expenses 60,556 67,624 30,124 30,034 90,680 97,658 Changes in Net Position Before Transfers 10,956 2,778 4,022 204 14,978 2,982 Internal Transfers 734 74 (734) (74) - - Change in Net Position 11,690 2,852 3,288 130 14,978 2,982 Net Position, January 1 258,326 255,474 139,540 139,410 397,866 394,884 Net Position, December 31 270,016$ 258,326$ 142,828$ 139,540$ 412,844$ 397,866$ Business-Type TotalGovernmental Activities 2525 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Management’s Discussion and Analysis Governmental Activities Revenue by Source • For the year, property taxes totaled $39,864,882 which is an increase of $1,660,913 or 4.3% from 2019. For 2020, the City budgeted for a 3.1% increase in property taxes. The increase in taxes was more than what was budgeted due to a higher tax collection rate than anticipated. • Charges for services decreased by $4,635,614 or 35.6% from 2019 due mainly to decreased park and recreation fees. This was partially offset by licenses and permit revenue. • Operating grants and contributions increased due to federal funds of $4,821,082 received as part of the CARES ACT which was used to respond to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). • Capital grants and contributions were consistent with 2019. 2626 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Management’s Discussion and Analysis Expenses by Program Business-type Activities For the business-type activities, charges for services accounts for 91% of revenues. The Water Fund, Wastewater Fund and Stormwater Fund had a positive change to net position of $1,093,153, 2727 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Management’s Discussion and Analysis $200,726 and $1,729,923 respectively due to increased rates. The Liquor operations had a positive change in net position of $328,361. 2828 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Management’s Discussion and Analysis The City’s Funds • The General fund is the chief operating fund of the City of Eden Prairie. Fund balance increased by $867,342. The City was able to maintain balances in accordance with its fund balance policy. Nonspendable Balances The amounts classified as nonspendable consist of amounts that are not in spendable form, such as prepaid assets. Unassigned Balances The unassigned fund balance consists of the budget stabilization balance and the working capital balance. Budget Stabilization In compliance with City policy, $5,010,247 or 10% of the 2021 budget was maintained for budget stabilization to be used for emergencies and maintenance of the City’s Aaa bond rating. Also, $2,505,124 or 5% of the 2021 budget was maintained for budget balancing to be used for short term volatility in the City’s finances. Working Capital In compliance with City policy, 50% of the next year’s budgeted tax revenues or $18,662,630 is maintained for working capital. This amount represents the amount needed to fund operations for the first six months of the year. The City receives a tax settlement in December that funds operations until the next settlement in June of the next year. 2020 2019 Difference Fund Balance: Nonspendable $ 94,824 $ 69,611 $ 25,213 Restricted 10,572 11,148 (576) Unassigned Budget Stabilization 7,515,371 7,298,618 216,753 Working Capital 18,662,630 17,979,870 682,760 Unassigned 19,428 76,236 (56,808) Total Fund Balance $ 26,302,825 $ 25,435,483 $ 867,342 2929 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Management’s Discussion and Analysis Other Major Funds The Public Improvement Construction fund balance increased by $1,080,566 in 2020. Revenue of $1,075,543 was collected which consisted of special assessments and grants. Construction costs pertain mainly to Preserve Blvd., and the Railroad Quite Zone. These projects will be repaid with future special assessments, grants and state aid. The Capital Improvement Maintenance fund balance increased by $5,775,759 in 2020. Revenue of $2,540,711 was collected which includes the tax levy, building rental income, assessments and investment income. Expenditures for the year include the MOSS yard waste site, play equipment replacement, and trail maintenance. Transfers in include $850,000 and $4,676,486 respectively from the Liquor fund and General fund due to positive operating results. The Transfers out is for the Capital Improvement/Maintenance’s Fund share of trail maintenance for the LRT project. The Shady Oak Road North fund balance increased by $1,380,120 in 2020. The Shady Oak Road North project reconstructed Shady Oak Road from Rowland Road through the Highway 62 interchange. Revenue of $1,869,144 was collected from United Health Group for their portion of W 62nd . This project is substantially complete and should be closed out in 2021. The Eden Prairie Road fund increased by $107,452. Revenue of $123,210 was collected which consisted of special assessments. The Eden Prairie Road project reconstructed Eden Prairie Road and also adds a new creek crossing at Riley Creek. This project will be repaid with future special assessments. The Eden Prairie Rd Connect to Flying Cloud decreased by $340,352. Special Assessments of $17,465 were collected. This project is for the construction of road from Frederick Place to north of Riley Creek. This project will be repaid with future special assessments and transfers from the utility funds. The General LRT fund decreased by $722,114. Revenues of $2,283,696 were collected which consisted of the City’s share of a Federal Transit grant managed by the Metropolitan Council. Expenditures of the same amount recognize the expenditures related to the grant. The fund deficit will be covered by future transfers from other funds planned contribution to the project. The SWLRT should be completed in 2023. The City’s proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. Water fund sales through December 31, 2020 totaled $8,987,364, which is an increase of $1,287,782 or 16.7% from 2019. Water usage increased from 2 billion gallons to 2.2 billion gallons. The change in sales can be attributed to the increase in consumption and an increase in rates. 3030 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Management’s Discussion and Analysis Wastewater fund sales through December 31, 2020 totaled $6,895,764, which is an increase of $169,216 or 2.5% from 2019. Sewer usage decreased from 1.4 billion gallons to 1.3 billion gallons. Offsetting the decrease in consumption was an increase in rates. Stormwater fund sales through December 31, 2020 totaled $3,376,785, which is an increase of $251,534 or 8% from 2019. The increase is due to the rate increase. Liquor operations profit of $850,000 was transferred to the Capital Improvement Maintenance Fund. Sales totaled $11,463,070 which is an increase of $679,774 or 6.3% over 2019. The operation continues to provide value to customers and maintain customer loyalty. Budgetary Highlights The net change in fund balance to the General fund was $867,342. Revenues of $51,003,613 were recorded which is $2,757,625 more than budgeted. Charges for services underperformed due to closures related to COVID-19. Property tax revenue and licenses and permits performed better than expected. Total expenditures equaled $45,851,253 or 94.1% of the budget. All departments except Fire have spent less than 100% of the amounts budgeted. Fire is over budget by 1%. Due to funds received from the federal government to cover COVID-19 related expenditures, the General Fund had positive performance. Capital Assets and Debt Administration Capital Assets At the end of 2020, the city had $354 million invested in capital assets. Major capital assets added during the current fiscal year by fund include the following: 2020 Fund Project Name Additions Water Capital New Ground Storage Reservoir & Pump Station 6,044,810$ Fleet Capital Vehicle Replacements 1,150,430 Shady Oak North W 62nd Street Reconstruction 993,907 Capital Improvement Yard Waste Site 753,862 Total 8,943,009$ 3131 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Management’s Discussion and Analysis Capital Assets (net of depreciation, in thousands) The City has chosen to maintain infrastructure using the modified approach. This means the City does not depreciate the cost of infrastructure but maintains the system at a “very good condition” level or higher. Additional information on the modified approach can be found in Note 1 of this report and additional information on the City’s capital assets can be found in Note 4 of this report. The City’s policy is to achieve an average rating of 70 (very good condition) for all streets and trails. In the summer of 2019, the City conducted a physical condition assessment. This assessment will be performed every three years. As of December 31, 2019, the City’s infrastructure system was rated at a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 84.4%, which is higher than the City’s policy level. The City’s infrastructure is constantly deteriorating resulting from the following factors: (1) traffic using the system; (2) the sun’s ultra-violet rays drying out and breaking down the top layer of pavement; (3) utility company/private development trenching operations; (4) water damage from natural precipitation; and (5) frost heave. The City is continuously taking actions to prolong the life of the system through short-term maintenance activities such as pothole patching, crack sealing, seal coating, and overlaying. The City expended $4,154,944 on infrastructure maintenance for the year ending December 31, 2020. These expenditures delayed deterioration; however, the overall condition of the system was not improved through these maintenance expenditures. The City has estimated that the amount of annual expenditures required to maintain the City’s infrastructure at the average PCI rating of very good is approximately $3,500,000. Debt At year-end, the City had approximately $69 million in bonds and other long-term liabilities outstanding versus $65 million last year. Debt increased due to the issuance of $7M of refunding bonds that were not paid off until 2021. Offsetting the increase was the current year retirements of outstanding bonds. (Refer to Note 11). 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 Land & Land Improv.34,342$ 34,210$ 1,115$ 1,121$ 35,457$ 35,331$ Infrastructure 137,574 137,057 - - 137,574 137,057 Work in Progress 4,175 4,449 8,508 2,463 12,683 6,912 Distribution System - - 85,253 87,877 85,253 87,877 Buildings 49,456 51,706 22,099 23,461 71,555 75,167 Leasehold Improvements 1 1 - 35 1 36 Machinery & Equipment 630 943 3,401 3,627 4,031 4,570 Autos 3,569 3,343 184 138 3,753 3,481 Other Assets 4,175 3,379 - - 4,175 3,379 Total 233,922$ 235,088$ 120,560$ 118,722$ 354,482$ 353,810$ Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Total 3232 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Management’s Discussion and Analysis Economic Factors and Next Year’s Budgets The City’s elected officials consider many factors when adopting the budget and determining fees for service and fees that will be charged for the business-type activities. These factors include service levels, the tax impact on the median value home, commercial/industrial and household growth, and inflation. Currently, the 2021 general fund budgeted appropriations are $50,102,474 which is an increase of $1,445,018 or 3% from the 2020 budget. The City has a balanced budget for 2021. We expect some financial challenges due to COVID-19 but we also expect to receive federal funding to help offset the impact. In addition, we expect positive license and permit revenue. Contacting the City’s Financial Management This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City’s finances for those interested in the government’s finances. If you have questions about this report or need additional financial information, contact the Finance Division at City of Eden Prairie, 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. 3333 This page is intentionally left blank 3434 GOVERNMENT-WIDE STATEMENTS 3535 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Statement of Net Position December 31, 2020 Governmental Business-type Activities Activities Total ASSETS Cash and Investments $88,023,384 $28,953,657 $116,977,041 Receivables Accounts 2,388,827 3,577,017 5,965,844 Interest 184,309 75,758 260,067 Due From Other Governments 2,272,082 21,175 2,293,257 Unremitted Taxes 331,710 - 331,710 Delinquent Taxes 772,150 - 772,150 Unremitted Special Assessments 3,140 7,487 10,627 Delinquent Special Assessments 3,200 336,396 339,596 Special Assessments 5,173,896 680,532 5,854,428 Unavailable Special Assessments 1,338,377 289,960 1,628,337 Internal Balances 628,681 (628,681) - Inventories 126,775 1,055,184 1,181,959 Net Pension Asset 1,982,261 - 1,982,261 Prepaid Items 553,179 396,338 949,517 Land Held for Resale 784,000 - 784,000 Capital Assets Nondepreciable Land 22,132,497 1,065,566 23,198,063 Infrastructure 137,574,434 - 137,574,434 Work in Progress 4,175,208 8,508,300 12,683,508 Depreciable Buildings, Property and Equipment, Net 70,039,487 110,986,292 181,025,779 Total Assets 338,487,597 155,324,981 493,812,578 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Loss on Refunding of Debt 93,895 - 93,895 Other Post Employment Benefits 257,154 21,942 279,096 Pensions 6,480,882 270,639 6,751,521 Total Deferred Outflows of Resources 6,831,931 292,581 7,124,512 Total Assets and Deferred Outflows of Resources 345,319,528 155,617,562 500,937,090 Primary Government 3636 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Statement of Net Position December 31, 2020 Governmental Business-type Activities Activities Total LIABILITIES Accounts and Contracts Payable 3,581,322 2,376,088 5,957,410 Salaries Payable 855,676 149,487 1,005,163 Investment Interest Payable 8,944 - 8,944 Interest Payable 368,946 23,684 392,630 Due to Other Governments 335,125 136,126 471,251 Unearned Revenue 810,708 14,023 824,731 Total OPEB Liability 2,634,324 207,824 2,842,148 Net Pension Due in More Than One Year 20,784,677 3,194,619 23,979,296 Bonds Payable Due Within One Year 10,886,000 340,000 11,226,000 Due in More Than One Year 21,969,047 5,748,767 27,717,814 Capital lease payable Due Within One Year 59,611 - 59,611 Due in More Than One Year - - - Compensated Absences Due Within One Year 1,391,561 202,983 1,594,544 Due in More Than One Year 1,177,353 171,737 1,349,090 Total Liabilities 64,863,294 12,565,338 77,428,632 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES OPEB 231,939 20,655 252,594 Pensions 9,065,390 203,760 9,269,150 State Aid for Subsequent Years 1,142,657 - 1,142,657 Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 10,439,986 224,415 10,664,401 Total Liabilities and Deferred Inflows 75,303,280 12,789,753 88,093,033 NET POSITION Net Investment in Capital Assets 207,181,863 120,560,158 327,742,021 Restricted for Perpetual Care, Nonexpendable 169,389 - 169,389 Restricted for Debt Service 6,607,690 - 6,607,690 Restricted for Special Assessments 4,122,202 - 4,122,202 Restricted for Tax Increment 3,171,444 - 3,171,444 Restricted for Police 644 - 644 Restricted for Public Works 1,927,597 - 1,927,597 Restricted for Parks and Recreation 2,283,894 - 2,283,894 Restricted for Historical and Cultural 36,591 - 36,591 Unrestricted 44,514,934 22,267,651 66,782,585 Total Net Position $270,016,248 $142,827,809 $412,844,057 Primary Government 3737 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Statement of Activities For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Program Revenue Operating Capital Charges for Grants and Grants and Expenses Services Contributions Contributions FUNCTIONS/PROGRAMS Primary Government Governmental Activities Administration $5,554,966 $982,079 $4,889,886 $- Community Development 4,767,416 142,353 470,029 - Police 15,189,099 847,564 847,479 81,917 Fire 6,131,926 3,609,503 538,303 - Public Works 14,981,533 329,277 500,000 9,225,772 Parks and Recreation 13,135,532 2,445,386 130,519 973,817 Interest on Long Term Debt 795,681 - - - Total Governmental Activities 60,556,153 8,356,162 7,376,216 10,281,506 Business-Type Activities Water 9,481,491 8,987,364 33,627 1,368,282 Wastewater 7,496,256 6,895,764 267 773,910 Stormwater 2,538,257 3,376,785 73,724 185,467 Liquor 10,608,644 11,711,560 9,505 - Total Business-Type Activities 30,124,648 30,971,473 117,123 2,327,659 Total Primary Government $90,680,801 $39,327,635 $7,493,339 $12,609,165 General Revenues Taxes Property Taxes, Levied for General Purposes Property Taxes, Levied for Debt Service Tax Increment Grants and Contributions Not Restricted to Specific Programs Investment Income Transfers Total General Revenues and Transfers Change in Net Position Net Position - Beginning Net Position - Ending 3838 Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Position Governmental Business-type Activities Activities Total $316,999 $- $316,999 (4,155,034) - (4,155,034) (13,412,139) - (13,412,139) (1,984,120) - (1,984,120) (4,926,484) - (4,926,484) (9,585,810) - (9,585,810) (795,681) - (795,681) (34,542,269) - (34,542,269) - 907,782 907,782 - 173,685 173,685 - 1,097,719 1,097,719 - 1,112,421 1,112,421 - 3,291,607 3,291,607 (34,542,269) 3,291,607 (31,250,662) 37,334,542 - 37,334,542 2,530,340 - 2,530,340 2,193,637 - 2,193,637 1,788,293 - 1,788,293 1,651,912 729,641 2,381,553 733,918 (733,918) - 46,232,642 (4,277) 46,228,365 11,690,373 3,287,330 14,977,703 258,325,875 139,540,479 397,866,354 $270,016,248 $142,827,809 $412,844,057 3939 This page is intentionally left blank 4040 FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 4141 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Balance Sheet Governmental Funds December 31, 2020 Public Capital Shady Oak Improvement Improvement Road General Construction Maintenance North ASSETS Cash and Investments $28,053,442 $2,115,470 $18,038,762 $2,574,538 Receivables Accounts 275,485 - 19,541 - Interest 56,992 2,082 35,093 3,941 Due From Other Governments 93,207 11,398 1,142,656 - Unremitted Taxes 306,942 - 3,335 - Delinquent Taxes 763,818 - 8,332 - Unremitted Special Assessments 426 639 - - Delinquent Special Assessments - 119 247 - Deferred Special Assessments 11,631 273,441 151,740 1,610,531 Special Deferred Special Assessments - 178,495 61,583 - Due From Other Funds - - 1,451,651 - Advances to Other Funds - - 471,511 - Prepaid Items 94,824 - 51,995 - Land Held for Resale - - - - Notes Receivable - - - - Total Assets $29,656,767 $2,581,644 $21,436,446 $4,189,010 LIABILITIES Accounts and Contracts Payable $1,607,775 $297,831 $113,514 $66,808 Salaries Payable 776,465 - - - Investment Interest Payable - - - - Due to Other Governments 17,484 - - - Due to Other Funds - - - - Unearned Revenue 128,161 - 184,178 - Total Liabilities 2,529,885 297,831 297,692 66,808 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Unavailable Revenue-Loans/Grants/Revenue 48,608 11,398 6,119 - State Aid for Subsequent Years - - 1,142,657 - Unavailable Revenue-Property Taxes 763,818 - 8,332 - Unavailable Revenue-Special Assessments 11,631 452,055 213,570 1,610,531 Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 824,057 463,453 1,370,678 1,610,531 FUND BALANCES Nonspendable 94,824 - 51,995 - Restricted 10,572 - - 2,511,671 Assigned - 1,820,360 19,716,081 - Unassigned 26,197,429 - - - Total Fund Balance 26,302,825 1,820,360 19,768,076 2,511,671 Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance $29,656,767 $2,581,644 $21,436,446 $4,189,010 Capital Projects 4242 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Balance Sheet Governmental Funds December 31, 2020 ASSETS Cash and InvestmentsReceivables Accounts InterestDue From Other GovernmentsUnremitted Taxes Delinquent Taxes Unremitted Special AssessmentsDelinquent Special AssessmentsDeferred Special Assessments Special Deferred Special Assessments Due From Other Funds Advances to Other FundsPrepaid ItemsLand Held for ResaleNotes ReceivableTotal Assets LIABILITIES Accounts and Contracts Payable Salaries PayableInvestment Interest PayableDue to Other Governments Due to Other Funds Unearned RevenueTotal Liabilities DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Unavailable Revenue-Loans/Grants/Revenue State Aid for Subsequent Years Unavailable Revenue-Property Taxes Unavailable Revenue-Special AssessmentsTotal Deferred Inflows of Resources FUND BALANCES Nonspendable Restricted AssignedUnassignedTotal Fund Balance Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance Eden Eden Prairie Rd Other Total Prairie Connect to General Governmental Governmental Road Flying Cloud LRT Funds Funds $- $- $- $23,894,818 $74,677,030 - - - 893,892 1,188,918 - - - 55,314 153,422 - - 920,774 93,410 2,261,445 - - - 21,433 331,710 - - - - 772,150 2,075 - - - 3,140 2,834 - - - 3,200 76,774 289,996 - 2,759,783 5,173,896 820,353 157,185 - 120,761 1,338,377 - - - 2,262,538 3,714,189 - - - - 471,511 - - - 6,322 153,141 - - - 784,000 784,000 - - - 1,194,613 1,194,613 $902,036 $447,181 $920,774 $32,086,884 $92,220,742 $- $29,155 $464,772 $453,096 $3,032,951 - - - 10,309 786,774 1,829 3,533 413 3,169 8,944 - - 118,989 8,483 144,956 626,130 1,647,664 668,351 614,874 3,557,019 - - - 435,085 747,424 627,959 1,680,352 1,252,525 1,525,016 8,278,068 - - 458,680 15,720 540,525 - - - - 1,142,657 - - - - 772,150 899,961 447,181 - 2,880,544 6,515,473 899,961 447,181 458,680 2,896,264 8,970,805 - - - 175,711 322,530 - - - 17,712,655 20,234,898 - - - 10,422,534 31,958,975 (625,884) (1,680,352) (790,431) (645,296) 22,455,466 (625,884) (1,680,352) (790,431) 27,665,604 74,971,869 $902,036 $447,181 $920,774 $32,086,884 $92,220,742 Capital Projects 4343 This page is intentionally left blank 4444 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Governmental Funds Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Net Position December 31, 2020 Amounts Reported for Governmental Activities in the Statement of Net Position are Different Because: Total Fund Balance - Governmental Funds $74,971,869 1.Capital assets used in Governmental Activities are not financial resources and therefore are not reported as assets in governmental funds. Cost of Capital Assets 276,693,730 Less Accumulated Depreciation (48,354,394) 2.Long term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported as liabilities in the funds. Long-term liabilities at year end consist of: Bond Principal Payable Net (32,855,047) Capital Lease (59,611) Deferred Loss on Refunding 93,895 3.The City's net pension liability, net pension asset and related deferred outflows and inflows of resources are recorded only on the Statement of Net Position Balances at year end are: Net Pension Asset 1,982,261 Deferred Outflows of Resources related to pensions 6,480,882 Net Pension Liability (20,784,677)Deferred Inflows of Resources related to pensions (9,065,390) 4.Taxes and special assessment receivable will be collected in future years, but are not available soon enough to pay for the current period's expenditures and therefore are deferred in the funds.7,287,623 5.Grants and loan receivable will be collected in future years, but are not available soon enough to pay for the current period's expenditures and therefore are deferred in the funds.540,525 6.Governmental funds do not report a liability for accrued interest on long-term debt until due and payable.(368,946) 7.Internal Service Funds are used by management to charge the costs of employee benefits to individual funds. The assets and liabilities of the Internal Service Fund are included in Governmental Activities in the Statement of Net Position.13,161,589 8.Internal Service Funds are used by management to charge the costs of employee benefits to individual funds. The assets and liabilities of the Internal Service Fund are included in Business-type Activities in the Statement of Net Position.291,939 Net Position - Governmental Activities $270,016,248 4545 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Public Capital Shady OakImprovementImprovementRoad General Construction Maintenance North REVENUES General Property Taxes $36,263,433 $- $396,128 $- Special Assessments 4,677 102,430 15,720 1,766,757 Penalties and Interest 15,264 - - - Licenses and Permits 4,996,872 - - - Intergovernmental Revenue 6,238,109 897,415 - - Charges for Services 2,464,886 - - - Fines and Forfeits 230,341 - - - Investment Income 536,716 15,989 350,289 38,126 Rental - - 1,712,560 - Other 253,315 59,709 66,014 1,869,144 Total Revenues 51,003,613 1,075,543 2,540,711 3,674,027 EXPENDITURES CurrentAdministration 4,547,110 - - - Community Development 2,431,612 - - - Police 15,357,194 - - - Fire 6,378,338 - - - Public Works 5,991,750 - - - Parks and Recreation 11,084,484 - - - Interest on Interfund Borrowing - - - - Capital OutlayAdministration - - 14,694 - Police - - 159,061 - Fire - - 267,605 - Public Works - 1,715,420 921,683 993,907 Parks and Recreation - - 628,395 - Debt ServicePrincipal 58,478 - - - Interest 2,287 - - - Fiscal Agent Fees - - - - Total Expenditures 45,851,253 1,715,420 1,991,438 993,907 Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 5,152,360 (639,877) 549,273 2,680,120 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Issuance of Debt - - - - Payment to Refunded Bond - - - - Transfers In 411,468 1,720,443 5,526,486 - Transfers Out (4,696,486) - (300,000) (1,300,000) Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)(4,285,018) 1,720,443 5,226,486 (1,300,000) Net Change in Fund Balances 867,342 1,080,566 5,775,759 1,380,120 Fund Balance (Deficit) - Beginning 25,435,483 739,794 13,992,317 1,131,551 Fund Balance (Deficit) - Ending $26,302,825 $1,820,360 $19,768,076 $2,511,671 Capital Projects 4646 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 REVENUES General Property Taxes Special AssessmentsPenalties and InterestLicenses and Permits Intergovernmental RevenueCharges for Services Fines and ForfeitsInvestment Income RentalOther Total Revenues EXPENDITURES CurrentAdministrationCommunity Development PoliceFire Public WorksParks and Recreation Interest on Interfund BorrowingCapital OutlayAdministration PoliceFire Public WorksParks and Recreation Debt ServicePrincipal InterestFiscal Agent FeesTotal Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Issuance of Debt Payment to Refunded BondTransfers In Transfers OutTotal Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balances Fund Balance (Deficit) - Beginning Fund Balance (Deficit) - Ending Eden Eden Prairie Rd Other TotalPrairieConnect to General Governmental Governmental Road Flying Cloud LRT Funds Funds $- $- $- $4,922,650 $41,582,211 123,210 17,465 - 637,160 2,667,419 - - - - 15,264 - - - 3,354,385 8,351,257 - - 2,283,696 1,256,811 10,676,031 - - - - 2,464,886 - - - 825 231,166 - - - 516,974 1,458,094 - - - 69,614 1,782,174 - - - 1,136,429 3,384,611 123,210 17,465 2,283,696 11,894,848 72,613,113 - - - - 4,547,110 - - - 2,543,573 4,975,185 - - - 180,613 15,537,807 - - - - 6,378,338 - - - 98,547 6,090,297 - - - 52,926 11,137,410 15,758 43,256 9,267 29,856 98,137 - - - 101,303 115,997 - - - - 159,061 - - - - 267,605 - 314,561 2,996,543 5,116,076 12,058,190 - - - 182,695 811,090 - - - 3,685,315 3,743,793 - - - 813,064 815,351 - - - 64,875 64,875 15,758 357,817 3,005,810 12,868,843 66,800,246 107,452 (340,352) (722,114) (973,995) 5,812,867 - - - 7,417,000 7,417,000 - - - (1,325,000) (1,325,000) - - - 1,620,000 9,278,397 - - - (1,680,443) (7,976,929) - - - 6,031,557 7,393,468 107,452 (340,352) (722,114) 5,057,562 13,206,335 (733,336) (1,340,000) (68,317) 22,608,042 61,765,534 $(625,884) $(1,680,352) $(790,431) $27,665,604 $74,971,869 Capital Projects 4747 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Total net change in fund balances - governmental funds $13,206,335 Amounts Reported for Governmental Activities in the Statement of Activities are Different Because: Capital outlays are reported in Governmental Funds as expenditures. However, in the Statement of Activities, the cost of those assets is allocated over the estimated useful life's as depreciation expense. Capital Outlays 3,391,539 Depreciation Expense (3,973,165) The net effect of the disposal of capital assets Contributed to Enterprise funds (567,550) Disposals (982,295) Accumulated Depreciation on Disposals 899,069 Principal payments of long-term debt consumes the current financial resources of Governmental Funds, However they have no effect on Net Position.3,698,479 Interest on long-term debt in the statement of activities differs from the amount reported in the Governmental Funds because interest is recognized as an expenditure in the funds when it is due thus requires use of current financial resources. In the Statement of Activities, however interestexpense is recognized as the interest accrues, regardless of when it is due.33,253 The issuance of long-term debt provides current financial resources to Governmental Funds and has no effect on Net Position. These amounts are reported in the Governmental Funds as a source of financing. These amounts are not shown as revenue in the Statement of Activities, but rather constitute long-term liabilities in the Statement of Net Position.(7,417,000) Governmental Funds report debt issuance premiums and discounts as another financing source or use at the time of issuance. Premiums and discounts are reported as an unamortized asset or liabilityin the Government-wide financial statements. Amortization of Premiums/Discounts 119,524 Debt service bonds were refunded during the year. The amount paid off with the new funding is reported in the governmental funds as a use of financing. However, the payments are not expenditures in the statement of activities, but rather a reduction on long-term liabilities in the statement of net position.1,325,000 Refunding losses are recognized when paid in the governmental funds but amortized over the life of the debt in the Statement of Activities.(22,918) Taxes and special assessments receivable will be collected in future years, but are not available soon enough to pay for the current period's expenditures, and therefore are deferred in the funds.(1,357,329) Grants and receivable will be collected in future years, but are not available soon enough to pay for the current period's expenditures, and therefore are deferred in the funds.75,165 Some pension expenses reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore are not reported as expenditures.Change in Net Pension Asset/Liability and Related Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources 1,439,611 Internal Service Funds are used by management to charge the costs of employee benefits to individual funds. The net revenue of these activities is reported in Governmental Activities.1,757,822 Internal Service Funds are used by management to charge the costs of employee benefits to individual funds. The net revenue of these activities is reported in Business Type Activities.64,833 Change in Net Position - Governmental Activities $11,690,373 4848 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 With Comparative Actual Amounts For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 2019 Budget Budget Variance Original Final Actual Over/(Under)Actual REVENUES Taxes and Special Assessments General Property Taxes and Assessments $35,934,740 $35,934,740 $36,268,110 $333,370 $35,010,053 Penalties and Interest 25,000 25,000 15,264 (9,736) 19,584 Total Taxes and Special Assessments 35,959,740 35,959,740 36,283,374 323,634 35,029,637 Licenses and Permits Liquor, Beer and Wine Licenses 316,000 316,000 285,706 (30,294) 291,731 Business Licenses 29,000 29,000 32,445 3,445 29,130 Dog Registration Licenses 20,200 20,200 24,307 4,107 17,576 Building Permits and Fees 2,381,880 2,381,880 3,578,799 1,196,919 3,646,332 Cable TV 791,000 791,000 771,194 (19,806) 807,473 Other Permits 316,700 316,700 304,421 (12,279) 318,430 Total Licenses and Permits 3,854,780 3,854,780 4,996,872 1,142,092 5,110,672 Intergovernmental Revenue Police Pension Aid 565,500 565,500 609,592 44,092 615,216 Fire Relief Association Aid 457,742 457,742 493,363 35,621 468,219 School Liaison 120,430 120,430 120,430 - 120,430 Police Training 65,000 65,000 61,159 (3,841) 63,627 Fire Training 22,550 22,550 22,558 8 216,024 Grants 59,000 59,000 4,921,968 4,862,968 223,680 PERA Aid - - - - 52,384 Local Performance Aid 9,000 9,000 9,039 39 8,884 Total Intergovernmental Revenue 1,299,222 1,299,222 6,238,109 4,938,887 1,768,464 Charges for ServicesPublic Safety 158,208 158,208 113,511 (44,697) 195,310 Recreation Community Center 4,980,408 4,980,408 2,148,566 (2,831,842) 4,756,706 Youth Programs 452,500 452,500 61,792 (390,708) 474,103 Organized Athletics 233,000 233,000 64,633 (168,367) 202,187 Senior Center 88,950 88,950 6,437 (82,513) 85,341 Outdoor Center 88,090 88,090 2,207 (85,883) 73,357 Arts Center 97,300 97,300 37,485 (59,815) 111,761 Park Facilities 80,000 80,000 13,849 (66,151) 77,920 Oak Point Pool & Beaches 40,600 40,600 26 (40,574) 27,032 Park Maintenance 43,300 43,300 12,455 (30,845) 53,025 Therapeutic Recreation 38,000 38,000 986 (37,014) 40,760 Arts 25,600 25,600 1,783 (23,817) 30,721 Special Events 5,600 5,600 1,156 (4,444) 4,115 Total Recreation 6,173,348 6,173,348 2,351,375 (3,821,973) 5,937,028 Total Charges for Services 6,331,556 6,331,556 2,464,886 (3,866,670) 6,132,338 Fines and Forfeits 417,000 417,000 230,341 (186,659) 364,544 Investment Income 200,000 200,000 536,716 336,716 547,778 Other 183,690 183,690 253,315 69,625 305,907 Total Revenues $48,245,988 $48,245,988 $51,003,613 $2,757,625 $49,259,340 2020 4949 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changed in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Continued With Comparative Actual Amounts For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 2019 Budget Budget Variance Original Final Actual Over/(Under)Actual EXPENDITURES Current AdministrationLegislative $353,747 $353,747 $334,746 $(19,001) $335,099 Office of the City Manager 459,814 459,814 378,287 (81,527) 384,801 Legal Counsel 528,000 528,000 531,216 3,216 681,905 City Clerk 396,518 403,668 460,278 56,610 222,020 Communications 633,047 633,047 624,254 (8,793) 621,270 Finance 902,275 902,275 896,305 (5,970) 883,861 Customer Service 401,084 401,084 356,401 (44,683) 374,664 Human Resources 1,077,613 1,086,763 965,623 (121,140) 952,004 Total Administration 4,752,098 4,768,398 4,547,110 (221,288) 4,455,624 Community Development Assessing 1,059,547 1,059,547 1,025,996 (33,551) 1,018,893 Planning 617,741 651,936 586,917 (65,019) 560,696 Community Development Administration 249,657 249,657 317,954 68,297 214,459 Economic Development 161,454 161,454 158,852 (2,602) 134,979 Housing & Community Services 338,781 339,358 341,893 2,535 351,364 Total Community Development 2,427,180 2,461,952 2,431,612 (30,340) 2,280,391 Police 15,686,374 15,686,374 15,357,194 (329,180) 15,204,092 FireFire 4,872,560 4,898,872 4,967,012 68,140 4,498,609 Inspections 1,264,786 1,264,786 1,254,906 (9,880) 1,196,812 Public Safety Communications 152,511 152,511 156,420 3,909 159,408 Total Fire 6,289,857 6,316,169 6,378,338 62,169 5,854,829 Public Works Engineering 1,337,621 1,347,621 1,186,460 (161,161) 1,202,313 Street Maintenance 4,083,660 4,083,660 3,947,464 (136,196) 3,873,034 Street Lighting 958,500 958,500 857,826 (100,674) 815,693 Total Public Works 6,379,781 6,389,781 5,991,750 (398,031) 5,891,040 2020 5050 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changed in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Continued With Comparative Actual Amounts For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 2019 Budget Budget Variance Original Final Actual Over/(Under)Actual 2020 EXPENDITURES (Continued) Current (Continued) Parks and Recreation Park Maintenance 4,257,617 4,257,617 4,097,872 (159,745) 4,146,897 Community Center 5,387,767 5,387,767 4,530,022 (857,745) 5,104,654 Youth Programs 595,966 595,966 272,241 (323,725) 562,473 Senior Center 456,886 456,886 383,652 (73,234) 413,573 Park Administration 444,165 444,165 416,111 (28,054) 412,288 Organized Athletics 264,640 264,640 173,250 (91,390) 238,158 Recreation Administration 357,389 357,389 287,331 (70,058) 368,885 Arts Center 325,217 325,217 305,016 (20,201) 346,513 Therapeutic Recreation 205,656 205,656 121,226 (84,430) 226,564 Outdoor Center 252,551 252,551 211,653 (40,898) 232,125 Oak Point Pool 41,986 41,986 1,554 (40,432) 31,862 Arts 150,425 150,425 77,296 (73,129) 150,528 Special Events 134,550 134,550 30,129 (104,421) 117,311 Park Facilities 92,680 92,680 70,725 (21,955) 82,869 Beaches 73,906 73,906 106,406 32,500 54,602 Total Parks and Recreation 13,041,401 13,041,401 11,084,484 (1,956,917) 12,489,302 Debt Service Principal 58,478 58,478 58,478 - 57,367 Interest 2,287 2,287 2,287 - 3,399 Total Debt Service 60,765 60,765 60,765 - 60,766 Total Expenditures 48,637,456 48,724,840 45,851,253 (2,873,587) 46,236,044 Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (391,468) (478,852) 5,152,360 5,631,212 3,023,296 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES / (USES) Transfers In 411,468 411,468 411,468 - 405,949 Transfers Out (20,000) (20,000)(4,696,486)(4,676,486) (2,536,296) Proceeds from Disposition of Capital Assets - - - - Total Other Financing Sources / (Uses)391,468 391,468 (4,285,018) (4,676,486) (2,130,347) Net Change in Fund Balance $- $(87,384) 867,342 $954,726 892,949 Fund Balance, January 1 25,435,483 24,542,534 Fund Balance, December 31 $26,302,825 $25,435,483 5151 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Proprietary Funds Statement of Net Position December 31, 2020 Governmental Activities InternalWaterWastewaterStormwaterLiquorServiceFundFundFundFundTotalsFund ASSETS Current Assets:Cash and Investments $14,469,884 $7,048,754 $5,396,835 $2,330,123 $29,245,596 $13,054,415 Receivables:Accounts 1,468,671 1,387,515 713,732 7,099 3,577,017 5,296 Interest 41,967 16,449 11,672 5,670 75,758 30,887 Due From Other Governments 2,434 - 18,741 - 21,175 10,637 Unremitted Special Assessments 6,362 1,125 - - 7,487 - Delinquent Special Assessments 327,947 8,449 - - 336,396 - Deferred Special Assessments 205,997 308,995 165,540 - 680,532 - Special Deferred Special Assessments 115,984 173,976 - - 289,960 - Inventory - - - 1,055,184 1,055,184 126,775 Prepaid Items 27,948 337,628 - 30,762 396,338 400,038 Total Current Assets 16,667,194 9,282,891 6,306,520 3,428,838 35,685,443 13,628,048 Noncurrent AssetsCapital Assets:Property, Plant and Equipment 141,678,042 83,960,172 52,722,348 3,189,696 281,550,258 12,919,995 Less Accumulated Depreciation (81,950,289) (51,141,618) (26,348,961) (1,549,232) (160,990,100) (7,337,705) Total Noncurrent Assets 59,727,753 32,818,554 26,373,387 1,640,464 120,560,158 5,582,290 Total Assets 76,394,947 42,101,445 32,679,907 5,069,302 156,245,601 19,210,338 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Other Post Employment Benefits 13,878 3,605 1,622 2,837 21,942 257,154 Pensions 147,621 36,905 24,604 61,509 270,639 - Total Deferred Outflows of Resources 161,499 40,510 26,226 64,346 292,581 257,154 Total Assets and Deferred Outflows of Resources 76,556,446 42,141,955 32,706,133 5,133,648 156,538,182 19,467,492 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts Payable 1,389,824 356,490 35,870 593,904 2,376,088 548,371 Salaries Payable 75,521 22,960 19,928 31,078 149,487 68,902 Bond Interest Payable 23,684 - - - 23,684 - Due to Other Governments 2,794 - 2,660 130,672 136,126 190,169 Due to Other Funds - - 157,170 - 157,170 - Unearned Revenue - - - 14,023 14,023 63,284 Current Portion of Bonds Payable 340,000 - - - 340,000 - Current Portion of Compensated Absences 126,634 20,074 23,604 32,671 202,983 1,391,561 Total Current Liabilities 1,958,457 399,524 239,232 802,348 3,399,561 2,262,287 Noncurrent Liabilities:Total OPEB Liability 127,496 36,455 19,474 24,399 207,824 2,634,324 Net Pension Liability 1,742,520 435,630 290,420 726,049 3,194,619 - Bonds Payable 5,748,767 - - - 5,748,767 - Advances from Other Funds - - 471,511 - 471,511 - Compensated Absences 107,141 16,983 19,971 27,642 171,737 1,177,353 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 7,725,924 489,068 801,376 778,090 9,794,458 3,811,677 Total Liabilities 9,684,381 888,592 1,040,608 1,580,438 13,194,019 6,073,964 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCESOPEB 13,265 3,276 1,318 2,796 20,655 231,939 Pensions 111,142 27,785 18,524 46,309 203,760 - Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 124,407 31,061 19,842 49,105 224,415 231,939 Total Liabilities and Deferred Inflows of Resources 9,808,788 919,653 1,060,450 1,629,543 13,418,434 6,305,903 NET POSITION Net Investment in Capital Assets 59,727,753 32,818,554 26,373,387 1,640,464 120,560,158 5,582,290 Unrestricted 7,019,905 8,403,748 5,272,296 1,863,641 22,559,590 7,579,299 Total Net Position $66,747,658 $41,222,302 $31,645,683 $3,504,105 143,119,748 $13,161,589 Adjustment to Reflect the Consolidation of Internal Service Fund Activities Related to Enterprise Funds (291,939) Total Net Position-Business-Type Activities $142,827,809 52 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Proprietary Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Governmental Activities -InternalWaterWastewaterStormwaterLiquor ServiceFundFundFundFundTotalFund SALES AND COST OF SALES Sales $- $- $- $11,463,070 $11,463,070 $- Cost of Sales - - - (8,299,999) (8,299,999) - Gross Profit - - - 3,163,071 3,163,071 - OPERATING REVENUESales 8,972,024 6,895,764 3,376,785 - 19,244,573 - Charges for Services - - - - - 18,483,031 Rental - - - 209,098 209,098 871,255 Other 15,340 - - 39,392 54,732 - Total Operating Revenues 8,987,364 6,895,764 3,376,785 248,490 19,508,403 19,354,286 OPERATING EXPENSEPersonnel Services 2,853,197 803,776 559,797 1,107,572 5,324,342 8,906,096 SuppliesSupplies 99,787 27,484 99,585 19,486 246,342 68,795 Cleaning Supplies 11,281 - - - 11,281 169,694 Motor Fuel - - - - - 305,175 Tires - - - - - 58,134 Chemicals 693,225 - - - 693,225 - Repair and Maintenance Supplies 142,143 66,208 57,456 10,943 276,750 581,132 Contractual ServicesContractual Services 305,340 95,550 315,674 141,420 857,984 2,635,043 Software 60,492 60,492 - 570 121,554 1,329,059 Janitorial Services 44,744 - - 37,610 82,354 713,873 Lime Residual Removal 302,237 - - - 302,237 - Building Rent - - - 280,658 280,658 - Licenses, Permits, Taxes 230,589 - 47 94,121 324,757 197,697 Repair and Maintenance 520,510 185,563 19,903 24,475 750,451 189,130 Utilities 696,361 28,904 18,879 77,402 821,546 1,403,045 MCES Fees - 4,202,607 - - 4,202,607 - Bank and Credit Card Fees 47,805 47,805 - 253,435 349,045 - User Charges 319,547 246,208 135,371 174,052 875,178 17,420 Capital Under $25,000 114,928 58,806 149,151 1,927 324,812 534,370 Total Operating Expenses 6,442,186 5,823,403 1,355,863 2,223,671 15,845,123 17,108,663 Operating Income (Loss) Before Depreciation 2,545,178 1,072,361 2,020,922 1,187,890 6,826,351 2,245,623 Depreciation 2,900,056 1,677,800 1,162,430 73,389 5,813,675 1,083,905 Operating Income (Loss) Before Nonoperating Revenue / Expense (354,878) (605,439) 858,492 1,114,501 1,012,676 1,161,718 NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSE)Grants 17,060 - 69,387 - 86,447 - Investment Income 406,593 154,424 114,269 54,355 729,641 295,515 Interest (171,919) (2,613) (7,859) - (182,391) - Bond Issuance Cost 27,740 4,241 - - 31,981 - Fiscal Agent Fees (533) (600) - - (1,133) - Gain/(Loss) on Disposition of Capital Assets 29,975 20,550 - - 50,525 194,665 Miscellaneous 16,567 267 4,337 9,505 30,676 105,924 Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses)325,483 176,269 180,134 63,860 745,746 596,104 Income (Loss) Before Contributions and Transfers (29,395) (429,170) 1,038,626 1,178,361 1,758,422 1,757,822 Contributions - from Governmental Activities - - 567,550 - 567,550 - Contributions - from Developers 97,852 166,742 184,596 - 449,190 - Capital Access Charges 1,000,750 271,510 - - 1,272,260 - Capital Special Assessments 269,680 335,658 871 - 606,209 - Transfers Out (245,734) (144,014) (61,720) (850,000) (1,301,468) - Change in Net Position 1,093,153 200,726 1,729,923 328,361 3,352,163 1,757,822 Net Position - Beginning 65,654,505 41,021,576 29,915,760 3,175,744 139,767,585 11,403,767 Net Position - Ending $66,747,658 $41,222,302 $31,645,683 $3,504,105 143,119,748 $13,161,589 Adjustment to reflect the consolidation of Internal Service Funds activitiesrelated to Enterprise Funds (64,833) Change in Net Position of Business-Type Activities 3,287,330$ 5353 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Proprietary Funds Statement of Cash Flows For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Page 1 of 2 Governmental Activities - Internal Water Wastewater Stormwater Liquor Service Fund Fund Fund Fund Totals Fund CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Receipts From Customers $8,687,080 $6,664,316 $3,289,878 $11,712,895 $30,354,169 $18,550,028 Payments to Vendors (3,039,930) (4,544,550) (776,844) (9,290,839) (17,652,163) (8,354,067) Payments to Employees (2,887,817) (839,320) (560,668) (1,166,392) (5,454,197) (8,030,831) Other Receipts 15,340 - - - 15,340 977,179 Net Cash Provided (Used) By Operating Activities 2,774,673 1,280,446 1,952,366 1,255,664 7,263,149 3,142,309 CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Investment Income 406,403 156,366 113,735 54,568 731,072 296,900 Net Cash Provided (Used) By Investing Activities 406,403 156,366 113,735 54,568 731,072 296,900 CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES Grants 17,060 - 69,387 - 86,447 - Payments From Other Funds - - (157,171) - (157,171) - Transfers (Out)(245,734) (144,014) (61,720) (850,000) (1,301,468) - Net Cash Provided (Used) By Noncapital Financing Activities (228,674) (144,014) (149,504) (850,000) (1,372,192) - CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITESAcquisition and Construction of Capital Assets (6,126,900) (399,977) (108,248) - (6,635,125) (1,149,920) Proceeds From Sale of Equipment 29,975 20,550 - - 50,525 194,665 Access Charges 1,000,750 271,510 - - 1,272,260 - Special Assessments 269,680 335,658 871 - 606,209 - Principal Paid on Debt (745,000) (95,000) - - (840,000) - Interest and Fiscal Agent Paid on Debt (175,623) (3,451) (7,859) - (186,933) - Net Cash Provided (Used) By Capital Financing Activities (5,747,118) 129,290 (115,236) - (5,733,064) (955,255) Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents (2,794,716) 1,422,088 1,801,361 460,232 888,965 2,483,954 Cash and Cash Equivalents, January 1 17,264,600 5,626,666 3,595,474 1,869,891 28,356,631 10,570,461 Cash and Cash Equivalents, December 31 $14,469,884 $7,048,754 $5,396,835 $2,330,123 $29,245,596 $13,054,415 5454 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Proprietary Funds Statement of Cash Flows For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Page 2 of 2 Governmental Activities -Internal Water Wastewater Stormwater Liquor Service Fund Fund Fund Fund Totals Fund RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) TO NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES:Operating Income (Loss)$(354,878) $(605,439) $858,492 $1,114,501 $1,012,676 $1,161,718 Adjustments to Reconcile Operating Income (Loss) to Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities: Depreciation 2,900,056 1,677,800 1,162,430 73,389 5,813,675 1,083,905 Miscellaneous 16,567 267 4,337 9,505 30,676 105,924 (Increase) Decrease in Assets and Deferred Outflows: Accounts Receivable (176,387) (44,696) (97,443) (5,496) (324,022) 65,111 Special Assessments Receivable (108,557) (186,752) 10,536 - (284,773) - Due From Other Governments (2,434) 130,452 11,797 - 139,815 (1,032) Inventory - - - 163,005 163,005 (22,094) Prepaid Items (23,148) 12,589 - (2,046) (12,605) 279,422 Other Post Employment Benefits (Deferred Outflow)(6,866) (1,592) (541) (1,499) (10,498) (111,636) Pensions (Deferred Outflow)(18,044) (2,366) (2,420) (4,856) (27,686) - Increase (Decrease) in Liabilities and Deferred Inflows:Accounts Payable 559,339 331,769 428 (54,539) 836,997 (69,489) Salaries Payable 18,330 4,789 8,654 3,524 35,297 19,037 Unearned Revenue - - - 6,831 6,831 1,886 Due to Other Governments (1,265) - 2,660 9,334 10,729 (29,715) Other Post Employment Benefits 2,523 585 199 552 3,859 197,911 Net Pension Liability 186,249 20,805 23,980 45,611 276,645 - Other Post Employment Benefits (Deferred Inflows)9,649 2,238 760 2,106 14,753 - Pensions (Deferred Inflow)(241,556) (66,226) (41,860) (107,901) (457,543) - Compensated Absences 15,095 6,223 10,357 3,643 35,318 461,361 Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities $2,774,673 $1,280,446 $1,952,366 $1,255,664 $7,263,149 $3,142,309 Noncash Investing, Capital and Financing Activities:Contributions of Capital Assets from Governmental Activities $- $- $567,550 $- $567,550 $- Contributions of Capital Assets from Developers 97,852 166,742 184,596 - 449,190 - Amortization of Bond Premium (27,740) (4,241) - - (31,981) - 5555 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Fiduciary Funds Statement of Fiduciary Net Position December 31, 2020 Custodial Funds Total ASSETS Cash and Investments $428,618 Due from Other Governments 101,513 Prepaids 7,914 Total Assets $538,045 LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $6,996 Due to Other Governments 14,910 Unearned Revenue 3,000 Total Liabilities $24,906 NET POSITION Restricted $513,139 $513,139 5656 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Fiduciary Funds Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Custodial Funds Total ADDITIONS Grants $320,968 Memberships 169,897 Investments Earnings 2,474 Building Permits 680,890 Customers Deposits 230 Other 1,722 Total Additions 1,176,181 DEDUCTIONS Personnel Services 338,351 Supplies 30,756 Contractual Services 827,067 Total Deductions 1,196,174 Net Increase (Decrease) in Fiduciary Net Position (19,993) Net Position - Beginning 533,132 Net Position - Ending $513,139 5757 This page is intentionally left blank 5858 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 5959 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Note 1—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Reporting Entity The City of Eden Prairie is a municipal corporation governed by an elected mayor and four-member council. The accompanying financial statements consist of the primary government and organizations for which the primary government is financially accountable. In addition, the primary government may determine through exercise of management’s professional judgment that the inclusion of an organization that does not meet the financial accountability criteria is necessary in order to prevent the financial statements from being misleading. The criteria used to determine if the primary government is financially accountable for a potential component unit include whether or not the primary government appoints the voting majority of the potential component unit’s board, is able to impose its will on the potential component unit, is in a relationship of financial benefit or burden with the potential component unit, or is fiscally depended upon by the potential component unit. Blended Component Unit The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (H.R.A.) is a body organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. The Authority was established in 1980 by the City to carry out certain redevelopment projects within the City and is governed by the City Council and the Mayor. The City also has an operational responsibility for the H.R.A. The H.R.A. has a December 31 year-end and does not issue financial statements. This unit is included within the H.R.A. and Economic Development funds. Government-Wide and Fund Financial Statements The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities) report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the City. The fiduciary funds are only reported in the statement of fiduciary net position and the statement of changes in fiduciary net position at the fund financial statement level. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use or directly benefit from goods, service or privileges provided by a given function or segment and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting and Statement Presentation Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds, even though the latter are excluded from the government-wide financial statements. Major individual governmental funds and major individual proprietary funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. 6060 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund financial statements. The fiduciary fund financial statements include Custodial funds, which utilize the accrual basis of accounting, but do not have a measurement focus. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due. Property taxes, licenses, interest and special assessments are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current fiscal period. All other revenue items are considered to be measurable and available only when payment is received by the City. The City reports the following major governmental funds: • The General fund is the City’s primary operating fund. It accounts for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditures for specified purposes other than debt service and capital projects. • The Public Improvement Construction fund accounts for proceeds of bonds sold and special assessments collected to finance street, drainage, and lateral utility construction within the City. • The Capital Improvement Maintenance fund accounts for the accumulation of resources to be used for capital improvements and maintenance of City property. • The Shady Oak Road North fund accounts for the accumulation of resources to be used for the reconstruction of Shady Oak Road from Rowland Road through the Highway 62 interchange. • The Eden Prairie Road fund accounts for proceeds of bonds sold to finance the construction of Eden Prairie Road. • The Eden Prairie Rd Connect to Flying Cloud fund accounts for the accumulation of resources to be used for the construction of road from Frederick Place to north of Riley Creek. • The General LRT fund accounts for the accumulation of resources to be used for the completion of the Town Center Station, Urban Grid roadway system, extension of Eden Road to the station and upgrade/betterments of amenities within Eden Prairie beyond the base product. 6161 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements The City reports the following major proprietary funds: • The Water fund accounts for the operations of the City water system. • The Wastewater fund accounts for the operations of the City wastewater service. • The Stormwater fund accounts for the operations of the City’s stormwater system. • The Liquor fund accounts for the operations of the City’s three retail liquor stores and the operations of the City-owned Den Road building which is leased to City liquor operations and other tenants. Additionally, the city reports the following fund types: • Internal Service funds are used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or agencies of the government and to other government units, on a cost reimbursement basis. Internal Service funds include Health & Benefits, Severance, Workers Compensation, Property Insurance, Facilities, Fleet, and Information Technology. • Fiduciary funds include Custodial funds that account for evidence held by the Police department in the Escrow fund, WAFTA, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services funds (MCES) and the 494 Corridor Commission. As a general rule the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government-wide financial statements. Exceptions to this rule are payments in-lieu of taxes and other charges between the City’s water, wastewater, and storm water function and various other functions of the City. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct costs and program revenues reported from the various functions concerned. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund’s principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenue of the City’s proprietary funds are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for proprietary funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position/Fund Balance Cash and Investments Cash and investments, except for small amounts of cash on hand, are deposited in pooled accounts of the City. The City invests cash surpluses in these accounts; and investment earnings, as well as gains and losses on sales of securities, are allocated to the various funds on the basis of average cash balances. Funds with deficit cash balance averages (interfund payable) are charged interest equivalent to the average investment earnings lost in financing the deficits. For purposes of the statement of cash flows, the Proprietary funds consider all unrestricted investments held in the pooled accounts of the City to be cash equivalents because this pool is used essentially as a demand deposit account. 6262 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Investments are stated at their fair value as determined by quoted market prices, except for money market investments and participating interest-earning investment contracts that have a remaining maturity at time of purchase of one year or less which are recorded at amortized cost, provided that the fair value of those investments is not significantly affected by the impairment of the credit standing of the issuer or by other factors. Money market investments are short-term, highly liquid debt instruments including commercial paper, banker's acceptances, and U.S. Treasury and agency obligations. Investments in external investment pools that meet the criteria of GASB Statement No. 79 are valued at amortized costs. If an external investment pool does not meet the criteria established by this Statement, that pool should apply the provisions in paragraph 16 of Statement No. 31. Interfund Receivables/Payables Activity between funds that are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements outstanding at the end of the fiscal year are referred to as “due to/from other funds” (i.e., the current portion of interfund loans) or advances to/from other funds. All other outstanding balances between funds are reported as “due to/from other funds.” Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and business-type activities are reported in the government-wide financial statements as “internal balances.” Inventories and Prepaid Items Liquor fund inventories are valued at average cost. The Fleet fund’s inventories are valued at cost. All inventories use the first-in/first-out (FIFO) method. Inventories and prepaids of governmental funds are recorded as expenditures when consumed rather than when purchased. Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items in both government-wide and fund financial statements. Capital Assets Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, bridges, sidewalks, and similar items), are reported in the applicable governmental or business-type activities columns in the government-wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the City as assets with an initial individual cost of more than $25,000 and an estimated useful life in excess of 1 year. Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded at acquisition value at the date of donation. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized. 6363 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements The City has chosen to use the modified approach for its infrastructure assets which means the following criteria will take place: • The City will preserve and maintain infrastructure assets at a condition level of 70. • The Engineering department will be in charge of determining the appropriate condition level at which these assets are to be maintained. • The City will maintain an inventory of these assets and perform a condition assessment every 3 years to establish that the condition level of 70 is being maintained. • The City will make annual estimates of the amounts that must be expended to preserve and maintain these assets at the condition level of 70. Property, plant, and equipment, except for infrastructure, of the City are depreciated using the straight line method over the following estimated useful lives: Buildings 5-50 years Land improvements 10-50 years Leasehold improvements 10-25 years Equipment 5-30 years Autos 5-20 years Other assets 5-30 years Distribution system 25-50 years Intangible assets 3 years Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred outflows of resources, represents a consumption of net position that applies to a future period(s) and will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expense/ expenditure) until then. The City has three items that qualify for reporting in this category. It is the deferred charge on refunding reported in the government-wide statement of net position, the deferred charge for pensions (see Pension section below for explanation) and the deferred charge for OPEB (see OPEB section below for explanation). A deferred charge on refunding results from the difference in the carrying value of refunded debt and its reacquisition price. This amount is deferred and amortized over the shorter of the life of the refunded or refunding debt. In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred inflows of resources, represents an acquisition of net position that applies to a future period(s) and will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. The City has three items that qualifies for reporting in this category. It is the deferred charge for pensions (see Pension section below for explanation), the deferred charge for OPEB (see OPEB section below for explanation) and the deferred charge for Municipal State Aid that the City is entitled to but has not requested from the State yet. 6464 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements The City also has one type of item, which arises under a modified accrual basis of accounting that qualifies for reporting in this category. Accordingly, the item, unavailable revenue, is reported only in the governmental funds balance sheet. The governmental funds report unavailable revenues from five sources: property taxes, special assessments, loans, grants and invoices not collected within 60 days. These amounts are deferred and recognized as an inflow of resources in the period that the amounts become available. Pensions For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows/inflows of resources, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and additions to/deductions from PERA’s fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by PERA except that PERA’s fiscal year end is June 30. For this purpose, plan contributions are recognized as of employer payroll paid dates and benefit payments and refunds are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. For the governmental activities, the net pension liability will be liquidated through the General fund. For purposes of measuring the liability, deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources, and expense associated with the City’s requirement to contribute to the Eden Prairie Firefighter Relief Association, information about the Plan’s fiduciary net position and additions to/deductions from the Eden Prairie Firefighter Relief Association Plan’s fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by the Plan. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of contributions) are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions (OPEB) For purposes of measuring the total OPEB liability, deferred outflows/inflows of resources related to OPEB, and OPEB expense, the City recognizes benefit payments when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. The City’s benefit payments consist of the implicit rate subsidy, and subsidized premiums for officers injured in the line of duty. Other post-employment benefits are generally liquidated through the Health and Benefits Internal Service funds. Compensated Absences The City compensates employees upon termination for unused paid time off (PTO). Such pay will be reflected as a liability in the government-wide financial statement and accrued as an expense as it is earned in an internal service fund. General Property Taxes Property tax levies are set by the City Council in December each year and are certified to Hennepin County for collection in the following year. In Minnesota, counties act as collection agents for all property taxes. The County spreads all levies over taxable property. Such taxes become a lien on January 1 and are recorded as receivables by the City at that date. Revenues are accrued and recognized in the year collectible, net of delinquencies. 6565 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Real property taxes may be paid by taxpayers in two equal installments on May 15 and October 15. Personal property taxes may be paid on February 28 and June 30. The County provides tax settlements to taxing districts in February, June, and December. In the governmental fund financial statements, taxes that remain unpaid at December 31 are classified as delinquent taxes receivable and are fully offset by unavailable revenue because they are not available to finance current expenditures. Special Assessment Levies Special assessments represent the financing for public improvements paid for by the benefiting property owner. In the fund financial statements, special assessment revenue and related interest income is generally recognized in the year collected. Hennepin County acts as the billing and collection agent. Amounts collected by the County during the year that have not yet been remitted to the City are considered collections for purposes of revenue recognition. Deferred special assessments receivable represents principal amounts due in future years. Special deferred assessments receivable includes Green Acres, disability, senior citizen owned property or other qualified hardship properties. These special assessments are deferred until such time the property loses its exempt status. While these taxes remain a valid receivable, the timing of their collection is uncertain. Interest accrues from the year of the deferment. Delinquent special assessments receivable represents special assessments principal and interest that are past due. In the governmental fund financial statements, deferred and delinquent special assessments receivable are fully offset by deferred inflows of resources because such assessment revenue is not available currently. Long-term Obligations In the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund financial statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the statement of net position. Bond premiums and discounts are amortized over the life of the bonds using the effective interest method. Bonds payable are reported net of the applicable bond premium or discount. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums and discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources/uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. Fund Balance Classifications In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report fund balance in classifications that disclose constraints for which amounts in those funds can be spent. These classifications are as follows: • Nonspendable-consists of amounts that are not in spendable form, such as prepaid assets and assets that are legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. 6666 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements • Restricted-consists of amounts related to externally imposed constraints established by creditors, grantors or contributors; or constraints imposed by state statutory provisions. • Committed-consists of internally imposed constraints. These constraints are established by Resolution of the City Council. Only the Council can remove or change the constraints placed on committed fund balances by resolution. • Assigned-consists of internally imposed constraints. These constraints reflect the specific purpose for which it is the City’s intended use. These constraints are established by the City council and/or management. Pursuant to City Council Resolution, the City Manager or Finance Manager is authorized to establish assignments of fund balance. • Unassigned-is the residual classification for the general fund and also reflects negative residual amounts in other funds. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to first use restricted resources, and then use unrestricted resources as they are needed. When unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to use resources in the following order: 1) committed 2) assigned 3) unassigned. The City’s fund balance policy requires the unassigned for working capital fund balance component to equal 50% of the next year’s budgeted tax revenue. In recognition that the amount for working capital only covers operating costs for the first six months of the year, the City will maintain an unassigned fund balance component for budget stabilization which is 15% of the next year’s budget. If the balance falls below 15%, a plan would be developed and implemented to replenish the fund. Prior Period Comparative Financial Information/Reclassification The financial statements include certain prior year partial comparative information but not at the level of detail required for a presentation in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Accordingly, such information should be read in conjunction with the City’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2019, from which the summarized information was derived. Also, certain amounts presented in the prior year data have been reclassified in order to be consistent with the current year’s presentation. Note 2—Stewardship, Compliance and Accountability Budgetary Information An annual budget is adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles for the General fund. The City does not budget for its Special Revenue funds. All annual appropriations lapse at fiscal year end. The proposed budget is presented to the City Council for review. The Council then holds truth-in-taxation meeting after which a final General Fund annual budget is legally adopted by no later than December 31. The appropriated budget is prepared by department and division. The City’s directors and division managers may make transfers of appropriations within a division. Transfers of appropriations between departments require the approval of the City Manager. The legal level of budgetary control 6767 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements is the fund level. Any changes in the total budget of each fund must be approved by a majority vote of the City Council. During the year, adjustments between the original and final General fund amended budget resulted in an increase of $87,384. Following are changes made to the original budget during the year: General fund expenditures equal $45,851,253 or 94.1% of the annual amount budgeted of $48,724,840. All departments except Fire have spent less than 100% of the amounts budgeted. Deficit Fund Equity The following governmental funds had deficit fund balance/net position at December 31, 2020: The fund balance deficits of these individual Capital Project funds will be financed by municipal state aid, special assessments and other future City planned funding as identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. The fund balance deficit of the Severance Internal Service fund will be financed by user charges. The fund balance deficit of the Health and Benefits fund is due to the OPEB liability which the City will not fund since it pertains only to the Implicit Rate. City Clerk Inspection Scanning & Staffing 7,150$ Human Resources Job Postings 9,150 Planning Comprehensive Plan, Preservation Plan 34,195 Housing/Community Services Conference 577 Fire Uniforms 26,312 Engineering Scanning 10,000 87,384$ Major Funds: Eden Prairie Road 625,884$ Eden Prairie Rd Connect to Flying Cloud 1,680,352 General LRT 790,431 Non-Major Governmental Funds: Homeowners Improvements Area 12,540 Singletree Lane South 63,044 Duck Lake Rd. Reconstruct 569,582 Internal Service Funds: Health and Benefits 1,150,799 Severance 1,018,931 6868 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Note 3—Cash and Investments Components of Cash and Investments Cash and investments at year-end consist of the following: Cash and investments are presented in the financial statements as follows: Deposits In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the City maintains deposits at those depository banks authorized by the City Council, including checking accounts and certificates of deposits. The following is considered the most significant risk associated with deposits: Custodial Credit Risk In the case of deposits, this is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the City’s deposits may be lost. Minnesota Statutes require that all deposits be protected by federal deposit insurance, corporate surety bond, or collateral. The fair value of collateral pledged must equal 110% of the deposits not covered by federal deposit insurance or corporate surety bonds. Authorized collateral includes treasury bills, notes, and bonds; issues of U.S. government agencies; general obligation rate “A” or better; revenue obligations rate “AA” or better; irrevocable standard letters of credit issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank; and certificated of deposit. Minnesota Statues require that securities pledged as collateral be held in safekeeping in a restricted account at the Federal Reserve Bank or in an account at a trust department of a commercial bank or other financial institution that is not owned or controlled by the financial institution furnishing the collateral. It is the City’s policy to limit collateral to what is authorized by Minnesota Statutes. At year-end, the carrying amount of the City’s deposits was $0 while the balance on the bank records was $0. At December 31, 2020, all deposits were fully covered by federal depository insurance, surety bonds, or by collateral held by the City’s agent in the City’s name. Investments 117,382,568$ Cash on hand 23,091 Total 117,405,659$ Statement of Net Position Cash and cash equivalents 116,977,041$ Statement of Fiduciary Net Position Cash and investments 428,618 117,405,659$ 6969 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Investments As of December 31, 2020, the city had the following investments and maturities: Moody’s Investors Service was used as the primary agency for the municipal bond ratings, in the case that Moody’s did not provide a rating a Standard & Poor’s was used. Investments are subject to various risks, the following of which are considered the most significant. Interest Rate Risk Per City policy, the City will match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the City will not directly invest in securities maturing more than seven (7) years from the date of purchase or for mortgage backed securities, the weighted average life must be no more than seven (7) years from the date of purchase. The intent to invest in securities with longer maturities will be disclosed to the City Council. Currently, the City did not have any investments maturing more than seven years from the date of purchase. Less 1 to 5TotalThan 1 Year Years U.S. Agencies 44,076,332$ 2,863,003$ 41,213,329$ Municipal Bonds 24,259,626 10,208,390 14,051,236 Negotiable Certificate of Deposit 1,524,248 1,524,248 - Bankers Acceptance 7,468,015 7,468,015 - Mutual Funds 40,054,347 40,054,347 - Total 117,382,568$ 62,118,003$ 55,264,565$ Investment Maturities (in Years) Negotiable US Municipal Certificate Bankers Mutual Agencies Bonds of Deposit Acceptance Funds Total Moody's Aaa 42,360,213$ 2,142,912$ -$ -$ -$ 44,503,125$ Aa1 - 4,577,032 - - - 4,577,032 Aa2 - 2,512,233 - - - 2,512,233 Aa3 - 2,621,516 - - - 2,621,516 A1 - 1,254,143 - - - 1,254,143 MIG 1 2,568,700 2,568,700 N/A, N/R 1,716,119 - 1,524,248 7,468,015 40,054,347 50,762,729 S&P AA - 4,884,368 - - - 4,884,368 AA+- 2,649,122 - - - 2,649,122 AA-- 1,049,600 - - - 1,049,600 44,076,332$ 24,259,626$ 1,524,248$ 7,468,015$ 40,054,347$ 117,382,568$ 7070 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Credit Risk It is the City’s policy to limit its investments to the following types, which are also authorized by Minnesota Statutes: • Direct obligations or obligations guaranteed by the United States or its agencies, its instrumentalities or organizations created by an act of congress, excluding mortgage-backed securities defined as high risk. • Shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940 and whose only investments are in securities described above or in general obligation tax exempt securities, or repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements. • Repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements with banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System with capitalization exceeding $10,000,000: a primary reporting dealer in U.S. government securities to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; certain Minnesota securities broker-dealers, or, a bank qualified as a depositor. • Commercial paper issued by United States corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries, of the higher quality, and maturing in 270 days or less. • Banker’s acceptance of U.S. banks eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. • General obligations of a state or local government. • Money market mutual funds meeting the conditions of rule 2a-7 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The fair value of the position in the pool is the net asset value per share provided by the pool. Custodial Credit Risk For an investment, custodial credit risk is the risk that in the event of the failure of the counterparty, the city will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The City’s investments are held in safe keeping. The City’s investment policy specifically addresses custodial credit risk by requiring investments to be held at the Federal Reserve Bank or any bank authorized under the laws of the United States. Concentration Risk This is the risk associated with investing a significant portion of the City’s investment (considered 5 percent or more) in the securities of a single issuer, excluding U.S. guaranteed investments (such as Treasuries), investment pools, and mutual funds. The City’s investment policy specifically addresses the City’s desire to limit risk by avoiding over concentration in securities from a specific issuer and by setting allocation guidelines to diversify the types of securities in the portfolio. At year end, the City did hold the following investments in securities with a single issuer which exceeded 5%. Fair Value Measurements The City uses fair value measurements to record fair value adjustments to certain assets and liabilities and to determine fair value disclosures. The City follows an accounting standard that defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value, establishes a fair value hierarchy based on the quality of inputs used to measure fair value, and requires expanded Issuer Percentage FHLMC 5.6% 7171 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements disclosures about fair value measurements. In accordance with this standard, the City has categorized its investments, based on the priority of the inputs to the valuation technique, into a three-level fair value hierarchy. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3). If the inputs used to measure the financial instruments fall within different levels of the hierarchy, the categorization is based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement of the instrument. Financial assets and liabilities recorded on the combined statements of financial position are categorized based on the inputs to the valuation techniques as follows: • Level 1 – Financial assets and liabilities are valued using inputs that are unadjusted quoted prices in active markets accessible at the measurement date of identical financial assets and liabilities. • Level 2 – Financial assets and liabilities are valued based on quoted prices for similar assets, or inputs that are observable, either directly or indirectly for substantially the full term through corroboration with observable market data. • Level 3 – Financial assets and liabilities are valued using pricing inputs which are unobservable for the asset, inputs that reflect the reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions market participants and would use in pricing the asset. Assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis: Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total U.S. Agencies 29,829,611$ 14,246,721$ -$ 44,076,332$ Municipal Bonds - 24,259,626 - 24,259,626 Negotiable Certificates of Deposit - 1,524,248 - 1,524,248 29,829,611$ 40,030,595$ -$ 69,860,206 Investments measured at amortized cost 47,522,362 117,382,568$ 7272 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Note 4—Capital Assets Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2020 was as follows: 2020 2020 Beginning Ending Balance Transfers Increases Decreases Balance GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated Land $22,132,497 $- $- $- $22,132,497 Infrastructure 137,056,914 176,451 341,069 - 137,574,434 Work in Progress 4,448,996 (3,256,006) 3,023,961 41,743 4,175,208 Total Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated 163,638,407 (3,079,555) 3,365,030 41,743 163,882,139 Capital Assets, Being Depreciated Buildings 74,243,556 - 37,446 - 74,281,002 Land Improvements 22,301,426 1,126,933 115,197 - 23,543,556 Leasehold Improvements 77,318 - - - 77,318 Machinery and Equipment 5,072,766 - - 98,752 4,974,014 Autos 11,909,924 257,799 751,410 460,516 12,458,617 Other Assets 9,536,056 1,106,163 272,887 518,027 10,397,079 Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated 123,141,046 2,490,895 1,176,940 1,077,295 125,731,586 Total Capital Assets, Cost 286,779,453 (588,660) 4,541,970 1,119,038 289,613,725 Less Accumulated Depreciation for Buildings 22,537,725 - 2,287,618 - 24,825,343 Land Improvements 10,224,643 - 1,110,529 - 11,335,172 Leasehold Improvements 75,975 - 294 - 76,269 Machinery and Equipment 4,129,567 - 312,742 98,752 4,343,557 Autos 8,566,795 (21,110) 803,877 460,006 8,889,556 Other Assets 6,156,736 - 542,010 476,544 6,222,202 Total Accumulated Depreciation 51,691,441 (21,110) 5,057,070 1,035,302 55,692,099 Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated, Net 71,449,605 2,512,005 (3,880,130) 41,993 70,039,487 Governmental Activities Capital Assets, Net $235,088,012 $(567,550) $(515,100) $83,736 $233,921,626 7373 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements 2020 2020BeginningEnding Balance Transfers Increases Decreases Balance BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated Land $1,065,566 $- $- $- $1,065,566 Work in Progress 2,463,490 - 6,044,810 - 8,508,300 Total Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated 3,529,056 - 6,044,810 - 9,573,866 Capital Assets, Being DepreciatedLand Improvements 165,679 - - - 165,679 Buildings 59,370,999 - - - 59,370,999 Distribution System 202,444,283 567,550 902,938 - 203,914,771 Leasehold Improvements 727,394 - - - 727,394 Machinery and Equipment 6,618,869 - 54,475 30,521 6,642,823 Autos 987,950 21,110 82,090 77,724 1,013,426 Other Assets 141,300 - - - 141,300 Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated 270,456,474 588,660 1,039,503 108,245 271,976,392 Total Capital Assets, Cost 273,985,530 588,660 7,084,313 108,245 281,550,258 Less Accumulated Depreciation forLand Improvements 111,401 - 4,670 - 116,071 Buildings 35,909,470 - 1,362,398 - 37,271,868 Distribution System 114,566,585 - 4,095,137 - 118,661,722 Leasehold Improvements 692,130 - 35,264 - 727,394 Machinery and Equipment 2,992,403 - 280,463 30,521 3,242,345 Autos 850,271 21,110 35,743 77,724 829,400 Other Assets 141,300 - - - 141,300 Total Accumulated Depreciation 155,263,560 21,110 5,813,675 108,245 160,990,100 Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated, Net 115,192,914 567,550 (4,774,172) - 110,986,292 Business-Type Activities Capital Assets, Net $118,721,970 $567,550 $1,270,638 $- $120,560,158 7474 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of the City as follows: Note 5—Notes/Loans Receivable The City has entered into note agreements with Eden Prairie residents to either improve the quality of housing and/or to increase the availability of affordable housing. These note agreements are secured by a secured lien that is placed on the property. The Rehabilitation Assistance notes have a phased repayment plan. If the loan is within 11 years of the loan date, 100% of the principal amount is due. On the 11th anniversary of the loan origination date, 90% of the loan principle is due and declines 10% a year until it is forgiven after 20 years. The Home Buyer notes are interest free and are due either when the home sells or 30 years, whichever occurs first. The City has also entered into a note agreement with Climatech to help fund planned renovations through DEED’s Minnesota Investment Fund. The program required the City to apply for the grant on behalf of Climatech and act as a conduit between DEED and the business. If Climatech meets the job creation and wage commitments, $100,000 of the note principal will be forgiven. The remaining $270,000 will be repaid over 6 years at an interest rate of 2.0%. The City has entered into a $500,000 TIF note agreement with the developer Elevate for site improvement costs to redevelop the vacant Ruby Tuesdays and Anchor Bank. The new six-story building will include 222 apartment units over approximately 13,000 square feet of retail and restaurants. The note will bear simple interest at the rate of 1% per annum. Governmental Activities Administration $320,083 Community Development 39,360 Police 200,742 Fire 314,918 Public Works 287,384 Parks and Recreation 2,810,678 Capital Assets Held by the Government's Internal Service Funds are Charged to the Various Functions Based on their Usage of the Assets 1,083,905 Total Depreciation Expense - Governmental Activities $5,057,070 Business-Type Activities Water $2,900,056 Wastewater 1,677,800 Stormwater 1,162,430 Liquor 73,389 Total Depreciation Expense - Business-Type Activities $5,813,675 7575 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements The interest and principal shall be paid on the earlier of (a) the end of the term of the HUD Mortgage (40 years) or (b) a sale, refinancing or exchange of the Project by the Developer, at which time all principal plus accrued interest shall be paid in a lump sum. Note 6—Interfund Receivables and Payables The composition of due to/from balances as of December 31, 2020, is as follows: The funds will be repaid as special assessment revenue, taxes, grants and other future City planned funding as identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan are received. Interfund payables and receivables are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements to cover deficit cash balances. Notes Project Receivable Home Buyer Assistance Program 198,252$ Rehabilitation Assistance Program 397,268 Climatech DEED 99,093 Elevate 500,000 1,194,613$ Due From Due To Advances To Advances From Other Funds Other Funds Other Funds Other Funds Capital Improvement Maintenance 1,451,651$ -$ 471,511$ -$ Eden Prairie Road - 626,130 - - Eden Prairie Rd Connect to Flying Cloud - 1,647,664 - - General LRT - 668,351 - - Non-Major Governmental Funds 2,262,538 614,874 - - Stormwater Fund - 157,170 - 471,511 Total 3,714,189$ 3,714,189$ 471,511$ 471,511$ 7676 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Note 7—Interfund Transfers The composition of interfund transfers as of December 31, 2020, is as follows: The transfers from the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater funds to the general fund are for general fund services provided. The transfer from the Water fund and Non-Major funds to the Public Improvement Construction was to assist with capital improvements. The transfers from the General fund and Liquor fund to the Capital Improvement fund is for positive performance. The transfer from the General fund to Non-Major funds was to assist with the organized athletics. The transfer from Capital Improvement fund and Shady Oak Road N fund was to assist with capital improvements. Note 8—Pension Plan Defined Benefit Pension Plans Plan Description The City participates in the following cost-sharing multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA’s defined benefit pension plans are established and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 353 and 356. PERA’s defined benefit pension plans are tax qualified plans under Section 401 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code. General Employees Retirement Plan All full-time and certain part-time employees of the City of Eden Prairie are covered by the General Employees Plan. General Employees Plan members belong to the Coordinated Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security. Transfers In Transfers Out Amount General Water 205,734$ Wastewater 144,014 Stormwater 61,720 Public Improvement Construction Water 40,000 Non-Major Governmental Funds 1,680,443 Capital Improvement Maintenance General 4,676,486 Liquor Fund 850,000 Non-Major Governmental Funds General 20,000 Capital Improvement Maintenance 300,000 Shady Oak Road North 1,300,000 Total of transfers 9,278,397$ 7777 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Public Employees Police and Fire Plan The Police and Fire Plan, originally established for police officers and firefighters not covered by a local relief association, now covers all police officers and firefighters hired since 1980. Effective July 1, 1999, the Police and Fire Plan also covers police officers and firefighters belonging to local relief associations that elected to merge with and transfer assets and administration to PERA. Benefits Provided PERA provides retirement, disability, and death benefits. Benefit provisions are established by state statute and can only be modified by the state legislature. Vested terminated employees who are entitled to benefits, but are not receiving them yet, are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. General Employees Plan Benefits General Employees Plan benefits are based on a member’s highest average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for PERA's Coordinated Plan members. Members hired prior to July 1, 1989, receive the higher of Method 1 or Method 2 formulas. Only Method 2 is used for members hired after June 30, 1989. Under Method 1, the accrual rate for Coordinated members is 1.2% for each of the first 10 years of service and 1.7% for each additional year. Under Method 2, the accrual rate for Coordinated members is 1.7% for all years of service. For members hired prior to July 1, 1989 a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal 90 and normal retirement age is 65. For members hired on or after July 1, 1989 normal retirement age is the age for unreduced Social Security benefits capped at 66. Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. Beginning in 2019, the postretirement increase is equal to 50 percent of the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) announced by the SSA, with a minimum increase of at least 1 percent and a maximum of 1.5 percent. Recipients that have been receiving the annuity or benefit for at least a full year as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive the full increase. For recipients receiving the annuity or benefit for at least one month but less than a full year as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive a reduced prorated increase. For members retiring on January 1, 2024, or later, the increase will be delayed until normal retirement age (age 65 if hired prior to July 1, 1989, or age 66 for individuals hired on or after July 1, 1989). Members retiring under Rule of 90 are exempt from the delay to normal retirement. Police and Fire Plan Benefits Benefits for the Police and Fire Plan members first hired after June 30, 2010, but before July 1, 2014, vest on a prorated basis from 50% after five years up to 100% after ten years of credited service. Benefits for Police and Fire Plan members first hired after June 30, 2014, vest on a prorated basis from 50% after ten years up to 100% after twenty years of credited service. The annuity accrual rate is 3% of average salary for each year of service. For Police and Fire Plan members who were first hired prior to July 1, 1989, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal at least 90. 7878 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. Beginning in 2019, the postretirement increase was fixed at 1 percent. Recipients that have been receiving the annuity or benefit for at least 36 months as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive the full increase. For recipients receiving the annuity or benefit for at least 25 months but less than 36 months as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive a reduced prorated increase. Contributions Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. Contribution rates can only be modified by the state legislature. General Employees Plan Contributions Coordinated Plan members were required to contribute 6.50%, of their annual covered salary in fiscal year 2020 and the City was required to contribute 7.50% for Coordinated Plan members. The City’s contributions to the General Employees Fund for the year ended December 31, 2020, were $1,290,562. The City’s contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute. Police and Fire Plan Contributions Police and Fire member’s contribution rates increased from 11.3% of pay to 11.8% and employer rates increased from 16.95% to 17.70% on January 1, 2020. The City’s contributions to the Police and Fire Fund for the year ended December 31, 2020, were $1,464,610. The City’s contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute. Pension Costs General Employees Fund Pension Costs At December 31, 2020, the City reported a liability of $14,520,997 for its proportionate share of the General Employees Fund’s net pension liability. The City’s net pension liability reflected a reduction due to the State of Minnesota’s contribution of $16 million. The State of Minnesota is considered a non-employer contributing entity and the state’s contribution meets the definition of a special funding situation. The State of Minnesota’s proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City totaled $447,832. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2020, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability was based on the City’s contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA’s participating employers. The City’s proportionate share was .2422% at the end of the measurement period and .2365% for the beginning of the period. 7979 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2020, the City recognized pension expense of $596,311 for its proportionate share of the General Employees Plan’s pension expense. Included in the amount, the City recognized $38,975 as pension expense (and grant revenue) for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s contribution of $16 million to the General Employees Plan. At December 31, 2020, the City reported its proportionate share of the General Employees Plan’s deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: The $645,281 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from the City’s contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2021. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Police and Fire Plan Pension Costs At December 31, 2020, the City reported a liability of $9,458,299 for its proportionate share of the Police and Fire Fund’s net pension liability. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2020, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City’s proportion share of the net pension liability was based City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability 14,520,997$ State of Minnesota's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability Associated with the City 447,832 Total 14,968,829$ Deferred Outflow Deferred Inflow of Resources of Resources Differences Between Expected and Actual Economic Experience $129,399 $54,941 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions - 534,725 Net Collective Difference Between Projected and Actual Investment Earnings 219,141 - Changes in Proportion 236,355 336,514 Contributions Paid to PERA Subsequent to the Measurement Date 645,281 - Total $1,230,176 $926,180 Pension Expense Year Ended Dec 31:Amount 2021 $(1,036,855) 2022 (9,618) 2023 354,354 2024 350,834 $(341,285) 8080 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements on the City’s contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA’s participating employers. At June 30, 2020, the City’s proportionate share was .7225% at the end of the measurement period and .7299% for the beginning of the period. The State of Minnesota also contributed $13.5 million to the Police and Fire Fund in the plan fiscal year ended June 30, 2020. The contribution consisted of $4.5 million in direct state aid that does meet the definition of a special funding situation and $9 million in fire state aid that does not meet the definition of a special funding situation. The $4.5 million direct state aid was paid on October 1, 2019. Thereafter, by October 1 of each year, the state will pay $9 million to the Police and Fire Fund until full funding is reached or July 1, 2048, whichever is earlier. The $9 million in fire state aid will continue until the fund is 90% funded, or until the State Patrol Plan (administered by the Minnesota State Retirement System) is 90% funded, whichever occurs later. As a result, the State of Minnesota is included as a non-employer contributing entity in the Police and Fire Retirement Plan Schedule of Employer Allocations and Schedule of Pension Amounts by Employer, Current Reporting Period Only (pension allocation schedules) for the $4.5 million in direct state aid. Police and Fire Plan employers need to recognize their proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s pension expense (and grant revenue) under GASB 68 special funding situation accounting and financial reporting requirements. For the year ended December 31, 2020 the City recognized pension expense of $1,072,599 for its proportionate share of the Police and Fire Plan’s pension expense. Included in this amount, the City recognized $69,031 as pension expense (and grant revenue) for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s contribution of $4.5 million to the Police and Fire Fund. The State of Minnesota is not included as a non-employer contributing entity in the Police and Fire Pension Plan pension allocation schedules for the $9 million in fire state aid. The City also recognized $65,024 for the year ended December 31, 2020 as revenue and an offsetting reduction of net pension liability for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s on-behalf contributions to the Police and Fire Fund. At December 31, 2020, the City reported its proportionate share of the Police and Fire Plan’s deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: 8181 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements The $732,305 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2021. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Actuarial Assumptions The total pension liability in the June 30, 2020, actuarial valuation was determined using an individual entry-age normal actuarial cost method and the following actuarial assumptions: Salary increases were based on a service-related table. Mortality rates for active members, retirees, survivors, and disabilitants for all plans were based on RP 2014 tables for males or females, as appropriate, with slight adjustments to fit PERA’s experience. Cost of living benefit increases after retirement for retirees are assumed to be 1.25% per year for the General Employees Plan and 1% per year for the Police and Fire Plan. Actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2020 valuation were based on the results of actuarial experience studies. The most recent four-year experience study in the General Employees Plan was completed in 2019. The assumption changes were adopted by the Board and become effective with the July 1, 2020 actuarial valuation. The most recent four-year experience study for Police and Fire Deferred Outflow Deferred Inflow of Resources of Resources Differences Between Expected and Actual Economic Experience $425,835 $474,463 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions 3,348,276 6,160,365 Net Collective Difference Between Projected and Actual Investment Earnings 253,012 - Changes in Proportion 2,132 339,733 Contributions Paid to PERA Subsequent to the Measurement Date 732,305 - Total $4,761,560 $6,974,561 Pension Expense Year Ended Dec 31:Amount 2021 (828,545)$ 2022 (2,862,011) 2023 351,755 2024 399,920 2025 (6,425) (2,945,306)$ Inflation 2.5% per year Active Member Payroll Growth 3.25% per year Investment Rate of Return 7.5% 8282 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Plan was completed in 2020. The recommended assumptions for those plans were adopted by the Board and will be effective with the July 1, 2021 actuarial valuation if approved by the Legislature. The following changes in actuarial assumptions and plan provisions occurred in 2020: General Employees Fund Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: • The price inflation assumption was decreased from 2.50% to 2.25%. • The payroll growth assumption was decreased from 3.25% to 3.00%. • Assumed salary increase rates were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019 experience study. The net effect is assumed rates that average 0.25% less than previous rates. • Assumed rates of retirement were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019 experience study. The changes result in more unreduced (normal) retirements and slightly fewer Rule of 90 and early retirements. • Assumed rates of termination were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019 experience study. The new rates are based on service and are generally lower than the previous rates for years 2-5 and slightly higher thereafter. • Assumed rates of disability were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019 experience study. The change results in fewer predicted disability retirements for males and females. • The base mortality table for healthy annuitants and employees was changed from the RP-2014 table to the Pub-2010 General Mortality table, with adjustments. The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from the RP-2014 disabled annuitant mortality table to the PUB-2010 General/Teacher disabled annuitant mortality table, with adjustments. • The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2018 to Scale MP-2019. • The assumed spouse age difference was changed from two years older for females to one year older. • The assumed number of married male new retirees electing the 100% Joint & Survivor option changed from 35% to 45%. The assumed number of married female new retirees electing the 100% Joint & Survivor option changed from 15% to 30%. The corresponding number of married new retirees electing the Life annuity option was adjusted accordingly. Changes in Plan Provisions: • Augmentation for current privatized members was reduced to 2.0% for the period July 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023 and 0.0% after. Augmentation was eliminated for privatizations occurring after June 30, 2020. Police and Fire Fund Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: • The morality projection scale was changed from MP-2018 to MP-2019. 8383 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements The State Board of Investment, which manages the investments of PERA, prepares an analysis of the reasonableness on a regular basis of the long-term expected rate of return using a building-block method in which best-estimate ranges of expected future rates of return are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce an expected long-term rate of return by weighting the expected future rates of return by the target asset allocation percentages. The target allocation and best estimates of geometric real rates of return for each major asset class are summarized in the following table: Asset Class Target Allocation Long-Term Expected Real Rate of Return Domestic Stocks 35.5% 5.10% International Stocks 17.5% 5.30% Bonds (Fixed Income) 20.0% 0.75% Alternative Assets (Private Markets) 25.0% 5.90% Cash 2.0% 0.00% Total 100% Discount Rate The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability in 2020 was 7.5%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions from plan members and employers will be made at rates set in Minnesota Statutes. Based on these assumptions, the fiduciary net position of the General Employees Fund and the Police and Fire Fund were projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability. Pension Liability Sensitivity The following presents the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for all plans it participates in, calculated using the discount rate disclosed in the preceding paragraph, as well as what the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate one percentage point lower or one percentage point higher than the current discount rate: 1% Lower 6.5%23,272,121$ 6.5%18,916,330$ Current discount Rate 7.5%14,520,997$ 7.5%9,458,299$ 1% Higher 8.5%7,302,022$ 8.5%1,633,436$ Sensitivity of Net Pension Liability at Differenct Discount Rate (in thousands) General Employees Fund Police and Fire Fund 8484 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position Detailed information about each pension plan’s fiduciary net position is available in a separately-issued PERA financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. That report may be obtained on the Internet at www.mnpera.org. Defined Contribution Plan Five council members of the City of Eden Prairie are covered by the Defined Contribution Plan, a multiple-employer deferred compensation plan administered by PERA. The Defined Contribution Plan is a tax qualified plan under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and all contributions by or on behalf of employees are tax deferred until time of withdrawal. The defined contribution plan consists of individual accounts paying a lump-sum benefit. Plan benefits depend solely on amounts contributed to the plan plus investment earnings, less administrative expenses; therefore, there is no future liability to the City. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 353D.03, specifies plan provisions, including the employee and employer contribution rates for those qualified personnel who elect to participate. An eligible elected official who decides to participate contributes five percent of salary which is matched by the elected official's employer. Employer contributions for volunteer personnel may be a unit value for each call or period of alert duty. Employees who are paid for their services may elect to make member contributions in an amount not to exceed the employer share. Employer and employee contributions are combined and used to purchase shares in one or more of the seven accounts of the Minnesota Supplemental Investment Fund. For administering the plan, PERA receives two percent of employer contributions and twenty-five hundredths of one percent (0.25 percent) of the assets in each member's account annually. Pension expense for the year is equal to the contributions made. Total contributions made by the City’s during fiscal year 2020 were: Defined Benefit Pension Plans – Volunteer Fire Fighter’s Relief Association Plan Description Firefighters of the City of Eden Prairie are members of the Eden Prairie Firefighter Relief Association. The Association is the administrator of the single-employer defined benefit pension plan available to firefighters. The plan is administered pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 69, Chapter 424A, and the Association’s by-laws. As of December 31, 2019, membership includes 94 active participants, 106 retirees and beneficiaries currently receiving benefits, and 20 terminated employees entitled to benefit but not yet receiving them. The plan issues a stand-alone financial statement. Required Employee Employer Employee Employer Rates 2,998$ 2,998$ 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Amount % of Covered Payroll 8585 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Benefits Provided Authority for payment of pension benefits is established in Minnesota Statutes §69.77 and may be amended only by the Minnesota State Legislature. Each member who is at least 50 years of age, has retired from the Eden Prairie Fire Department, has served at least 10 years of active service with such department before retirement, and, has been a member of the Association in good standing for at least 10 years prior to such retirement, shall be entitled to receive a service pension based on the vested amount of service time accrued. Full vesting occurs at 10 years of service, with no provision for partial vesting. Upon retirement, an irrevocable election for one of the following two plan options must be made. • Monthly Service Pension – Each eligible member electing this plan is entitled to receive a monthly service pension calculated by multiplying $56 times each year that member has been an active firefighter in the Fire Department and member in good standing of the Relief Association, up to a maximum monthly pension of $1,792. • Lump Sum Service Pension – each eligible member electing this plan is entitled to receive a one-time lump sum service pension calculated by multiplying $12,400 times the years of service which the member would be entitled. A member of the Association who has completed 10 or more years of active service with the Fire Department and has been an active member in the Association for at least 10 years, but has not reached age 50, shall have the right to retire from the Fire Department without forfeiting the right to a service pension. The member shall be entitled to a deferred service pension, and upon attaining the age of 50, the Association shall, upon application thereof, pay the member’s pension from the date the application is approved. A member, who is disabled with a fire service related disability, shall be eligible to collect a disability benefit. The member shall be eligible to receive the disability benefit immediately upon approval of the Board of Trustees. The disability benefit amount shall be equal to the service pension amount in effect on the date of the disability for each year of active service. A member must apply for and meet all the requirements for disability as defined in the bylaws in order to receive such benefits. A member currently receiving a disability benefit shall receive all approved increases in the monthly service pension applicable to that member’s number of years of active firefighting service. In the event of the death of an active or deferred member of the Association, the surviving spouse, if any, shall be paid 100% of the lump sum benefit for each year of service. If such member who has no surviving spouse leaves a surviving child or children, such child or children as a group shall be paid 100% of the lump sum benefit for each year of active service. If such member has no spouse and no surviving children but has a designated beneficiary on file, such beneficiary shall be paid 100% of the lump sum benefit for each year of active service. If such member has no spouse, no surviving children, and no designated beneficiary, the member’s estate shall be paid 100% of the lump sum benefit. Such death benefits are payable without regard to minimum or partial vesting requirements. If an active member dies before completing one year of active service, the Association shall pay a death benefit to his or her surviving spouse, surviving children or designated beneficiary on file in the same order and procedure as describe above of $10,000. 8686 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements In the event of the death of a retired member of the Association, the surviving spouse, if any, shall be paid until death or remarriage of the surviving spouse, monthly, two-thirds of the monthly service pension for each year of active service. If such member leave a surviving child or children in the addition to a spouse, such child or children, in the aggregate, shall be paid, monthly, the sum of one-third of the monthly service pension. If such member is survived only by a child or children, such child or children, in the aggregate, shall be paid, monthly, the sum of 100% of the monthly service pension for each year of active service. Minnesota Statutes Section 424A.10 provides for the payment of a supplemental benefit equal to 10% of a regular lump sum distribution up to a maximum of $1,000. The supplemental benefit is in lieu of state income tax exclusion for lump sum distributions and will no longer be available if state tax law is modified to exclude lump sum distributions from state income tax. The Association qualifies for these benefits. Contributions Minnesota Statues Chapter 424A.093 specifies minimum support rates required on an annual basis. The significant actuarial assumptions used to compute the municipal support are the same as those used to compute the accrued pension liability. The minimum contribution from the City of Eden Prairie and state aid is determined as follows: Normal Cost for the Next Year +Amortization of Unfunded Actuarial Liability as Reported in the Latest Actuarial Valuation +Administrative Expenses for the Prior Year Multiplied by a Factor of 1.035 -Anticipated State Aid (Not to Exceed the Fire Aid Received in the Prior Year Multiplied by a Factor of 1.035) -Anticipated Contributions Required by the Association Bylaws from Active Members of the Association =Minimum Municipal Obligation The Plan is funded in part by fire state aid and, if necessary, City contributions. The State of Minnesota distributed to the City $493,363 in fire state aid paid by the City to the Relief Association for the year ended December 31, 2020. Required employer contributions are calculated annually based on statutory provisions. The City’s statutorily-required contribution to the plan for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $184,172. Pension Costs At December 31, 2020, the City reported $1,982,261 for the Association’s net pension asset. The net pension asset was measured as of December 31, 2019, and the total pension asset used to calculate the net pension asset was determined by an actuarial valuation as of January 1, 2020. 8787 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements As a result of its requirement to contribute to the Relief Association, the City recognized fire expense of $288,609 for the year ended December 31, 2020. At December 31, 2020, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources from the following sources: The City contributions to the Association subsequent to the measurement date of $677,535, reported as deferred outflows of resources, will be recognized as an addition of the net pension asset in the year ended December 31, 2021. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to the Association’s pension will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Deferred Deferred Outflow of Inflow of Resources Resources Differences Between Expected and Actual Economic Experience $ - $28,466 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions 82,250 43,340 Net Difference Between Projected and Actual Earnings on Pension Plan Investments - 1,296,603 City Contributions Subsequent to the Measurement Date 677,535 - Total $759,785 $1,368,409 Pension Expense Year Ended Dec 31:Amount 2021 $(284,661) 2022 (411,018) 2023 (44,483) 2024 (545,997) $(1,286,159) 8888 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Actuarial Assumptions The actuarial total pension liability was determined as of December 31, 2019, using the following actuarial assumptions, applied to all periods included in the measurement: The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building-block method in which best-estimates of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class. These asset class estimates are combined to produce the portfolio long-term expected rate of return by weighting the expected future real rates of return by weighting the expected future real rates of return by the current asset allocation percentage (or target allocation, if available) and by adding expected inflation. Best estimates of geometric real and nominal rates of return for each major asset class included in the pension plan's asset allocation are summarized in the following table: Valuation Date 1/1/20 Actuarial Cost Method Entry Age Normal Amortization Method Level Dollar Closed Actuarial Assumptions: Discount Rate 5.50% Investment Rate of Return 5.50% 20-Year Municipal Bond Yield 3.50% Age of Service Retirement Later of Age 50 or 10 years of service Mortality Disability Withdrawal Percent Married 85% Age Difference 3 years Form of Payment Assumed life expectancies were based on the RP-2014 Generational mortality table projected with Improvement Scale MP-2019. 25% of active disabilities are assumed to be in the line of duty or fire service related. Service 0-4 Years:7% Service 5-9 Years:2% Service 10+ Years:8% 50% Annuity (J&S if married), 50% Lump Sum 8989 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Discount Rate The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 5.5%. Assets were projected using expected benefit payments and expected asset returns. Expected benefit payments were discounted by year using expected assets return assumption for years in which the assets were sufficient to pay all benefit payments. Any remaining benefit payments after the trust fund is exhausted are discounted at the municipal bond rate of return. The equivalent single rate is the discount rate. Based on those assumptions, the pension plan's fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Pension Liability Sensitivity The following presents the City of Eden Prairies proportionate share of the net pension liability of the Association, calculated using the discount rate of 5.50%, as well as what the Association’s net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is one percentage point lower (4.50%) or one percentage point higher (6.50%) than the current rate: Plan’s Fiduciary Net Position Detailed information about the Plan’s fiduciary’s net position is available in a separately-issued report. That report may be obtained by writing to Eden Prairie Firefighter’s Association, 14800 Scenic Heights Rd., Eden Prairie, MN 55344 or by calling (952)949-8367. Long-Term Expected Expected Nominal Asset Class Portfolio Weight Rate of Return Cash 3.00%2.00% Fixed Income 36.00%3.50% Equities 49.00%7.40% Other 12.00%5.50% Total Portfolio 100.00%5.50% Selected 1% Decrease Discount Rate 1% Increase Net Pension Liability (Asset)376,456$ (1,982,261)$ (3,936,693)$ Discount Rate 4.50%5.50%6.50% 9090 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Information about the changes in the Plan’s net pension liability (asset) is as follows: 2019 2018 Total Pension Liability Service Cost 485,127$ 498,110$ Interest 1,159,236 1,147,434 Differences Between Expected and Actual Experience (27,803) (29,793) Changes of Assumptions (65,011) 246,754 Changes of Benefit Terms - 338,844 Benefit Payments, Including Member Contribution Refunds (2,326,728) (1,449,720) Net Change in Total Pension Liability (775,179) 751,629 Total Pension Liability - Beginning 21,759,724 21,008,095 Total Pension Liability - Ending (a)20,984,545 21,759,724 Plan Fiduciary Net Position Municipal Contributions 209,316 523,283 State Contributions 476,219 457,741 Net Investment Income 3,828,516 (1,274,855) Benefit Payments (2,326,728) (1,449,720) Administrative Expenses (29,062) (30,772) Other Changes 680 254 Net Change in Fiduciary Net Position 2,158,941 (1,774,069) Fiduciary Net Position - Beginning 20,807,865 22,581,934 Fiduciary Net Position - Ending (b)22,966,806 20,807,865 Association's Net Pension Liability/(Asset) - Ending (a) - (b)(1,982,261)$ 951,859$ General Police Fire Employees Plan and Fire Relief Total Pension Expense 596,311$ 1,072,599$ 1,240,468$ 2,909,378$ Net Pension Asset - - 1,982,261 1,982,261 Net Pension Liability 14,520,997 9,458,299 - 23,979,296 Deferred Outflows 1,230,176 4,761,560 759,785 6,751,521 Deferred Inflows 926,180 6,974,561 1,368,409 9,269,150 9191 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Note 9—Other Post-Employment Benefits Plan Plan Description The City's single-employer defined benefit OPEB plan provides OPEB for all permanent full-time employees of the City. The City’s OPEB Plan is administered by the City. The City does not administer a trust and therefore does not issue a separate report. Benefits Provided All retirees of the City have the option under state law to continue their medical insurance coverage through the City from the time of retirement until the employee reaches the age of eligibility for Medicare. For members of all employee groups, the retiree must pay the full premium to continue coverage for medical and dental insurance. The City is legally required to include any retirees for whom it provides health insurance coverage in the same insurance pool as its active employees, whether the premiums are paid by the City or the retiree. Consequently, participating retirees are considered to receive a secondary benefit known as an “implicit rate subsidy.” This benefit relates to the assumption that the retiree is receiving a more favorable premium rate than they would otherwise be able to obtain if purchasing insurance on their own, due to being included in the same pool with the City’s younger and statistically healthier active employees. Employees Covered by Benefit Terms At January 1, 2020, membership included 15 retirees and others currently receiving benefits, 3 spouse receiving payments and 274 active plan members. Contributions All post-employment benefits are based on contractual agreements with employee groups. These contractual agreements do not include any specific contribution or funding requirements. Total OPEB Liability The City's total OPEB liability was measured as of January 1, 2020, and was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. Actuarial Assumptions The total OPEB liability in the January 1, 2020 actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions, applied to all periods included in the measurement, unless otherwise specified: Inflation 2.5% Salary Increases Service graded table Healthcare cost trend rates 6.5% as of January 1, 2020 grading to 5% over 6 years 9292 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Mortality rates were based on the Pub-2010 Public Retirement Plans Headcount-Weighted Mortality Tables (General, Safety) with MP-2019 Generational Improvement Scale. Discount Rate The discount rate used to measure the total OPEB liability was 2.9%. Since the plan is not funded by a trust, the discount rate is equal to the 20-year Municipal Bond Yield. Since the most recent valuation, the discount rate was changed from 3.8% to 2.9%. Changes in the Total OPEB Liability Sensitivity of the Total OPEB Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate The following presents the total OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City's total OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1% point lower (1.9%) or 1% point higher (3.9%) than the current discount rate: Total OPEB Liability Balances at 12/31/2019 $2,797,269 Changes for the Year: Service Cost 160,108 Interest 109,426 Changes of Assumptions 141,690 Difference between Expected and Actual (209,383) Benefit Payments (156,962) Net Changes 44,879 Balances at 12/31/20 $2,842,148 1% Decrease Discount Rate 1% Increase (1.9)% (2.9)% (3.9)% Total OPEB Liability 3,053,487$ 2,842,148$ 2,644,906$ 9393 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Sensitivity of the Total OPEB Liability to Changes in the Healthcare Cost Trend Rates The following presents the total OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City's total OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using healthcare cost trend rates that are 1% point lower (5.5% decreasing to 4%) or 1% point higher (7.5% decreasing to 6%) than the current healthcare cost trend rates: OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB For the year ended December 31, 2020, the City recognized OPEB expense of $249,509. At December 31, 2020, the City reported deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to OPEB from the following sources: The City’s contributions subsequent to the measurement date of $155,118, reported as deferred outflows of resources, will be recognized as a reduction of the total OPEB liability in the City’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2021. Other amounts reported as deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB will be recognized in OPEB expense as follows: 1% Decrease (5.5% decreasing to 4%) Healthcare Cost Trend Rates (6.5% decreasing to 5% 1% Increase (7.5% decreasing to 6%) Total OPEB Liability 2,566,505$ 2,842,148$ 3,165,793$ Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred Inflows of Resources Contributions Subsequent to the Measurement Date 155,118$ -$ Difference Between Expected and Actual - 183,210 Change in Assumptions 123,978 69,384 Total 279,096$ 252,594$ OPEB Year Ended December 31:Expense 2021 (20,025)$ 2022 (20,025) 2023 (20,025) 2024 (20,025) 2025 (20,025) Thereafter (28,491) (128,616)$ 9494 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Note 10—Leases As Lessee The City has entered into lease agreements for two space leases in connection with its liquor store operations. Rental expense, excluding a prorated share of real estate taxes and common area operating costs, for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $188,196. The following is an annual schedule of future minimum lease payments under these leases. The lease agreement with Prairie Village also includes a percentage rent to the landlord during the term in the amount equal to five percent (5%) of gross sales in excess of three million, five hundred thousand for years 2020-2022 and five percent (5%) of gross sales in excess of four million for years 2023-2028. The City has entered into a four month lease agreement with the Metropolitan Airports Commission for athletic fields. Rental expense for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $1,522. The City has entered into a one year lease agreement with the Metropolitan Airports Commission for community garden plots. Rental expense for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $863. The City has entered into a lease agreement with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the Staring Lake trail right of way. Rental expense for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $520. The City will continue to pay $520 annually until the rental term expires on June 30, 2022. The City has entered into a lease agreement with CAPREF Eden Prairie LLC for office space used on the lower level of Eden Prairie Center. Rental expense for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $4,667. The City will continue to pay $4,667 per year for the remaining lease term which expires March 31, 2024. The City has entered into a five year lease agreement for fire safety equipment. In 2020, the final year of the lease, the City paid $10,895 for automatic external defibrillators, $12,800 for thermal imaging cameras, and $3,428 for gas detectors. Year Ended Prairie Prairie December 31 Village View 2021 88,008$ 102,672$ 2022 96,012 105,237 2023 96,012 107,882 2024 104,016 110,607 2025 104,016 113,332 thereafter 317,390 514,563 805,454$ 1,054,293$ 9595 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements As Lessor The City occupies approximately half of the City Center building. The remaining half was leased to the Eden Prairie Independent School District and United Natural Foods during 2020. The City has a lease agreement with the Eden Prairie Independent School District and received $371,350 of rental revenue for 2020. The City will receive rent annually through May 31, 2024. Annual rent will be $380,415 in 2021; $390,165 in 2022; $399,915 in 2023; $169,340 in 2024. The City also received the School District’s portion of Common Area Maintenance (CAM) for maintenance, insurance and taxes. United Natural Foods (UNFI), formerly SuperValu, started paying a lump sum gross rent on March 1, 2015. The City received $1,575,188 in gross rent for 2020. This gross rent amount is intended to cover both base rent and CAM. The City calculated UNFI’s 2020 CAM (based on the building’s CAM budget and square footage) at $634,727 leaving $940,461 as Rental Revenue. The City will receive Gross Rent annually through June 30, 2022. Gross rent received will be $1,612,034 in 2021, and $819,835 in 2022. The City has entered into a lease agreement with Pure Grace LLC for the rental of space located at the Smith Douglas More House. Rental income for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $17,000. As a result of the Coronavirus pandemic rent was abated April through June 2020. The tenant resumed rent at fifty percent beginning July 2020 and will continue until dining restrictions are lifted. This lease has been extended beyond the current expiration date of December 31, 2027 for a time equal to the abatement period. The City is expected to receive $34,000 annually through 2027. The City also receives additional rent if sales exceed $500,000 through May 2021. The City has entered into a lease agreement with Eden Prairie Montessori for the rental of space located at 8098 Glen Lane. This lease agreement commenced on July 1, 2017 and continues through September 30, 2022. Rental income for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $69,614. Due to the Coronavirus pandemic, forty percent of rent for the months of June, July, and August 2020 were forgiven by the City. In addition, the lease was extended beyond the current term date of June 30, 2022 by three months to September 30, 2022. The City will receive $78,921 in 2021 and $59,779 in 2022. The City has entered into a lease agreement with Nguyen Family Inc dba Lotus Nails Spa for 1,402 square feet of rental space located in the Den Road Liquor store building. Rental income for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $10,749. Rent for the months of March through August 2020 were abated by the City due to the Coronavirus pandemic. Rent resumed at fifty percent beginning September 2020 with the lease extended beyond the current term date for the period of time equal to the abatement. The City will receive rent annually through 2024. Annual rent is expected to be $32,246 from 2021 to 2023 and $10,749 in 2024. The City has entered into a lease agreement with Chuck & Don’s Pet Food & Supplies for 3,379 square feet of rental space located in the Den Road Liquor store building. Rental income for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $84,391. Due to the Coronavirus pandemic, rent for the months of April through June 2020 was reduced by thirty percent with the amount to be paid back in monthly 9696 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements installments in 2021. The City will receive rent annually through January 31, 2029. Annual rent will be $99,061 in 2021, $93,908 in 2022, $95,598 in 2023, $97,287 in 2024, $98,977 in 2025, and $315,796 in years 2026-2029. The City has entered into a one year lease agreement with a tenant for the rental of space located at 9100 Riley Lake Road (the “Riley House”). Rental income for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $7,080. The City has entered into a lease agreement with True Friends, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, for the use of Camp Eden Wood. Base rent received was $1 and covers the entire 20 year lease term from January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2034. The City has entered into a lease agreement with Eden Prairie Historical Society for the use of Cummins-Phipps-Grill House. Base rent received is $1/year and will continue through March 31, 2025. The City has entered into a lease with Eden Prairie Schools for the use of the girls hockey locker room located at the Community Center. This lease commenced on October 1, 2018 and ends on September 30, 2021. The City received $4,356 in rental income for 2020. The City has entered into communication facilities license agreements with AT&T, New Cingular Wireless, Great River Energy, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon for cell antenna equipment placed on City property such as roofs and water tower tanks. In 2020, the City received $360,797 in rental income. Annual rent will be $367,166 in 2021, $383,329 in 2022, $385,284 in 2023, $372,329 in 2024, and $371,214 in 2025. The City has entered into small wireless facility collocation agreements with Verizon Wireless for cellular equipment placed on City property such as light poles and traffic signal poles. For 2020, the City received $4,800 in rental income. These rental agreements will continue until 2026 for which the City will receive $4,800 annually. The assets acquired for these lease agreements are as follows: 2020 2020 Governmental Liquor Activities Fund Asset: Land 2,628,813$ 536,659$ Land Improvements 1,445,223 - Building 12,750,471 2,653,037 Less: Accumulated Depreciation (7,449,533) (1,549,233) Total 9,374,974$ 1,640,463$ Depreciation Expense 356,197$ 73,389$ 9797 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Note 11—Long Term Debt Bonds The City issues general obligation bonds to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities. General obligation bonds have been issued for both governmental and business-type activities. General obligation bonds are direct obligations and pledge the full faith and credit of the City. The City also issues assessment debt with governmental commitment to provide funds for the construction of streets and utilities. These bonds will be repaid from amounts levied against the property owners benefited by this construction. In the event that a deficiency exists because of unpaid or delinquent assessments at the time a debt service payment is due, the City must provide resources to cover the deficiency until other resources are received. Assessment debt with governmental commitment has been issued for governmental activities. The City also issues tax abatement bonds. These bonds and interest thereon are payable from abatements collected from certain property in the City. If abatement revenues are insufficient to meet principal and interest due, the City is required to levy ad valorem taxes without limit as to rate or amount on all taxable property in the City to make up the deficiency. Bonds currently outstanding (in thousands of dollars) are as follows: 9898 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements 2020 Interest Original Amount Maturities Rates Issue Outstanding Governmental Activity General Obligation Bonds G.O. Refunding Bonds 2011C 2021 1.25-2.10% 4,455$ 230$ G.O. Refunding Bonds 2012A 2021 2.00% 5,110 4,925 G.O. Refunding Bonds 2012B 2021 2.00% 3,170 1,930 G.O. Refunding Bonds 2020A 2025 0.85% 6,081 6,081 Assess Debt With Govt Commit G.O. Revolving Bonds of 2012C 2021 2.00% 10,250 1,225 G.O. Bonds of 2016A 2032 2.30-3.00% 2,360 1,715 G.O. Refunding Bonds 2020A 2025 0.85% 1,336 1,336 Tax Abatement Bonds G.O. Tax Abatement Bonds 2014A 2035 2.00-3.75% 17,155 15,000 Total Governmental Activity 49,917 32,442 Business Type Activitiy G.O. Bonds of 2016A 2027 2.30-3.00% 1,580 1,155 G.O. Water Bonds 2019A 2039 2.00-3.00% 4,920 4,730 Total Business Type Activity 6,500 5,885 Capital Lease 2021 1.93% 287 60 Total 56,704$ 38,387$ 9999 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Annual debt service requirements to maturity for governmental activity bonds (in thousands of dollars) are as follows: Years Ending 12/31 Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest 2021 8,275$ 137$ 1,701$ 70$ 910$ 479$ 10,886$ 686$ 2022 1,218 42 488 47 925 451 2,631 540 2023 1,218 31 498 38 920 423 2,636 492 2024 1,216 21 498 29 930 396 2,644 446 2025 1,239 11 376 22 815 369 2,430 402 2026 - - 105 17 850 344 955 361 2027 - - 105 14 865 319 970 333 2028 - - 105 12 885 292 990 304 2029 - - 100 9 1,210 261 1,310 270 2030 - - 100 7 1,025 225 1,125 232 2031 - - 100 4 1,060 188 1,160 192 2032 - - 100 1 1,100 151 1,200 152 2033 - - - - 1,130 110 1,130 110 2034 - - - - 1,165 67 1,165 67 2035 - - - - 1,210 23 1,210 23 Total 13,166$ 242$ 4,276$ 270$ 15,000$ 4,098$ 32,442$ 4,610$ Total Assessment Debt with Govt Commitment G.O.Bonds Improv Bonds Tax Abatement Bonds 100100 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Annual debt service requirements to maturity for business-type activity bonds (in thousands of dollars) are as follows: Years Ending 12/31 Principal Interest Total 2021 340$ 153$ 493$ 2022 350 143 493 2023 365 132 497 2024 375 121 496 2025 385 110 495 2026 395 99 494 2027 410 88 498 2028 235 79 314 2029 245 72 317 2030 250 65 315 2031 260 57 317 2032 265 52 317 2033 270 46 316 2034 275 40 315 2035 280 34 314 2036 285 28 313 2037 295 22 317 2038 300 15 315 2039 305 7 312 Total 5,885$ 1,363$ 7,248$ Revenue Bonds 101101 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Capital Lease In December 2016, the City entered into a new lease for financing the purchase of turn out gear for the Fire department. The lease agreement qualifies as a capital lease for accounting purposes and, therefore, has been recorded at the present value of their future minimum lease payments as of the inception date. The gross amount of equipment acquired under this is $286,942. The future minimum lease obligations and the net present value of these minimum lease payments as of December 31, 2020, were as follows: Changes in Long Term Debt Long-term debt activity for the year ended December 31, 2020, (in thousands of dollars) was as follows: For the governmental activities, the capital lease is generally paid with unassigned fund balances within the General fund. Compensated absences will be paid out of the Internal Service fund. There are a number of limitations and restrictions contained in the various bond indentures. The City is in compliance with all significant limitations and restrictions. Call provisions are applicable to certain general obligation and special assessment bond issues. Year Ended December 31, 2021 60,766$ Less Amount Representing Interest 1,155 Present Value of Net Minimum Lease Payments 59,611$ Due Beginning Ending Within Balance Additions Reductions Balance One Year Governmental Activity G.O. Bonds 8,115$ 6,081$ 1,030$ 13,166$ 8,275$ Assess. Debt With Govt Commit Improvement Bonds 5,975 1,336 3,035 4,276 1,701 Tax Abatement Bonds 15,900 - 900 15,000 910 Issuance Premium/Discount 533 - 120 413 - Total Bonds 30,523 7,417 5,085 32,855 10,886 Compensated Absences 2,108 2,040 1,579 2,569 1,392 Capital Lease 118 - 58 60 60 Total 32,749$ 9,457$ 6,722$ 35,484$ 12,338$ Business Type Activity Revenue Bonds 6,725$ -$ 840$ 5,885$ 340$ Issuance Premium/Discount 236 - 32 204 - Total Bonds 6,961 - 872 6,089 340 Compensated Absences 339 344 308 375 203 Total 7,300$ 344$ 1,180$ 6,464$ 543$ 102102 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements On October 28, 2020, the City issued $7,417,000 of G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2020A. The bonds bear interest at a rate of .85%, and with a maturity in 2025. Of the proceeds, $459,000 provided refunding for the G.O. Revolving Bonds 2010A, $877,000 for the G.O. Revolving Bonds 2011D, $4,408,000 for the G.O. Refunding Bonds 2012A and $1,673,000 for the G.O. Refunding Bonds 2012B. The 2010A and 2011D bonds were refunded in 2020 and the 2012A and 2012B bonds will be refunded in 2021. Future debt service payments will be reduced by $311,386 with a net present value benefit of $311,633. Note 12—Risk Financing and Related Insurance Issues The City is exposed to various risk of loss related to torts; thefts of, damage to and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. In order to protect against these risks of loss, the City purchases commercial insurance through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, a public entity risk pool, for property insurance and workers compensation. This pool currently operates as a common risk management and insurance program for municipal entities. The City pays an annual premium to the League for its insurance coverage. The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust is self-sustaining through commercial companies for excess claims. The City is covered through the pool for any claims incurred but unreported, however, retains risk for the deductible portion of its insurance policies. The amount of these deductibles is considered immaterial to the financial statements. During the year ended December 31, 2020, there were no significant reductions in insurance coverage from the prior year. Settled claims have not exceeded the City’s commercial coverage in any of the past three years. Note 13—Contingencies The City has been named in various legal actions. At the present time, there is no significant litigation pending that would cause a material effect on the financial statements if unfavorable rulings would result. While it is not possible to provide any probability of success or estimate of potential loss in defending any of these legal actions, the City expects to contest the allegations vigorously and does not believe these actions will have a material effect on the financial statements. A potential claim may be asserted against the City arising out of its membership in the Western Area Firing Training Academy (WAFTA). WAFTA is a joint powers entity consisting of 11 member cities that was formed in 1974 to purchase property to be used and operated as a fire training facility. In the late 1980’s, WAFTA became aware that the site was contaminated. Since that time, WAFTA has been working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and other responsible parties Refunding Principal to Issue to be Refunded Date be Refunded 2012A G.O. Refunding Bonds 1/1/2021 4,375,000$ 2012B G.O. Refunding Bonds 1/1/2021 1,660,000 103103 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements to address the contamination issues on the site. At this time, there is not an estimated dollar amount of the cost to remediate the site nor has a claim been asserted against WAFTA or the City. On March 13, 2020, a national emergency was declared for the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States of America. This event affects the economy and financial markets. The extent of the impact on the City may be both direct and indirect and will vary based on the duration of the outbreak and various other factors. An estimate of the financial effect on the City’s financial statements at December 31, 2020, cannot be determined at this time. Note 14—Contract Commitments At December 31, 2020, the City had commitments on various construction projects. These commitments totaled approximately $3,107,497. The breakdown by fund is shown below. Note 15—Conduit Debt Obligations From time to time, the City has issued Industrial Revenue and Housing bonds to provide financial assistance to private-sector entities for the acquisition and construction of industrial and commercial facilities deemed to be in the public interest. The bonds are secured by the property financed and are payable solely from payments received on the underlying mortgage loans. Upon repayment of the bonds, ownership of the acquired facilities transfers to the private-sector entity served by the bond issuance. Neither the City, the State, nor any political subdivision thereof is obligated in any manner for repayment of the bonds. Accordingly, the bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements. As of December 31, 2020, there were 4 series of Housing Bonds outstanding with balances of $20,408,791. Note 16—Tax Abatements The City enters into property tax abatement agreements through the use of tax increment financing districts with local businesses under various Minnesota Statutes. Under these statutes the City annually abates taxes collected above the districts’ base tax capacity which is established during adoption of the tax increment district. These agreements are established to foster economic Fund Total Public Improvement Construction 54,840$ Capital Improvement Maintenance 196,396 Shady Oak Rd North 554,865 Eden Prairie Rd Connect to Flying Cloud 40,076 General LRT 878,628 Other Governmental Funds 210,324 Water 785,261 Wastewater 84,000 Internal Service 303,107 3,107,497$ 104104 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements development and redevelopment through creating jobs, removing blight and providing affordable housing. The City uses Minnesota Statutes 469.001 to 469.047 and 469.174 to 469.179 (The Tax Increment Act) to create these districts. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, the City has two agreements established under Minnesota Statute 469.001 to 469.047 which resulted in property taxes totaling $377,031 being abated. These agreements include: • A pay as you go note to bring a substandard commercial property up to standards. The abatement amount was $99,220 • A pay as you go note to convert substandard property into an office and retail complex. The abatement amounted was $277,811.For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, the City has five agreements established under Minnesota Statute 469.174 to 469.179 (The Tax Increment Act) which resulted in property taxes totaling $1,484,303 being abated. The following agreements each exceeded 10 percent of the total amount abated, during the year: • A pay as you go note to finance the cost of a senior rental housing project that provides housing in part for persons or families with low to moderate income. The abatement amount was $623,854. • A pay as you go note to finance the cost of a rental apartment project that provides housing in part for persons or families with low to moderate income. The abatement amount was $357,879. • A pay as you go note to finance the cost of a senior rental housing project that provides housing in part for persons or families with low to moderate income. The abatement amount was $288,881. • A pay as you go note to finance the cost of a rental housing project that provides housing in part for persons or families with low to moderate income. The abatement amount was $180,504. 105105 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Financial Statements Note 17—Fund Balance Classification At December 31, 2020, a summary of the governmental fund balance classifications are as follows: Note 18—New Standards Issued But Not Yet Implemented GASB Statement No. 87, Leases establishes a single model for lease accounting based on the foundational principle that leases are financings of the right to use an underlying asset. Under this statement, a lessee is required to recognize a lease liability and an intangible right-to-use lease asset, and a lessor is required to recognize a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources, thereby enhancing the relevance and consistency of information about governments’ leasing activities. This statement will be effective for the year ending December 31, 2022. GASB Statement No. 89, Accounting for Interest Cost Incurred Before the End of a Construction Period enhances the relevance and comparability of information about capital assets and the cost of borrowing for a reporting period and simplifies accounting for interest cost incurred before the end of a construction period. This statement will be effective for the year ending December 31, 2021. Public Capital Shady Oak Eden Eden Prairie Rd OtherImprovement Improvement Road Prairie Connect to General Govt General Construction Maintenance North Road Flying Cloud LRT Funds TotalNonspendable: Prepaid Items 94,824$ -$ 51,995$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,322$ 153,141$ Cemetery Perpetual Care - - - - - - - 169,389 169,389 Total Nonspendable 94,824 - 51,995 - - - - 175,711 322,530 Restricted for: Debt Service - - - - - - - 10,303,057 10,303,057Special Assessments - - - 2,511,671 - - - - 2,511,671 Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - - 2,146,160 2,146,160Franchise Fee - - - - - - - 1,917,472 1,917,472 Grants 10,572 - - - - - - 30,446 41,018Cemetary- - - - - - - 96,716 96,716 Police - - - - - - - 644 644Recycling- - - - - - - 10,125 10,125Historical and Cultural - - - - - - - 36,591 36,591 Tax Increment - - - - - - - 3,171,444 3,171,44410,572 - - 2,511,671 - - - 17,712,655 20,234,898 Assigned to: Capital Projects - - 19,716,081 - - - - 6,097,401 25,813,482Improvement Projects - 1,820,360 - - - - - 4,325,133 6,145,493 Total Assigned - 1,820,360 19,716,081 - - - - 10,422,534 31,958,975 Unassigned: Budget Stabilization 7,515,371 - - - - - - - 7,515,371Working Capital 18,662,630 - - - - - - - 18,662,630 Unassigned 19,428 - - - (625,884) (1,680,352) (790,431) (645,296) (3,722,535)Total Unassigned 26,197,429 - - - (625,884) (1,680,352) (790,431) (645,296) 22,455,466 Total Fund Balance 26,302,825$ 1,820,360$ 19,768,076$ 2,511,671$ (625,884)$ (1,680,352)$ (790,431)$ 27,665,604$ 74,971,869$ 106106 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 107107 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Required Supplemental Information Modified Approach for Infrastructure Assets Condition Rating of the City’s Street System: Comparison of Needed-to-Actual Maintenance/Preservation: The condition of road pavement is measured using Good Pointe’s Icon pavement management system. Pavements in the City of Eden Prairie are visually inspected using the Paver-based Pavement Condition Index (PCI) methodology. The methodology is based on a numeric rating system ranging from 100 for a newly surfaced pavement to 0 for a failed pavement. The condition index is used to classify roads in excellent condition (85-100), very good condition (70-84), good condition (55-69), fair condition (40-54), poor condition (25-39), very poor condition (10-24) and failed condition (0-9). It is the City’s policy to maintain an average PCI of 70 percent. Average PCI 2019 84.4% 2016 76.9% 2013 79.7% 2010 81.1% 2007 82.3% 2004 80.4% 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 Budget 2,949,500$ 2,954,500$ 3,372,500$ 2,879,533$ 3,037,533$ Actual 4,154,944 3,154,439 2,700,544 2,802,882 2,284,255 Difference 1,205,444$ 199,939$ (671,956)$ (76,651)$ (753,278)$ 108108 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Required Supplemental Information Other Post-Employment Benefits Plan Schedule of Changes in the City’s Total OPEB Liability and Related Ratios Less than ten years is presented due to information not available. Will add additional years as they become available. Measurement Date January 1, 2020 January 1, 2019 January 1, 2018 Total OPEB Liability Service Cost 160,108$ 135,751$ 143,922$ Interest 109,426 94,001 91,272 Changes in Plan - 7,200 - Difference Between Expected and Actual Experience (209,383) - - Changes of Assumptions 141,690 (92,512) - Benefit Payments (156,962) (118,903) (169,360) Net Change in Total OPEB Liability 44,879 25,537 65,834 Total OPEB Liability - Beginning 2,797,269 2,771,732 2,705,898 Total OPEB Liability - Ending 2,842,148$ 2,797,269$ 2,771,732$ Total OPEB Liability 2,842,148$ 2,797,269$ 2,771,732$ Covered Employee Payroll 22,916,246$ 22,281,528$ 21,632,551$ City's Total OPEB Liability as a Percentage of the Covered Employee Payroll 12.40% 12.55%12.81% 109109 City of Eden Prairie, M innesota Required Supplemental Information Schedule of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability Public Employees General Employees Retirement Fund Last Ten Years* Fiscal Year Ending Employer's Proportion (Percentage) of the Net Pension Liability (Asset) Employer's Proportionate Share (Amount) of the Net Pension Liability (Asset) (a) State's Proportionate Share (Amount) of the Net Pension Liability Associated with the City (b) Employer's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and the State's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability Associated with the City (a+b) Employer's Covered Payroll** (c) Employer's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability (Asset) as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll ((a+b)/c) Plan Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability June 30, 2015 0.2525%13,085,860$ -$ 13,085,860$ 14,836,066$ 88.20%78.2% June 30, 2016 0.2482%20,152,608 263,262 20,415,870 15,161,268 134.66%68.9% June 30, 2017 0.2536%16,189,657 203,595 16,393,252 16,339,119 100.33%75.9% June 30, 2018 0.2419%13,419,620 440,302 13,859,922 16,251,609 85.28%79.5% June 30, 2019 0.2365%13,075,555 406,316 13,481,871 16,728,911 80.59%80.2% June 30, 2020 0.2422%14,520,997 447,832 14,968,829 17,272,920 86.66%79.1% * This schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. **For purposes of this schedule, covered payroll is defined as "pensionable wages." 110110 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Required Supplemental Information Schedule of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability Public Employees Police and Fire Fund Last Ten Years* Fiscal Year Ending Employer's Proportion (Percentage) of the Net Pension Liability (Asset) Employer's Proportionate Share (Amount) of the Net Pension Liability (Asset) (a) State Proportionate Share (Amount) of the Net Pension Liability Associated with the City City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and the State's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability Associated with the City Employer's Covered Payroll** (b) Employer's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability (Asset) as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll (a/b) Plan Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability June 30, 2015 0.7770%8,828,538$ N/A 8,828,538$ 7,116,963$ 124.05%86.6% June 30, 2016 0.7580%30,419,859 N/A 30,419,859 7,302,618 416.56%63.9% June 30, 2017 0.7510%10,139,393 N/A 10,139,393 7,706,718 131.57%85.4% June 30, 2018 0.7296%7,776,785 N/A 7,776,785 7,689,360 101.14%88.8% June 30, 2019 0.7299%7,770,523 N/A 7,770,523 7,702,165 100.89%89.3% June 30, 2020 0.7225%9,458,299 224,377 9,682,676 8,151,644 116.03%87.2% * This schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. **For purposes of this schedule, covered payroll is defined as "pensionable wages." 111111 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Required Supplemental Information Schedule of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability Eden Prairie Fire Relief Last Ten Years* * This schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 . 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Total Pension Liability Service Cost 485,127$ 498,110$ 485,961$ 434,587$ 449,426$ 413,646$ Interest 1,159,236 1,147,434 1,123,468 1,151,849 1,104,701 1,083,202 Differences Between Expected and Actual Experience (27,803) (29,793) - (233,976) - - Changes of Assumptions (65,011) 246,754 - 935,047 - - Changes of Benefit Terms - 338,844 - - - - Benefit Payments, Including Member Contribution Refunds (2,326,728) (1,449,720) (1,084,111) (1,135,264) (1,270,544) (1,027,216) Net Change in Total Pension Liability (775,179) 751,629 525,318 1,152,243 283,583 469,632 Total Pension Liability - Beginning 21,759,724 21,008,095 20,482,777 19,330,534 19,046,951 18,577,319 Total Pension Liability - Ending (a)20,984,545 21,759,724 21,008,095 20,482,777 19,330,534 19,046,951 Plan Fiduciary Net Position Municipal Contributions 209,316 523,283 387,665 388,664 398,395 488,073 State Contributions 476,219 457,741 448,846 448,848 437,948 414,343 Net Investment Income 3,828,516 (1,274,855) 2,776,128 892,090 (393,362) 646,363 Benefit Payments (2,326,728) (1,449,720) (1,084,111) (1,137,136) (1,270,544) (1,027,216) Administrative Expenses (29,062) (30,772) (34,700) (56,576) (26,323) (37,158) Other Changes 680 254 671 4,426 - 81,893 Net Change in Fiduciary Net Position 2,158,941 (1,774,069) 2,494,499 540,316 (853,886) 566,298 Fiduciary Net Position - Beginning 20,807,865 22,581,934 20,087,435 19,547,119 20,401,005 19,834,707 Fiduciary Net Position - Ending (b)22,966,806 20,807,865 22,581,934 20,087,435 19,547,119 20,401,005 Association's Net Pension Liability/(Asset) - Ending (a) - (b)(1,982,261)$ 951,859$ (1,573,839)$ 395,342$ (216,585)$ (1,354,054)$ Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 109.45% 95.63% 107.49% 98.07%101.12%107.11% Covered Payroll N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Net Pension Liability/(Asset) as a Percentage of Covered Payroll N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 112112 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Required Supplemental Information Schedule of Contributions Public Employees General Employees Retirement Fund Last Ten Years* Year Ending Statutorily Required Contributions (a) Contributions in Relation to the Statutorily Required Contributions (b) Contribution Deficiency (Excess) (a-b) Covered Payroll**(d) Contributions as a Percentage of Covered Payroll (b/d) December 31, 2015 1,164,110$ 1,164,110$ -$ 15,528,311$ 7.50% December 31, 2016 1,157,735 1,157,735 - 15,436,692 7.50% December 31, 2017 1,199,292 1,199,292 - 15,990,664 7.50% December 31, 2018 1,231,656 1,231,656 - 16,470,531 7.48% December 31, 2019 1,286,909 1,286,909 - 17,163,209 7.50% December 31, 2020 1,290,562 1,290,562 - 17,207,493 7.50% * This schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. **For purposes of this schedule, covered payroll is defined as "pensionable wages." 113113 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Required Supplemental Information Schedule of Contributions Public Employees Police and Fire Fund Last Ten Years* Year Ending Statutorily Required Contributions (a) Contributions in Relation to the Statutorily Required Contributions (b) Contribution Deficiency (Excess) (a-b) Covered Payroll** (d) Contributions as a Percentage of Covered Payroll (b/d) December 31, 2015 1,215,450$ 1,215,450$ -$ 7,509,128$ 16.2% December 31, 2016 1,188,923 1,188,923 - 7,339,334 16.2% December 31, 2017 1,224,005 1,224,005 - 7,555,723 16.2% December 31, 2018 1,260,639 1,260,639 - 7,780,987 16.2% December 31, 2019 1,342,840 1,342,840 - 7,922,043 16.95% December 31, 2020 1,464,610 1,464,610 - 8,264,270 17.72% * This schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. **For purposes of this schedule, covered payroll is defined as "pensionable wages." 114114 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Required Supplemental Information Schedule of Contributions Eden Prairie Fire Relief Last Ten Years 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 Statutorily Required Contribution 184,172$ 203,986$ 517,955$ 382,336$ 388,664$ Contributions in Relation to the Statutorily Required Contribution (184,172) (203,986) (517,955) (382,336) (388,664) Contribution Deficiency (Excess)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 Statutorily Required Contribution 398,395$ 488,073$ 582,972$ 625,910$ 830,077$ Contributions in Relation to the Statutorily Required Contribution (393,065) (488,073) (582,972) (625,910) (830,077) Contribution Deficiency (Excess)5,330$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 115115 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Required Supplemental Information Notes to Schedules of Changes in Net Pension Liabilities and Related Ratios Other Post-Employment Benefits Plan 2020 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: • The health care trend rates, mortality tables, salary increase rates, and subsidy end date of one officer (age 58 as of the valuation date) injured in the line of duty were updated. • The discount rate was changed from 3.80% to 2.90%. 2019 Changes Changes in Plan Provisions: • Per a special agreement, one retiree received City paid medical and dental premiums for six months during 2019. Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: • The discount rate was changed from 3.30% to 3.80%. General Employees Fund 2020 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: • The price inflation assumption was decreased from 2.50% to 2.25%. • The payroll growth assumption was decreased from 3.25% to 3.00%. • Assumed salary increase rates were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019 experience study. The net effect is assumed rates that average 0.25% less than previous rates. • Assumed rates of retirement were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019 experience study. The changes result in more unreduced (normal) retirements and slightly fewer Rule of 90 and early retirements. • Assumed rates of termination were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019 experience study. The new rates are based on service and are generally lower than the previous rates for years 2-5 and slightly higher thereafter. • Assumed rates of disability were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019 experience study. The change results in fewer predicted disability retirements for males and females. • The base mortality table for healthy annuitants and employees was changed from the RP-2014 table to the Pub-2010 General Mortality table, with adjustments. The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from the RP-2014 disabled annuitant mortality table to the PUB-2010 General/Teacher disabled annuitant mortality table, with adjustments. • The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2018 to Scale MP-2019. • The assumed spouse age difference was changed from two years older for females to one year older. • The assumed number of married male new retirees electing the 100% Joint & Survivor option changed from 35% to 45%. The assumed number of married female new retirees electing the 116116 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Required Supplemental Information 100% Joint & Survivor option changed from 15% to 30%. The corresponding number of married new retirees electing the Life annuity option was adjusted accordingly. Changes in Plan Provisions • Augmentation for current privatized members was reduced to 2.0% for the period July 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023 and 0.0% after. Augmentation was eliminated for privatizations occurring after June 30, 2020. 2019 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: • The morality projection scale was changed from MP-2017 to MP-2018. Changes in Plan Provisions: • The employer supplemental contribution was changed prospectively, decreasing from $31.0 million to $21.0 million per year. The State’s special funding contribution was changed prospectively, requiring $16.0 million due per year through 2031. 2018 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: • The morality projection scale was changed from MP-2015 to MP-2017. • The assumed benefit increase was changed from 1.00 percent per year through 2044 and 2.50 percent per year thereafter to 1.25 percent per year. Changes in Plan Provisions: • The augmentation adjustment in early retirement factors is eliminated over a five-year period starting July 1, 2019, resulting in actuarial equivalence after June 30, 2024. • Interest credited on member contributions decreased from 4.00 percent to 3.00 percent, beginning July 1, 2018. • Deferred augmentation was changed to 0.00 percent, effective January 1, 2019. Augmentation that has already accrued for deferred members will still apply. • Contribution stabilizer provisions were repealed. • Postretirement benefit increases were changed from 1.00 percent per year with a provision to increase to 2.50 percent upon attainment of 90.00 percent funding ratio to 50.00 percent of the Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment, not less than 1.00 percent and not more than 1.50 percent, beginning January 1, 2019. • For retirements on or after January 1, 2024, the first benefit increase is delayed until the retiree reaches normal retirement age; does not apply to Rule of 90 retirees, disability benefit recipients, or survivors. • Actuarial equivalent factors were updated to reflect revised mortality and interest assumptions. 2017 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: • The combined service annuity (CSA) loads were changed from 0.80 percent for active members and 60.00 percent for vested and non-vested deferred members. The revised CSA load are now 0.00 percent for active member liability, 15.00 percent for vested deferred member liability, and 3.00 percent for non-vested deferred member liability. 117117 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Required Supplemental Information • The assumed postretirement benefit increase rate was changed for 1.00 percent per year for all years to 1.00 percent per year through 2044 and 2.50 percent per year thereafter. Changes in Plan Provisions: • The State’s contribution for the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund equals $16,000,000 in 2017 and 2018, and $6,000,000 thereafter. • The Employer Supplemental Contribution for the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund changed from $21,000,000 to $31,000,000 in calendar years 2019 to 2031. The state’s contribution changed from $16,000,000 to $6,000,000 in calendar years 2019 to 2031. 2016 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: • The assumed postretirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.00 percent per year through 2035 and 2.50 percent per year thereafter to 1.00 percent per year for all years. • The assumed investment return was changed from 7.90 percent to 7.50 percent. The single discount rate changed from 7.90 percent to 7.50 percent. • Other assumptions were changed pursuant to the experience study June 30, 2015. The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation were decreased by 0.25 percent to 3.25 percent for payroll growth and 2.50 percent for inflation. Changes in Plan Provisions • There have been no changes since the prior valuation. 2015 Changes: Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: • The assumed postretirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.00 percent per year through 2030 and 2.50 percent per year thereafter to 1.00 percent per year through 2035 and 2.50 percent per year thereafter. Changes in Plan Provisions: • On January 1, 2015, the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund was merged into the General Employees Fund, which increased the total pension liability by $1.1 billion and increase the fiduciary plan net position by $892 million. Upon consolidation, state and employer contributions were revised; the State’s contribution of $6.0 million, which meets the special funding situation definition, was due September 2015. Police and Fire Fund 2020 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions • The morality projection scale was changed from MP-2018 to MP-2019. Changes in Plan Provisions • There have been no changes since the prior valuation. 2019 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions 118118 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Required Supplemental Information • The morality projection scale was changed from MP-2017 to MP-2018. Changes in Plan Provisions • There have been no changes since the prior valuation. 2018 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions • The morality projection scale was changed from MP-2016 to MP-2017. Changes in Plan Provisions • Postretirement benefit increases were changed to 1.00 percent for all years, with no trigger. • An end date of July 1, 2048 was added to the existing $9.0 million state contribution. • New annual state aid will equal $4.5 million in fiscal years 2019 and 2020, and $9.0 million thereafter until the plan reaches 100 percent funding, or July 1, 2048, if earlier. • Member contributions were changed from 10.80 percent to 11.30 percent of pay, effective January 1, 2019 and 11.80 percent of pay, effective January 1, 2020. • Employer contributions were changed from 16.20 percent to 16.95 percent of pay, effective January 1, 2019 and 17.70 percent of pay, effective January 1, 2020. • Interest credited on member contributions decreased from 4.00 percent to 3.00 percent, beginning July 1, 2018. • Deferred augmentation was changed to 0.00 percent, effective January 1, 2019. Augmentation that has already accrued for deferred members will still apply. • Actuarial equivalent factors were updated to reflect revised mortality and interest assumptions. 2017 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions • Assumed salary increases were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2016 experience study. The net effect is proposed rates that average 0.34 percent lower than the previous rates. • Assumed rates of retirement were changed, resulting in fewer retirements. • The combined service annuity (CSA) load was 30.00 percent for vested and non-vested, deferred members. The CSA has been changed to 33.00 percent for vested members and 2.00 percent for non-vested members. • The base mortality table for healthy annuitants was changed from the RP-2000 fully generational table to the RP-2014 fully generational table (with a base year of 2006), with male rates adjusted by a factor of 0.96. The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale AA to Scale MP- 2016. The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from the RP-2000 disabled mortality table to the mortality tables assumed for healthy retirees. • Assumed termination rates were decreased to 3.00 percent for the first three years of service. Rates beyond the select period of three years were adjusted, resulting in more expected terminations overall. • Assumed percentage of married female members was decreased from 65.00 percent to 60.00 percent. • Assumed age difference was changed from separate assumptions for male members (wives assumed to be three years younger) and female members (husbands assumed to be four years older) to the assumption that males are two years older than females. • The assumed percentage of female members electing joint and survivor annuities was increased. 119119 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Required Supplemental Information • The assumed postretirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.00 percent for all years to 1.00 percent per year through 2064 and 2.50 percent thereafter. • The single discount rate was changed from 5.60 percent per annum to 7.50 percent per annum. Changes in Plan Provisions • There have been no changes since the prior valuation. 2016 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions • The assumed postretirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.00 percent per year through 2037 and 2.50 percent per year thereafter to 1.00 percent per year for all future years. • The assumed investment return was changed from 7.90 percent to 7.50 percent. • The single discount rate changed from 7.90 percent to 5.60 percent. • The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation were decreased by 0.25 percent to 3.25 percent for payroll growth and 2.50 percent for inflation. Changes in Plan Provisions • There have been no changes since the prior valuation. 2015 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions • The assumed postretirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.00 percent per year through 2030 and 2.50 percent per year thereafter to 1.00 percent per year through 2037 and 2.50 percent per year thereafter. Changes in Plan Provisions • The postretirement benefit increase to be paid after the attainment of the 90.00 percent funding threshold was changed from inflation up to 2.50 percent, to a fixed rate of 2.50 percent Fire Relief 2019 Changes • The mortality projection scale was updated from MP-2017 to MP-2019 2018 Changes • The lump sum benefit level was increased from $10,000 to $12,400 • The mortality projection scale was updated from MP-2016 to MP-2017 • The termination decrement scale was updated to reflect a recent experience study • The lump sum election rate was changed from 20% to 50% 2017 Changes • No changes since 2016 report 2016 Changes • The base mortality table was updated from the RP-2014 Blue Collar table to the unadjusted RP- 2014 table 120120 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Notes to Required Supplemental Information • The mortality projection scale was updated from MP-2014 to MP-2016 2015 Changes • No changes since 2014 report which was the year of implementation so no further changes to note. 121121 This page is intentionally left blank 122122 COMBINING FUND STATEMENTS 123123 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Nonmajor Governmental Funds Special Revenue Funds Special revenue funds are used to account for and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditures for specified purposes other than debt service or capital projects. Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA Grant) - This fund accounts for monies received under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and other related housing activities. Pleasant Hills Cemetery - This fund accounts for the current operations of the City cemetery including maintenance costs and lot sales. Grant – This fund accounts for monies received from the State. The grant will fund an police officer who will dedicate his time to decreasing DWI’s. Recycling - This fund accounts for monies received from Hennepin County's household waste rebate programs. All dollars received are to be refunded to eligible households within Eden Prairie. Historical and Cultural - This fund accumulates revenue from the sale of a book on Eden Prairie's 100-year history and the sale of old street signs. The book was donated to the City by the Eden Prairie Historical Society, with revenues earmarked for expenditure on the preservation of the history of Eden Prairie. Debt Service Funds Debt service funds are used to account for all financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditures for principal and interest. General Obligation Refunding Bonds 2016A – This fund accounts for the refunding of the G.O. Bonds 2008B which accounted for the accumulation of resources needed to repay bonds issued to finance the construction of streets, lateral utilities, and drainage for the Flying Cloud Drive construction project. The primary sources of repayment on these bonds are special assessments levied on benefited properties. General Obligation Improvement Bonds 10A/20A – This fund is used to account for the accumulation of tax revenues needed to repay bonds issued to pay the construction costs for the Singletree Lane project. G.O. Bonds 10A were refunded with G.O. Bonds 20A. General Obligation Refunding 2011C – This fund accounts for the refunding of the G.O. Park Referendum Bonds which accounted for the accumulation of tax revenues needed to repay bonds issued to finance construction projects for various trails, park improvements and the community center. 124124 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Nonmajor Governmental Funds Debt Service Funds (Continued) General Obligation Refunding 11D/20A – This fund accounts for the refunding of the G.O. Improvement Revolving Bonds which accounted for the accumulation of tax revenues needed to repay bonds issued to finance the construction at 212 and Charleston Road. G.O. Bonds 11D were refunded with G.O. Bonds 20A. General Obligation Refunding 12A/20A – This fund accounts for the refunding of the G.O. Bonds 2005C which accounted for the accumulation of tax revenues needed to repay bonds issued to finance construction projects for various trails, park improvements and the community center. G.O. Bonds 12A were refunded with G.O. Bonds 20A. General Obligation Refunding 12B/20A – This fund accounts for the refunding of the G.O. Bonds 2006B which accounted for the accumulation of tax revenues needed to repay bonds issued to finance construction projects for the new fire station. G.O. Bonds 12B were refunded with G.O. Bonds 20A. General Obligation Improvement Bonds 2012C– This fund is used to account for the accumulation of special assessments needed to repay bonds issued to finance the Shady Oak Road North project. General Obligation Tax Abatement 2014A – This fund accounts for the accumulation of tax revenues needed to repay bonds issued to finance construction of the Aquatics & Fitness Expansion. General Obligation Bonds 2016A – This fund is used to account for the accumulation of special assessments needed to repay bonds issued to finance the West 70th project. Capital Project Funds Capital projects funds are used to account for all financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditures for capital outlay. Police - This fund accounts for all confiscated money, and / or property obtained through drug-related criminal arrests and compliance fines. The funds are earmarked for expenditures on law enforcement operations. E-911 - This fund accounts for monies received from the State of Minnesota to be used for the E-911 emergency system. Senior Board - This fund was established to account for monies received for Senior Awareness Week. 125125 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Nonmajor Governmental Funds Capital Project Funds (Continued) Park Improvement - This fund accounts for the park dedication fees, grants, and other contributions earmarked for expenditure on park acquisition and development. CIP Trails - This fund accounts for the accumulation of resources to be used for capital improvements and maintenance of City trails. CIP Pavement Management - This fund accounts for the accumulation of resources to be used for capital improvements and maintenance of City streets. Economic Development – This fund accounts for money set aside to assist in the redevelopment of the City. Project – This fund accounts for tax increment revenue set aside to assist in the redevelopment of the City. HRA – This fund accounts for the accumulation of resources to be used for economic development projects. Tree Replacement – This fund accounts for tree replacement fees that are collected from permittees who have demonstrated that it is not possible or reasonable to plant all or some of the required replacement trees on site. The revenue will be used for planting of trees and natural enhancements within the City. Transportation - This fund accounts for proceeds of state aid. This revenue is used to finance street improvements. Cable PEG (Public, Educational, and Government) – This fund accounts for the revenues collected from Comcast. These funds will be used for the production of PEG Access programming. Homeowners Improvements Area – This fund accounts for the accumulation of resources to be used for Housing Improvements to the Fairway Woods II Condominiums. SingleTree Lane South – This fund accounts for the accumulation of resources to be used for the streetscaping, lighting and landscaping improvements for the southern half of Singletree Lane. Duck Lake Road Construction – This fund accounts for the accumulation of resources to be used to upgrade existing rural roadway to a 2 lane urban roadway. 126126 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Nonmajor Governmental Funds Permanent Funds Permanent funds are used to account for resources that are restricted to the extent that only earnings, and not principal, may be used for purposes that support the City’s programs that is, for the benefit of the City or its citizens. Cemetery Perpetual Care - This fund was established to account for funds dedicated for cemetery maintenance in accordance with state statutes. 127127 Page 1 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Balance Sheet Nonmajor Governmental Funds December 31, 2020 Pleasant HistoricalHRAHillsGrantandGrantCemeteryFundRecyclingCultural Total ASSETS Cash and Investments $- $50,843 $- $12,707 $36,598 $100,148 Receivables Accounts 270 200 - - - 470 Interest - 136 - - 93 229 Due from Other Governments 34,344 - 36,520 - - 70,864 Unremitted Taxes - - - - - - Deferred Special Assessments - - - - - - Special Deferred Special Assessments - - - - - - Due from Other Funds - 18,591 - - - 18,591 Prepaid Items 130 - - - - 130 Land Held for Resale - - - - - - Notes Receivable - - - - - - Total Assets $34,744 $69,770 $36,520 $12,707 $36,691 $190,432 LIABILITIES Accounts and Contracts Payable $16,061 $38 $- $2,582 $92 $18,773 Salaries Payable 1,770 - 3,295 - - 5,065 Investment Interest Payable - - 1 - - 1 Due to Other Governments 1,100 - - - 8 1,108 Due to Other Funds 15,813 - 2,778 - - 18,591 Unearned Revenue - 350 - - - 350 Total Liabilities 34,744 388 6,074 2,582 100 43,888 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Unavailable Revenue-Loans/Grants/Revenue - - - - - - Unavailable Revenue-Special Assessments - - - - - - Total Deferred Inflows of Resources - - - - - - FUND BALANCES Nonspendable 130 - - - - 130 Restricted - 69,382 30,446 10,125 36,591 146,544 Assigned - - - - - - Unassigned (130) - - - - (130) Total Fund Balance - 69,382 30,446 10,125 36,591 146,544 Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balances $34,744 $69,770 $36,520 $12,707 $36,691 $190,432 Special Revenue 128128 Page 2 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Balance Sheet Nonmajor Governmental Funds December 31, 2020 ASSETS Cash and Investments Receivables Accounts Interest Due from Other Governments Unremitted Taxes Deferred Special Assessments Special Deferred Special Assessments Due from Other Funds Prepaid Items Land Held for Resale Notes ReceivableTotal Assets LIABILITIES Accounts and Contracts PayableSalaries PayableInvestment Interest PayableDue to Other Governments Due to Other Funds Unearned RevenueTotal Liabilities DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCESUnavailable Revenue-Loans/Grants/Revenue Unavailable Revenue-Special Assessments Total Deferred Inflows of Resources FUND BALANCES NonspendableRestrictedAssignedUnassignedTotal Fund Balance Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balances General General General General GeneralObligation Obligation Obligation Obligation ObligationRefundingImprovementRefundingRefundingRefundingBondsBonds Bonds Bonds Bonds 2016A 10A/20A 2011C 11D/20A 12A/20A $430,354 $147,602 $304,513 $569,263 $5,374,801 - - - - - 898 622 632 1,864 3,240 - - - - - - - 1,202 - 4,960 330,000 377,363 - 763,300 - - - - 120,761 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $761,252 $525,587 $306,347 $1,455,188 $5,383,001 $142 $3,975 $425 $1,500 $7,675 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 142 3,975 425 1,500 7,675 - - - - - 330,000 377,363 - 884,061 - 330,000 377,363 - 884,061 - - - - - - 431,110 144,249 305,922 569,627 5,375,326 - - - - - - - - - - 431,110 144,249 305,922 569,627 5,375,326 $761,252 $525,587 $306,347 $1,455,188 $5,383,001 Debt Service 129129 Page 3 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Balance Sheet Nonmajor Governmental Funds December 31, 2020 ASSETS Cash and Investments Receivables Accounts Interest Due from Other Governments Unremitted Taxes Deferred Special Assessments Special Deferred Special Assessments Due from Other Funds Prepaid Items Land Held for Resale Notes ReceivableTotal Assets LIABILITIES Accounts and Contracts PayableSalaries PayableInvestment Interest PayableDue to Other Governments Due to Other Funds Unearned RevenueTotal Liabilities DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCESUnavailable Revenue-Loans/Grants/Revenue Unavailable Revenue-Special Assessments Total Deferred Inflows of Resources FUND BALANCES NonspendableRestrictedAssignedUnassignedTotal Fund Balance Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balances General General GeneralObligationObligationObligation GeneralRefundingImprovementTax Abatement ObligationBonds Bonds Bonds Bonds 12B/20A 2012C 2014A 2016A Total $2,147,586 $5,069 $1,212,652 $102,598 $10,294,438 - - - - - 1,463 - 1,116 46 9,881 - - - - - 2,470 - 11,131 - 19,763 - - - 1,163,155 2,633,818 - - - - 120,761 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $2,151,519 $5,069 $1,224,899 $1,265,799 $13,078,661 $3,300 $425 $425 $142 $18,009 - - - - - - 3,016 - - 3,016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,300 3,441 425 142 21,025 - - - - - - - - 1,163,155 2,754,579 - - - 1,163,155 2,754,579 - - - - - 2,148,219 1,628 1,224,474 102,502 10,303,057 - - - - - - - - - - 2,148,219 1,628 1,224,474 102,502 10,303,057 $2,151,519 $5,069 $1,224,899 $1,265,799 $13,078,661 Debt Service 130130 Page 4 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Balance Sheet Nonmajor Governmental Funds December 31, 2020 ASSETS Cash and Investments Receivables Accounts Interest Due from Other Governments Unremitted Taxes Deferred Special Assessments Special Deferred Special Assessments Due from Other Funds Prepaid Items Land Held for Resale Notes ReceivableTotal Assets LIABILITIES Accounts and Contracts PayableSalaries PayableInvestment Interest PayableDue to Other Governments Due to Other Funds Unearned RevenueTotal Liabilities DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCESUnavailable Revenue-Loans/Grants/Revenue Unavailable Revenue-Special Assessments Total Deferred Inflows of Resources FUND BALANCES NonspendableRestrictedAssignedUnassignedTotal Fund Balance Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balances Senior Park CIPPoliceE-911 Board Improvement Trails $56,485 $68,659 $17,191 $3,062,360 $263,860 1,000 - - - - 138 82 44 7,038 427 - 6,826 - - - - - - - - - - - - 90,001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $57,623 $75,567 $17,235 $3,069,398 $354,288 $11,391 $43 $- $1,485 $1,754 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 434,735 - 11,391 43 - 436,220 1,754 - - - - - - - - - 90,001 - - - - 90,001 - - - - - - 644 - 1,966,989 - 46,232 74,880 17,235 666,189 262,533 - - - - - 46,232 75,524 17,235 2,633,178 262,533 $57,623 $75,567 $17,235 $3,069,398 $354,288 Capital Projects 131131 Page 5 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Balance Sheet Nonmajor Governmental Funds December 31, 2020 ASSETS Cash and Investments Receivables Accounts Interest Due from Other Governments Unremitted Taxes Deferred Special Assessments Special Deferred Special Assessments Due from Other Funds Prepaid Items Land Held for Resale Notes ReceivableTotal Assets LIABILITIES Accounts and Contracts PayableSalaries PayableInvestment Interest PayableDue to Other Governments Due to Other Funds Unearned RevenueTotal Liabilities DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCESUnavailable Revenue-Loans/Grants/Revenue Unavailable Revenue-Special Assessments Total Deferred Inflows of Resources FUND BALANCES NonspendableRestrictedAssignedUnassignedTotal Fund Balance Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balances CIP EconomicPavementDevelopment Project TreeManagementFundFundHRAReplacement $1,747,403 $2,977,586 $3,930,775 $292,610 $178,799 869,636 - - - - 12,268 7,816 9,597 621 372 - - - - - - - - 1,670 - - - - - - - - - - - 531,214 - - - - - - - - - - 784,000 - - - - 99,093 1,095,520 - - $3,160,521 $3,868,495 $5,035,892 $294,901 $179,171 $275,260 $70,507 $- $- $- - - - 5,244 - - - - - - - - 7,375 - - - - - - - - - - - - 275,260 70,507 7,375 5,244 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,717,524 - 3,171,444 - 179,171 1,167,737 3,797,988 1,857,073 289,657 - - - - - - 2,885,261 3,797,988 5,028,517 289,657 179,171 $3,160,521 $3,868,495 $5,035,892 $294,901 $179,171 Capital Projects 132132 Page 6 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Balance Sheet Nonmajor Governmental Funds December 31, 2020 ASSETS Cash and Investments Receivables Accounts Interest Due from Other Governments Unremitted Taxes Deferred Special Assessments Special Deferred Special Assessments Due from Other Funds Prepaid Items Land Held for Resale Notes ReceivableTotal Assets LIABILITIES Accounts and Contracts PayableSalaries PayableInvestment Interest PayableDue to Other Governments Due to Other Funds Unearned RevenueTotal Liabilities DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCESUnavailable Revenue-Loans/Grants/Revenue Unavailable Revenue-Special Assessments Total Deferred Inflows of Resources FUND BALANCES NonspendableRestrictedAssignedUnassignedTotal Fund Balance Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balances Homeowners SingleTreeCableImprovementsLaneTransportationPEGAreaSouth $510,102 $198,209 $- $- - 22,736 - - 5,839 482 - - 15,720 - - - - - - - - - 35,964 - - - - - 1,712,733 - - - - 6,192 - - - - - - - - - - $2,244,394 $227,619 $35,964 $- $- $7,143 $- $10,363 - - - - - - 43 109 - - - - - - 12,497 52,572 - - - - - 7,143 12,540 63,044 15,720 - - - - - 35,964 - 15,720 - 35,964 - - 6,192 - - - 199,948 - - 2,228,674 14,336 - - - - (12,540) (63,044) 2,228,674 220,476 (12,540) (63,044) $2,244,394 $227,619 $35,964 $- Capital Projects 133133 Page 7 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Balance Sheet Nonmajor Governmental Funds December 31, 2020 ASSETS Cash and Investments Receivables Accounts Interest Due from Other Governments Unremitted Taxes Deferred Special Assessments Special Deferred Special Assessments Due from Other Funds Prepaid Items Land Held for Resale Notes ReceivableTotal Assets LIABILITIES Accounts and Contracts PayableSalaries PayableInvestment Interest PayableDue to Other Governments Due to Other Funds Unearned RevenueTotal Liabilities DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCESUnavailable Revenue-Loans/Grants/Revenue Unavailable Revenue-Special Assessments Total Deferred Inflows of Resources FUND BALANCES NonspendableRestrictedAssignedUnassignedTotal Fund Balance Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balances Cemetery TotalDuckPerpetual NonmajorLake Road Care GovernmentalReconstructionTotalFundFunds $- $13,304,039 $196,193 $23,894,818 - 893,372 50 893,892 - 44,724 480 55,314 - 22,546 - 93,410 - 1,670 - 21,433 - 125,965 - 2,759,783 - - - 120,761 - 2,243,947 - 2,262,538 - 6,192 - 6,322 - 784,000 - 784,000 - 1,194,613 - 1,194,613 $- $18,621,068 $196,723 $32,086,884 $38,368 $416,314 $- $453,096 - 5,244 - 10,309 - 152 - 3,169 - 7,375 - 8,483 531,214 596,283 - 614,874 - 434,735 - 435,085 569,582 1,460,103 - 1,525,016 - 15,720 - 15,720 - 125,965 - 2,880,544 - 141,685 - 2,896,264 - 6,192 169,389 175,711 - 7,235,720 27,334 17,712,655 - 10,422,534 - 10,422,534 (569,582) (645,166) - (645,296) (569,582) 17,019,280 196,723 27,665,604 $- $18,621,068 $196,723 $32,086,884 PermanentFundCapital Projects 134134 This page is intentionally left blank 135135 Page 1 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Nonmajor Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Pleasant Historical HRA Hills Grant and Grant Cemetery Fund Recycling Cultural Total REVENUES General Property Taxes $- $- $- $- $- $- Special Assessments - - - - - - Licenses and Permits - - - - - - Intergovernmental Revenue 470,097 - 106,658 98,139 - 674,894 Fines and Forfeits - - - - - - Investment Income - 1,313 - - 857 2,170 Rental - - - - - - Other Fees - 66,025 - - - 66,025 Contributions and Donations - - - - - - Miscellaneous 550 1 - 38 1,097 1,686 Total Revenues 470,647 67,339 106,658 98,177 1,954 744,775 EXPENDITURES Current Community Development 470,647 - - - 546 471,193 Police - - 76,198 - - 76,198 Public Works - - - 98,547 - 98,547 Parks and Recreation - 52,926 - - - 52,926 Interest on Interfund Borrowing - - 14 - - 14 Capital OutlayAdministration - - - - - - Public Works - - - - - - Parks and Recreation - - - - - - Debt ServicePrincipal - - - - - - Interest - - - - - - Fiscal Agent Fees - - - - - - Total Expenditures 470,647 52,926 76,212 98,547 546 698,878 Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures - 14,413 30,446 (370) 1,408 45,897 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Issuance of Debt - - - - - - Payment to Refunded Bond - - - - - - Transfers In - - - - - - Transfers Out - - - - - - Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)- - - - - - Net Change in Fund Balances - 14,413 30,446 (370) 1,408 45,897 Fund Balances (Deficit) - Beginning - 54,969 - 10,495 35,183 100,647 Fund Balances (Deficit) - Ending $- $69,382 $30,446 $10,125 $36,591 $146,544 Special Revenue 136136 Page 2 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Nonmajor Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 REVENUES General Property Taxes Special Assessments Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental RevenueFines and ForfeitsInvestment Income RentalOther FeesContributions and Donations Miscellaneous Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Interest on Interfund Borrowing Capital OutlayAdministrationPublic WorksParks and RecreationDebt ServicePrincipal Interest Fiscal Agent FeesTotal Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Issuance of Debt Payment to Refunded Bond Transfers InTransfers OutTotal Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balances Fund Balances (Deficit) - Beginning Fund Balances (Deficit) - Ending General General General General General Obligation Obligation Obligation Obligation Obligation Refunding Improvement Refunding Refunding Refunding Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds 2016A 10A/20A 2011C 11D/20A 12A/20A $- $- $163,895 $- $676,593 137,503 99,254 - 216,131 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8,366 6,345 4,265 18,590 36,429 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 145,869 105,599 168,160 234,721 713,022 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 110,000 80,000 735,000 160,000 35,000 15,450 20,150 11,812 24,337 115,506 342 7,500 558 7,156 33,825 125,792 107,650 747,370 191,493 184,331 20,077 (2,051) (579,210) 43,228 528,691 - 459,000 - 877,000 4,408,000 - (455,000) - (870,000) - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,000 - 7,000 4,408,000 20,077 1,949 (579,210) 50,228 4,936,691 411,033 142,300 885,132 519,399 438,635 $431,110 $144,249 $305,922 $569,627 $5,375,326 Debt Service 137137 Page 3 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Nonmajor Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 REVENUES General Property Taxes Special Assessments Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental RevenueFines and ForfeitsInvestment Income RentalOther FeesContributions and Donations Miscellaneous Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Interest on Interfund Borrowing Capital OutlayAdministrationPublic WorksParks and RecreationDebt ServicePrincipal Interest Fiscal Agent FeesTotal Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Issuance of Debt Payment to Refunded Bond Transfers InTransfers OutTotal Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balances Fund Balances (Deficit) - Beginning Fund Balances (Deficit) - Ending General General General Obligation Obligation Obligation General Refunding Improvement Tax Abatement Obligation Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds 12B/20A 2012C 2014A 2016A Total $306,886 $- $1,382,966 $- $2,530,340 - - - 156,502 609,390 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15,564 - 10,267 - 99,826 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 322,450 - 1,393,233 156,502 3,239,556 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26,141 - 622 26,763 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 260,000 1,250,000 900,000 110,000 3,640,000 44,706 37,000 505,712 35,910 810,583 13,569 825 825 275 64,875 318,275 1,313,966 1,406,537 146,807 4,542,221 4,175 (1,313,966) (13,304) 9,695 (1,302,665) 1,673,000 - - - 7,417,000 - - - - (1,325,000) - 1,300,000 - - 1,300,000 - - - - - 1,673,000 1,300,000 - - 7,392,000 1,677,175 (13,966) (13,304) 9,695 6,089,335 471,044 15,594 1,237,778 92,807 4,213,722 $2,148,219 $1,628 $1,224,474 $102,502 $10,303,057 Debt Service 138138 Page 4 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Nonmajor Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 REVENUES General Property Taxes Special Assessments Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental RevenueFines and ForfeitsInvestment Income RentalOther FeesContributions and Donations Miscellaneous Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Interest on Interfund Borrowing Capital OutlayAdministrationPublic WorksParks and RecreationDebt ServicePrincipal Interest Fiscal Agent FeesTotal Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Issuance of Debt Payment to Refunded Bond Transfers InTransfers OutTotal Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balances Fund Balances (Deficit) - Beginning Fund Balances (Deficit) - Ending Senior Park CIP Police E-911 Board Improvement Trails $- $- $- $- $- - - - - 21,611 - - - - - - 81,917 - - - 825 - - - - 1,260 779 401 73,740 5,039 - - - - - - - - 908,875 - - - 462 56,410 - 21,318 - - - - 23,403 82,696 863 1,039,025 26,650 - - - - - 23,142 81,273 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 318,652 - - - 168,350 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23,142 81,273 - 168,350 318,652 261 1,423 863 870,675 (292,002) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20,000 300,000 - - - - - - - - 20,000 300,000 261 1,423 863 890,675 7,998 45,971 74,101 16,372 1,742,503 254,535 $46,232 $75,524 $17,235 $2,633,178 $262,533 Capital Projects 139139 Page 5 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Nonmajor Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 REVENUES General Property Taxes Special Assessments Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental RevenueFines and ForfeitsInvestment Income RentalOther FeesContributions and Donations Miscellaneous Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Interest on Interfund Borrowing Capital OutlayAdministrationPublic WorksParks and RecreationDebt ServicePrincipal Interest Fiscal Agent FeesTotal Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Issuance of Debt Payment to Refunded Bond Transfers InTransfers OutTotal Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balances Fund Balances (Deficit) - Beginning Fund Balances (Deficit) - Ending CIP Economic Pavement Development Project Tree Mgmt Fund Fund HRA Replacement $- $- $2,193,637 $198,673 $- - - - - - 3,260,900 - - - - 500,000 - - - - - - - - - 118,042 65,636 87,279 5,704 4,349 - 69,614 - - - - - - - - - - - - 65,563 - 2,490 - - - 3,878,942 137,740 2,280,916 204,377 69,912 - - 1,885,705 186,675 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,276,360 202,999 63,073 - - - - - - 14,345 - 45,315 - - - - 2,481 - - - - - - - - 4,276,360 250,795 1,948,778 186,675 14,345 (397,418) (113,055) 332,138 17,702 55,567 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (1,200,000) - - - - (1,200,000) - - - - (1,597,418) (113,055) 332,138 17,702 55,567 4,482,679 3,911,043 4,696,379 271,955 123,604 $2,885,261 $3,797,988 $5,028,517 $289,657 $179,171 Capital Projects 140140 Page 6 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Nonmajor Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 REVENUES General Property Taxes Special Assessments Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental RevenueFines and ForfeitsInvestment Income RentalOther FeesContributions and Donations Miscellaneous Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Interest on Interfund Borrowing Capital OutlayAdministrationPublic WorksParks and RecreationDebt ServicePrincipal Interest Fiscal Agent FeesTotal Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Issuance of Debt Payment to Refunded Bond Transfers InTransfers OutTotal Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balances Fund Balances (Deficit) - Beginning Fund Balances (Deficit) - Ending Homeowners SingleTree Cable Improvements Lane Transportation PEG Area South $- $- $- $- - - 6,159 - - 93,485 - - - - - - - - - - 44,941 4,248 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44,941 97,733 6,159 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 331 2,748 - 101,303 - - 164,191 - - 1,662 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 164,191 101,303 331 4,410 (119,250) (3,570) 5,828 (4,410) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (119,250) (3,570) 5,828 (4,410) 2,347,924 224,046 (18,368) (58,634) $2,228,674 $220,476 $(12,540) $(63,044) Capital Projects 141141 Page 7 of 7 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Nonmajor Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 REVENUES General Property Taxes Special Assessments Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental RevenueFines and ForfeitsInvestment Income RentalOther FeesContributions and Donations Miscellaneous Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Interest on Interfund Borrowing Capital OutlayAdministrationPublic WorksParks and RecreationDebt ServicePrincipal Interest Fiscal Agent FeesTotal Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Issuance of Debt Payment to Refunded Bond Transfers InTransfers OutTotal Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balances Fund Balances (Deficit) - Beginning Fund Balances (Deficit) - Ending Cemetery Total Duck Lake Perpetual Nonmajor Road Care Governmental Reconstruction Total Fund Funds $- $2,392,310 $- $4,922,650 - 27,770 - 637,160 - 3,354,385 - 3,354,385 - 581,917 - 1,256,811 - 825 - 825 - 411,418 3,560 516,974 - 69,614 - 69,614 - 908,875 13,600 988,500 - 122,435 - 122,435 - 23,808 - 25,494 - 7,893,357 17,160 11,894,848 - 2,072,380 - 2,543,573 - 104,415 - 180,613 - - - 98,547 - - - 52,926 - 3,079 - 29,856 - 101,303 - 101,303 89,139 5,116,076 - 5,116,076 - 182,695 - 182,695 - 45,315 - 3,685,315 - 2,481 - 813,064 - - - 64,875 89,139 7,627,744 - 12,868,843 (89,139) 265,613 17,160 (973,995) - - - 7,417,000 - - - (1,325,000) - 320,000 - 1,620,000 (480,443) (1,680,443) - (1,680,443) (480,443) (1,360,443) - 6,031,557 (569,582) (1,094,830) 17,160 5,057,562 - 18,114,110 179,563 22,608,042 $(569,582) $17,019,280 $196,723 $27,665,604 Permanent FundCapital Projects 142142 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Internal Service Funds Internal Service Funds Internal service funds are used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or agencies of the government and to other government units, on a cost reimbursement basis. Health & Benefits – This fund accounts for the activities pertaining to health, dental, life and disability insurance. This fund also accounts for the employer’s portion of pension, FICA and medicare contributions. Severance – This fund accounts for the payment of unused personal time off for governmental fund employees. Workers Compensation – This fund accounts for the costs associated with workers’ compensation. Revenues are primarily charges to other funds, interest earnings and insurance checks. Expenditures will consist of insurance premiums. Property Insurance – This fund accounts for the costs associated with the City’s property and casualty insurance program. Revenues are primarily charges to other funds and interest earnings. Expenditures will consist of insurance premiums. Facilities – This fund accounts for the costs associated with maintaining city owned buildings. Revenues are primarily charges to other funds and interest earnings. Fleet – These funds account for the costs associated with maintaining and purchasing vehicles and equipment for the City. Revenues are primarily charges to other funds and interest earnings. Information Technology – These funds account for the provision of information technology services including infrastructure and applications. Revenues are primarily charges to other funds and interest earnings. 143143 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Internal Service Funds Combining Statement of Net Position December 31, 2020 Health &Workers PropertyBenefitsSeveranceCompensationInsurance ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Investments $1,588,634 $1,546,078 $322,473 $244,817 Receivables Accounts 2,334 - - - Interest 3,974 3,905 840 675 Due From Other Governments 9,825 - - - Inventory - - - - Prepaid Items - - 96,936 118,342 Total Current Assets 1,604,767 1,549,983 420,249 363,834 Noncurrent Assets: Capital Assets Property, Plant and Equipment - - - - Less Accumulated Depreciation - - - - Total Noncurrent Assets - - - - Total Assets 1,604,767 1,549,983 420,249 363,834 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Other Post Employment Benefits 249,360 - 32 32 Total Deferred Outflows of Resources 249,360 - 32 32 Total Assets and Deferred Outflows of Resources $1,854,127 $1,549,983 $420,281 $363,866 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts Payable $36,951 $- $- $- Salaries Payable - - 1,391 1,390 Due to Other Governments 186,358 - - - Unearned Revenue - - - - Current Portion of Compensated Absences - 1,391,561 - - Total Current Liabilities 223,309 1,391,561 1,391 1,390 Noncurrent Liabilities: Total OPEB Liability 2,556,828 - 567 568 Compensated Absences - 1,177,353 - - Total Noncurrent Liabilities 2,556,828 1,177,353 567 568 Total Liabilities 2,780,137 2,568,914 1,958 1,958 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES OPEB 224,789 - 17 17 Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 224,789 - 17 17 Total Liabilities and Deferred Inflows of Resources 3,004,926 2,568,914 1,975 1,975 NET POSITIONNet Investment in Capital Assets - - - - Unrestricted (1,150,799) (1,018,931) 418,306 361,891 Total Net Position (1,150,799) (1,018,931) 418,306 361,891 Total Liabilities and Deferred Inflows of Resources $1,854,127 $1,549,983 $420,281 $363,866 and Net Position 144144 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Internal Service Funds Combining Statement of Net Position December 31, 2020 ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Investments Receivables Accounts Interest Due From Other Governments Inventory Prepaid Items Total Current Assets Noncurrent Assets: Capital Assets Property, Plant and Equipment Less Accumulated Depreciation Total Noncurrent Assets Total Assets DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Other Post Employment BenefitsTotal Deferred Outflows of Resources Total Assets and Deferred Outflows of Resources LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts Payable Salaries Payable Due to Other Governments Unearned Revenue Current Portion of Compensated Absences Total Current Liabilities Noncurrent Liabilities: Total OPEB Liability Compensated Absences Total Noncurrent Liabilities Total Liabilities DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES OPEBTotal Deferred Inflows of Resources Total Liabilities and Deferred Inflows of Resources NET POSITION Net Investment in Capital Assets Unrestricted Total Net Position Total Liabilities and Deferred Inflows of Resources and Net Position InformationFacilitiesFleetTechnology Total $3,951,104 $4,187,765 $1,213,544 $13,054,415 813 2,149 - 5,296 8,329 10,423 2,741 30,887 812 - - 10,637 - 126,775 - 126,775 - 1,500 183,260 400,038 3,961,058 4,328,612 1,399,545 13,628,048 3,392,018 8,875,878 652,099 12,919,995 (1,104,909) (5,788,556) (444,240) (7,337,705) 2,287,109 3,087,322 207,859 5,582,290 6,248,167 7,415,934 1,607,404 19,210,338 3,029 3,407 1,294 257,154 3,029 3,407 1,294 257,154 $6,251,196 $7,419,341 $1,608,698 $19,467,492 $424,646 $67,478 $19,296 $548,371 24,832 21,122 20,167 68,902 - 2,101 1,710 190,169 63,284 - - 63,284 - - - 1,391,561 512,762 90,701 41,173 2,262,287 31,034 35,298 10,029 2,634,324 - - - 1,177,353 31,034 35,298 10,029 3,811,677 543,796 125,999 51,202 6,073,964 2,732 3,053 1,331 231,939 2,732 3,053 1,331 231,939 546,528 129,052 52,533 6,305,903 2,287,109 3,087,322 207,859 5,582,290 3,417,559 4,202,967 1,348,306 7,579,299 5,704,668 7,290,289 1,556,165 13,161,589 $6,251,196 $7,419,341 $1,608,698 $19,467,492 145145 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Internal Service Funds Combining Statement of Revenues Expenses and Changes in Net Position For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Health &Workers PropertyBenefitsSeveranceCompensationInsurance OPERATING REVENUE Charges for Services $6,066,479 $170,632 $642,185 $711,068 Rental - - - - Total Operating Revenues 6,066,479 170,632 642,185 711,068 OPERATING EXPENSE Personnel Services 5,961,212 528,620 43,626 43,626 Supplies Supplies - - - - Cleaning Supplies - - - - Motor Fuel - - - - Tires - - - - Repair and Maintenance Supplies - - - - Contractual Services Contractual Services 19,635 - 597,621 623,681 Software - - - - Janitorial Services - - - - Licenses, Permits, Taxes - - - - Repair and Maintenance - - - - Utilities - - - - User Charges - - - - Capital Under $25,000 - - - - Total Operating Expenses 5,980,847 528,620 641,247 667,307 Operating Income (Loss) Before Depreciation 85,632 (357,988) 938 43,761 Depreciation - - - - Operating Income (Loss) Before Nonoperating Revenue / Expense 85,632 (357,988) 938 43,761 NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSE) Investment Income 39,606 36,227 8,059 6,979 Gain/(Loss) on Disposition of Capital Assets - - - - Miscellaneous 8,486 - 12,060 - Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses)48,092 36,227 20,119 6,979 Change in Net Position 133,724 (321,761) 21,057 50,740 Net Position - Beginning (1,284,523) (697,170) 397,249 311,151 Net Position - Ending $(1,150,799) $(1,018,931) $418,306 $361,891 146146 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Internal Service Funds Combining Statement of Revenues Expenses and Changes in Net Position For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 OPERATING REVENUE Charges for Services Rental Total Operating Revenues OPERATING EXPENSE Personnel Services Supplies Supplies Cleaning Supplies Motor Fuel Tires Repair and Maintenance Supplies Contractual Services Contractual Services Software Janitorial Services Licenses, Permits, Taxes Repair and Maintenance Utilities User Charges Capital Under $25,000 Total Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) Before Depreciation Depreciation Operating Income (Loss) Before Nonoperating Revenue / Expense NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSE) Investment IncomeGain/(Loss) on Disposition of Capital Assets Miscellaneous Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) Change in Net Position Net Position - Beginning Net Position - Ending InformationFacilitiesFleetTechnology Total $5,430,867 $2,683,934 $2,777,866 $18,483,031 871,255 - - 871,255 6,302,122 2,683,934 2,777,866 19,354,286 998,375 621,790 708,847 8,906,096 5,093 51,979 11,723 68,795 169,694 - - 169,694 7,049 298,126 - 305,175 - 58,134 - 58,134 305,686 275,446 - 581,132 1,299,219 7,081 87,806 2,635,043 - - 1,329,059 1,329,059 713,873 - - 713,873 194,155 3,542 - 197,697 - 189,130 - 189,130 1,230,558 4,015 168,472 1,403,045 17,420 - - 17,420 207,443 27,811 299,116 534,370 5,148,565 1,537,054 2,605,023 17,108,663 1,153,557 1,146,880 172,843 2,245,623 91,510 902,538 89,857 1,083,905 1,062,047 244,342 82,986 1,161,718 83,190 96,396 25,058 295,515 - 194,665 - 194,665 69,946 7,072 8,360 105,924 153,136 298,133 33,418 596,104 1,215,183 542,475 116,404 1,757,822 4,489,485 6,747,814 1,439,761 11,403,767 $5,704,668 $7,290,289 $1,556,165 $13,161,589 147147 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Internal Service Funds Combining Statement of Cash Flows For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Health &Workers Property Benefits Severance Compensation Insurance CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Receipts From Customers $6,072,589 $170,632 $642,185 $711,068 Payments to Vendors (53,640) - (602,948) (623,303) Payments to Employees (5,569,063) (67,259) (42,581) (42,582) Other Receipts 8,486 - 12,060 - Net Cash Provided (Used) By Operating Activities 458,372 103,373 8,716 45,183 CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Investment Income 39,141 36,866 8,085 6,797 Net Cash Provided (Used) By Investing Activities 39,141 36,866 8,085 6,797 CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITESAcquisition and Construction of Capital Assets - - - - Proceeds From Sale of Equipment - - - - Net Cash Provided (Used) By Capital and Related Financing Activities - - - - Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents 497,513 140,239 16,801 51,980 Cash and Cash Equivalents, January 1 1,091,121 1,405,839 305,672 192,837 Cash and Cash Equivalents, December 31 $1,588,634 $1,546,078 $322,473 $244,817 148148 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Internal Service Funds Combining Statement of Cash Flows For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Receipts From Customers Payments to VendorsPayments to Employees Other ReceiptsNet Cash Provided (Used) By Operating Activities CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Investment Income Net Cash Provided (Used) By Investing Activities CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITESAcquisition and Construction of Capital Assets Proceeds From Sale of EquipmentNet Cash Provided (Used) By Capital and Related Financing Activities Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents Cash and Cash Equivalents, January 1 Cash and Cash Equivalents, December 31 Page 1 of 2 Information Facilities Fleet Technology Total $5,440,233 $2,738,455 $2,774,866 $18,550,028 (4,137,301) (996,454) (1,940,421) (8,354,067) (995,817) (610,662) (702,867) (8,030,831) 941,201 7,072 8,360 977,179 1,248,316 1,138,411 139,938 3,142,309 82,135 98,220 25,656 296,900 82,135 98,220 25,656 296,900 - (1,149,920) - (1,149,920) - 194,665 - 194,665 - (955,255) - (955,255) 1,330,451 281,376 165,594 2,483,954 2,620,653 3,906,389 1,047,950 10,570,461 $3,951,104 $4,187,765 $1,213,544 $13,054,415 149149 Internal Service Funds Combining Statement of Cash Flows For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Health &Workers Property Benefits Severance Compensation Insurance RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) TO NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Operating Income (Loss)$85,632 $(357,988) $938 $43,761 Adjustments to Reconcile Operating Income (Loss) to Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities:Depreciation - - - - Miscellaneous 8,486 - 12,060 - (Increase) Decrease in Assets: Accounts Receivable 6,110 - - - Due From Other Governments (220) - - - Inventory - - - - Prepaid Items 308,592 - (5,327) 378 Other Post Employment Benefits (108,119) - - - Increase (Decrease) in Liabilities: Accounts Payable (2,043) - - - Salaries Payable - - 1,045 1,044 Unearned Revenue - - - - Due to Other Governments (31,742) - - - Other Post Employment Benefits 191,676 - - - Compensated Absences - 461,361 - - Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities $458,372 $103,373 $8,716 $45,183 150150 Internal Service Funds Combining Statement of Cash Flows For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) TO NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Operating Income (Loss) Adjustments to Reconcile Operating Income (Loss) to Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities:Depreciation Miscellaneous(Increase) Decrease in Assets: Accounts Receivable Due From Other GovernmentsInventory Prepaid Items Other Post Employment BenefitsIncrease (Decrease) in Liabilities: Accounts PayableSalaries PayableUnearned Revenue Due to Other GovernmentsOther Post Employment BenefitsCompensated Absences Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities Page 2 of 2 Information Facilities Fleet Technology Total $1,062,047 $244,342 $82,986 $1,161,718 91,510 902,538 89,857 1,083,905 69,946 7,072 8,360 105,924 4,480 54,521 - 65,111 (812) - - (1,032) - (22,094) - (22,094) 360 1,000 (25,581) 279,422 (1,315) (1,456) (746) (111,636) 13,341 (60,660) (20,127) (69,489) 1,543 10,002 5,403 19,037 4,886 - (3,000) 1,886 - 564 1,463 (29,715) 2,330 2,582 1,323 197,911 - - - 461,361 $1,248,316 $1,138,411 $139,938 $3,142,309 151151 This page is intentionally left blank 152152 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Custodial Funds Custodial Funds Custodial funds are used to account for assets held by the government as an agent for individuals, private organizations, other governments, or other funds. Escrow - This fund is used to account for evidence held by the Police Department. WAFTA – This fund accounts for the collection and remittance of expenses pertaining to the fire training facility owned by 11 member cities. MCES - This fund accounts for the collection and remittance of sewer availability charges to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. 494 Corridor Commission – This fund accounts for the collection and remittance of expenses pertaining to the policy work and employer and commuter outreach performed by staff of the I-494 Corridor Commission. The Commission is funded by member cities, a federal Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality grant, and a state grant. 153153 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Fiduciary Funds Statement of Fiduciary Net Position December 31, 2020 Custodial Escrow 494 Funds Fund WAFTA MCES Corridor Total ASSETS Cash and Investments $11,164 $287,047 $14,910 $115,497 $428,618 Due from Other Governments - - - 101,513 101,513 Prepaid Expenses - 929 - 6,985 7,914 Total Assets 11,164 287,976 14,910 223,995 538,045 LIABILITIES Accounts Payable - 153 - 6,843 6,996 Due to Other Governments - - 14,910 - 14,910 Unearned Revenue - - - 3,000 3,000 Total Liabilities - 153 14,910 9,843 24,906 NET POSITION Restricted For: Police Evidence Cash 11,164 - - - 11,164 Western Area Fire Training Costs - 287,823 - - 287,823 I-494 Corridor Commission Costs - - - 214,152 214,152 $11,164 $287,823 $- $214,152 $513,139 154154 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Fiduciary Funds Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Custodial 494 Funds Escrow WAFTA MCES Corridor Total ADDITIONS Grants $- $- $- $320,968 $320,968 Memberships - 22,000 - 147,897 169,897 Investments Earnings - 1,386 - 1,088 2,474 Building Permits - - 680,890 - 680,890 Customers Deposits 230 - - - 230 Other - - - 1,722 1,722 Total Additions 230 23,386 680,890 471,675 1,176,181 DEDUCTIONS Personnel Services - - - 338,351 338,351 Supplies - - - 30,756 30,756 Contractual Services - 1,087 680,890 145,090 827,067 Total Deductions - 1,087 680,890 514,197 1,196,174 Net Increase (Decrease) in Fiduciary Net Position 230 22,299 - (42,522)(19,993) Net Position - Beginning 10,934 265,524 - 256,674 533,132 Net Position - Ending $11,164 $287,823 $- $214,152 $513,139 155155 This page is intentionally left blank 156156 STATISTICAL SECTION 157157 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Statistical Section (Unaudited) This part of the City of Eden Prairie’s comprehensive annual financial report presents detailed information as a context for understanding this year’s financial statements, note disclosures, and supplementary information. This information has not been audited by the independent auditor. Contents Page Financial Trends ..................................................................................................................................................... 159-164 These tables contain trend information that may assist the reader in assessing the City’s current financial performance by placing it in historical perspective. Revenue Capacity ................................................................................................................................................... 165-168 These tables contain information that may assist the reader in assessing the viability of the City’s most significant “own-source” revenue, the property tax. Debt Capacity .......................................................................................................................................................... 169-172 These tables present information that may assist the reader in analyzing the affordability of the City’s current levels of outstanding debt and the City’s ability to issue additional debt in the future. Demographic and Economic Information ..................................................................................................... 173-174 These tables offer economic and demographic indicators that are commonly used for financial analysis and that can increase one’s understanding of the City’s present and ongoing financial status. Operating Information ......................................................................................................................................... 175-177 These tables contain service and infrastructure indicators that can increase one’s understanding of how the information in the City’s financial statements relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs. Source: Unless otherwise noted, the information in these tables is derived from the comprehensive annual financial reports for the relevant year. 158158 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Government-wide Net Position by Category (accrual basis of accounting) Last Ten Years 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES Net Investment in Capital Assets $178,022,468 $182,115,707 $177,981,232 $181,975,764 $189,217,647 $191,675,648 $195,150,960 $198,061,704 $204,564,164 207,181,863 Restricted 9,190,791 7,324,699 6,175,774 13,773,554 23,112,719 26,405,621 23,186,863 28,343,449 20,531,807 18,319,451 Unrestricted 48,843,723 55,746,593 57,276,140 60,341,383 31,911,221 21,694,457 29,707,881 29,069,260 33,229,904 44,514,934 Governmental Activities Net Position 236,056,982 245,186,999 241,433,146 256,090,701 244,241,587 239,775,726 248,045,704 255,474,413 258,325,875 270,016,248 BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES Net Investment in Capital Assets 138,397,769 134,140,863 132,801,426 131,144,305 128,130,738 125,479,624 121,073,703 116,820,164 114,243,631 120,560,158 Unrestricted 9,452,826 12,357,974 15,634,317 14,438,525 14,792,266 16,155,406 19,142,578 22,590,071 25,296,848 22,267,651 Business-Type Activities Net Position 147,850,595 146,498,837 148,435,743 145,582,830 142,923,004 141,635,030 140,216,281 139,410,235 139,540,479 142,827,809 PRIMARY GOVERNMENT Net Investment in Capital Assets 316,420,237 316,256,570 310,782,658 313,120,069 317,348,385 317,155,272 316,224,663 314,881,868 318,807,795 327,742,021 Restricted 9,190,791 7,324,699 6,175,774 13,773,554 23,112,719 26,405,621 23,186,863 28,343,449 20,531,807 18,319,451 Unrestricted 58,296,549 68,104,567 72,910,457 74,759,133 46,703,487 37,849,863 48,850,459 51,659,331 58,526,752 66,782,585 Primary Government Net Position $383,907,577 $391,685,836 $389,868,889 $401,652,756 $387,164,591 $381,410,756 $388,261,985 $394,884,648 $397,866,354 412,844,057 159159 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Changes in Net Position-Total (accrual basis of accounting) Last Ten Years Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 EXPENSES Governmental Activities $45,294,566 $49,206,494 $58,843,210 $57,169,862 $65,402,641 $63,294,429 $60,402,652 $59,821,696 $67,623,543 $60,556,153 Business-type Activities 27,530,501 29,553,823 29,692,124 29,820,423 27,924,045 30,170,309 28,922,085 30,324,121 30,033,843 30,124,648 Total Expenses 72,825,067 78,760,317 88,535,334 86,990,285 93,326,686 93,464,738 89,324,737 90,145,817 97,657,386 90,680,801 PROGRAM REVENUES Governmental Activities 14,786,027 20,610,978 16,622,065 33,865,654 31,911,922 18,955,697 19,086,961 23,707,803 26,795,160 26,013,884 Business-type Activities 25,863,662 29,336,671 32,870,365 28,335,144 27,330,069 29,392,647 28,144,288 30,391,136 29,543,322 33,416,255 Total Program Revenues 40,649,689 49,947,649 49,492,430 62,200,798 59,241,991 48,348,344 47,231,249 54,098,939 56,338,482 59,430,139 Net (Expense) Revenue (32,175,378) (28,812,668) (39,042,904) (24,789,487) (34,084,695) (45,116,394) (42,093,488) (36,046,878) (41,318,904) (31,250,662) GENERAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS Governmental Activities 36,853,851 37,725,533 38,467,292 37,961,763 37,694,597 39,872,871 41,618,266 43,542,602 43,679,845 46,232,642 Business-type Activities (1,230,687) (1,134,606) (1,241,335) (1,367,634) 336,534 (510,312) (640,952) (873,061) 620,765 (4,277) Total General Revenues and Transfers 35,623,164 36,590,927 37,225,957 36,594,129 38,031,131 39,362,559 40,977,314 42,669,541 44,300,610 46,228,365 Change in Net Position $3,447,786 $7,778,259 $(1,816,947) $11,804,642 $3,946,436 $(5,753,835) $(1,116,174) $6,622,663 $2,981,706 $14,977,703 160160 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Changes in Net Position-Governmental Activities (accrual basis of accounting) Last Ten Years SOURCES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 EXPENSES General Government $9,263,991 $- $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Administration - 4,008,338 5,854,425 4,921,044 5,579,070 5,003,957 4,611,732 5,092,886 4,827,249 5,554,966 Community Development - 6,251,288 5,678,694 5,368,762 7,730,338 5,692,215 6,222,326 4,942,029 4,771,490 4,767,416 Public Safety 17,538,536 - - - - - - - - - Police - 12,413,470 12,846,206 13,534,150 14,118,565 17,793,494 15,769,976 14,365,502 15,021,975 15,189,099 Fire - 5,646,926 5,724,342 6,093,772 6,324,124 7,542,196 6,896,697 6,406,404 7,191,071 6,131,926 Public Works 7,665,875 8,226,283 16,288,862 13,321,459 17,652,163 11,035,229 10,616,604 10,098,667 19,518,141 14,981,533 Parks and Recreation 9,617,076 10,815,390 11,113,811 12,947,006 12,862,402 15,133,618 15,274,479 18,008,795 15,458,406 13,135,532 Interest on Long Term Debt 1,209,088 1,844,799 1,336,870 983,669 1,135,979 1,093,720 1,010,838 907,413 835,211 795,681 Total Expenses 45,294,566 49,206,494 58,843,210 57,169,862 65,402,641 63,294,429 60,402,652 59,821,696 67,623,543 60,556,153 PROGRAM REVENUES Charges for Services General Government 966,931 - - - - - - - - - Administration - 1,695,035 1,176,919 1,314,271 1,132,606 1,442,068 1,173,177 1,079,151 1,052,388 982,079 Community Development - 154,858 122,263 73,929 93,195 152,708 127,248 161,918 180,443 142,353 Public Safety 3,264,191 - - - - - - - - - Police - 1,338,079 1,223,836 1,130,020 1,063,129 1,131,502 1,039,936 1,115,447 1,103,269 847,564 Fire - 3,450,431 4,236,114 3,502,952 2,571,830 2,315,725 2,240,351 3,505,901 3,580,095 3,609,503 Public Works 322,561 518,365 497,720 411,144 975,701 330,709 218,292 274,679 1,070,746 329,277 Parks and Recreation 4,327,323 4,759,919 5,005,917 5,187,195 5,229,060 5,513,331 6,091,247 5,854,094 6,004,835 2,445,386 Operating Grants and Contributions 1,435,321 1,567,265 1,459,859 1,741,945 1,818,333 1,614,263 1,707,453 2,457,482 2,461,663 7,376,216 Capital Grants and Contributions 4,469,700 7,127,026 2,899,437 20,504,198 19,028,068 6,455,391 6,489,257 9,259,131 11,341,721 10,281,506 Total Program Revenues 14,786,027 20,610,978 16,622,065 33,865,654 31,911,922 18,955,697 19,086,961 23,707,803 26,795,160 26,013,884 Net (Expense) Revenue (30,508,539) (28,595,516) (42,221,145) (23,304,208) (33,490,719) (44,338,732) (41,315,691) (36,113,893) (40,828,383) (34,542,269) GENERAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS Taxes Property Taxes 31,310,140 32,144,443 32,674,010 32,781,740 33,708,909 34,217,549 35,405,930 37,338,583 38,203,969 39,864,882 Tax Increment 3,139,080 3,353,556 3,535,459 3,070,936 3,249,355 3,357,247 3,570,703 2,320,447 1,936,046 2,193,637 Gain (Loss) on Sale of Capital Assets 121,916 33,848 - - - - - - - - Grants and Contributions Not Restricted to Specific Programs 752,907 836,646 862,288 483,914 741,828 1,268,257 1,545,745 1,644,788 1,718,391 1,788,293 Investment Income 259,808 186,676 137,890 210,373 272,989 418,849 334,305 988,382 1,747,241 1,651,912 Transfers 1,270,000 1,170,364 1,257,645 1,414,800 (278,484) 610,969 761,583 1,250,402 74,198 733,918 Total General Revenues and Transfers 36,853,851 37,725,533 38,467,292 37,961,763 37,694,597 39,872,871 41,618,266 43,542,602 43,679,845 46,232,642 Change in Net Position $6,345,312 $9,130,017 $(3,753,853) $14,657,555 $4,203,878 $(4,465,861) $302,575 $7,428,709 $2,851,462 $11,690,373 161161 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Changes in Net position-Business-type Activities (accrual basis of accounting) Last Ten Years SOURCE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 EXPENSES Water $8,162,292 $9,570,579 $9,564,793 $9,856,001 $8,905,768 $10,526,151 $9,686,669 $10,460,599 $9,708,148 $9,481,491 Wastewater 6,671,324 6,685,442 6,532,297 6,403,264 6,565,966 7,407,149 6,913,276 7,469,070 7,678,652 7,496,256 Stormwater 1,915,249 2,051,178 2,420,535 2,545,818 2,082,594 1,793,588 2,437,573 2,351,367 2,413,725 2,538,257 Liquor 10,781,636 11,246,624 11,174,499 11,015,340 10,369,717 10,443,421 9,884,567 10,043,085 10,233,318 10,608,644 Total Expenses 27,530,501 29,553,823 29,692,124 29,820,423 27,924,045 30,170,309 28,922,085 30,324,121 30,033,843 30,124,648 PROGRAM REVENUES Charges for Services Water 7,743,061 9,920,853 9,659,385 7,315,328 7,162,740 7,675,337 7,846,540 8,422,155 7,699,582 8,987,364 Wastewater 4,926,624 5,654,186 6,265,514 5,566,951 5,661,990 5,789,584 5,863,517 6,356,014 6,726,548 6,895,764 Stormwater 1,054,077 1,327,159 1,499,405 1,656,817 1,933,572 2,095,629 2,400,254 2,786,754 3,125,251 3,376,785 Liquor 11,724,900 12,381,069 12,404,920 12,216,404 11,312,822 10,747,887 10,501,449 10,848,725 10,977,643 11,711,560 Operating Grants and Contributions - - - 131,600 133,195 155,041 238,392 20,665 69,429 117,123 Capital Grants and Contributions 415,000 53,404 3,041,141 1,448,044 1,125,750 2,929,169 1,294,136 1,956,823 944,869 2,327,659 Total Program Revenues 25,863,662 29,336,671 32,870,365 28,335,144 27,330,069 29,392,647 28,144,288 30,391,136 29,543,322 33,416,255 Net (Expense) Revenue (1,666,839) (217,152) 3,178,241 (1,485,279) (593,976) (777,662) (777,797) 67,015 (490,521) 3,291,607 GENERAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS Grants and Contributions Not Restricted 4,016 - - - - - - - - - to Specific ProgramsInvestment Income 35,297 35,758 16,310 47,166 58,050 100,657 120,631 377,341 694,963 729,641 Transfers (1,270,000) (1,170,364) (1,257,645) (1,414,800) 278,484 (610,969) (761,583) (1,250,402) (74,198) (733,918) Total General Revenues and Transfers (1,230,687) (1,134,606) (1,241,335) (1,367,634) 336,534 (510,312) (640,952) (873,061) 620,765 (4,277) Change in Net Position $(2,897,526) $(1,351,758) $1,936,906 $(2,852,913) $(257,442) $(1,287,974) $(1,418,749) $(806,046) $130,244 $3,287,330 162162 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Fund Balances-Governmental Funds Last Ten Years 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 GENERAL FUND Nonspendable $18,266 $52,190 $24,702 $39,844 $22,947 $35,792 $30,037 $103,845 $69,611 $94,824 Restricted - - - - - 286,942 - - 11,148 10,572 Unassigned 21,162,123 21,069,050 21,509,541 22,292,187 22,859,810 23,171,318 22,592,160 24,438,689 25,354,724 26,197,429 Subtotal General Fund 21,180,389 21,121,240 21,534,243 22,332,031 22,882,757 23,494,052 22,622,197 24,542,534 25,435,483 26,302,825 General Fund % Change 1.1% (0.3%)2.0%3.7% 2.5% 2.7% (3.7%)8.5%3.6%3.4% ALL OTHER GOV'T FUNDS Nonspendable 812,151 537,530 538,620 542,619 1,938,628 250,970 250,290 227,197 221,019 227,706 Restricted 15,261,699 22,281,089 20,876,780 23,065,276 10,891,614 11,676,546 7,680,713 11,577,849 13,330,982 20,224,326 Assigned 17,951,086 34,326,050 28,275,391 28,510,594 22,935,181 19,799,434 25,270,027 25,215,825 24,996,835 31,958,975 Unassigned (3,687,585) (4,308,281) (3,859,192) (6,295,915) (6,572,969) (5,110,657) (2,587,713) (4,512,314) (2,218,785) (3,741,963) Subtotal All Other Govt' Funds 30,337,351 52,836,388 45,831,599 45,822,574 29,192,454 26,616,293 30,613,317 32,508,557 36,330,051 48,669,044 TOTAL GOVT' FUNDS Nonspendable 830,417 589,720 563,322 582,463 1,961,575 286,762 280,327 331,042 290,630 322,530 Restricted 15,261,699 22,281,089 20,876,780 23,065,276 10,891,614 11,963,488 7,680,713 11,577,849 13,342,130 20,234,898 Assigned 17,951,086 34,326,050 28,275,391 28,510,594 22,935,181 19,799,434 25,270,027 25,215,825 24,996,835 31,958,975 Unassigned 17,474,538 16,760,769 17,650,349 15,996,272 16,286,841 18,060,661 20,004,447 19,926,375 23,135,939 22,455,466 Total Govt' Funds $51,517,740 $73,957,628 $67,365,842 $68,154,605 $52,075,211 $50,110,345 $53,235,514 $57,051,091 $61,765,534 $74,971,869 All Govt' Funds % Change 12.2% 43.6% (8.9%)1.2% (23.6%) (3.8%)6.2%7.2%8.3% 21.4% 163163 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Changes in Fund Balances-Governmental Funds (modified accrual basis of accounting) Last Ten Years SOURCE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 REVENUES Taxes and Special Assessments $35,876,027 $37,518,214 $38,119,497 $37,189,846 $44,259,324 $41,169,891 $42,262,252 $42,826,126 $42,964,367 $44,264,894 Licenses and Permits 3,363,293 5,631,529 7,956,114 7,084,975 6,686,477 6,017,523 5,810,945 7,938,046 9,054,415 8,351,257 Intergovernmental Revenue 5,215,943 7,368,558 1,886,954 8,582,993 6,299,840 2,362,417 7,787,877 2,980,678 14,691,473 10,676,031 Charges for Services 4,202,734 4,394,544 4,532,269 4,841,857 4,864,818 5,325,932 5,744,494 5,976,951 6,132,338 2,464,886 Fines and Forfeits 557,512 603,126 420,552 406,210 344,384 346,823 347,285 416,028 370,944 231,166 Investment Income 224,379 195,657 140,303 216,895 276,176 417,997 310,433 887,536 1,523,825 1,458,094 Miscellaneous Revenue 1,488,991 2,469,125 2,265,545 1,647,534 7,098,463 3,249,117 2,835,760 4,853,894 4,684,221 5,166,785 Total Revenues 50,928,879 $58,180,753 55,321,234 59,970,310 69,829,482 58,889,700 65,099,046 65,879,259 79,421,583 72,613,113 EXPENDITURES General Government 8,768,528 - - - - - - - - - Administration - 3,634,743 3,634,004 3,946,531 3,809,732 4,280,665 4,036,821 4,467,514 4,455,624 4,547,110 Community Development - 6,228,446 5,661,300 5,224,034 7,666,282 5,536,030 6,102,434 5,143,042 4,762,403 4,975,185 Public Safety 16,822,991 - - - - - - - - - Police - 12,362,179 12,696,678 13,079,303 13,704,796 13,917,677 14,183,797 14,672,312 15,354,150 15,537,807 Fire - 5,190,539 5,300,536 5,664,111 5,754,747 5,699,308 6,145,202 6,058,619 5,854,829 6,378,338 Public Works 5,278,935 5,448,793 5,685,295 5,915,849 5,869,727 5,929,171 6,194,054 5,997,312 6,010,535 6,090,297 Parks and Recreation 8,790,806 9,591,618 9,949,401 10,255,620 10,571,858 11,008,845 11,309,009 12,176,110 12,629,951 11,137,410 Capital Outlay 8,696,679 8,558,743 13,946,660 21,000,674 31,265,363 15,133,476 8,779,760 9,816,539 24,076,873 13,411,943 Miscellaneous 17,256 29,641 7,996 25,547 39,283 49,954 40,019 66,154 65,245 98,137 Debt ServicePrincipal 4,077,751 4,415,603 3,182,019 3,178,107 3,974,224 3,415,369 5,657,828 3,869,824 3,436,793 3,743,793 Interest 1,250,401 1,194,117 1,480,194 1,127,862 1,304,947 1,148,544 1,068,403 975,631 895,435 815,351 Other 96,169 249,671 8,937 144,530 22,517 66,043 23,500 16,848 10,838 64,875 Total Expenditures 53,799,516 56,904,093 61,553,020 69,562,168 83,983,476 66,185,082 63,540,827 63,259,905 77,552,676 66,800,246 Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (2,870,637) 1,276,660 (6,231,786) (9,591,858) (14,153,994) (7,295,382) 1,558,219 2,619,354 1,868,907 5,812,867 Other Financing Sources (Uses)8,478,532 21,163,228 (360,000) 10,380,621 (1,925,400) 5,330,516 1,566,950 1,196,223 2,845,536 7,393,468 Net Change in Fund Balance $5,607,895 $22,439,888 $(6,591,786) $788,763 $(16,079,394) $(1,964,866) $3,125,169 $3,815,577 $4,714,443 $13,206,335 Debt Service as a % of Noncapital Expenditures 11.5% 11.0%8.0%7.5%7.9%8.1% 11.4%8.0%6.4%7.2% Prior to 2012 General Government included Administration and Community Development; Public Safety included Police and Fire. 164164 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Assessed/Tax Capacity Value and Estimated Market Value of Property Last Ten Years Tax Tax Capacity Less: Less: Total Total Estimated Annual Payable Personal Commercial Farm &Before Fiscal Tax Assessed Direct Market % Dec. 31 Property Residential Apartments & Industrial Other Deductions Disparities Increment Value Tax Rate Value Change 2011 $1,329,101 $67,232,552 $5,459,256 $37,490,576 $59,884 $111,571,369 $16,432,584 $2,863,585 $92,275,200 31.239 $8,899,287,500 (7.1%) 2012 1,358,537 62,647,985 5,522,804 36,820,370 62,140 106,411,836 15,040,117 2,860,791 88,510,928 33.250 8,647,405,200 (2.8%)2013 1,480,936 59,466,380 5,959,818 36,840,974 51,531 103,799,639 14,637,037 2,990,202 86,172,400 34.617 8,483,358,400 (1.9%) 2014 1,536,795 59,699,056 6,723,391 37,928,219 75,620 105,963,081 14,732,733 3,137,785 88,092,563 34.709 8,627,122,700 1.7% 2015 1,581,718 63,907,631 7,045,373 38,765,135 49,597 111,349,454 15,719,259 2,933,721 92,696,474 33.954 9,078,339,200 5.2% 2016 1,659,596 68,205,510 7,667,144 40,928,173 45,052 118,505,475 15,104,618 3,126,571 100,274,286 32.327 9,633,243,700 6.1% 2017 1,778,971 69,180,068 8,887,941 41,710,414 44,200 121,601,594 16,281,768 3,209,405 102,110,421 32.667 9,872,802,500 2.5% 2018 1,317,656 72,149,265 9,758,671 41,957,995 43,813 125,227,400 16,415,817 2,208,824 106,602,759 32.526 10,209,614,900 3.4% 2019 1,995,250 75,815,471 10,394,693 42,523,027 44,602 130,773,043 16,343,594 1,869,603 112,559,846 31.690 10,663,264,100 4.4%2020 1,947,874 79,500,899 11,243,928 43,474,992 46,519 136,214,212 17,538,211 2,121,042 116,554,959 31.676 11,121,835,000 4.3% 2011 1.2% 60.3%4.9% 33.6% 0.1%17.8% 3.1%2012 1.3% 58.9%5.2% 34.6% 0.1%17.0% 3.2% 2013 1.4% 57.3%5.7% 35.5% 0.0%17.0% 3.5% 2014 1.5% 56.3%6.3%35.8% 0.1%16.7%3.6%2015 1.4% 57.4%6.3% 34.8% 0.0%17.0% 3.2% 2016 1.4% 57.6%6.5% 34.5% 0.0%15.1% 3.1% 2017 1.5% 56.9%7.3% 34.3% 0.0%15.9% 3.1% 2018 1.1% 57.6%7.8% 33.5% 0.0%15.4% 2.1%2019 1.5% 58.0%7.9% 32.5% 0.0%14.5% 1.7% 2020 1.4% 58.4%8.3% 31.9% 0.0%15.0% 1.8% Source: City Assessing Department and Hennepin County Percentages Tax Capacity 165165 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rate Last Ten Years Year Total School School School Watershed Watershed Watershed Ended City HRA City Hennepin Special District District District District District District Dec. 31 Rate Rate Rate County Districts (1)#270 #272 #276 #1 #2 #4 2011 31.034 0.205 31.239 45.840 9.172 26.456 28.420 21.274 1.317 0.264 1.352 2012 33.036 0.214 33.250 48.231 9.523 29.270 29.292 23.015 1.388 0.445 1.387 2013 34.397 0.220 34.617 49.461 10.089 29.730 29.067 24.487 1.394 0.634 1.561 2014 34.493 0.216 34.709 49.959 10.561 32.358 27.817 24.374 1.490 0.759 1.880 2015 33.749 0.205 33.954 46.398 9.785 30.340 22.030 25.093 1.315 0.686 1.855 2016 32.137 0.190 32.327 45.356 9.530 28.514 20.948 22.887 1.233 0.598 1.745 2017 32.480 0.187 32.667 44.087 9.319 25.611 21.865 22.770 1.257 0.718 1.992 2018 32.348 0.178 32.526 42.808 8.973 29.035 20.525 23.133 1.204 0.659 2.269 2019 31.521 0.169 31.690 41.861 8.550 27.022 20.756 21.209 1.164 0.527 2.204 2020 31.513 0.163 31.676 41.084 8.219 27.190 21.555 21.167 1.111 0.574 2.160 Year City School School School Ended Direct District District District Dec. 31 Rate #270 #272 #276 2011 0.0187 0.148 0.162 0.226 2012 0.0155 0.160 0.158 0.225 2013 0.0146 0.162 0.165 0.246 2014 0.0122 0.197 0.167 0.270 2015 0.0100 0.179 0.244 0.264 2016 0.0091 0.187 0.231 0.301 2017 0.0089 0.180 0.220 0.300 2018 0.0086 0.150 0.229 0.303 2019 0.0080 0.147 0.222 0.340 2020 0.0077 0.162 0.209 0.339 (1) Special Districts include Metropolitan Council, Regional Transit Board, Metropolitan Mosquito Control, County Park Museum, & Hennepin Suburban Parks Market Value Rates Overlapping Rates Tax Capacity Rates Direct Rates Overlapping Rates 166166 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Principal Property Taxpayers For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 and 2011 Percentage Percentage Tax of Total Tax of Total Taxpayer Capacity Tax Capacity Taxpayer Capacity Tax Capacity United Healthcare Serv Inc. (United Healthcare)$2,999,250 2.2%Eden Prairie Mall, LLC $2,239,250 2.0%CAPREF Eden Prairie, LLC (Eden Prairie Mall (part of))2,046,250 1.5%ADC Telecommunications, Inc.879,250 0.8% FPACP3 Eden LLC (Arrive Eden Prairie Apts.)982,963 0.7%Liberty Property Ltd P'ship (9023 Columbine Rd)625,650 0.6% REEP-MF Fountain Place LLC (Fountain Place Apts.)962,926 0.7%Geneva Office Exchange 615,510 0.6% WPT Land 2 LP (Kroll Ontrack Campus)824,250 0.6%Lifetouch Inc.609,250 0.5% AGNL Health LLC (Optum Campus)789,430 0.6%Flying Cloud Office Inc.462,830 0.4% FPA/WC Parkway LLC (Renew Eden Prairie)775,000 0.6%United Healthcare Serv. Inc 452,270 0.4% WPT Properties LP (10400 Southwest Crossing)703,320 0.5%EP-MN LLC 412,570 0.4% Lifetouch Inc. (Lifetouch)642,130 0.5%Liberty Property Ltd P'ship (7075 Flying Cloud Dr.)411,090 0.4% OSWX Property LLC (One Southwest Crossing)625,750 0.5%Liberty Property Ltd P'ship (10400 Viking Dr.)407,150 0.4% Total Principal Taxpayers 11,351,269 8.3%7,114,820 6.4% All Other Taxpayers 124,862,943 91.7%104,456,549 93.6% Total $136,214,212 100.0%$111,571,369 100.0% Source: City of Eden Prairie Assessing Department 2020 2011 167167 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Property Tax Levies and Collections Last Ten Years Collected Within the Year Current Year Levy Collections Total Collections to Date Ended Taxes % of in Subsequent % of Dec. 31 Levied Amount Levy Years Amount Levy 2011 $31,719,631 $31,355,647 98.85%$(12,043) $31,343,604 98.81% 2012 32,458,990 32,193,272 99.18% (61,296) 32,131,976 98.99% 2013 32,749,320 32,519,542 99.30% (104,201) 32,415,341 98.98% 2014 33,220,111 32,881,280 98.98% (114,233) 32,767,047 98.64% 2015 33,992,311 33,675,337 99.07% (150,676) 33,524,661 98.62% 2016 34,860,874 34,512,035 99.00% (104,721) 34,407,314 98.70% 2017 35,911,841 35,480,742 98.80% (58,279) 35,422,463 98.64% 2018 37,349,820 37,319,709 99.92% (102,686) 37,217,023 99.64% 2019 38,478,724 38,167,003 99.19% (17,255) 38,149,748 99.15% 2020 39,821,102 39,406,040 98.96%- 39,406,040 98.96% Source: Hennepin County 168168 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Legal Debt Margin Last Ten Years 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Estimated Market Value $8,899,287,500 $8,647,405,200 $8,483,358,400 $8,627,122,700 $9,078,339,200 $9,633,243,700 $9,872,802,500 $10,209,614,900 $10,663,264,100 $11,121,835,000 Legal Debt Margin: Debt Limit: 3% of Market Value 266,978,625 259,422,156 254,500,752 258,813,681 272,350,176 288,997,311 296,184,075 306,288,447 319,897,923 333,655,050 Amount of Debt Applicable to Debt Limit: General Obligation Bonds 25,866,940 31,874,239 29,464,744 17,906,759 13,499,232 12,036,705 10,648,354 9,211,190 8,191,241 13,227,541 Tax Abatement Bonds - - - 17,598,269 17,575,537 17,552,806 17,180,074 16,697,342 16,229,610 15,306,879 Deductions: Amt Available for Repayment of Bonds (1)6,013,879 4,207,601 2,650,363 1,715,750 2,032,109 2,303,895 2,336,132 2,296,320 2,682,004 8,730,968 Total Debt Applicable to Limit 19,853,061 27,666,638 26,814,381 33,789,278 29,042,660 27,285,616 25,492,296 23,612,212 21,738,847 19,803,452 Legal Debt Margin $247,125,564 $231,755,518 $227,686,371 $225,024,403 $243,307,516 $261,711,695 $270,691,779 $282,676,235 $298,159,076 $313,851,598 As a % of Debt Limit 92.6%89.3%89.5%86.9%89.3%90.6%91.4%92.3%93.2%94.1% 1 - Amt Available for Repayment of Bonds only includes "Restricted Debt" of General Obligation and Tax Abatement Bonds 169169 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type Last Ten Years Business-Type Activities Special Year General Tax Total General Lease Assessments Total Percentage Ended Obligation Abatement Bonded Revenue Improvement Capital Govt'Revenue of Personal Per Dec. 31 Bonds Bonds Debt Bonds Bonds Lease Bonds Bonds Total Income (1)Capita (2) 2011 $25,866,940 $ - $25,866,940 $2,686,606 $8,143,367 $ - $36,696,913 $4,271,215 $40,968,128 *670 2012 31,874,239 - 31,874,239 1,425,000 18,137,531 174,719 51,611,489 3,829,969 55,441,458 *894 2013 29,464,744 - 29,464,744 1,360,000 15,658,107 132,700 46,615,551 3,383,723 49,999,274 *806 2014 17,906,759 17,598,269 35,505,028 1,290,000 14,834,596 89,593 51,719,217 2,927,476 54,646,693 *871 2015 13,499,232 17,575,537 31,074,769 1,220,000 12,289,647 45,369 44,629,785 2,466,230 47,096,015 *752 2016 12,036,705 17,552,806 29,589,511 1,145,000 12,799,455 286,942 43,820,908 3,631,427 47,452,335 *751 2017 10,648,354 17,180,074 27,828,428 - 10,021,959 231,734 38,082,121 3,143,967 41,226,088 *653 2018 9,211,190 16,697,342 25,908,532 - 8,054,154 175,457 34,138,143 2,511,507 36,649,650 *575 2019 8,191,241 16,229,610 24,420,851 - 6,101,720 118,090 30,640,661 6,960,748 37,601,409 *593 2020 13,227,541 15,306,879 28,534,420 - 4,320,627 59,611 32,914,658 6,088,767 39,003,425 *612 (1) See Demographic and Economic Statistics for personal income (2) See Demographic and Economic Statistics for population * Information is not available Governmental Activities 170170 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding Last Ten Years Total Net Ratio of Net Year General Tax General Less Amounts General Bonded Debt Ended Obligation Abatement Bonded Available in Debt Bonded to Estimated Per Dec. 31 Debt (1)Bonds Debt Service Fund Debt Market Value (2) Capita (3) 2011 $25,866,940 $- $25,866,940 $6,013,879 $19,853,061 0.22% 325 2012 31,874,239 - 31,874,239 4,207,601 27,666,638 0.32% 446 2013 29,464,744 - 29,464,744 2,650,363 26,814,381 0.32% 432 2014 17,906,759 17,598,269 35,505,028 1,715,750 33,789,278 0.39% 539 2015 13,499,232 17,575,537 31,074,769 2,032,109 29,042,660 0.32% 464 2016 12,036,705 17,552,806 29,589,511 2,303,895 27,285,616 0.28% 432 2017 10,648,354 17,180,074 27,828,428 2,336,132 25,492,296 0.26% 404 2018 9,211,190 16,697,342 25,908,532 2,296,320 23,612,212 0.23% 371 2019 8,191,241 16,229,610 24,420,851 2,682,004 21,738,847 0.20% 343 2020 13,227,541 15,306,879 28,534,420 8,730,968 19,803,452 0.18% 311 (1) Amount Does not Include Special Assessment Improvement or Revenue Bonds. (2) See "Taxable Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Property" for Market Value (3) See Demographic and Economic Statistics for Population 171171 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Computation of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt December 31, 2020 Percent of Debt Net Debt Debt Applicable Applicable Governmental Unit Outstanding to City (1)to City Direct Debt: City of Eden Prairie $32,914,658 100.00%$32,914,658 Overlapping Debt: Hopkins ISD 270 $205,705,000 4.60%$9,462,430 Eden Prairie ISD 272 95,033,468 97.61%92,762,168 Minnetonka ISD 276 109,495,305 2.96%3,241,061 Hennepin County 998,790,298 5.80%57,929,837 Henn Suburban Park District 42,954,642 8.33%3,578,122 Henn Regional RR Authority 93,859,422 5.80%5,443,846 Metropolitan Council 103,225,628 2.94%3,034,833 Total Overlapping Debt 1,649,063,763 175,452,298 Total Direct and Overlapping Debt $1,681,978,421 $208,366,956 Notes: 1- The percentage of overlapping debt applicable is estimated using taxable assessed property values. Applicable percentages were estimated by determining the portion of the county's taxable assessed value that is within the City's boundaries and dividing it by the county's total taxable assessed value. 172172 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Demographic and Economic Statistics Last Ten Years Household Per Median Capita Median School Unemployment Year Population (1)Income Income Age Enrollment Rate 2011 61,151 ***9,487 5.2% 2012 62,004 ***9,162 4.6% 2013 62,004 ***9,046 4.0% 2014 62,729 ***9,011 2.4% 2015 62,593 ***8,941 2.3% 2016 63,187 ***8,844 2.9% 2017 63,163 ***8,835 2.4% 2018 63,726 ***8,780 2.6% 2019 63,456 ***8,861 2.2% 2020 63,726 ***8,759 3.4% Sources: City of Eden Prairie Planning Department Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Minnesota Local Area Unemployment Statistics File Minnesota Workforce Center Eden Prairie School District 272 - Enrollment History Website * Data is not available 1) Using Met Council numbers Governmental Activities 173173 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Principal Employers For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 and 2011 Percentage Percentage of Total of Total Employer Employees City Employment Employer Employees City Employment Optum, Inc.3,312 5.3% Optum 1,800 3.7% Eden Prairie Mall 2,310 3.7%EP Schools 1,500 3.0% C.H. Robinson Worldwide 2,200 3.5%CH Robinson 1,462 3.0% Starkey Labs 2,000 3.2%Starkey Labs 1,436 2.9% Emerson Process Management 1,500 2.4%Super Valu 1,260 2.6% I.S.D No. 272 (Eden Prairie)1,477 2.4%CIGNA 1,200 2.4% Element Fleet Management 1,200 1.9% Dell-Compellent 1,000 2.0% United Natural Foods Inc.1,100 1.8%GE Capital 900 1.8% MTS Systems Corporation 1,000 1.6%Eaton Corp 850 1.7% Eaton Corp.1,000 1.6%MTS Systems 708 1.4% Total Principal Employer 17,099 27.3%12,116 24.6% Other Employers 45,507 72.7%37,172 75.4% Total Employers 62,606 100.0%49,288 100.0% Source: Official Bonds Statement for G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2019A 2020 2011 174174 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Employees by Function Last Ten Years Source: Human Resource department 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Administration Office of City Manager 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Human Resources 9.3 8.75 8.8 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 Communications 3 3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Finance 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Liquor Stores 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9Information Technology 7.5 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 Facilities 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.88 9.88 9.88 10 10 10 10 Community Development Administration 1 1.5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Assessing7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Planning 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8Economic Development 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Housing & Community Services 2 2 2 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 2 2 Parks and Recreation Administration 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Park Maintenance 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Recreation Services 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 Community Center 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 Police Administration 26.35 25.1 25 25 25 25 25 25 24 24 Officers 65 66 66 66 66 67 68 68 69 69.5 Fire Administration 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Building Inspections 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Public Works Engineering 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 9.3 10.3 10.3 7.5 7.5 7.5Street Maintenance 15 15 15 14.5 14.5 14 14 14 15 15 Utilities 34.7 34.7 34.7 34.7 34.7 35.7 35.7 39.5 39.5 39.5 Fleet Services 6 6 6 6.5 5.5 5 5 5 5 5 Grand Total 268.75 267.95 270 272.03 272.13 274.23 275.35 276.35 277.6 279.2 175175 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Operating Indicators Last Ten Years 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 General Government Bond Rating - Moody's Investor Service Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Aaa Bond Rating - Standard & Poors n/a n/a n/a AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA Housing and Human Services Number of Residents Served 3,000 3,300 3,300 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,750 3,975 5,700 9,200 Assessing: Number of Appraisals Completed 4,827 4,871 5,002 5,291 5,320 5,066 5,061 4,908 4,912 5,267 Parks and Recreation Avg Monthly Community Center Memberships 2,300 2,573 n/a n/a n/a 2,511 2,688 2,608 2,486 1,683 Program Registrations (Excludes Leagues)15,010 15,403 17,783 18,269 17,531 15,701 17,161 17,972 19,931 6,022 Public Safety FireNumber of Calls 1,143 1,169 1,601 1,614 1,617 1,615 1,742 1,908 1,875 2,915 Inspection Permits Issued 6,531 6,043 9,500 7,469 6,405 5,997 6,227 6,436 6,438 7,766 Building permit revenue 2,094,901$ 3,786,592$ 4,410,616$ 3,496,417$ 3,059,075$ 2,303,405$ 2,066,787$ 3,388,529$ 3,646,332$ 3,578,799$ Police Number of Calls 59,544 60,632 53,746 50,380 49,921 50,741 46,319 52,278 50,909 40,564 Public Works: Patching Materials (Tons)2,700 2,000 2,500 2,400 1,555 2,370 1,650 1,700 1,976 1,739 Overlays (Tons)22,400 23,200 24,000 26,488 29,602 23,070 28,856 29,852 31,503 35,988 Crack Filling Materials (Lbs)200,000 328,000 200,000 154,944 32,000 68,000 42,000 31,920 50,007 66,175 Seal Coating (Sq Yards) - Chips Sealed Placed 475,300 389,698 400,000 375,500 411,700 381,600 405,425 365,907 327,998 364,854 Seal Coating (Sq Yards) - Fog Seal/Reclamite Placed n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 276,296 470,020 Water System: Number of Connections 18,971 19,076 19,195 19,269 19,312 19,362 19,426 19,426 19,426 19,541 Water Main Repairs 56 23 15 9 28 53 30 18 24 33 Number of Hydrant Flushed 4,158 4,267 4,217 4,326 4,311 4,515 4,360 4,395 4,274 - Average Daily Usage 8.1 MGD 8.5 MGD 7.9 MGD 7.25 MGD 6.99 MGD 7.07 MGD 7.06 MGD 7.08 MG 6.25 MG 6.95 MG Sewer System: Number of Connections 18,416 18,474 18,525 18,578 18,644 18,707 18,865 18,925 18,955 19,016 Miles of Sanitary Sewer Cleaned 94 85 65 75 81 81 76 65 50 10 Storm System: Number of Storm Sumps Maintained 61 70 61 103 78 91 88 97 48 40 Sources: Various City Departments MGD - Million Gallons Daily N/A - Not Available 176176 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Capital Assets Statistics by Function Last Ten Years 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Public Safety Fire Protection Number of Stations 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Number of Volunteer Firefighters 93 89 95 90 92 99 101 95 92 94 Police Protection Number of Stations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Public Works Miles of City Streets 230 231 232 233 234 234 234 235 235 235 Parks and Recreation City Parks 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Conservation Areas 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Historic Sites 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Special Use Areas 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Miles of Trails 120 122 122 128 128 128 134 134 134.5 134.5 Water System Number of Wells 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Total Pumping Capacity 24 MGD 26 MGD 28 MGD 28 MGD 28 MGD 28 MGD 28 MGD 28 MGD 28 MGD 28 MGD Total Storage Capacity 8.5M gals 8.5M gals 8.5M gals 8.5 MG 8.5 MG 8.5 MG 8.5 MG 8.5 MG 8.5 MG 12.5 MG Miles of Water Mains 317 321 323 326 326 328 326 326 327 326 Sewer System Miles of Sanitary Sewer 256 258 258 262 264 264 263 263 264 265 Miles of Storm Sewer 174 179 180 186 189 193 193 193 195 198 Sources: Various City Departments Note: No Capital Asset Indicators are Available for the General Government Functions. MGD - Million Gallons Daily 177177 77 City of Eden Prairie Hennepin County, Minnesota Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and Independent Auditor's Reports December 31, 2020 77 City of Eden Prairie Table of Contents Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 1 Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 2 Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 3 Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program and Report on Internal Control over Compliance and on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards in Accordance with the Uniform Guidance 5 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs 8 Minnesota Legal Compliance 10 FederalCFDA FederalNumberExpenditures U.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentReceived DirectlyCommunity Development Block Grant Program 14.218 470,096$ U.S. Department of JusticeReceived DirectlyBulletproof Vest Partnership Program 16.607 10,972 U.S. Department of Transportation Passed through the State of MinnesotaState and Community Highway Safety - Enforcement Wave Plan (Safe & Sober)20.600 14,210Minimum Penalties for Repeat Offenders for Driving While Intoxicated 20.608 87,230 State and Community Highway Safety - Seat Belt 20.616 17,894Total U.S. Department of Transportation 119,334 U.S. Department of the Federal Transit AdministrationPassed through Metropolitan CouncilFederal Transit-Capital Investment Grants 20.500 2,283,696 U.S. Department of TreasuryPassed through the State of Minnesota COVID - Coronavirus Relief Fund 21.019 4,780,791 Passed through Hennepin CountyCOVID - Coronavirus Relief Fund 21.019 40,291 Total U.S. Department of Treasury 4,821,082 U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityPassed through the State of Minnesota COVID - Disaster Grants - Public Assistance 97.036 22,382 Center for Disease Control and PreventionPassed through the State of MinnesotaAssistance Programs for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control 93.945 2,775 Total Federal Expenditures 7,730,337$ See Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. 1 Federal Agency/Pass Through Agency/Program Title City of Eden PrairieSchedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Year Ended December 31, 2020 2 2 City of Eden Prairie Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards NOTE 1 – BASIS OF PRESENTATION The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards includes the federal grant activity of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota and is presented on the modified accrual basis of accounting. The information in this Schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Therefore, some amounts presented in this Schedule may differ from amounts presented in, or used in, the preparation of the basic financial statements. NOTE 2 – PASS-THROUGH GRANT NUMBERS All pass-through entities listed previously use the same CFDA numbers as the federal grantors to identify these grants and have not assigned any additional identifying numbers. NOTE 3 – INDIRECT COST RATE The City did not elect to use the 10 percent de minimis indirect cost rate, as allowed under the Uniform Guidance. 3 3 Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards Independent Auditor's Report Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, Minnesota We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2020, and the related notes to financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated April 26, 2021. Internal Control over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses, or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified. 4 4 Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City's internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose. Minneapolis, Minnesota April 26, 2021 5 Report on Compliance for each Major Federal Program and Report on Internal Control over Compliance and on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards In Accordance With the Uniform Guidance Independent Auditor's Report Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, Minnesota Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program We have audited the compliance of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of the City's major federal programs for the year ended December 31, 2020. The City's major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor's results section of the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Management's Responsibility Management is responsible for compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of its federal awards applicable to its federal programs. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each of the City's major federal programs based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Those standards and the Uniform Guidance require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each major federal program. However, our audit does not provide legal determination of the City's compliance. 6 Opinion on Each Major Federal Program In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended December 31, 2020. Report on Internal Control Over Compliance Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our audit of compliance, we considered the City's internal control over compliance with the types of requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal program to determine the auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion on compliance for each major federal program and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over compliance. A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified. The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose. 7 7 Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2020, and have issued our report thereon dated April 26, 2021, which contained unmodified opinions on the financial statements. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements as a whole. The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by the Uniform Guidance and is not a required part of the financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the Schedule of Expenditure of Federal Awards is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. Minneapolis, Minnesota April 26, 2021 8 City of Eden Prairie Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs SECTION I – SUMMARY OF AUDITOR'S RESULTS Financial Statements Type of auditor's report issued: We issued an unmodified opinion on the fair presentation of the financial statements of the governmental activities, business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United State of America (GAAP) Internal control over financial reporting: • Material weakness(es) identified? No • Significant deficiency(ies) identified? No Noncompliance material to financial statements noted? No Federal Awards Type of auditor's report issued on compliance for major programs: Unmodified Internal control over major programs: • Material weakness(es) identified? No • Significant deficiency(ies) identified? No Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with 2 CFR 200.516(a)? No Identification of Major Programs CFDA No.: 21.019 Name of Federal Program or Cluster: Coronavirus Relief Fund CFDA No: Name of Federal Program or Cluster: 20.500 Federal Transit–Capital Investment Grant Dollar threshold used to distinguish between type A and type B programs: $750,000 Auditee qualified as low risk auditee? No 9 9 City of Eden Prairie Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs SECTION II – FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS None SECTION III – FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS None SECTION IV – PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS None 10 Minnesota Legal Compliance Independent Auditor's Report Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, Minnesota We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota as of and for the year ended December 31, 2020, and the related notes to financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated April 26, 2021. In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the City failed to comply with the provisions of the contracting and bidding, deposits and investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness, claims and disbursements, miscellaneous provisions, and tax increment financing sections of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 6.65, insofar as they relate to accounting matters. However, our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance. Accordingly, had we performed additional procedures, other matters may have come to our attention regarding the City's noncompliance with the above referenced provisions, insofar as they relate to accounting matters. The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose. Minneapolis, Minnesota April 26, 2021 City of Eden Prairie Hennepin County, Minnesota Communications Letter December 31, 2020 City of Eden Prairie Table of Contents Report on Matters Identified as a Result of the Audit of the Financial Statements 1 Required Communication 3 Financial Analysis 8 Emerging Issue 23 1 Report on Matters Identified as a Result of the Audit of the Financial Statements Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and Management City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, Minnesota In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the governmental activities, business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2020, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reporting. Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and, therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that have not been identified. In addition, because of inherent limitations in internal control, including the possibility of management override of controls, misstatements due to error, or fraud may occur and not be detected by such controls. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A reasonable possibility exists when the likelihood of an event occurring is either reasonably possible or probable as defined as follows: • Reasonably possible. The chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely. • Probable. The future event or events are likely to occur. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. 2 The accompanying memorandum also includes financial analysis provided as a basis for discussion. The matters discussed herein were considered by us during our audit and they do not modify the opinion expressed in our Independent Auditor's Report dated April 26, 2021, on such statements. This communication is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and management and others within the City and state oversight agencies and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Minneapolis, Minnesota April 26, 2021 3 City of Eden Prairie Required Communication We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of and for the year ended December 31, 2020. Professional standards require that we advise you of the following matters related to our audit. Our Responsibility in Relation to the Financial Statement Audit As communicated in our engagement letter, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to form and express opinions about whether the financial statements prepared by management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you or management of its respective responsibilities. Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, as part of our audit, we considered the internal control of the City solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control. We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional judgement, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process. However, we are not required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other matters to communicate to you. Generally accepted accounting principles provide for certain Required Supplementary Information (RSI) to supplement the basic financial statements. Our responsibility with respect to the RSI, which supplements the basic audit financial statements, is to apply certain limited procedures in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. However, the RSI was not audited and, because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. Our responsibility for the supplementary information accompanying the financial statements, as described by professional standards, is to evaluate the presentation of the supplementary information in relation to the financial statements as a whole and to report on whether the supplementary information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial statements as a whole. Our responsibility with respect to the other information in documents containing the audited financial statements and auditor's report does not extend beyond the financial information identified in the report. We have no responsibility for determining whether this other information is properly stated. This other information was not audited and we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. 4 City of Eden Prairie Required Communication Our Responsibility in Relation to Government Auditing Standards As communicated in our engagement letter, part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of the City's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, the objective of our tests was not to provide an opinion on compliance with such provisions. Our Responsibility in Relation to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) As communicated in our engagement letter, in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, we examined, on a test basis, evidence about the City’s compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Compliance Supplement applicable to each of its major federal programs for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the City’s compliance with those requirements. While our audit provided a reasonable basis for our opinion, it did not provide a legal determination on the City’s compliance with those requirements. In planning and performing our audit of compliance, we considered the City’s internal control over compliance with the types of requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal program to determine the auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion on compliance for each major federal program and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit We conducted our audit consistent with the planned scope and timing we previously communicated to you. Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, our firm, and our network firms have complied with all relevant ethical requirements regarding independence. Qualitative Aspects of Significant Accounting Practices Significant Accounting Policies Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of the significant accounting policies adopted by the City is included in the notes to financial statements. There have been no initial selection of accounting policies and no changes to significant accounting policies or their application during 2020. No matters have come to our attention that would require us, under professional standards, to inform you about (1) the methods used to account for significant unusual transactions and (2) the effect of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. 5 City of Eden Prairie Required Communication Qualitative Aspects of Significant Accounting Practices (Continued) Significant Accounting Estimates Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management's current judgements. Those judgements are normally based on knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ markedly from management's current judgements. The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were: Depreciation – The City is currently depreciating its capital assets over their estimated useful lives, as determined by management, using the straight-line method. Expense Allocation – Certain expenses are allocated to programs based on an estimate of the benefit to that particular program. Examples are salaries, benefits, and supplies. Total Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Liability, Deferred Outflows of Resources Related to OPEB and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB – These balances are based on an actuarial study using the estimates of future obligations of the City for post employment benefits. Net Pension Liability, Deferred Outflows of Resources Related to Pensions and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions – These balances are based on an allocation by the pension plans using estimates based on contributions. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the accounting estimates and determined that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole and in relation to the applicable opinion units. Financial Statement Disclosures Certain financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear. Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of the audit. Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements For the purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Further, professional standards require us to also communicate the effects of uncorrected misstatements related to prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures, and the financial statements taken as a whole and each applicable opinion unit. 6 City of Eden Prairie Required Communication Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements (Continued) Management did not identify and we did not notify them of any uncorrected financial statement misstatements. In addition, professional standards require us to communicate to you all material, corrected misstatements that were brought to the attention of management as a result of our audit procedures. None of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, which could be significant to the City's financial statements or the auditor's report. No such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. Representations Requested from Management We have requested certain written representations from management, which are included in the management representation letter. Management's Consultations with Other Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters. Management has informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters. Other Significant Matters, Findings, or Issues In the normal course of our professional association with the City, we generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, operating and regulatory conditions affecting the City, and operating plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement. None of the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the City's auditor. Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements We applied certain limited procedures to the RSI that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. With respect to the supplementary information accompanying the financial statements, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. 7 City of Eden Prairie Required Communication Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements (Continued) We were not engaged to report on the other information accompanying the financial statements but are not RSI. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. 8 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis The following pages provide graphic representations of select data pertaining to the financial position and operations of the City for the past five years. Our analysis of each graph is presented to provide a basis for discussion of past performance and how implementing certain changes may enhance future performance. We suggest you view each graph and document if our analysis is consistent with yours. A subsequent discussion of this information should be useful for planning purposes. General Fund – Revenues The following graph presents comparisons of revenues by type, illustrating the majority of revenue for the City is from taxes and special assessments. This source represents 71.1% of total General Fund revenues. Other revenues include items such as fines and forfeitures, rental revenue, investment earnings, and other miscellaneous items. Revenues of the General Fund increased from 2019 to 2020 by $1,744,273. The charges for services category had the largest decrease of $3,667,452 due in large part to the impact of COVID-19 on programming and rental fees typically collected. Intergovernmental revenue increased $4,469,645 due to the Coronavirus Relief Funds received. Tax revenue increased $1,253,737 due to an increase in the amount of property tax allocated for the General Fund. Other sources of revenue had minor fluctuations when compared to the prior year. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Taxes and SpecialAssessments $31,383,273 $32,386,507 $34,258,721 $35,029,637 $36,283,374 Intergovernmental 1,479,880 1,504,055 1,439,023 1,768,464 6,238,109 Charges for Services 5,325,932 5,744,494 5,976,951 6,132,338 2,464,886 Licenses and Permits 3,770,890 3,565,161 4,892,559 5,110,672 4,996,872 Other 874,760 829,818 963,896 1,218,229 1,020,372 $- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 General Fund Revenues 9 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis General Fund – Expenditures The graph below represents the breakdown of expenditures by department. Police expenditures continue to comprise the largest portion of General Fund expenditures, representing 33.5%. Overall, General Fund expenditures decreased $384,791 from 2019. Most department expenditures had relatively minor fluctuations when compared to the prior year. Parks and recreation decreased $1,404,818 due to the impact of COVID-19 on programming of the department. Fire expenditures increased $523,509 compared to the prior year with noted increases in wages and benefits, supplies, equipment, repairs and maintenance, and user charges. Some of these increases are a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Debt service 46,544 60,766 60,766 60,766 60,765 Parks and Recreation 10,983,233 11,345,396 12,158,792 12,489,302 11,084,484 Public Works 5,828,269 6,026,334 5,872,135 5,891,040 5,991,750 Fire 5,699,308 6,159,322 6,058,619 5,854,829 6,378,338 Police 13,775,455 14,069,709 14,517,004 15,204,092 15,357,194 Community development 2,180,541 2,376,934 2,320,363 2,280,391 2,431,612 Administration $4,118,176 $4,033,588 $4,467,514 $4,455,624 $4,547,110 $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 $45,000,000 $50,000,000 General Fund Expenditures 10 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis General Fund – Budgetary Comparison Original Actual Amounts Revenues General Property Taxes and Assessments $35,959,740 $35,959,740 $36,283,374 323,634$ Licenses and permits 3,854,780 3,854,780 4,996,872 1,142,092 Intergovernmental revenue 1,299,222 1,299,222 6,238,109 4,938,887 Charges for services 6,331,556 6,331,556 2,464,886 (3,866,670) Fines and forfeitures 417,000 417,000 230,341 (186,659) Investments 200,000 200,000 536,716 336,716 Miscellaneous revenues 183,690 183,690 253,315 69,625 Total revenues 48,245,988 48,245,988 51,003,613 2,757,625 Expenditures Administration 4,752,098 4,768,398 4,547,110 (221,288) Community Development 2,427,180 2,461,952 2,431,612 (30,340) Police 15,686,374 15,686,374 15,357,194 (329,180) Fire 6,289,857 6,316,169 6,378,338 62,169 Public Works 6,379,781 6,389,781 5,991,750 (398,031) Parks and Recreation 13,041,401 13,041,401 11,084,484 (1,956,917) Debt Service 60,765 60,765 60,765 - Total expenditures 48,637,456 48,724,840 45,851,253 (2,873,587) Excess of revenues over (under) disbursements (391,468) (478,852) 5,152,360 5,631,212 Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers in 411,468 411,468 411,468 - Transfers Out (20,000) (20,000) (4,696,486) (4,676,486) Total other financing sources (uses)391,468 391,468 (4,285,018) (4,676,486) Net change in fund balances -$ (87,384)$ 867,342$ 954,726$ Variance With Final Budget - Over (Under)Final Budget Overall, actual revenue was $2,757,625, or 5.7%, over budget. The charges for services category was $3,866,670 under budget due to significant impacts on programming operations as a result of COVID-19. Intergovernmental revenues exceeded the budgeted amount by $4,938,887 due to Coronavirus Relief Funds received. Licenses and permits exceeded the budgeted amount by $1,142,092 due to conservative budgeting for permit revenue, specifically building permits and mechanical permits. Investment revenue came in $336,716 over budget due primarily to conservative budgeting for investment earnings. Tax revenue came in $323,634 over budget based on collections for current taxes, delinquent taxes, other taxes, and penalties and interest. Overall, actual expenditures were less than budgeted amounts by $2,873,587, or 5.9%. Parks and recreation was under budget $1,956,917 due to the effects of COVID-19 on programs and operations. Public works came in under budget by $398,031 due to operational expenditures coming in under budget such as expenditures related to design and engineering, repair and maintenance, and electric costs. 11 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis General Fund – Operations The following graph shows the overall operations of the General Fund. Revenues have fluctuated over the five years shown from a high in 2020 of $51,003,613 to a low of $42,834,735 in 2016. Overall, from 2016 to 2020, revenues have increased $8,168,878. Similarly, expenditures have fluctuated over the five years presented. In 2020, expenditures were $45,851,253, a decrease from the prior year of $384,791. Since 2016, expenditures have increased $3,219,727. $42,834,735 $44,030,035 $47,531,150 $49,259,340 $51,003,613 $42,631,526 $44,072,049 $45,455,193 $46,236,044 $45,851,253 23,890,750 23,048,423 24,860,401 27,888,522 28,053,442 23,171,318 22,592,160 24,438,689 25,354,724 26,197,429 $0$2,500,000$5,000,000 $7,500,000 $10,000,000 $12,500,000 $15,000,000 $17,500,000 $20,000,000 $22,500,000$25,000,000 $27,500,000 $30,000,000 $32,500,000 $35,000,000 $37,500,000 $40,000,000 $42,500,000 $45,000,000$47,500,000 $50,000,000 $52,500,000 $55,000,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 General Fund Operations Total Revenues Total Expenditures Cash and Investment Balance Unassigned Fund Balance As illustrated above, the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance has remained relatively consistent, increasing $842,705 from $ 25,354,724 at December 31, 2019, to $ 26,197,429 at December 31, 2020. Over the last five years, the City has been able to maintain steady cash and fund balances in a period of generally increasing costs and variable revenues. The City’s fund balance policy indicates they will strive to maintain a minimum working capital fund balance not less than 50% of next year’s budgeted tax revenue, an emergency fund balance for contingencies of 10% of next year’s budget and a budget balancing measure of 5% to 7% of next year’s budget in unassigned fund balance. As of December 31, 2020, the City’s unassigned fund balance of $26,197,429 was in compliance with the City’s fund balance policy. 12 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis Water Operations The following graph illustrates the current operations of the Water Fund for the past five years. Operating income is shown with and without depreciation below. Operating revenue increased $1,287,782, or 16.7%, from 2019 based on changes in usage, rates, and continued development. Operating expenses decreased by $228,034, or 2.4%. The decrease is due in large part to less expenses related to improvements and capital related items needed in 2020. The net effect of the increased revenues and decreased expenses is an operating loss of $354,878. This was an increase of $1,515,816 from the operating loss reported in 2019. Enterprise funds may be used to account for any activity in which a fee is charged. It is not required to have the fee support the entire activity; however, the basic premise in establishing an enterprise fund is that the activity will be operated similar to a business. Therefore, it is expected the enterprise fund would at least be able to meet its obligations currently and into the future. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Operating Revenues $7,649,111 $7,846,508 $8,422,155 $7,699,582 $8,987,364 Operating Expenses 10,437,948 9,587,269 10,367,249 9,570,276 9,342,242 Operating Loss with Depreciation (2,788,837)(1,740,761)(1,945,094)(1,870,694)(354,878) Depreciation 2,934,915 2,908,862 2,881,198 2,880,971 2,900,056 Operating Income without Depreciation 146,078 1,168,101 936,104 1,010,277 2,545,178 $(4,000,000) $(2,000,000) $- $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 Water Operations 13 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis Water Fund 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cash and Investments $10,642,350 $11,762,742 $13,031,729 $17,264,600 $14,469,884 Unrestricted Net Position 10,147,554 11,314,607 12,563,368 13,630,544 7,019,905 $(200,000) $1,800,000 $3,800,000 $5,800,000 $7,800,000 $9,800,000 $11,800,000 $13,800,000 $15,800,000 $17,800,000 Water Fund The above graph shows the cash and investment and unrestricted net position balances as of December 31, for the last five years. The Water Fund cash and investment balance has increased $3,827,534 since 2016. The cash and investment balance decreased $2,794,716 during 2020 while the unrestricted net position for the Water Fund decreased $6,610,639 during the same time period due in large part to capital asset additions in 2020 including the ground storage reservoir. 14 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis Wastewater Operations The following graph illustrates the current operations of the Wastewater Fund for the past five years. Operating income is shown with and without depreciation below. The Wastewater Fund has shown an operating loss in each of the five years presented. In 2020, the Fund showed an operating loss of $605,439. This is an increase of $326,633 from 2019. The Fund experienced an increase in operating revenue of $169,216 based on rates and usage, while wastewater expenses decreased $157,417 with less MCES user fees compared to 2019. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Operating Revenues $5,789,584 $5,863,499 $6,356,014 $6,726,548 $6,895,764 Operating Expenses 7,377,589 6,878,816 7,443,791 7,658,620 7,501,203 Operating Loss with Depreciation (1,588,005)(1,015,317)(1,087,777)(932,072)(605,439) Depreciation 1,724,415 1,744,602 1,738,001 1,710,224 1,677,800 Operating Income without Depreciation 136,410 729,285 650,224 778,152 1,072,361 $(2,000,000) $- $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 Wastewater Operations 15 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis Wastewater Fund 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cash and Investments $4,144,424 $4,565,280 $5,795,880 $5,626,666 $7,048,754 Unrestricted Net Position 5,066,673 6,054,422 6,842,033 7,191,183 8,403,748 $(200,000) $800,000 $1,800,000 $2,800,000 $3,800,000 $4,800,000 $5,800,000 $6,800,000 $7,800,000 $8,800,000 Wastewater Fund The graph above shows the cash and investment and unrestricted net position balances as of December 31, for the last five years. The Wastewater Fund cash and investment balance has increased $2,904,330 since 2016. In 2020, the Wastewater Fund cash and investment balance increased $1,422,088 while the unrestricted net position increased $1,212,565. 16 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis Stormwater Operations The following graph illustrates the current operations of the Stormwater Fund for the past five years. Operating revenue increased $251,534 with increased charges for services while expenses increased $116,067 compared to 2019. Expenses increased due in part to higher design and engineering costs along with other contracted services in 2020. The net effect of the changes in revenues and expenses was operating income of $858,492. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Operating Revenues $2,118,416 $2,380,050 $2,726,255 $3,125,251 $3,376,785 Operating Expenses 1,764,592 2,410,068 2,335,222 2,402,226 2,518,293 Operating Income (Loss) with Depreciation 353,824 (30,018) 391,033 723,025 858,492 Depreciation 951,751 1,046,138 1,081,097 1,120,096 1,162,430 Operating Income without Depreciation 1,305,575 1,016,120 1,472,130 1,843,121 2,020,922 $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 Stormwater Operations 17 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis Stormwater Fund 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cash and Investments $793,218 $1,303,209 $2,594,649 $3,595,474 $5,396,835 Unrestricted Net Position (71,364)773,914 2,032,899 3,240,336 5,272,296 $(1,000,000) $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 Stormwater Fund As of December 31, 2020, the Stormwater Fund had an ending net cash and investment balance of $5,396,835. This is an increase of $1,801,361 compared to 2019. Unrestricted net position at year-end was $5,272,296 and also increased $2,031,960 compared to the prior year. 18 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis Liquor Operations The City's liquor store reported an increase in sales from 2019 to 2020 of 6.3%. Cost of sales correspondingly increased by 6.7%. The City's liquor store sales and cost of sales have increased due to many bars and restaurants being closed during the year which brought in more foot traffic. Operating expenses in the Liquor Fund stayed relatively consistent with prior year, decreasing by $82,088. The City's gross profit percentage increased slightly from 2019 to 2020. The City's gross profit percentage is higher than all but one of the metro stores presented below and above the metro municipal average. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Sales and Operating Revenue $10,747,887 $10,501,449 $10,848,725 $10,977,643 $11,711,560 Cost of Sales 7,733,328 7,548,842 7,718,631 7,843,984 8,299,999 Gross Profit 3,014,559 2,952,607 3,130,094 3,133,659 3,411,561 Operating Expenses 2,709,869 2,331,692 2,255,144 2,379,148 2,297,060 Operating Income 304,690 620,915 874,950 754,511 1,114,501 Depreciation 122,669 122,334 115,367 107,496 73,389 Operating Income without Depreciation 427,359 743,249 990,317 862,007 1,187,890 $- $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 Liquor Operations 2020 Metro City of City of City of City of City of MunicipalEden Prairie**Eden Prairie**Edina*Richfield*Savage*Average* Sales and operating revenue 11,711,560$ 10,977,643$ 13,094,407$ 12,678,003$ 5,871,098$ 7,479,118$ Costs of sales 8,299,999 7,843,984 9,124,351 9,439,556 4,330,240 5,482,733 Gross profit 3,411,561 3,133,659 3,970,056 3,238,447 1,540,858 1,996,385 Operating expenses 2,297,060 2,379,148 2,825,506 2,445,292 1,032,954 1,493,159 Operating income 1,114,501 754,511 1,144,550 793,155 507,904 503,226 Gross profit percentage 29.1% 28.5% 30.3% 25.5% 26.2% 26.7% 2019 *Individual metro municipal and averages obtained from the Office of State Auditor, Analysis of Municipal Liquor Store Operations Report. **Includes building lease activity which can affect comparability of information presented above. 19 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis Liquor Fund 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cash and Investments $1,334,349 $1,559,598 $1,790,067 $1,869,891 $2,330,123 Unrestricted Net Position 1,049,048 1,106,460 1,332,343 1,461,891 1,863,641 $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 Liquor Fund The graph above shows the cash and investment and unrestricted net position balances as of December 31 for the last five years. The Liquor Fund cash and investment balance has increased $995,774 since 2016. In 2020, the Liquor Fund cash and investment balance increased $460,232 while the unrestricted net position increased $401,750. Information above includes building lease activity which should be considered when evaluating fund performance. 20 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis Governmental Activities The tables below and on the following page illustrate the City's various sources of revenue and expenditures per capita over a two-year period in comparison to 2019 data for Minnesota cities ranked by various sizes. Year 2018 2019 2020** Population 2,500-10,000 10,000-20,000 20,000-100,000 63,726 63,456 63,726 Property taxes 514$ 489$ 512$ 585$ 601$ 618$ Tax increments 30 28 44 36 31 34 Franchise fees and other taxes 45 50 50 61 65 65 Special assessments 54 38 53 50 45 42 Licenses and permits 40 35 51 64 77 66 Intergovernmental revenues 342 297 201 47 232 168 Charges for services 135 108 115 94 97 39 Other 89 78 79 97 104 108 Total revenue 1,249$ 1,123$ 1,105$ 1,034$ 1,252$ 1,140$ City of Eden Prairie December 31, 2019 State-Wide* Governmental Funds Revenue Per Capita with State-Wide Averages by Population Class * State-wide data obtained from the Office of the State Auditor's 2019 Minnesota City Finances Report. Comparative data for 2020 is not yet available. ** Population range was estimated based on latest available data. Total governmental revenues decreased $113 per capita from 2019. The most significant decreases were in intergovernmental revenue and charges for services. Intergovernmental revenue decreased due to more significant street aid received by the City in 2019. Charges for services decreased as a result of a decrease in recreation charges as a result of the effects of COVID-19. 21 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis Governmental Activities (Continued) Year 2018 2019 2020**Population 2,500-10,000 10,000-20,000 20,000-100,000 63,726 63,456 63,726 CurrentAdministration 152$ 128$ 107$ 70$ 70$ 71$ Community development 54 55 78 81 75 78 Police 216 205 215 230 245 244 Fire and other public safety 84 76 91 95 92 100 Public works 146 149 119 94 95 96 Parks and recreation 103 124 106 191 199 175 Other 20 20 18 - 1 2 Total current 775$ 757$ 734$ 761$ 777$ 766$ Capital outlay and construction 438$ 376$ 355$ 154$ 379$ 210$ Debt service Principal***168$ 182$ 88$ 61$ 54$ 59$ Interest and fiscal 43 41 28 16 14 14 Total debt service 211$ 223$ 116$ 77$ 68$ 73$ December 31, 2019 State-Wide*City of Eden Prairie with State-Wide Averages by Population Class Governmental Funds Expenditures Per Capita * State-wide data obtained from the Office of the State Auditor's 2019 Minnesota City Finances Report. Comparative data for 2020 is not yet available. ** Population range was estimated based on latest available data. *** Amounts include bond refunding payments which can affect comparability of information. The City's current expenditures for 2020 were higher than the state-wide average for a city of a comparable population while capital outlay and construction costs fell below the average for the year. Debt service expenditures were far less than state-wide averages. Overall, governmental expenditures per capita decreased $175 when comparing 2020 to 2019. The decrease was primarily a result of 2020 expenditures for capital outlay decreasing on a per capita basis as a result of higher construction costs in 2019. 22 City of Eden Prairie Financial Analysis Tax Levy, Capacity, And Rates The graph below presents information relating to the City's tax levy, tax capacity and rates. The levy for 2020 includes the General Fund levy of $36,668,102 plus a levy for the Debt Service of $310,000 and Capital Project Funds totaling $400,000. As illustrated below, the taxable tax capacity of the City has experienced a steady increase over the last five years. While the City has increased the levy during this period, the tax capacity rate has declined because of increases in market values and tax capacity. $100,274,286 $102,110,421 $106,602,759 $112,559,846 $116,554,959 $34,660,874 $35,711,841 $37,149,820 $38,278,724 $39,621,102 32.14 32.48 32.35 31.52 31.51 - 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 $- $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 $140,000,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Tax Capacity, Levy, and Rates Tax Capacity Certified Tax Levy Tax Capacity Rate City of Eden Prairie Emerging Issue 23 Executive Summary The following is an executive summary of financial and business related updates to assist you in staying current on emerging issues in accounting and finance. This summary will give you a preview of the new standards that have been recently issued and what is on the horizon for the near future. The most recent and significant update includes: • Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 87 – Leases – GASB has issued GASB Statement No. 87 relating to accounting and financial reporting for leases. This new statement establishes a single model for lease accounting based on the principle that leases are financing of the right to use an underlying asset. The following is an extensive summary of the current update. As your continued business partner, we are committed to keeping you informed of new and emerging issues. We are happy to discuss these issues with you further and their applicability to your City. Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 87 – Leases The objective of this Statement is to better meet the information needs of financial statement users by improving accounting and financial reporting for leases by governments. This Statement increases the usefulness of governments' financial statements by requiring recognition of certain lease assets and liabilities for leases that previously were classified as operating leases and recognized as inflows of resources or outflows of resources based on the payment provisions of the contract. It establishes a single model for lease accounting based on the foundational principle that leases are financings of the right to use an underlying asset. Under this Statement, a lessee is required to recognize a lease liability and an intangible right-to-use lease asset, and a lessor is required to recognize a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources, thereby enhancing the relevance and consistency of information about governments' leasing activities. A lease is defined as a contract that conveys control of the right to use another entity's nonfinancial asset (the underlying asset) as specified in the contract for a period of time in an exchange or exchange-like transaction. Examples of nonfinancial assets include buildings, land, vehicles, and equipment. Any contract that meets this definition should be accounted for under the leases guidance, unless specifically excluded in this Statement. A short-term lease is defined as a lease that, at the commencement of the lease term, has a maximum possible term under the lease contract of 12 months (or less), including any options to extend, regardless of their probability of being exercised. Lessees and lessors should recognize short-term lease payments as outflows of resources or inflows of resources, respectively, based on the payment provisions of the lease contract. City of Eden Prairie Emerging Issue 24 Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 87 – Leases (Continued) A lessee should recognize a lease liability and a lease asset at the commencement of the lease term, unless the lease is a short-term lease or it transfers ownership of the underlying asset. The lease liability should be measured at the present value of payments expected to be made during the lease term (less any lease incentives). The lease asset should be measured at the amount of the initial measurement of the lease liability, plus any payments made to the lessor at or before the commencement of the lease term and certain direct costs. A lessee should reduce the lease liability as payments are made and recognize an outflow of resources (for example, expense) for interest on the liability. The lessee should amortize the lease asset in a systematic and rational manner over the shorter of the lease term or the useful life of the underlying asset. The notes to financial statements should include a description of leasing arrangements, the amount of lease assets recognized, and a schedule of future lease payments to be made. A lessor should recognize a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources at the commencement of the lease term, with certain exceptions for leases of assets held as investments, certain regulated leases, short-term leases, and leases that transfer ownership of the underlying asset. A lessor should not derecognize the asset underlying the lease. The lease receivable should be measured at the present value of lease payments expected to be received during the lease term. The deferred inflow of resources should be measured at the value of the lease receivable plus any payments received at or before the commencement of the lease term that relate to future periods. A lessor should recognize interest revenue on the lease receivable and an inflow of resources (for example, revenue) from the deferred inflows of resources in a systematic and rational manner over the term of the lease. The notes to financial statements should include a description of leasing arrangements and the total amount of inflows of resources recognized from leases. GASB Statement No. 87 is effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2021. Information provided above was obtained from www.gasb.org. ITEM IV.B. PROCLAMATION City of Eden Prairie Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the increasing number of seniors in Eden Prairie bring many opportunities and challenges for all components of our City – families, businesses, and government; and WHEREAS, every segment of our society is influenced by the needs, resources and expertise of our senior; and awareness improves participation and action; and WHEREAS, our Eden Prairie seniors play a pivotal role in formal and informal education, sharing years of accumulated experience and wisdom which will impact our future; and WHEREAS, the community wishes to celebrate and acknowledge the contributions and accomplishments of the seniors in our community and recognize the organizations that serve older adults; and WHEREAS, Senior Awareness Month recognizes that seniors are an integral part of our community. NOW, THEREFORE, the Eden Prairie City Council does hereby proclaim May 2021 as: SENIOR AWARENESS MONTH ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on this 4th day of May 2021. Ronald A. Case, Mayor on behalf of Council Members: Kathy Nelson Mark Freiberg PG Narayanan Lisa Toomey UNAPPROVED MINUTES CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP & OPEN PODIUM TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2021 CITY CENTER 5:00 – 6:25 PM, HERITAGE ROOMS 6:30 – 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Ron Case, Council Members Kathy Nelson, Mark Freiberg, PG Narayanan, and Lisa Toomey CITY STAFF: City Manager Rick Getschow, Police Chief Greg Weber, Fire Chief Scott Gerber, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, Administrative Services/HR Director Alecia Rose, Communications Manager Joyce Lorenz, City Attorney Maggie Neuville, and Recorder Katie O’Connor Workshop - Heritage Rooms I and II (5:30) I. EDEN PRAIRIE FOUNDATION UPDATE Mark Weber, Executive Director of the Eden Prairie Community Foundation (EPCF), presented an update. He stated EPCF has primarily been seen as a grant maker which historically has been the case. They also help with advocacy and aim to make systemic change. The EPCF strategic plan creation started a little more than a year ago. The strategic plan focuses on four major initiatives: helping with hardship, being a hub, uniting on diversity, and increasing their capacity. Financial support and volunteers help them achieve their goals and the change they want to see. Weber presented more in depth on helping with hardship. In the short-term they have identified two areas they would like to make a difference: affordable housing and unemployment. In regards to affordable housing, they have an idea for an affordable housing coalition. The idea is being studied by the EPCF, but they envision it as a way to convene different entities in the community to create a community-wide effort. This concept is modeled after an initiative facilitated by the Rochester Area Community Foundation. EPCF would help facilitate the coalition. The housing alliance, within the coalition, would be made up of people who are experts and passionate about affordable housing. The housing alliance would look at the Housing Task Force recommendations to see where to help in those efforts. This would involve input from the City and recommendations to the City. Another component of the coalition would be the leadership council. This would include the corporate community. Corporate donors of $50,000 or more would work collaboratively with the Housing Alliance on recommendation but control their own funds. The City would be another component of the housing coalition, but they are also doing their own work towards affordable housing. Their role would be providing advice and welcoming input from the coalition. This concept would need board of director approval, but he is hopeful this could City Council Workshop Minutes April 20, 2020 Page 2 begin in the next couple of months. Getschow noted he had conversations with Weber prior to this meeting and felt it was a good idea and fit well with the work the City has been doing. It would be helpful to have greater community efforts. Weber noted the EPCF has run this idea by the Rochester Area Community Foundation, City Staff, and some members of the Housing Task Force for input on this initiative. Nelson noted the City has been requesting affordable units in perpetuity. If funds are being used to help assist with rental of units, it may not be helpful without being in perpetuity. People are displaced once the units are no longer affordable which is problematic. Weber added raising the amount of money it would take to make a big difference is a challenge. It is uncertain what type of support they will receive from the corporate community, but it is worth a try. Freiberg stated he can see how the concept could work. There has to be thought put into the messaging surrounding affordable housing and the work they plan to do. The work has to be welcomed. Nelson noted people have been receptive to the term work-force housing but sometimes associate affordable housing with only section 8 housing. Lotthammer presented on the strategic plan concept of being a hub. The EPCF would like to play the role of being the connector. The Hub volunteer team consists of Thomas Achartz, Molly Koivumaki, Susan Leddick, Holly Link, Astrid Mozes, Jay Lotthammer, and Mark Weber. They are a dedicated team of community members. 80 civic groups, community organizations, volunteers, and foundations have been identified. Similar groups have been grouped together. The two groups they are piloting are youth organizations and civic groups and businesses. Koivumaki is working as an ambassador to connect with civic groups and businesses organizations including A.M. Rotary Club, Chamber of Commerce, Lioness Club, Lions Club, Noon Rotary, Optimists Club, and Women of Today. Koivumaki is working to identify a liaison from each group to stay connected with and communicate what is happening with the EPCF, what efforts the EPCF can help with, and what their groups needs are. Link is working on connecting with ten community organizations specifically supporting youth. The playbook is what is being developed with both Koivumaki and Link’s input. It outlines what the Foundation wants to learn and share. The goal is to develop more ambassadors to connect with other community groups and to have regular contact between ambassadors and liaisons. Weber stated the information collected from the many community organizations is valuable. There is a gap in knowledge and sometimes residents are not aware of what organizations exist. With a technology platform or an online directory, this could potentially help fill the gap in knowledge. The user could select a category and it would connect them with organizations. Toomey inquired if this directory could be linked to GuideStar. Weber stated he recognizes there might be some duplication. Other places such as the Senior Center and Eden Prairie Schools have similar lists. He believes the resource list could be kept up-to-date City Council Workshop Minutes April 20, 2020 Page 3 with the liaison and ambassador relationship. Nelson inquired if the resources would be available in other languages. Weber responded one of the functions EPCF is looking into is a Google translator plug in. This would allow website visitors to select the language they would like it translated in. Nelson inquired about providing a list of volunteer opportunities for those who are interested. Weber responded they do want to increase volunteerism and provide a list of opportunities as it is frequently requested. Weber stated in regards to next steps they are continuing to roll out the pilot programs with the ambassadors. They are getting closer to making a decision on a technology platform to share valuable information. They will have a full roll-out of the ambassador-liaison program, and they will need more ambassadors in the future. They hope to increase the value of being part of the hub for the organizations. There may be opportunities to incentivize being a member of the hub in the future. There is still a lot left to do, but they are on their way. Toomey inquired if someone is running a non-profit but is not registered with the state would they be able to connect with the EPCF to get connected to the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits. Weber replied yes. They have been a fiscal sponsor for organizations. While working on becoming a non-profit, EPCF has served as their 501c3. The benefit of the hub is to help inform the public about this value. Toomey inquired if they will continue to distribute grants while focusing on being a hub. Weber responded yes. EPCF will continue to be a grant maker. The grant making may be influenced by the priorities in their strategic plan. Narayanan thanked Weber for the update and praised the work EPCF is doing. Getschow inquired about an event EPCF sponsored, pre-COVID, with many nonprofits connecting. Weber responded the Give Gathering was an event for volunteers to connect with non- profits. They collaborated with the Parks and Recreation Department and Eden Prairie Schools and hope to continue to host this event next fall. Freiberg noted the event is a great idea. Toomey expressed her thanks for Weber and the work of EPCF. Weber mentioned the EP Gives event. The event is free to register and raises a lot of funds for their grant making. Open Podium - Council Chamber (6:30) II. OPEN PODIUM A. MARILYNN TORKLESON – MILLER SPRING Marilynn Torkleson, 8956 Braxton Drive, stated she is a master water steward for the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. She has been studying soil. Eden Prairie already does not do a good job with stormwater and runoff. The National Resources Conservation Service provides guidelines for healthy soil. City Council Workshop Minutes April 20, 2020 Page 4 During construction, healthy soil is damaged and organic matter is destroyed. Eco systems will be destroyed with this project. B. REBECCA PROCHASKA – MILLER SPRING Rebecca Prochaska, 15781 Porchlight Lane, stated she spoke at the Planning Commission. If you look around at the site, everything is an adjacent preserved bluff area apart from what has been developed in the north and east. It is an important bird site. There are significant trees that will be cut down. The watershed will be impaired. She moved to Eden Prairie many years ago and thinks the City has been irresponsible with its development. It has not done environmental studies when doing development. C. MUGDHA HALBE – MILLER SPRING Mugdha Halbe, 9899 Switch Grass Lane, stated there is concern that the creek is already suffering, and the development will not do what they need to do to protect the water. The City natural waters are already suffering, and we do not want to harm our environment. We need answers to the potential impacts. III. ADJOURNMENT UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2021 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Ron Case, Council Members Mark Freiberg, P G Narayanan, Kathy Nelson, and Lisa Toomey CITY STAFF: City Manager Rick Getschow, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, City Planner Julie Klima, Police Chief Greg Weber, Fire Chief Scott Gerber, City Attorney Maggie Neuville, and Council Recorder Jan Curielli I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Acting Mayor Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Mayor Case was absent. Council Member Narayanan attended the meeting virtually. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. OPEN PODIUM INVITATION IV. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS A. HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONER CHRIS LATONDRESSE Nelson introduced newly-elected Hennepin County Commissioner for District 6, Chris Latondresse. Commissioner Latondresse announced he plans to continue the tradition of former Commissioner Jan Callison to visit at least one City Council meeting at each of the 16 cities in District 6 each year. He gave a PowerPoint update of recent activities in Hennepin County, including a review of the COVID-19 response made by Hennepin County Public Health. The County has been investing in residents through funds received from the CARES Act that provided over $220,000,000, including $16,200,000 for emergency rental assistance and $69,400,000 in direct grants to small businesses that puts funds directly into the hands of Eden Prairie businesses. He reviewed progress on the Southwest LRT which will provide a transit gateway for future development. He explained strategies involved in the Hennepin County Climate Action Plan which has a revised target to be at net zero waste by 2050. In conclusion, he reviewed his own top priorities as he serves as the Chair of the Housing Redevelopment Agency and as Vice Chair of Public Safety and continues his support for small businesses and entrepreneurship. Narayanan asked how Eden Prairie is doing in terms of COVID vaccinations. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 20, 2021 Page 2 Commissioner Latondresse replied he did not have the exact numbers for Eden Prairie but would get back to Council Member Narayanan with that information. Narayanan then asked about the County’s Climate Action Plan and how the County will partner with residents on such things as solar energy and electric vehicles. Commissioner Latondresse responded he would have to get back to Council Member Narayanan with details regarding solar energy plans. The County is working on their own electric vehicle fleets and will take a leadership role in the infrastructure needed to transition to electric vehicles. Toomey asked if the County plans to set up charging stations at facilities such as libraries. Commissioner Latondresse replied they are dealing more with general ideas at this point, but those would be some of the more specific actions proposed. Narayanan explained Eden Prairie has been trying to increase the number of charging stations in the City and also has been working on affordable housing. We organized a Housing Task Force that came back with recommendations, and we are in the process of working to implement some of the suggestions. He thought perhaps Hennepin County might be interested in partnering to share some of that information. Commissioner Latondresse stated he wanted to recognize Eden Prairie’s leadership in the area of affordable housing and would like to learn more about the City’s Housing Task Force. He pointed out the County has three affordable housing funds, including one that works with transit-oriented housing development. Nelson thanked Commissioner Latondresse for the presentation and suggested City staff could review some of the conclusions of our Housing Task Force with the Commissioner. She was delighted to see the County’s work on a Climate Action Plan and suggested staff might also review some of our work on sustainability and climate action with the Commissioner and perhaps share some of our experience with electric trucks. Freiberg commended Commissioner Latondresse for the solid and ambitious approach for his first year as Hennepin County Commissioner. B. ACCEPT GIFT FROM ELAINE SAMPSON FOR ART CENTER EQUIPMENT AND PROGRAMS (Resolution No. 2021-30) Getschow explained in 2008 the City accepted the donation of a 5400 square foot building from the Sampson family that is now our City Art Center. We have been fortunate to receive regular funding from Ms Sampson for programming and equipment at the Art Center. Tonight she is again giving a $10,000 gift for Art Center equipment and programs. Nelson thanked Ms Sampson for all her generous gifts over the past years. MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Freiberg, to adopt Resolution No. 2021-30 accepting the donation in the amount of $10,000 from Elaine Sampson to go towards CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 20, 2021 Page 3 Art Center equipment and programs. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Freiberg, Narayanan, Toomey and Nelson voting “aye.” V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Toomey, to approve the agenda as published. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Freiberg, Narayanan, Toomey and Nelson voting “aye.” VI. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2021 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2021 MOTION: Narayanan moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve the minutes of the Council workshop held Tuesday, April 6, 2021, and the City Council meeting held Tuesday, April 6, 2021, as published. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Freiberg, Narayanan, Toomey and Nelson voting “aye.” VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK’S LICENSE LIST B. APPROVE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT FOR USE OF $25,000 IN CDBG-CV FUNDS TO MAKE COVID SAFETY UPGRADES TO LUANN’S PLACE C. APPROVE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 272 FOR TASSEL TRANSITION PROGRAM IN EDEN PRAIRIE CITY CENTER D. AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASING GOODS AND SERVICES WITH QUALITE SPORTS LIGHTING FOR MILLER PARK LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT E. AWARD CONTRACT TO BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS, INC. FOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF TRAILS AND PARKING LOTS F. DECLARE SQUAD #227 SURPLUS PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZE REPLACEMENT VEHICLE PURCHASE MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Narayanan, to approve Items A-F on the Consent Calendar. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Freiberg, Narayanan, Toomey and Nelson voting “aye.” CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 20, 2021 Page 4 IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS A. CODE AMENDMENT FOR GYMNASIUMS by City of Eden Prairie. First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend City Code Chapter 11 Relating to Gymnasiums (Ordinance) Getschow observed the Council has been working on some code updates at recent Council workshops. This particular code update adds a definition of gymnasium in the zoning codes. For a number of years, we have allowed gymnasiums in several zoning districts in the City, but we have not had a definition of a gymnasium. There are different types of gymnasiums in commercial and industrial areas, and this will provide some clarity. The Planning Commission talked about this code change, and had some discussion about a specific percentage to be allowed in the industrial district, but that restriction was not included. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment on a unanimous vote. There were no comments from the audience. Freiberg asked if such facilities as dance studios are included when we talk about gymnasiums. Getschow replied all types of gymnasiums, including dance and fitness studios, would be included, and that would be made clearer by this definition. We have been in contact with all the businesses in Eden Prairie that would fit the definition, and they are aware we are doing this. Toomey asked if the 20-foot ceiling limit is included. City Planner Klima replied the definition does include a reference to ceiling height within the structure of a gymnasium, so the definition does include a vertical height of 20 feet and outlines the type of uses for other of facilities, such as ball courts, turf areas and volleyball courts. Toomey then asked if businesses that don’t exactly meet the definition will be grandfathered in. Klima responded staff has been in contact with a couple of businesses that would be non-compliant if the code amendment is approved. Staff would provide those businesses with a zoning compliance certificate noting they would be non-conforming and could continue to operate, repair and maintain their facility but could not expand the facility. Freiberg observed he would prefer to be fairly loose and not very strict in terms of those to be grandfathered in. He did not want to cause a hardship on those businesses that will be considered non-conforming by this definition. Klima responded staff has had conversations with the two businesses that would become non-conforming as a result of this code amendment. Narayanan asked if we have included anything in the amendment that would help to protect children using the facilities. Klima replied our zoning ordinance definition does not go into performance standards. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 20, 2021 Page 5 MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Freiberg, to close the public hearing, and to approve the first reading of the ordinance to amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to gymnasiums. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Freiberg, Narayanan, Toomey and Nelson voting “aye.” B. 7076-7078 SHADY OAK FAÇADE REMODEL by SOT G OWNER LLC. Direct Staff to prepare Development Agreement. Getschow explained the applicant is located in the Golden Triangle and is proposing an exterior remodel of the current industrial building. The building was built in 1984, and the applicant will be making changes to update the building. The proposed changes include changing exterior building elevations to a more modern façade for a new tenant. Because the changes are primarily cosmetic in nature and not a major improvement or expansion, the proposal goes straight to the City Council and not to the Planning Commission. He stated staff recommends approval, and the applicant is here virtually to give an overview of the proposed remodel. Carolyn Gagne, representing SOT G OWNER LLC, gave a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed exterior renovations. She reviewed the project location and site survey. She displayed renderings of the building façades and the elevations, noting the changes they plan include relocating the front entrance and adding windows on the dock side of the building. While they are not making extensive changes to the building exterior, they believe these changes will improve the aesthetics and will add to the building’s appeal. There were no comments from the audience. Freiberg stated he was amazed at what a difference they were able to make to the front of the building with very little difference in height. He was very impressed. MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Toomey, to close the public hearing, and to direct staff to prepare an amendment of the Developer’s Agreement incorporating staff recommendations and Council conditions. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Freiberg, Narayanan, Toomey and Nelson voting “aye.” X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Narayanan, to approve the payment of claims as submitted. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Freiberg, Narayanan, Toomey and Nelson voting “aye.” XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5.36 RELATING TO LICENSING OF COLLECTORS OF WASTE Getschow stated Hennepin County requires cities to provide for the curbside collection CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 20, 2021 Page 6 of organic materials to its residents in single-family through 4-plex dwellings, along with other residential households where each household has its own collection container for mixed recyclables, by January 1, 2022. Eden Prairie has opted to meet this requirement by having licensed haulers provide the organics recycling service as part of their current work with solid waste and recycling. Section 5.36 has been modified to reflect that requirement and to include some administrative items have been updated to reflect best practices in waste collection licensure. He noted there has been discussion that our five existing haulers would provide organic service at two City Council planning workshops for 2022. Toomey asked if residents will then have three separate garbage cans. Getschow replied the haulers are working on their own best method of collecting organics, so they may not necessarily provide a separate organics garbage can. Nelson commented it was great we finally have reached the point where we can get a statement of what we are doing about this. MOTION: Narayanan moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve first reading of an ordinance amending City Code Chapter 5, Section 5.36 relating to licensing of collectors of waste. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Freiberg, Narayanan, Toomey and Nelson voting “aye.” XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 20, 2021 Page 7 XVI. ADJOURNMENT Acting Mayor Nelson thanked all those who were outside the Council Chamber for coming to tonight’s meeting. She appreciated all the work going on and noted the project they are interested in will be considered at the May 4th City Council meeting. MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Freiberg, to adjourn the meeting. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Freiberg, Narayanan, Toomey and Nelson voting “aye.” Acting Mayor Nelson adjourned the meeting at 7:51 pm. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development/Planning Janet Jeremiah/Beth Novak-Krebs ITEM DESCRIPTION: Code Amendment in Chapter 11 relating to gymnasiums ITEM NO.: VIII.A. Requested Action Move to: Approve the second reading of the Ordinance to Amend City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.02 relating to adding a definition of gymnasium. Synopsis This is the second reading of the Ordinance to Amend City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.02 relating to adding a definition of gymnasium. Since the amendment was reviewed at the 1st reading, a clarifying statement has been added to the definition based on a recommendation by the City Attorney (see red and underlined text below). This does not change the substance of the definition, but makes it more clear. “Gymnasium” A building or space within a building with a wall height of not less than 20 feet and providing facilities such as courts, turf fields, batting cages, gymnastics studios, swim schools and supporting uses for recreation and physical training. Uses including but not limited to fitness centers, martial arts studios, and dance studios are not considered gymnasium uses under this definition, but are considered commercial uses and are allowed consistent with retail uses in the Industrial Zoning Districts. Attachment Ordinance CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ____-2021 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTION 02, RELATING TO GYMNASIUMS; AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11, Section 02 Definitions is hereby amended by adding the following definition alphabetically and renumbering all of the definitions: “Gymnasium” A building or space within a building with a wall height of not less than 20 feet and providing facilities such as courts, turf fields, batting cages, gymnastics studios, swim schools and supporting uses for recreation and physical training. Uses including but not limited to fitness centers, martial arts studios, and dance studios are not considered gymnasium uses under this definition, but are considered commercial uses and are allowed consistent with retail uses in the Industrial Zoning Districts. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation” and Section 11.99 entitled “Violation a Misdemeanor” are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of April 2021, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 4th day of May, 2021. _________________________________ _________________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Ronald A. Case, Mayor Published in the Eden Prairie Sun Sailor on the ____ day of ______________, 2021. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development/Planning Janet Jeremiah/Sarah Strain ITEM DESCRIPTION: 7076-7078 Shady Oak Road Façade Remodel ITEM NO.: VIII.B. Requested Action Move to: •Adopt a Resolution for Site Plan on 6.3 acres; and •Approve the Development Agreement for 7076-7078 Shady Oak Road Façade Remodel. Synopsis This is the final approval of the Development Agreement and plans for the 7076-7078 Shady Oak Façade Remodel. The applicant is proposing an exterior remodel of the existing industrial building. Background The existing building was built in 1984, and the applicant will be making changes to update the building. The exterior remodel is consistent with City design guidelines and brings the building into compliance with updated architectural code requirements through new roofline variation and additional Class I material and color variations. The 120-Day Review Period Expires on July 30, 2021. Attachments 1.Site Plan Resolution2.Development Agreement CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__ A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 7076-7078 SHADY OAK ROAD BY SOT G Owner, LLC WHEREAS, SOT G Owner, LLC. has applied for Site Plan approval of 7076-7078 Shady Oak Road to remodel the façade of an existing industrial building; and WHEREAS, Section 11.03 Subd. 6 allows certain new or amended Site Plan and Architectural Design applications to be subject to review and consideration for approval by the City Council only without referral to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Site Plan approval of 7076-7078 Shady Oak Road solely addresses the building façades; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application to remodel the façade of an existing industrial building at a public hearing at its April 20, 2021 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval is granted to remodel the façade of an existing industrial building subject to the Development Agreement between SOT G Owner, LLC. and the City of Eden Prairie, reviewed and approved by the City Council on May 4th, 2021. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 4th day of May, 2021. ___________________________ Ronald A. Case, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Jennifer Hassebroek Public Works / Engineering ITEM DESCRIPTION: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 5, Section 5.36 Relating to Licensing of Collectors of Waste ITEM NO.: VIII.C. Requested Action Move to: •Approve second reading and adopt an ordinance amending City Code Chapter 5, Section 5.36relating to licensing of collectors of waste. •Adopt a resolution approving summary ordinance Synopsis Hennepin County requires cities to provide for the curbside collection of organic materials to its residents in single-family through fourplex dwellings, along with other residential households where each household has its own collection container for mixed recyclables, by January 1, 2022. Eden Prairie has opted to meet this requirement by requiring licensed haulers to provide the service as part of their licensure. Section 5.36 has been modified to reflect that requirement and some administrative items have been updated to reflect best practices in waste collection licensure. Background Information In November 2018, Hennepin County adopted changes to Ordinance 13 that required cities to offer curbside collection of organic materials either through contract for organized city collection or by requiring licensed haulers in the city provide the service as part of their licensure. Eden Prairie completed a Solid Waste Management Plan in 2018 that identified pathways to provide this service to the community. In September 2020 staff met with each of the licensed residential haulers to discuss methods of collection, expected participation rates, end use processing of the materials, the structure of the collection system, costs, timing and any concerns they may have with providing this service. The outcome of this discussion was presented to the City Council at a November 17, 2020 workshop. Staff has prepared ordinance changes that incorporate the requirement for organics materials collection as part of licensure. The changes also include updating sections as needed to clarify administrative procedures and ensure licensing best practices. The ordinance was last updated in 2012. Highlights of the proposed changes include: •Updated definitions to reflect Hennepin County terminology and plain language bestpractices. •Specifying the number of residential hauling licenses allowed at 5, the current number ofresidential haulers licensed in the city. •License application section updated to better reflect the application process andrequirements. •Updated insurance coverage limit requirements. •Language added to include curbside organic materials collection as part of licensure, clarifying that service must be made available to residents no later than November 1,2021. This date was selected as all residential haulers agreed that rolling out a newservice at the end of the year would be problematic due to weather and holidays. • Language outlining acceptable co-collection methods for organic materials. • Added organic materials reporting requirements. • Roll off container licenses better defined and more specific details on reporting requirements added. • Added suspension and revocation procedures. • Added language to clarify legal ramifications of violations. Each of the residential waste haulers were given an opportunity to review and provide feedback on this language prior to City Council consideration. One minor modification was suggested by a waste hauler and has been incorporated into the proposed update. None of the licensed residential haulers in the community expressed any concerns with the proposed language or their ability to meet the requirements. First reading of the ordinance was at the April 20, 2021 City Council meeting. Attachment • Ordinance • Resolution approving summary Ordinance • Summary Ordinance CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. _______-2021 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5.36 RELATING TO LICENSING OF COLLECTORS OF WASTE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 5.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Chapter 5, Section 5.36, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: SECTION 5.36. - LICENSING OF COLLECTORS OF WASTE. Subd. 1. Purpose and Findings. The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie finds that the practice of disposing of waste in land disposal facilities commonly referred to as landfills is unacceptable because such disposal is detrimental both in the short-range and long-range to the environment in that it causes pollution and contamination of underground and surface waters, the air and natural flora and fauna, it is harmful to the health and safety of persons and property because of the generation of noxious and dangerous odors and gases, including methane gas, the contamination of waters and air, and the blowing of airborne particles and contaminants causes social and/or economic harm to persons and property who reside, or which is, in proximity to landfills and should be done only in the absence of reasonably available alternatives. Additionally, it is the intent of the City Council to establish a system for the orderly and regular collection of waste in the City; to insure that the disposal of the material shall be accomplished in a sanitary manner; that the health of the residents of the City shall be properly safeguarded; and to further insure that the City shall be in compliance with all laws relating to the disposition of waste materials. The City Council adopts the following provisions relating to the collection of waste in an effort to ameliorate and eliminate so far as possible the social, economic, and physical harm caused by the disposal of waste. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this section, shall have the following meanings: Aluminum Recyclables means disposable containers fabricated primarily of aluminum, commonly used for beverages. Association means all organizations of residential dwelling owners formed for the purpose of joint management of property or services. Can Recyclables means disposable containers fabricated primarily of metal or tin. Collection means the aggregation of waste from the place at which it is generated and includes all activities up to the time when the material is delivered to a disposal facility. Commercial Establishment means any premises where commercial or industrial enterprise of any kind is carried on and shall include restaurants, clubs, churches, and schools where food is prepared or served. Corrugated Cardboard means heavy paper or cardboard material with double wall construction and corrugated separation between walls for use in packing or boxing materials. Curbside Collection means the collection of waste from single and multiple family dwellings where each housing unit sets out its own waste for collection at the curb. Director means the City’s Director of Public Works. Disposal Facility means a waste facility permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that is designed or operated for the purpose of disposing of waste or otherwise processing or preparing waste materials for reuse. Glass Recyclables means glass jars, bottles, and other containers which are primarily used for packing and bottling of food and beverages. Geographic Service Area means that area incorporated within the boundaries of the City. Hauler means any person who owns, operates, or leases vehicles for the primary purpose of collection and transportation of any type of waste. Licensee means a person licensed to collect and transport trash, recyclable materials, organic materials and/or yard waste or roll off containers as provided in this section. Mixed Recyclables means recyclable materials that are source separated from waste for the purpose of recycling, whether or not these materials are commingled for collection. Multiple Family Dwelling means a residential building designed for or occupied by two or more families. Organic Materials means the portion of waste that is source separated for the purpose of beneficial use, and may include food, food scraps, and other materials as designated by Hennepin County in collaboration with local organic material management facilities. For the purpose of this Section, organic materials excludes yard waste regulated by Minnesota Statutes Section 115A.931. Paper Recyclables means newsprint, advertising supplements, office paper, magazines, catalogs, mixed paper, aseptic containers, gable-topped containers, and uncoated paper products such as cereal, cracker, pasta, cake mix, shoe, gift, electronics, and toothpaste boxes. Plastic Recyclables means plastic containers and lids from containers that are labeled #1 (Polyethylene Terephthalate, PET, or PETE), #2 (High Density Polyethylene or HDPE), #3 (Vinyl Polyvinyl Chloride or PVC), #4 (Low Density Polyethylene or LDPE), or #5 (Polypropylene or PP), excluding bottles that previously contained hazardous materials or motor oil. Recyclable Materials means the portion of waste consisting of aluminum recyclables, can recyclables, corrugated cardboard, glass recyclables, paper recyclables, plastic recyclables, organic materials, and other materials required to be recycled in compliance with applicable City, County, and State ordinances, laws, rules, and regulations, each of which has been separated by a customer into a container or containers which have been designated for recyclable or organic waste. Recycling means the process of collecting and preparing recyclable materials for reusing these materials to prevent waste of potentially useful materials either in new products, in their original form, or in a manufacturing processes that does not cause destruction of them in a manner that precludes further use. Residential Customer means a person who is a customer of a licensee and resides in a single family dwelling or multiple family dwelling which is used for residential purposes by one or more people, not including hotels, motels, rest homes, hospitals, or nursing homes. Roll-Off Container means an open-top dumpster characterized by a rectangular footprint that: (i) utilizes wheels to facilitate rolling the dumpster in place; (ii) is designed to be transported by special roll off trucks; (iii) is intended for temporary uses; and (iv) is commonly used to contain loads of construction and demolition waste or other waste types. Roll-off container also means any type of dumpster bag service. A dumpster used by a commercial establishment or multiple family dwelling for ongoing collection of waste is not a roll-off container under this definition. Single Family Dwelling means a building designed for or occupied exclusively by one family. Source Separation means the separation of recyclable materials and organic materials from trash at the source of generation. Trash means non-recyclable materials that are designated for landfill or incinerator disposal by the hauler. The term “trash” does not include hazardous waste as defined in Minnesota Statues Section 116.06, subdivision 11, or construction debris as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 115A.03, subdivision 7. Waste means all trash, mixed recyclables, organic materials, and yard waste from residential, commercial, industrial, and community activities. Yard Waste means waste generated from landscaping and lawn care activities such as mowing, trimming, gardening, or raking consisting of grass clippings, twigs, tree and brush clippings, straw, pine needles, tree branches, soft vegetative garden waste, and leaves. Subd. 3. License Required. A. It is unlawful for any person to collect waste from any person or establishment within the City, or transport the same, without a license from the City. B. The City may issue no more than five (5) licenses at any time for the collection of waste from residential customers . There is no limit on the number of licenses that may be issued for the collection of waste from commercial establishments. Subd. 4. Exception. Nothing in this section prevents a person from collecting or transporting waste from the person’s own residence or place of business provided the collection and transportation of waste is conducted in accordance with Minnesota Administrative Rule 7035.0800. All waste must be dumped or unloaded only at a disposal facility. Subd. 5. License Applications. A. Application; Fee. An application for a license under this section must be made on a form supplied by the City and must be accompanied by a fee in the amount as established by resolution of the Council. All questions asked or information required by the application form must be answered fully and completely by the applicant. B. Insurance. Each applicant for a license must provide with its license application evidence, in the form of certificates of insurance issued by insurers duly licensed to do business within the State of Minnesota, of the insurance coverages required by Subdivision 6.H.1 covering all vehicles to be used and all operations to be performed by the applicant in collecting and transporting waste. C. Investigation. The City is empowered to conduct any and all investigations to verify the information on applications and renewal applications submitted under this section, including but not limited to ordering a criminal history check pursuant to City Code Section 2.33. D. Consideration and Issuance. After the information on the application has been verified as correct by the City pursuant to subsection C above, an initial application for a license under this section will be endorsed by the Director for issuance or denial within ten (10) days after the application and any investigations are deemed to be complete. 1. Issuance. Upon the Director’s endorsement of his/her approval of an application and the applicant’s payment of the license fee, the City will issue and mail a license certificate to the applicant at the address noted in the application. 2. Denial. The Director may deny a license for any of the following reasons: (i) unavailability of a license pursuant to Subdivision 3.B of this section; (ii) failure of the applicant to pass any investigations pursuant to Subsection C above; (iii) inability of the applicant to meet any of the requirements of Subdivisions 6 or 7 of this section; or (iv) on the same grounds for which a license may be suspended or revoked as set forth in Subdivision 9 of this section. A denial of an application will be communicated to the applicant in writing, including findings supporting the decision. The notice of denial will be mailed by regular mail to the applicant at address listed on the application. An applicant may appeal a denial by submitting a hearing request to the Director within ten (10) days of the date of the notice of denial. If a hearing request is not received by the Director within ten (10) days of the date contained in the notice, the applicant’s right to a hearing will be deemed waived. If timely requested, the hearing will be held in accordance with the procedures set forth in Subdivision 9.B.2 and 9.B.3 of this section. E. Term; Renewal. Licenses issued under this section will expire on December 31 of each year. An application for renewal of a license must be submitted on or before December 1 of each year and be accompanied by the completed renewal form provided by the City and the required license fee. Applications for license renewal will be investigated, considered, and issued in accordance with the procedure for an initial license as set forth in Subsections A–D of this Subdivision 5. Subd. 6. Conditions. The following are conditions applicable to each licensee for a license for the collection of waste: A. Each licensee is authorized to collect waste within the geographical service area. The Council has by resolution divided the geographical service area into districts and established the days on which residential waste collection may occur within each district. The districts so established and the days on which collection may occur within each district may from time to time be amended by the Council by resolution. No licensee or any other person may collect waste from residential customers on any day other than the day specified for collection in the district except to collect roll-off containers, missed pickups, a special pickup, or when a holiday falls on a district collection day. B. Each licensee must use vehicles or roll-off containers for the collection and transportation of waste in good operating condition, of such design and so equipped so as to prevent loss in transit of liquid or solid cargo. The vehicles must be kept clean and free from offensive odors and must not be stopped or parked longer than reasonably necessary to collect waste. C. No licensee may operate on any City street a vehicle which exceeds eight (8) tons per axle weight. D. No licensee may operate in a residential district after 8:30 P.M. or before 7:00 A.M. of any day, and may not operate in a residential district on Sunday. E. Each licensee must exhibit evidence of the license in a prominent position on each vehicle used in the collection or transportation of waste. F. Each licensee is solely responsible for the provision, at its expense, of all personnel and equipment necessary to collect and transport all waste for which a license is granted by the City for delivery and disposal in accordance with the City Code and such regulations as the City may from time to time establish. G. Each licensee must take all precautions necessary to protect the public against injury and must defend, indemnify and save the City and its elected officials, agents and employees harmless from and against all liabilities, losses, damages and claims of damages (including all reasonable costs, attorneys’ fees, and other expenses incident thereto) suffered or incurred by the City that may arise by reason of any act or omission on the part of the licensee, its agents, or independent contractors, while engaged in the collection and transportation of waste. Each licensee must also defend, indemnify, and save the City and its elected officials, agents, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, liens and claims for labor performed or material furnished incident to the said collection and transportation by licensee including claims for material or services furnished or subcontracted for by it. Each licensee must also defend, indemnify, and save the City and its elected officials, agents, and employees harmless from and against all liabilities, losses, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and expenses of City), causes of action, suits, claims, demands and judgments of any nature arising from violation of any representation, agreement, warranty, covenant, or condition made by licensee or imposed upon licensee by this section. H. Insurance Requirements. 1. Each licensee must obtain and maintain during the term of the license the following insurance covering all vehicles to be used and all operations to be performed by the licensee in collecting and transporting waste: a. Commercial general liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 property damage and bodily injury per occurrence. If such insurance contains an annual aggregate limit, the annual aggregate limit shall not be less than $2,000,000. b. Comprehensive automobile liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit. The insurance shall cover liability arising out of any auto, including owned, hired, and non-owned vehicles. c. Worker’s compensation insurance at statutory limits. 2. After endorsement of an application by the Director but before issuance of the license, the licensee must furnish to the City certificates of insurance evidencing the required insurance coverage in force on the date of commencement of the license period, and continuing for a policy period of at least one (1) year. Each required policy of insurance must name the City as an additional insured. 3. The commercial general liability and automobile liability insurance policies must provide contractual liability insurance, specifically referring to and covering licensee’s indemnification obligations as provided in subsection G above. 4. The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies must contain an endorsement as follows: The policy to which this endorsement is attached is intended to comply with and furnish the coverages required by Section 5.36 of the City Code of the City of Eden Prairie. If anything in any other attachment, endorsement, or rider conflicts with the provisions of said Section 5.36, then the provisions of said Section 5.36 shall prevail. Any deductible amount provided for in any part of the policy will be paid by the insurer upon establishment of legal liability of any insured, and the insurer will be entitled to reimbursement from the insured for such deductible amount. 5. All policies of insurance must contain a stipulation that the policy will not be canceled nor any material change effected without first giving thirty (30) days written notice to the City. Upon request by the City, licensee must promptly furnish to the City for examination at any time all policies of insurance required herein. Each licensee must, upon application for renewal of the license, furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City of the insurance required hereunder. I. Each licensee must at all times operate its business of collecting, transporting, and disposing of waste in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws. Each licensee must obtain and maintain all licenses, permits, or other authority required by each county in which it operates, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and any other governmental agency having jurisdiction over its activities. J. Each licensee must impose charges for the collection of trash that increase with the volume or weight of the trash collected. Subd. 7. Collection and Reporting Requirements. In addition to the conditions imposed upon licensees set forth in Subdivision 6, the following are conditions and requirements applicable to each licensee. Each licensee must: A. Collect or provide for the collection from each customer of the licensee of recyclable materials no less frequently than on a bi-weekly basis and trash and organic materials no less frequently than on a weekly basis on the same day or days that the licensee collects other forms of waste from such customer as described in Subdivision 6.A. B. Not deliver to, dump, or dispose of recyclable materials that have been placed in a container designated for recycling on or in a disposal facility. C. Provide for and collect yard waste from each residential customer of the licensee at least as frequently and on such day or days as it collects trash and organic materials from such residential customer between May and October. D. Not deliver to, dump, or dispose of yard waste on or in a disposal facility. E. Provide to the City a quarterly written report that includes the following information: 1. The amount, by weight or volume, of all single sort system recyclable materials or of each of the following materials collected during the preceding month from all residential customers of the licensee in the City: a. Aluminum recyclables b. Can recyclables c. Corrugated cardboard d. Glass recyclables e. Paper recyclables f. Plastic recyclables g. All other recyclable materials h. Yard waste i. Organic materials j. All other trash 2. The number of single family dwellings with curbside collection of recyclable materials, separately noting the number of such dwellings with curbside collection of organic materials. 3. The number of multiple family dwellings or customers with curbside collection of recyclable materials, separately noting the number of such dwellings with curbside collection of organic materials. 4. The number of multiple family dwellings without curbside collection of recyclable materials. 5. The number of commercial establishments with recycling service. 6. The number of commercial establishments with organic materials collection. 7. The following organic materials collection reporting requirements: a. A description of how organic materials are or will be collected. b. A communications plan that includes the method(s) and frequency of communications that notify residents of the availability of curbside collection of organic materials. c. Instructions on how residents may sign up for the curbside collection of organic materials. d. A curbside collection schedule or calendar. e. Instructions on how residents should prepare organic materials for curbside collection. f. The number of participants and tonnage of organic materials collected. g. The organic materials management facility where organic materials are delivered. h. The contact information of a representative of the licensee who can respond to inquiries related to the requirements of this section. F. Retain all documents evidencing the amount of the materials collected and/or received by the licensee from the facility or facilities at which the materials have been disposed for a period of at least five (5) years. These documents must be available for inspection by representatives of the City at all reasonable times within Hennepin County or a contiguous county. G. Not impose a greater charge for curbside collection upon customers who recycle aluminum can, plastic, corrugated cardboard, paper, and glass recyclables than upon customers who do not recycle waste. H. Collect or provide for the collection of recyclable materials from each commercial or business customer on request. I. Collect or provide for the collection of at a minimum the following recyclable materials from all residential customers and commercial establishments: 1. Aluminum recyclables 2. Can recyclables 3. Corrugated cardboard 4. Glass recyclables 5. Paper recyclables 6. Plastic recyclables J. Provide for the collection of organic materials upon request for (1) all residential customers residing in single family through fourplex dwellings, and (2) any residential customers residing in other multiple family dwellings whose households have their own curbside collection container for mixed recyclables. Collection of organic materials must be made available to residents by November 1, 2021. K. Collect or provide for the collection of all recyclable materials, including organic materials upon request, from residential customers with curbside collection using one of the following systems: 1. Single Sort System. All recyclable materials are collected in one container, excluding organic materials, or 2. Dual Sort System. All recyclables materials are collected separately. Organic materials may be collected in a certified compostable bag that is placed for co- collection in a trash cart. Bagged organic materials must be separated from the trash at the disposal facility. Organic materials may also be co-collected with yard waste if approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Hennepin County. L. Provide one educational piece of literature or one educational flyer in a format approved by Hennepin County to each residential customer who has curbside collection of recyclable materials. The educational literature or flyer must include at a minimum the materials that are collected by curbside collection. Subd. 8. Roll-Off Containers. A. All provisions of this section, except Subdivision 7, are applicable to licensees who collect roll-off containers. B. Roll-off containers must not be placed (1) within any street or public right-of-way except pursuant to a right-of-way permit issued under City Code Section 6.03, or (2) on or within other public property. C. Each licensee who collects roll-off containers must document and retain dated weight receipts of the recyclable materials processed or waste hauled from the City for the last three years, which must be made available to the City upon request. At a minimum, the receipts must contain: 1. Total tons of construction and demolition waste collected. 2. Total number of construction and demolition waste pick-ups. 3. Locations at which construction and demolition wastes were processed or disposed of. D. Upon demand by the City, licensees who collect roll-off containers must produce any records required by the City to verify that all waste has been disposed of in a lawful manner. Subd. 9. Suspension or Revocation. A. Grounds for Suspension or Revocation. The City may suspend or revoke a license issued under this section. The following are grounds for suspension or revocation of a license: 1. Fraud, misrepresentation, or false statement contained in a license application or a renewal application; 2. Fraud, misrepresentation, or false statement made in the course of carrying on the licensed collection; 3. Failure to perform, meet, or comply with any condition or obligation imposed upon a licensee under this section; or 4. Failure to comply with other City ordinances or state or federal law. B. Procedure. 1. Notice. A suspension or revocation will be preceded by written notice from the Director or his or her designee to the licensee and an opportunity for a hearing. The notice will state the nature of the violation(s) or grounds for suspension or revocation and will inform the licensee of the licensee’s right to request a hearing within ten (10) days of the date contained in the notice to dispute the suspension or revocation. The notice will be mailed by regular mail to the licensee at the most recent address listed on the license application. If a hearing request is not received by the City within ten (10) days of the date contained in the notice, the licensee’s right to a hearing will be deemed waived. No suspension or revocation of a license under this section will take effect until (a) the licensee’s time to request a hearing expires; or (b) if a hearing is requested, after the licensee is informed of the decision of the City Manager. 2. Hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Director or his or her designee will provide written notice to the licensee of the date, time, and place of the hearing. The notice will be served in the same manner as the initial notice. The notice will be served no less than fifteen (15) day and no more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. The hearing will be held by an impartial hearing officer who will be appointed by the Director or his or her designee. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer will, within ten (10) days, make his or her recommendation to the City Manager in writing. If the hearing officer’s recommendation is denial of the application or suspension or revocation of the license, he or she must include in the written recommendation his or her findings and conclusions supporting the decision. 3. Decision. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the hearing officer’s written recommendation, the City Manager will make a decision on whether the license will be denied renewal, suspended, or revoked. The City Manager will inform the licensee in writing of the decision, including findings and conclusions supporting the decision, within ten (10) days. 4. Appeal. No appeal is allowed to the City Council under Section 2.80 of the City Code from a decision of the City Manager under this section. The City Council may, on its own motion, determine to review the decision of the City Manager. Subd. 10. Relationship of the Parties. The City will have no responsibility or obligation whatsoever with respect to the collection, transportation, or disposal of waste, or payment for such services to any person, and nothing in this section will be deemed to make a licensee a partner, joint venturer, agent, or representative of the City or to create the relationship of employer-employee. Subd. 11. Violation a Misdemeanor. A person who commits or attempts to commit, conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an act constituting a violation of this section, whether individually or in connection with one or more other persons or as principal, agent, or accessory is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who falsely, fraudulently, forcibly, or willfully induces, causes, coerces, permits, or directs another to violate a provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation” and Section 5.99 entitled “Violation a Misdemeanor” are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after the date of its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of April, 2021, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the _____ day of ________________, 2021. _________________________________ _________________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Ronald A. Case, Mayor Published in the Eden Prairie News on the ____ day of ______________, 2021. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____-2021 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. ______ was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie held on the 4th day of May, 2021. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS, DETERMINES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: A. Ordinance No. ______ is lengthy. B. The text of summary of Ordinance No. _________, attached hereto as Exhibit A, conforms to M.S. § 331A.01, Subd. 10, and is approved, and publication of the title and summary of the Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance. C. The title and summary shall be published once in the Eden Prairie Sun Sailor in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type. D. A printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person, during regular office hours, at the office of the City Clerk, and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City offices. E. Ordinance No. _______ shall be recorded in the Ordinance Book, along with proof of publication, within twenty (20) days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on May 4, 2021. ___________________________ Ronald A. Case, Mayor SEAL ATTEST: ________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __-2021 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5.36 RELATING TO LICENSING OF COLLECTORS OF WASTE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 5.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance amends and replaces City Code Section 5.36 relating to the licensing of collectors of waste in the City. The ordinance requires that all licensed residential haulers in the City offer organics collection by November 1, 2021. The ordinance further provides that the City may issue no more than five licenses for the collection of waste from residential customers. The ordinance also revises and clarifies definitions and licensing procedures and requirements. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: __________________________ ________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Ronald A. Case, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Sailor on ______________________, 2021. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT / DIVISION: Police Department Chief Greg Weber ITEM DESCRIPTION: Purchase of Night Vision Equipment ITEM NO.: VIII.D. Requested Action Move to: Approve contract with Elbit Systems of America for the purchase of night vision systems and associated equipment in the amount of $103,200.00. Synopsis The Eden Prairie Police Department often times responds to calls for service in low light conditions. Examples include: finding lost persons, locating individuals that are hiding, holding a perimeter and high-risk entries. This Night Vision Equipment would allow our officers to preserve their visibility when conducting those night-time operations, both indoors and outdoors. The increased visibility will aid in search and rescue missions in dark environments as well as provide increased safety for staff. Staff obtained three quotes for the purchase from the following vendors: MaxaVision Technologies $117,420.00 U.S. Night Vision $118,349.80 Elbit Systems of America $103,200.00 This purchase was budgeted for in the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Staff recommends accepting the lowest quote from Elbit Systems of America. The attached Contract for Goods and Services has been prepared for Council approval. Attachment Contract for Goods and Services 2017 06 10 Contract for Goods and Services This Contract (“Contract”) is made on the 31st day of March, 2021, between the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (hereinafter “City”), whose business address is 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, and Elbit Systems of America – Night Vision LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter “Vendor”) whose business address is 7635 Plantation Road, Roanoke, VA 24019. Preliminary Statement The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of vendors to provide a variety of goods and/or services for the City. That policy requires that persons, firms or corporations providing such goods and/or services enter into written agreements with the City. The purpose of this Contract is to set forth the terms and conditions for the provision of goods and/or services by Vendor for the purchase of night vision equipment for the Police Department, hereinafter referred to as the “Work”. The City and Vendor agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work. The Vendor agrees to provide, perform and complete all the provisions of the Work in accordance with attached Exhibit A. Any general or specific conditions, terms, agreements, consultant or industry proposal, or contract terms attached to or a part of Exhibit A that are in conflict with the terms of this Contract are declined in full and, accordingly, are deleted and shall not be in effect in any manner. 2. Term of Contract. All Work under this Contract shall be provided, performed and/or completed by October 1, 2021 so long as a purchase order is submitted to Vendor by April 16, 2021. 3. Compensation for Services. City agrees to pay the Vendor a fixed sum of $103,200.00 as full and complete payment for the goods, labor, materials and/or services rendered pursuant to this Contract and as described in Exhibit A. 4. Method of Payment. Vendor shall prepare and submit to City, itemized invoices setting forth work performed under this Contract, upon shipment of product. Invoices submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City. 5. Staffing. The Vendor has designated _________________________to perform the Work. They shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Work in accordance with the terms established herein. Vendor may not remove or replace the designated staff without the approval of the City. [STAFFING PROVISION REQUIRED ONLY FOR SERVICES] 6. Standard of Care . Vendor shall exercise the same degree of care, skill and diligence in the performance of its services as is ordinarily exercised by members of the profession under similar circumstances in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Standard Purchasing Contract 2017 06 01 Page 2 of 5 7. Insurance. a. General Liability. Vendor shall maintain a general liability insurance policy with limits of at least $1,000,000.00 for each person, and each occurrence, for both personal injury and property damage. Vendor shall provide City with a Certificate of Insurance verifying insurance coverage before providing service to the City. b. Worker's Compensation. Vendor shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect Vendor from claims under the Worker's Compensation Acts and from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance of Vendor’s services under this Contract. c. Comprehensive Automobile Liability. Vendor shall maintain comprehensive automobile liability insurance with a $1,000,000 combined single limit each accident (shall include coverage for all owned, hired and non-owed vehicles.) 8. Indemnification. Vendor will defend and indemnify City, its officers, agents, and employees and hold them harmless from and against all judgments, claims, damages, costs and expenses, including a reasonable amount as and for its attorney’s fees paid, incurred or for which it may be liable resulting from any breach of this Contract by Vendor, its agents, contractors and employees, or any negligent or intentional act or omission performed, taken or not performed or taken by Vendor, its agents, contractors and employees, relative to this Contract. City will indemnify and hold Vendor harmless from and against any loss for injuries or damages arising out of the negligent acts of the City, its officers, agents or employees. 9. Warranty. The Vendor expressly warrants and guarantees to the City that all Work performed and all materials furnished shall be in accord with the Contract and shall be free from defects in materials, workmanship, and operation as provided in the terms and conditions attached to Exhibit A. The City’s rights under the Contractor’s warranty are not the City’s exclusive remedy. The City shall have all other remedies available under this Contract, at law or in equity. 10. Termination. This Contract may be terminated by either party by seven (7) days’ written notice delivered to the other party at the addresses written above. Upon termination under this provision if there is no fault of the Vendor, the Vendor shall be paid for services rendered until the effective date of termination. 11. Independent Contractor. At all times and for all purposes herein, the Vendor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Vendor an employee of the City. 12. Subcontract or Assignment. Vendor shall not subcontract any part of the services to be provided under this Contract; nor may Vendor assign this Contract, or any interest arising herein, without the prior written consent of the City. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Standard Purchasing Contract 2017 06 01 Page 3 of 5 13. Assignment. Neither party shall assign this Contract, nor any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 14. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In providing services hereunder, the Vendor shall abide by statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. Any violation of statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the services to be provided shall constitute a material breach of this Contract and entitle the City to immediately terminate this Contract. 15. Conflicts. No salaried officer or employee of the City and no member of the Council of the City shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract. The violation of this provision renders the Contract void. 16. Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original. 17. Damages. In the event of a breach of this Contract, the non-breaching party may not recover punitive, special or consequential damages or damages for loss of business from the breaching party. 18. Employees . Vendor agrees not to hire any employee or former employee of City and City agrees not to hire any employee or former employee of Vendor prior to termination of this Contract and for one (1) year thereafter, without prior written consent of the former employer in each case. 19. Enforcement. The Vendor shall reimburse the City for all costs and expenses, including without limitation, attorneys' fees paid or incurred by the City in connection with the enforcement by the City during the term of this Contract or thereafter of any of the rights or remedies of the City under this Contract. 20. Entire Contract, Construction, Application and Interpretation. This Contract is in furtherance of the City’s public purpose mission and shall be construed, interpreted, and applied pursuant to and in conformance with the City's public purpose mission. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Contract supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Contract shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 21. Governing Law. This Contract shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 22. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this Contract, the Vendor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, Standard Purchasing Contract 2017 06 01 Page 4 of 5 disability, sexual orientation or age. The Vendor shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Vendor shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. The Vendor further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes 363.01, et. seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 23. Notice. Any notice required or permitted to be given by a party upon the other is given in accordance with this Contract if it is directed to either party by delivering it personally to an officer of the party, or if mailed in a sealed wrapper by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or if deposited cost paid with a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier, properly addressed to the address listed on page 1 hereof. Notices shall be deemed effective on the earlier of the date of receipt or the date of mailing or deposit as aforesaid, provided, however, that if notice is given by mail or deposit, that the time for response to any notice by the other party shall commence to run one business day after any such mailing or deposit. A party may change its address for the service of notice by giving written notice of such change to the other party, in any manner above specified, 10 days prior to the effective date of such change. 24. Rights and Remedies. The duties and obligations imposed by this Contract and the rights and remedies available thereunder shall be in addition to and not a limitation of any duties, obligations, rights and remedies otherwise imposed or available by law. 25. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the Vendor not specifically provided for herein shall be honored by the City. 26. Severability. The provisions of this Contract are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Contract. 27. Statutory Provisions. a. Audit Disclosure. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the Vendor or other parties relevant to this Contract are subject to examination by the City and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six (6) years after the effective date of this Contract. b. Data Practices. Any reports, information, or data in any form given to, or prepared or assembled by the Vendor under this Contract which the City requests to be kept confidential, shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the City's prior written approval. This Contract is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). All government data, as defined in the Data Practices Act Section 13.02, Subd 7, which is created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Vendor in performing any of the functions of the City during performance of this Contract is subject to the requirements of the Data Practice Act Standard Purchasing Contract 2017 06 01 Page 5 of 5 and Vendor shall comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. All subcontracts entered into by Vendor in relation to this Contract shall contain similar Data Practices Act compliance language. 28.Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Contract shall notaffect, in any respect, the validity of this Contract. Executed as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE __________________________________ Mayor ___________________________________ City Manager VENDOR Elbit Systems of America – Night Vision LLC By: ________________________________ Its: _______________________________ Contract Manager Kristin Cofflin Quotation Issue Date: 3/26/2021 Quote Number: 701900V:C Expiration Date: 5/25/2021 Quote Reference: N/A Business Development Manager: MOLLY BOEHLING Customer Number: To:EDEN PRAIRIE POLICE DEPARTMENT POC: SGT. RON HENKE 8080 MITCHELL RD Tel: 952-949-6258 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 E-Mail: rhenke@edenprairie.org UNITED STATES Fax: N/A End Use Country: United States Ultimate End User: EDEN PRAIRIE SWAT Terms & Conditions: Night Vision Std. Payment Terms: TBD Payment terms are subject to a credit review and will be established after the credit evaluation. Inspection: Source by Night Vision(CofC)Acceptance: Source by Night Vision(CofC) FOB/Incoterms: ORIGIN Named Place: ROANOKE, VA Freight Terms: PREPAID Ship Method: BEST WAY Early Shipment Authorized: Yes Partial Shipments: No Packaging: Commercial Certificate of Conformance: Letterhead Elbit Systems of America - Night Vision is an ISO 9001:2015 Certified Company Elbit Systems of America Night Vision 7635 Plantation Road Roanoke, Virginia 24019 540-563-0371 nvsales@elbitsystems-us.com 1 Part No. NE5032JP45- 1 F5032JP45, NIGHT ENFORCER, MOUNT Qty. 12 Description $8,600.00 $103,200.00 Warranty: 2 Year Qty: 12 Delivery:-Days: ARO DELIVERY TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF CONTRACT AWARD. Item No.Extended PriceUnit Price Notes: This quotation is valid for sixty (60) days from the Issue Date unless otherwise stated. Any resulting order is subject to credit approval. Submitting an order against this quotation implies acceptance of ESA Night Vision General Conditions of Sale unless otherwise stated. These products are controlled by the U.S. Department of State or the U. S. Department of Commerce, and will require the appropriate export authorization if shipped or taken outside of the United States. Total Price:$103,200.00 (USD) Reference Quote Number: 701900V C Page 1 of 2"Elbit Systems of America Night Vision Proprietary" Exhibit A Please note the attached customer-end user and chain of custody statement must be completed and returned with any order. Buyer hereby acknowledges receipt of notice that some or all of the products, information, data, or other material purchased under this quotation is controlled by the U. S. Government International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) Regulations, 22 CFR Sections 120 – 130, or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), 15 CFR sections 768 - 799. Accordingly, buyer shall not disclose, provide or export such product or information to any non-U.S. person or entity, whether within the U.S. or abroad, without obtaining appropriate export authorization in advance. Buyer acknowledges awareness that intentional violation of such export requirements may constitute a crime. Remarks: Reference Quote Number: 701900V C Page 2 of 2"Elbit Systems of America Night Vision Proprietary" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT / DIVISION Administration Rick Clark, Facilities ITEM DESCRIPTION City Center Boilers Replacement ITEM NO. VIII.E. Requested Action Move to: Award Contract for the purchase of material for City Center Boilers Replacement to Johnson Controls Inc. in the amount of $149,528 Move to: Award Contract for the installation for the City Center Boilers Replacement to Johnson Controls Inc. in the amount of $113,741 Synopsis CenterPoint Energy provides rebates for high efficiency boiler system installs. This project expected to total $19,950 Project total = $263,269 CenterPoint Rebate = $19,950 Project Net Cost = $243,319 Minnesota Statutes Section 471.345, subdivision 15, permits the City to contract for the purchase of supplies, materials, or equipment without regard to competitive bidding requirements if the purchase is through a cooperative created by a joint powers agreement that purchases items from more than one source on the basis of competitive bids or competitive quotations. The City participates in a cooperative purchasing program called Sourcewell, formerly the National Joint Powers Alliance, which is a service cooperative created by Minnesota law and authorized to establish competitively awarded purchasing contracts on behalf of its participating entities. In 2017, Sourcewell competitively bid and awarded a contract to Johnson Controls, Inc. for HVAC systems, installation, and service with related products and supplies. As a participating entity, the City will use this Sourcewell contract with Johnson Controls for the purchase and installation of two new high efficiency boilers that serve the entire City Center building. Use of the cooperative purchasing contract enables the City to save time and money for purchases of equipment and installations under price terms already negotiated by Sourcewell. Background As part of the 2021 Capital Improvement Plan the boilers at the City Center are over 30 years old, in need of replacement and past life expectancy. Facilities staff have selected two 96.2% high efficiency boilers to replace the two existing boilers. The selected boilers are 25% more efficient than the previous providing a savings and reduction in natural gas usage over the life of the boilers. Attachments Standard City Contract for Goods and Services with Johnson Controls Inc. Standard City Construction Contract with Johnson Controls Inc. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Mary Krause Public Works / Engineering ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 21805 Award Contract to Corrective Asphalt Materials, LLC for the 2021 Surface Seal Project ITEM NO.: VIII.F. Requested Action Move to: Award the Contract for 2021 Surface Seal Project to Corrective Asphalt Materials, LLC in the amount of $531,251.00. Synopsis Bids were received on Friday, April 16, 2021 for the 2021 Surface Seal Project. Two bids were received, however the bid submitted from Pearson Brothers, Inc. was considered non-conforming leaving one valid bid as tabulated below: Corrective Asphalt Materials, LLC $531,251.00 Background Information Street sealcoating is an annual street maintenance project. The surface seal project this year will consist of applying a maltene based rejuvenating agent to the street. Placing the rejuvenating agent on newer pavement surfaces replenishes the maltenes in the asphalt street that are lost over time. This should lead to the reduction of raveling, pitting, cracks, potholes and other signs of aging and delay the need for overlays and ultimately extend the life of the pavement. The 2021 Operating and Maintenance budget for sealcoating is $215,000. The balance between the actual project costs and the budgeted amount will be taken from the CIP pavement management fund. Attachment Contract CONSTRUCTION SHORT FORM CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed this _____ day of __________ 2021, by and between City of Eden Prairie hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", and Corrective Asphalt Materials LLC, hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR", WITNESSETH: CITY AND CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter stated, agrees as follows: I. CONTRACTOR hereby covenants and agrees to perform and execute all the provisions of the Plans and Specifications prepared by the Public Works Department referred to in Paragraph IV, as provided by the CITY for: I.C. 21805- 2021 Surface Seal Project CONTRACTOR further agrees to do everything required by this Agreement and the Contract Document. II. CITY agrees to pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to receive and accept payment in accordance with the prices bid for the unit or lump sum items as set forth in the Proposal Form attached hereto which prices conform to those in the accepted CONTRACTOR'S proposal on file in the office of the City Engineer. The aggregate sum of such prices, based on estimated required quantities is estimated to be $531,251.00. III. Payments to CONTRACTOR by City shall be made as provided in the Contract Documents. IV. The Contract Documents consist of the following component parts: (1) Legal and Procedural Documents a. Advertisement for Bids b. Instruction to Bidders b. Proposal Form c. Construction Short Form Agreement d. Contractor's Performance Bond e. Contractor's Payment Bond (2) Special Conditions (3) Detail Specifications (4) General Conditions (5) Plans (6) Addenda and Supplemental Agreements The Contract Documents are hereby incorporated with this Agreement and are as much a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. This Agreement and the Contract Documents are the Contract. V. CONTRACTOR agrees to fully and satisfactorily complete the work contemplated by this Agreement in accordance with the following schedule: Or in accordance with the Contract Documents. VI. This Agreement shall be executed in two (2) copies. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the date first above written. In Presence Of: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE __________________________________ By ________________________________ Its City Mayor __________________________________ By_______________________________ Its City Manager CONTRACTOR In Presence Of: ____________________________________ __________________________________ By ________________________________ Its __________________________ __________________________________ _______________________________ Its __________________________ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Mary Krause Public Works / Engineering ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 21806 Award Contract for the 2021 Pavement Rehab Project to Bituminous Roadways, Inc. ITEM NO.: VIII.G. Requested Action Move to: Award the Contract for 2021 Pavement Management Rehab Project to Bituminous Roadways, Inc. in the amount of $2,556,288.50. Synopsis Sealed bids were received on Friday, April 16, 2021 for the 2021 Pavement Rehab Project. Seven (7) bids were received and are summarized below. The low bid in the amount of $2,522,525.00 was submitted by Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Staff has reviewed the bids and recommends awarding the contract for the project to Bituminous Roadways, Inc. in the amount of $2,522,525.00. Bid Summary: Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $2,556,288.50 Valley Paving, Inc. $2,748,923.00 GMH Asphalt Corp. $2,862,754.30 Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. $2,807,887.00 Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $2,972,033.45 Wm. Mueller & Sons $3,093,132.25 S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. $3,224,668.00 Background Information The Bituminous Pavement Rehab Project is an annual street maintenance project that includes mill and overlays, underseals and reclamation projects. These projects are done to avoid full reconstruction projects which are much more costly and intrusive. The 2021 Operating and Maintenance budget for pavement management projects is $152,000 with the majority of funding being generated from the Pavement Management CIP. The Pavement Management CIP is funded through franchise fees collected from Centerpoint Energy, Xcel Energy and Minnesota Valley Electric collecting monies annually for pavement maintenance. In addition to this pavement rehab project, the pavement maintenance CIP fund also finances seal coating and other pavement improvement projects. Attachment Contract CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed this _____ day of __________ 2021, by and between City of Eden Prairie hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", and Bituminous Roadways, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR", WITNESSETH: CITY AND CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter stated, agrees as follows: I. CONTRACTOR hereby covenants and agrees to perform and execute all the provisions of the Plans and Specifications prepared by the Public Works Department referred to in Paragraph IV, as provided by the CITY for: I.C. 21806- 2021 Bituminous Pavement Rehab Project CONTRACTOR further agrees to do everything required by this Agreement and the Contract Document. II. CITY agrees to pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to receive and accept payment in accordance with the prices bid for the unit or lump sum items as set forth in the Proposal Form attached hereto which prices conform to those in the accepted CONTRACTOR'S proposal on file in the office of the City Engineer. The aggregate sum of such prices, based on estimated required quantities is estimated to be $2,556,288.50. III. Payments to CONTRACTOR by City shall be made as provided in the Contract Documents. IV. The Contract Documents consist of the following component parts: (1) Legal and Procedural Documents a. Advertisement for Bids b. Instruction to Bidders b. Proposal Form c. Construction Short Form Agreement d. Contractor's Performance Bond e. Contractor's Payment Bond (2) Special Conditions (3) Detail Specifications (4) General Conditions (5) Plans (6) Addenda and Supplemental Agreements The Contract Documents are hereby incorporated with this Agreement and are as much a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. This Agreement and the Contract Documents are the Contract. V. CONTRACTOR agrees to fully and satisfactorily complete the work contemplated by this Agreement in accordance with the following schedule: Or in accordance with the Contract Documents. VI. This Agreement shall be executed in two (2) copies. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the date first above written. In Presence Of: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE __________________________________ By ________________________________ Its City Mayor __________________________________ By_______________________________ Its City Manager CONTRACTOR In Presence Of: ____________________________________ __________________________________ By ________________________________ Its __________________________ __________________________________ _______________________________ Its __________________________ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Mary Krause Public Works / Engineering ITEM DESCRIPTION: #21806 Approve Professional Services Agreement with Braun Intertec Corporation for Construction Testing Services for 2021 Pavement Rehab Project ITEM NO.: VIII.H. Requested Action Move to: Approve the Professional Services Agreement with Braun Intertec Corporation for Construction Testing Services for the 2021 Pavement Rehab Project in the amount of $29,850.00. Synopsis This Professional Services Agreement will provide construction materials testing services for the 2021 Pavement Rehab Project (including Cumberland Road). Construction will take place this summer. Background Information The Bituminous Pavement Rehab Project is an annual street maintenance project that includes mill and overlays, underseals and reclamation projects. These projects are done to avoid full reconstruction projects which are much more costly and intrusive. The testing Braun Intertec will perform is to assure that the materials used by the contractor meets the required specifications. Financial Implications The Professional Services Agreement with Braun has an estimated cost of $29,850. Funding for the project is from Pavement Management funds. Attachment Professional Services Agreement 2021 04 22 Version 2017 06 01 Agreement for Professional Services This Agreement (“Agreement”) is made on the 4th day of May, 2021, between the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (hereinafter “City”), whose business address is 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, and Braun Intertec Corporation (“Consultant”), a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter “Consultant”) whose business address is11001 Hampshire Avenue S. Minneapolis, MN. 55438. Preliminary Statement The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that persons, firms or corporations providing such services enter into written agreements with the City. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions for the provision of professional services by Consultant for 2021 Pavement Rehab Construction Testing Services hereinafter referred to as the “Work”. The City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work. The Consultant agrees to provide the professional services shown in Exhibit A (letter dated April 23, 2021) in connection with the Work. Exhibit A is intended to be the scope of service for the work of the Consultant. Any general or specific conditions, terms, agreements, consultant or industry proposal, or contract terms attached to or a part of Exhibit A are declined in full and, accordingly, are deleted and shall not be in effect in any manner. 2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from May 4, 2021 through October 31, 2021 the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding. This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional period as they deem appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as herein stated. 3. Compensation for Services. City agrees to pay the Consultant on an hourly basis plus expenses in a total amount not to exceed $29,850 for the services as described in Exhibit A. a. Any changes in the scope of the work which may result in an increase to the compensation due the Consultant shall require prior written approval by an authorized representative of the City or by the City Council. The City will not pay additional compensation for services that do not have prior written authorization. b. Special Consultants may be utilized by the Consultant when required by the complex or specialized nature of the Project and when authorized in writing by the City. c. If Consultant is delayed in performance due to any cause beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to strikes, riots, fires, acts of God, governmental Page 2 of 10 2021 04 22 actions, actions of a third party, or actions or inactions of City, the time for performance shall be extended by a period of time lost by reason of the delay. Consultant will be entitled to payment for its reasonable additional charges, if any, due to the delay. 4. City Information. The City agrees to provide the Consultant with the complete information concerning the Scope of the Work and to perform the following services: a. Access to the Area. Depending on the nature of the Work, Consultant may from time to time require access to public and private lands or property. As may be necessary, the City shall obtain access to and make all provisions for the Consultant to enter upon public and private lands or property as required for the Consultant to perform such services necessary to complete the Work. b. Consideration of the Consultant's Work. The City shall give thorough consideration to all reports, sketches, estimates, drawings, and other documents presented by the Consultant, and shall inform the Consultant of all decisions required of City within a reasonable time so as not to delay the work of the Consultant. c. Standards. The City shall furnish the Consultant with a copy of any standard or criteria, including but not limited to, design and construction standards that may be required in the preparation of the Work for the Project. d. City's Representative. A person shall be appointed to act as the City's representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. He or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define the City's policy and decisions with respect to the services provided or materials, equipment, elements and systems pertinent to the work covered by this Agreement. 5. Method of Payment. The Consultant shall submit to the City, on a monthly basis, an itemized invoice for professional services performed under this Agreement. Invoices submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City for: a. Progress Payment. For work reimbursed on an hourly basis, the Consultant shall indicate for each employee, his or her name, job title, the number of hours worked, rate of pay for each employee, a computation of amounts due for each employee, and the total amount due for each project task. Consultant shall verify all statements submitted for payment in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.38 and 471.391. For reimbursable expenses, if provided for in Exhibit A, the Consultant shall provide an itemized listing and such documentation as reasonably required by the City. Each invoice shall contain the City’s project number and a progress summary showing the original (or amended) amount of the contract, current billing, past payments and unexpended balance of the contract. b. Suspended Work. If any work performed by the Consultant is suspended in whole or in part by the City, the Consultant shall be paid for any services set forth on Page 3 of 10 2021 04 22 Exhibit A performed prior to receipt of written notice from the City of such suspension. c. Payments for Special Consultants. The Consultant shall be reimbursed for the work of special consultants, as described herein, and for other items when authorized in writing by the City. d. Claims. To receive any payment on this Agreement, the invoice or bill must include the following signed and dated statement: “I declare under penalty of perjury that this account, claim, or demand is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid.” 6. Project Manager and Staffing. The Consultant shall designated a Project Manager and notify the City in writing of the identity of the Project Manager before starting work on the Project. The Project Manager shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Work in accordance with the terms established herein. Consultant may not remove or replace the Project Manager without the approval of the City. 7. Standard of Care. Consultant shall exercise the same degree of care, skill and diligence in the performance of its services as is ordinarily exercised by members of the profession under similar circumstances in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Consultant shall be liable to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law, without limitation, for any injuries, loss, or damages proximately caused by Consultant's breach of this standard of care. Consultant shall put forth reasonable efforts to complete its duties in a timely manner. Consultant shall not be responsible for delays caused by factors beyond its control or that could not be reasonably foreseen at the time of execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall be responsible for costs, delays or damages arising from unreasonable delays in the performance of its duties. 8. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by seven (7) days written notice delivered to the other party at the address written above. Upon termination under this provision, if there is no fault of the Consultant, the Consultant shall be paid for services rendered and reimbursable expenses until the effective date of termination. If however, the City terminates the Agreement because the Consultant has failed to perform in accordance with this Agreement, no further payment shall be made to the Consultant, and the City may retain another consultant to undertake or complete the Work identified herein. 9. Subcontractor. The Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement except as noted in the Scope of Work, without the express written consent of the City. The Consultant shall pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement within ten (10) days of the Consultant's receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. If the Consultant fails within that time to pay the subcontractor any undisputed amount for which the Consultant has received payment by the City, the Consultant shall pay interest to the subcontractor on the unpaid amount at the rate of 1.5 percent per month or any part of a month. The Page 4 of 10 2021 04 22 minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less than $100, the Consultant shall pay the actual interest penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from the Consultant shall be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorney's fees, incurred in bringing the action. 10. Independent Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor engaged by City to perform the services described herein and as such (i) shall employ such persons as it shall deem necessary and appropriate for the performance of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement, who shall be employees, and under the direction, of Consultant and in no respect employees of City, and (ii) shall have no authority to employ persons, or make purchases of equipment on behalf of City, or otherwise bind or obligate City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Consultant an employee of the City. 11. Insurance. a. General Liability. Prior to starting the Work, Consultant shall procure, maintain and pay for such insurance as will protect against claims or loss which may arise out of operations by Consultant or by any subcontractor or by anyone employed by any of them or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. Such insurance shall include, but not be limited to, minimum coverages and limits of liability specified in this Paragraph, or required by law. b. If Consultant’s insurance does not afford coverage on behalf of subcontractors, Consultant must require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements of this paragraph 11, and Consultant must include in its contract with subcontractors the requirement that the City be listed as an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors. In such case, prior to a subcontractor performing any Work covered by this Agreement, Consultant must: (i) provide the City with a certificate of insurance issued by the subcontractor’s insurance agent indicating that the City is an additional insured on the subcontractor’s insurance policy; and (ii) submit to the City a copy of Consultant’s agreement with the subcontractor for purposes of the City’s review of compliance with the requirements of this paragraph 11. c. Consultant shall procure and maintain the following minimum insurance coverages and limits of liability for the Work: Worker’s Compensation Statutory Limits Employer’s Liability $500,000 each accident $500,000 disease policy limit $500,000 disease each employee Commercial General $1,000,000 property damage and bodily Liability injury per occurrence $2,000,000 general aggregate $2,000,000 Products – Completed Operations Page 5 of 10 2021 04 22 Aggregate $100,000 fire legal liability each occurrence $5,000 medical expense Comprehensive Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit each accident (shall include coverage for all owned, hired and non-owed vehicles.) Umbrella or Excess Liability $1,000,000 d. Commercial General Liability. The Commercial General Liability Policy shall be on ISO form CG 00 01 12 07 or CG 00 01 04 13, or the equivalent. Such insurance shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products-completed operations, personal and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract (including the tort liability of another assumed in a business contract). There shall be no endorsement or modification of the Commercial General Liability form arising from pollution, explosion, collapse, underground property damage or work performed by subcontractors. e. Professional Liability Insurance. In addition to the coverages listed above, Consultant shall maintain a professional liability insurance policy in the amount of $2,000,000. Said policy need not name the City as an additional insured. It shall be Consultant’s responsibility to pay any retention or deductible for the professional liability insurance. Consultant agrees to maintain the professional liability insurance for a minimum of two (2) years following termination of this Agreement. f. Consultant shall maintain “stop gap” coverage if Consultant obtains Workers’ Compensation coverage from any state fund if Employer’s liability coverage is not available. g. All policies, except the Worker’s Compensation Policy, Automobile Policy, and Professional Liability Policy, shall name the “City of Eden Prairie” as an additional insured including products and completed operations. h. All policies, except the Professional Liability Policy, shall apply on a “per project” basis. i. All General Liability policies, Automobile Liability policies and Umbrella policies shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City. j. All policies, except for the Worker’s Compensation Policy and the Professional Liability Policy, shall be primary and non-contributory. k. All polices, except the Worker’s Compensation Policy, shall insure the defense and indemnity obligations assumed by Consultant under this Agreement. The Professional Page 6 of 10 2021 04 22 Liability policy shall insure the defense and indemnity obligations assumed by Consultant under this Agreement except with respect to the liability for loss or damage resulting from the negligence or fault of anyone other than the Consultant or others for whom the Consultant is legally liable. l. Consultant agrees to maintain all coverage required herein throughout the term of the Agreement and for a minimum of two (2) years following City’s written acceptance of the Work. m. It shall be Consultant’s responsibility to pay any retention or deductible for the coverages required herein. n. All policies shall contain a provision or endorsement that coverages afforded thereunder shall not be cancelled or non-renewed or restrictive modifications added, without thirty (30) days’ prior notice to the City, except that if the cancellation or non-renewal is due to non-payment, the coverages may not be terminated or non-renewed without ten (10) days’ prior notice to the City. o. Consultant shall maintain in effect all insurance coverages required under this Paragraph at Consultant’s sole expense and with insurance companies licensed to do business in the state in Minnesota and having a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A-, unless specifically accepted by City in writing. p. A copy of the Consultant’s Certificate of Insurance which evidences the compliance with this Paragraph, must be filed with City prior to the start of Consultant’s Work. Upon request a copy of the Consultant’s insurance declaration page, Rider and/or Endorsement, as applicable shall be provided. Such documents evidencing Insurance shall be in a form acceptable to City and shall provide satisfactory evidence that Consultant has complied with all insurance requirements. Renewal certificates shall be provided to City prior to the expiration date of any of the required policies. City will not be obligated, however, to review such Certificate of Insurance, declaration page, Rider, Endorsement or certificates or other evidence of insurance, or to advise Consultant of any deficiencies in such documents and receipt thereof shall not relieve Consultant from, nor be deemed a waiver of, City’s right to enforce the terms of Consultant’s obligations hereunder. City reserves the right to examine any policy provided for under this paragraph. q. Effect of Consultant’s Failure to Provide Insurance. If Consultant fails to provide the specified insurance, then Consultant will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, the City's officials, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability and expense (including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation) to the extent necessary to afford the same protection as would have been provided by the specified insurance. Except to the extent prohibited by law, this indemnity applies regardless of any strict liability or negligence attributable to the City (including sole negligence) and regardless of the extent to which the underlying occurrence (i.e., the event giving rise to a claim which would have been covered by the specified insurance) is attributable to the Page 7 of 10 2021 04 22 negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission (including breach of contract) of Consultant, its subcontractors, agents, employees or delegates. Consultant agrees that this indemnity shall be construed and applied in favor of indemnification. Consultant also agrees that if applicable law limits or precludes any aspect of this indemnity, then the indemnity will be considered limited only to the extent necessary to comply with that applicable law. The stated indemnity continues until all applicable statutes of limitation have run. If a claim arises within the scope of the stated indemnity, the City may require Consultant to: i. Furnish and pay for a surety bond, satisfactory to the City, guaranteeing performance of the indemnity obligation; or ii. Furnish a written acceptance of tender of defense and indemnity from Consultant's insurance company. Consultant will take the action required by the City within fifteen (15) days of receiving notice from the City. 12. Indemnification. Consultant will defend and indemnify City, its officers, agents, and employees and hold them harmless from and against all judgments, claims, damages, costs and expenses, including a reasonable amount as and for its attorney’s fees paid, incurred or for which it may be liable resulting from any breach of this Agreement by Consultant, its agents, contractors and employees, or any negligent or intentional act or omission performed, taken or not performed or taken by Consultant, its agents, contractors and employees, relative to this Agreement. City will indemnify and hold Consultant harmless from and against any loss for injuries or damages arising out of the negligent acts of the City, its officers, agents or employees. 13. Ownership of Documents. All plans, diagrams, analyses, reports and information generated in connection with the performance of the Agreement (“Information”) shall become the property of the City, but Consultant may retain copies of such documents as records of the services provided. The City may use the Information for its purposes and the Consultant also may use the Information for its purposes. Use of the Information for the purposes of the project contemplated by this Agreement (“Project”) does not relieve any liability on the part of the Consultant, but any use of the Information by the City or the Consultant beyond the scope of the Project is without liability to the other, and the party using the Information agrees to defend and indemnify the other from any claims or liability resulting therefrom. 14. Mediation. Each dispute, claim or controversy arising from or related to this agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to initiating arbitration or legal or equitable actions by either party. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the mediation shall be in accordance with the Commercial Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association then currently in effect. A request for mediation shall be filed in writing with the American Arbitration Association and the other party. No arbitration or legal or equitable action may be instituted for a period of 90 days from the filing of the request for Page 8 of 10 2021 04 22 mediation unless a longer period of time is provided by agreement of the parties. Cost of mediation shall be shared equally between the parties. Mediation shall be held in the City of Eden Prairie unless another location is mutually agreed upon by the parties. The parties shall memorialize any agreement resulting from the mediation in a mediated settlement agreement, which agreement shall be enforceable as a settlement in any court having jurisdiction thereof. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 15. Assignment. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, nor any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 16. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In providing services hereunder, the Consultant shall abide by statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. Any violation of statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the services to be provided shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the City to immediately terminate this Agreement. 17. Conflicts. No salaried officer or employee of the City and no member of the Council of the City shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement. The violation of this provision renders the Agreement void. 18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original. 19. Damages. In the event of a breach of this Agreement by the City, Contractor shall not be entitled to recover punitive, special or consequential damages or damages for loss of business. 20. Employees. Contractor agrees not to hire any employee or former employee of City and City agrees not to hire any employee or former employee of Contractor prior to termination of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, without prior written consent of the former employer in each case. 21. Enforcement. The Contractor shall reimburse the City for all costs and expenses, including without limitation, attorneys' fees paid or incurred by the City in connection with the enforcement by the City during the term of this Agreement or thereafter of any of the rights or remedies of the City under this Agreement. 22. Entire Agreement, Construction, Application and Interpretation. This Agreement is in furtherance of the City’s public purpose mission and shall be construed, interpreted, and applied pursuant to and in conformance with the City's public purpose mission. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Contract supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Page 9 of 10 2021 04 22 Contract shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 23. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 24. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation or age. The Consultant shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision of this non- discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Consultant shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. The Consultant further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes 363.01, et. seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 25. Notice. Any notice required or permitted to be given by a party upon the other is given in accordance with this Agreement if it is directed to either party by delivering it personally to an officer of the party, or if mailed in a sealed wrapper by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or if deposited cost paid with a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier, properly addressed to the address listed on page 1 hereof. Notices shall be deemed effective on the earlier of the date of receipt or the date of mailing or deposit as aforesaid, provided, however, that if notice is given by mail or deposit, that the time for response to any notice by the other party shall commence to run one business day after any such mailing or deposit. A party may change its address for the service of notice by giving written notice of such change to the other party, in any manner above specified, 10 days prior to the effective date of such change. 26. Rights and Remedies. The duties and obligations imposed by this Agreement and the rights and remedies available thereunder shall be in addition to and not a limitation of any duties, obligations, rights and remedies otherwise imposed or available by law. 27. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the Consultant not specifically provided for herein shall be honored by the City. 28. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement. 29. Statutory Provisions. a. Audit Disclosure. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the Consultant or other parties relevant to this Agreement are subject to Page 10 of 10 2021 04 22 examination by the City and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six (6) years after the effective date of this Agreement. b. Data Practices. Any reports, information, or data in any form given to, or prepared or assembled by the Consultant under this Agreement which the City requests to be kept confidential, shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the City's prior written approval. This Agreement is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practice Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). All government data, as defined in the Data Practices Act Section 13.02, Subd 7, which is created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Consultant in performing any of the functions of the City during performance of this Agreement is subject to the requirements of the Data Practice Act and Consultant shall comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. All subcontracts entered into by Consultant in relation to this Agreement shall contain similar Data Practices Act compliance language. 30. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. Executed as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE __________________________ ___ _____ Mayor ______________________________ _____ City Manager CONSULTANT _______________________________________ By: Its: AA/EOE Braun Intertec Corporation11001 Hampshire Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55438 Phone: 952.995.2000Fax: 952.995.2020Web: braunintertec.com April 23, 2021 Revised Proposal QTB136680 Ms. Mary Krause City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 Re: Revised Proposal for Pavement Sampling and Design, and Construction Materials Testing Services 2021 Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Projects Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Ms. Krause: Braun Intertec Corporation is pleased to submit this revised proposal to provide pavement sampling and design services along with construction materials testing for the City’s 2021 Proposed Pavement Reclamation Projects. Our Understanding of Project Per our previously performed work, our discussions and the maps provided, we understand the City’s 2021 projects will include the following: ▪Cement Stabilized Full-Depth Reclamation on the Darnel Road Area. ▪Full-depth bituminous removal and replacements on Cumberland Road. ▪Milling-and-overlaying of various streets throughout the City for their annual mill and overlay project. Available Project Information This proposal was prepared using the following documents and information. ▪Our Pavement Evaluation report provided to the City on March 10, 2021 (Braun Intertec project number B2009745). ▪Request for Proposal Email prepared by Mary Krause with the City of Eden Prairie sent on March 27, 2021 and maps sent on April 15, 2021. ▪Plans prepared by the City of Eden Prairie for the Cumberland Road Rehabilitation project and sent by Carter Schulze on April 15, 2021. Scope of Services We propose the following tasks. If we encounter unfavorable or unforeseen conditions during the completion of our tasks that lead us to recommend an expanded scope of services, we will contact you to discuss the conditions before resuming our services. EXHIBIT A City of Eden Prairie Revised Proposal QTB136680 April 23, 2021 Page 2 Pavement Sampling and Design – Darnel Road Area Field Sampling For the Darnel Road Area, we are to gather samples for the laboratory mix design, we will obtain 20, 6-inch diameter pavement cores. This is the minimum number required to perform a single laboratory mix design for the project area. We have tentatively scheduled this work for April 28, 2021 and assume it will require 1 day to complete. Following coring, we will fill the core holes in the pavement with a temporary patch. Over time, subsidence may occur, requiring releveling of surface grades or replacing bituminous patches. We are not assuming responsibility for re-leveling or re-patching after we complete our fieldwork. Traffic Control Traffic control is required during sampling to protect our field crew and alert motorists of our work. Given the low-volume residential nature of the project area, we intend to use traffic control signs and cones while collecting field samples. Sample Review and Laboratory Testing Bituminous cores will be returned to our laboratory and a cement stabilization mix design will be performed. If after review of the materials it appears that additional testing would be required for successful completion of the design analyses, we will request authorization for the additional testing through a Change Order. Reporting After our field sampling and laboratory tests have been completed, a mix design report will be provided to the City. We understand it is desired to have the laboratory mix design and final report by July 7, 2021. Only an electronic copy of our report will be submitted to you unless you request otherwise. Construction Material Testing - Cumberland Road and 2021 Mill and Overlay Projects Services are performed under the direction of a licensed professional engineer. Testing services for Cumberland Road and the mill-and-overlays streets will be performed on an on-call, as-needed basis as requested and scheduled by you or your on-site project representative. After reviewing available information to determine compliance with project plans and/or specifications and other design or construction documents, our scope of services for the project will be limited to the tasks defined below. City of Eden Prairie Revised Proposal QTB136680 April 23, 2021 Page 3 Bituminous Related Services (Cumberland Road and mill-and-overlay streets) ▪ Randomly determine and mark pavement core locations. ▪ Obtain bituminous cores and measure the thickness and density of the compacted bituminous pavement by the core method for compliance with the project documents. This task includes coring equipment rental, performing the coring and patching the core holes. ▪ Laboratory testing of cores to determine density and measure thickness. Soil Related Services (Cumberland Road) ▪ Perform MnDOT dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests on aggregate base material. ▪ Sample and test aggregate base materials for compliance with the project documents. This task includes laboratory gradation testing of aggregate base material. Concrete Related Services (Cumberland Road) ▪ Sample and test fresh concrete associated with curb-and-gutter and sidewalk for compliance with the project documents, and cast test cylinders for laboratory compressive strength testing. We assume that we will be able to appropriately dispose of excess concrete (and associated wash water) on site at no additional cost to us. ▪ Measure and report the compressive strength of the concrete test cylinders for compliance with the project documents. A set of three cylinders will be tested at 28 days for each set cast. If field cure cylinders are requested, each additional cylinder will be charged at the unit price listed in our cost estimate. Consulting, Project Communication and Reporting Services ▪ Project management, including scheduling of our field personnel. ▪ Review test reports, and communicating with you and the parties you may designate such as the project contractor(s), and other project team members, as needed. ▪ Transmit test results to the project team on a weekly basis. Basis of Scope of Work The costs associated with the proposed scope of services were estimated using the following assumptions. If the construction schedule is modified or the contractor completes the various phases of the project at different frequencies or durations than shown in this proposal, we may need to adjust the overall cost accordingly. The scope of work and number of trips required to perform these services are as shown in the attached table. Notable assumptions in developing our estimate include: ▪ We assume we will core the bituminous pavement two times a week for eight weeks. We also assume we will core up to six cores per trip. ▪ We assume we will use the contractor’s bituminous mixture properties to assist in determining core density. ▪ We assume compaction testing on aggregate base material will be performed using the Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) method; a minimum of three tests will be conducted each trip with three trips assumed. ▪ Where required, we assume traffic control for all project areas will be provided for our coring crews by the City of Eden Prairie and/or the contractor for this project. City of Eden Prairie Revised Proposal QTB136680 April 23, 2021 Page 4 ▪ We understand your full time on-site construction observer will observe the test rolling for this project. ▪ We assume four sets of concrete testing will be required for the Cumberland Road Project. ▪ You, or others you may designate, will provide us with current and approved plans and specifications for the project. Modification to these plans must also be sent to us so we can review their incorporation into the work. ▪ We will require a minimum of 24 hours’ notice for scheduling inspections for a specific time. Shorter than 24 hours’ notice may impact our ability to perform the requested services, and the associated impacts will be the responsibility of others. If the work is completed at different rates than described above, this proposal should be revised. If the pace of construction is different than described above, this proposal should be revised. Fees We will furnish the services described herein for an estimated fee of $29,850. Our estimated costs are based on industry averages for construction production. Depending on the contractor’s performance, our costs may be significantly reduced or slightly higher than estimated. A tabulation showing our estimated hourly and/or unit rates associated with our proposed scope of services is also attached. Our work may extend over several invoicing periods. As such, we will submit partial progress invoices for work we perform during each invoicing period. Additional Services and Overtime It is difficult to estimate all of the services, and the quantity of each service, that will be required for any project. Our services are also directly controlled by the schedule and performance of others. For these reasons, our actual hourly or unit quantities and associated fees may vary from those reported herein. If the number of hours or units ultimately required exceed those assumed for purposes of this proposal, they will be invoiced at the hourly or unit rates shown in the attached tabulation. If services are ultimately required that have not been identified or described herein, they will be invoiced in accordance with our current Schedule of Charges. Prior to exceeding our estimated fees, we will update you regarding the progress of our work. Fees associated with additional services will be summarized in a Change Order and submitted to you for review and authorization. This cost estimate was developed with the understanding that the scope of services defined herein will be required and requested during our normal work hours of 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Services that we are asked to provide to meet the project requirements or the contractor’s construction schedule outside our normal work hours will be invoiced using an overtime rate factor. The factor for services provided outside our normal work hours or on Saturday will be 1.25 times the normal hourly rate for the service provided. The factor for services provided on Sunday or legal holidays will be 1.5 times the normal hourly rate for the service provided. We have not included premiums for overtime; however, we recommend that allowances and contingencies be made for overtime charges. You will be billed only for services provided on a time and material basis. City of Eden Prairie Revised Proposal QTB136680 April 23, 2021 Page 5 General Remarks We will be happy to meet with you to discuss our proposed scope of services further and clarify the various scope components. We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to you. If anything in this proposal is not consistent with your requirements, please let us know immediately. Braun Intertec will not release any written reports until we have received a signed agreement. Also, ordering services from Braun Intertec constitutes acceptance of the terms of this proposal. The proposed fee is based on the scope of services described and the assumption that our services will be authorized within 30 days and that others will not delay us beyond our proposed schedule. City of Eden Prairie Revised Proposal QTB136680 April 23, 2021 Page 6 If acceptable, please issue a Standard Agreement for Professional Services with the City of Eden Prairie with this proposal included as Exhibit A. To have questions answered or schedule a time to meet and discuss our approach to this project further, please contact Amy Grothaus at 651.261.7122 (agrothaus@braunintertec.com) or Andrew Valerius at 952.995.2242 or (avalerius@braunintertec.com). Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Amy J. Grothaus, PE Account Manager, Senior Engineer Andrew M. Valerius Account Leader, Senior Project Manager Charles M. Cadehead Jr, PE Vice President, Principal Engineer Attachment: Cost Estimate Table Client:Service Description:Work Site Address: Various City Streets Eden Prairie, MN City of Eden Prairie Mary Krause 8080 Mitchell Rd Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 937-1210 Pavement Evaluation and CMT Services Description Quantity Units Unit Price Extension Phase 1 Darnel Rd Testing and Cement Stabilized Mix Design Activity 1.1 Field Sampling $1,905.00 252 Bituminous Coring (20 6-inch cores)8.00 Hour 185.00 $1,480.00 1555 Bit wear and patch material, per core 20.00 Each 20.00 $400.00 1861 CMT Trip Charge 1.00 Each 25.00 $25.00 Activity 1.2 Laboratory Mix Design $3,500.00 1823 Full depth reclamation design 1.00 Each 3,500.00 $3,500.00 Activity 1.3 Engineering $1,895.00 125 Project Manager 1.00 Hour 160.00 $160.00 128 Senior Engineer 2.00 Hour 185.00 $370.00 126 Project Engineer 8.00 Hour 160.00 $1,280.00 138 Project Assistant 1.00 Hour 85.00 $85.00 Phase 1 Total:$7,300.00 Phase 2 Construction Materials Testing Activity 2.1 Pavement Testing $16,192.00 1542 Thickness and Density of Bituminous Core (ADTM D 2726)96.00 Each 52.00 $4,992.00 252 Bituminous Coring 48.00 Hour 185.00 $8,880.00 Work Activity Detail Qty Units Hrs/Unit Extension Coring 16.00 Trips 3.00 48.00 1555 Bit wear and patch material, per core 96.00 Each 20.00 $1,920.00 1861 CMT Trip Charge 16.00 Each 25.00 $400.00 Activity 2.2 Soil Testing $1,097.00 217 Compaction Testing - DCP's 9.00 Hour 82.00 $738.00 Work Activity Detail Qty Units Hrs/Unit Extension Aggregate Base 3.00 Trips 3.00 9.00 209 Sample pick-up 1.50 Hour 82.00 $123.00 1861 CMT Trip Charge 4.00 Each 25.00 $100.00 1162 Sieve Analysis with 200 wash, per sample 1.00 Each 136.00 $136.00 Activity 2.3 Concrete Testing $2,326.00 261 Concrete Testing 20.00 Hour 82.00 $1,640.00 Curb & Gutter/ Sidewalk 4.00 Trips 2.50 10.00 1861 CMT Trip Charge 6.00 Each 25.00 $150.00 1364 Compressive strength of concrete cylinders (ASTM C 39),per specimen 12.00 Each 31.00 $372.00 Work Activity Detail Qty Units Hrs/Unit Extension Curb & Gutter/ Sidewalk 4.00 Set 3.00 12.00 Page 1 of 204/23/2021 03:29 PM Project Proposal QTB136680 City of Eden Prairie 2021 Improvement Projects Proposal Total:$29,850.00 278 Concrete Cylinder Pick up 2.00 Hour 82.00 $164.00 Work Activity Detail Qty Units Hrs/Unit Extension Cylinder Pickup 2.00 Trips 1.00 2.00 Activity 2.4 Project Management $2,935.00 226 Project Manager 14.00 Hour 160.00 $2,240.00 228 Senior Project Manager 1.00 Hour 185.00 $185.00 238 Project Assistant 6.00 Hour 85.00 $510.00 Phase 2 Total:$22,550.00 Page 2 of 204/23/2021 03:29 PM Project Proposal QTB136680 City of Eden Prairie 2021 Improvement Projects CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT / DIVISION: Police Department Paul Schlueter / Fleet Services ITEM DESCRIPTION: Declare Squad #239 Surplus Property and Authorize Replacement Vehicle Purchase ITEM NO.: VIII.I. Requested Action Move to: Declare Police squad #239 surplus property and authorize the purchase of a replacement Dodge Charger Pursuit for $27,024.00. Synopsis Police unmarked Dodge Charger squad car #239 was severely damaged in a pursuit related accident. The vehicle has over 67,000 miles on it and the cost to repair far exceeds the vehicle value. It does not make financial sense to repair this vehicle. Fleet Services and Police Department staff are requesting to declare squad #239 as surplus property so that it can be sold or disposed of pending final insurance resolution. Fleet Services and Police Department staff are also requesting authorization to purchase a new 2021 Dodge Charger Pursuit to replace this damaged squad car for a purchase cost of $27,024.00. The City of Eden Prairie participates in the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV). This enables the City to buy vehicles and equipment under the terms of contracts already negotiated by the State of Minnesota. This new squad car will be purchased using the State of Minnesota CPV program and funds are currently available in the Fleet Services Internal Service Fund Capital budget for this purchase. Attachment None CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Leslie Stovring Engineering Division / Water Resources ITEM DESCRIPTION: IC# 15-5901 Approve Professional Services Agreement with Blue Water Science for the 2021 Water Quality Monitoring Program ITEM NO.: VIII.J. Requested Action Move to: Approve Professional Services Agreement with Blue Water Science for the 2021 Water Quality Monitoring Program for $32,340. Synopsis The proposal from Blue Water Science continues the City’s ongoing monitoring program to help manage our lakes and ponds. Monitoring is conducted annually to evaluate water quality trends in relation to maintaining the status of our lakes in relation to impaired waters criteria. In addition, the monitoring is used to assess lakes for treatment options such as harvesting and the use of alum to improve water quality. The costs of water quality improvement and monitoring projects are paid out of the stormwater utility. Background Information The budget for the water quality sampling program was established in the City’s Local Water Management Plan. City staff have met with the Nine Mile Creek (NMCWD) and Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek (RPBCWD) Watershed Districts to discuss projects proposed for the upcoming year in order to coordinate activities and avoid duplication. A request for proposal was sent to Wenck & Associates, WSB & Associates, SRF Consultants and Blue Water Science. Blue Water Science submitted the low bid. The following actions are included for sampling: •Vegetation sampling for Birch Island Lake to provide information regarding the extent andtypes of native and invasive species within the lake. •Water quality sampling for McCoy, Mitchell, Red Rock, Round and Birch Island Lakes. The City, University of Minnesota and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District will use the water quality monitoring results for the improvement projects and research studies that are currently ongoing. This includes the Management Plan updates that are currently underway for Mitchell and Red Rock Lakes. •Water quality, algae and zooplankton sampling for Birch Island Lake. The information collected will assist with the Use Attainability Assessment being updated by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District in 2021-22. The estimated cost is $32,400 and will be paid from the storm water utility fund. Attachment Agreement for Professional Services 2017 06 01 Version 2017 06 01 Agreement for Professional Services This Agreement (“Agreement”) is made on the _________ day of___________, 20__, between the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (hereinafter "City"), whose business address is 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, and ______________________________ (“Consultant”), a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter "Consultant") whose business address is _____________________________________________. Preliminary Statement The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that persons, firms or corporations providing such services enter into written agreements with the City. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions for the provision of professional services by Consultant for_________________________________ hereinafter referred to as the "Work". The City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work. The Consultant agrees to provide the professional services shown in Exhibit A (____________________________________________) in connection with the Work. Exhibit A is intended to be the scope of service for the work of the Consultant. Any general or specific conditions, terms, agreements, consultant or industry proposal, or contract terms attached to or a part of Exhibit A are declined in full and, accordingly, are deleted and shall not be in effect in any manner. 2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from _________________ through ________________ the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding. This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional period as they deem appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as herein stated. 3. Compensation for Services. City agrees to pay the Consultant on an hourly basis plus expenses in a total amount not to exceed $____________ for the services as described in Exhibit A. a. Any changes in the scope of the work which may result in an increase to the compensation due the Consultant shall require prior written approval by an authorized representative of the City or by the City Council. The City will not pay additional compensation for services that do not have prior written authorization. b. Special Consultants may be utilized by the Consultant when required by the complex or specialized nature of the Project and when authorized in writing by the City. Page 2 of 10 2017 06 01 c. If Consultant is delayed in performance due to any cause beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to strikes, riots, fires, acts of God, governmental actions, actions of a third party, or actions or inactions of City, the time for performance shall be extended by a period of time lost by reason of the delay. Consultant will be entitled to payment for its reasonable additional charges, if any, due to the delay. 4. City Information. The City agrees to provide the Consultant with the complete information concerning the Scope of the Work and to perform the following services: a. Access to the Area. Depending on the nature of the Work, Consultant may from time to time require access to public and private lands or property. As may be necessary, the City shall obtain access to and make all provisions for the Consultant to enter upon public and private lands or property as required for the Consultant to perform such services necessary to complete the Work. b. Consideration of the Consultant's Work. The City shall give thorough consideration to all reports, sketches, estimates, drawings, and other documents presented by the Consultant, and shall inform the Consultant of all decisions required of City within a reasonable time so as not to delay the work of the Consultant. c. Standards. The City shall furnish the Consultant with a copy of any standard or criteria, including but not limited to, design and construction standards that may be required in the preparation of the Work for the Project. d. City's Representative. A person shall be appointed to act as the City's representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. He or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define the City's policy and decisions with respect to the services provided or materials, equipment, elements and systems pertinent to the work covered by this Agreement. 5. Method of Payment. The Consultant shall submit to the City, on a monthly basis, an itemized invoice for professional services performed under this Agreement. Invoices submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City for: a. Progress Payment. For work reimbursed on an hourly basis, the Consultant shall indicate for each employee, his or her name, job title, the number of hours worked, rate of pay for each employee, a computation of amounts due for each employee, and the total amount due for each project task. Consultant shall verify all statements submitted for payment in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.38 and 471.391. For reimbursable expenses, if provided for in Exhibit A, the Consultant shall provide an itemized listing and such documentation as reasonably required by the City. Each invoice shall contain the City’s project number and a progress summary showing the original (or amended) amount of the contract, current billing, past payments and unexpended balance of the contract. Page 3 of 10 2017 06 01 b. Suspended Work. If any work performed by the Consultant is suspended in whole or in part by the City, the Consultant shall be paid for any services set forth on Exhibit A performed prior to receipt of written notice from the City of such suspension. c. Payments for Special Consultants. The Consultant shall be reimbursed for the work of special consultants, as described herein, and for other items when authorized in writing by the City. d. Claims. To receive any payment on this Agreement, the invoice or bill must include the following signed and dated statement: “I declare under penalty of perjury that this account, claim, or demand is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid.” 6. Project Manager and Staffing. The Consultant shall designated a Project Manager and notify the City in writing of the identity of the Project Manager before starting work on the Project. The Project Manager shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Work in accordance with the terms established herein. Consultant may not remove or replace the Project Manager without the approval of the City. 7. Standard of Care. Consultant shall exercise the same degree of care, skill and diligence in the performance of its services as is ordinarily exercised by members of the profession under similar circumstances in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Consultant shall be liable to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law, without limitation, for any injuries, loss, or damages proximately caused by Consultant's breach of this standard of care. Consultant shall put forth reasonable efforts to complete its duties in a timely manner. Consultant shall not be responsible for delays caused by factors beyond its control or that could not be reasonably foreseen at the time of execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall be responsible for costs, delays or damages arising from unreasonable delays in the performance of its duties. 8. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by seven (7) days written notice delivered to the other party at the address written above. Upon termination under this provision, if there is no fault of the Consultant, the Consultant shall be paid for services rendered and reimbursable expenses until the effective date of termination. If however, the City terminates the Agreement because the Consultant has failed to perform in accordance with this Agreement, no further payment shall be made to the Consultant, and the City may retain another consultant to undertake or complete the Work identified herein. 9. Subcontractor. The Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement except as noted in the Scope of Work, without the express written consent of the City. The Consultant shall pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement within ten (10) days of the Consultant's receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. If the Consultant fails within that time to pay the subcontractor any undisputed amount for which the Consultant Page 4 of 10 2017 06 01 has received payment by the City, the Consultant shall pay interest to the subcontractor on the unpaid amount at the rate of 1.5 percent per month or any part of a month. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less than $100, the Consultant shall pay the actual interest penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from the Consultant shall be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorney's fees, incurred in bringing the action. 10. Independent Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor engaged by City to perform the services described herein and as such (i) shall employ such persons as it shall deem necessary and appropriate for the performance of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement, who shall be employees, and under the direction, of Consultant and in no respect employees of City, and (ii) shall have no authority to employ persons, or make purchases of equipment on behalf of City, or otherwise bind or obligate City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Consultant an employee of the City. 11. Insurance. a. General Liability. Prior to starting the Work, Consultant shall procure, maintain and pay for such insurance as will protect against claims or loss which may arise out of operations by Consultant or by any subcontractor or by anyone employed by any of them or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. Such insurance shall include, but not be limited to, minimum coverages and limits of liability specified in this Paragraph, or required by law. b. Consultant shall procure and maintain the following minimum insurance coverages and limits of liability for the Work: Worker’s Compensation Statutory Limits Employer’s Liability $500,000 each accident $500,000 disease policy limit $500,000 disease each employee Commercial General $1,000,000 property damage and bodily Liability injury per occurrence $2,000,000 general aggregate $2,000,000 Products – Completed Operations aggregate $100,000 fire legal liability each occurrence $5,000 medical expense Comprehensive Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit each accident (shall include coverage for all owned, hired and non-owed vehicles.) Umbrella or Excess Liability $1,000,000 Page 5 of 10 2017 06 01 c. Commercial General Liability. The Commercial General Liability Policy shall be on ISO form CG 00 01 12 07 or CG 00 01 04 13, or the equivalent. Such insurance shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products-completed operations, personal and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract (including the tort liability of another assumed in a business contract). There shall be no endorsement or modification of the Commercial General Liability form arising from pollution, explosion, collapse, underground property damage or work performed by subcontractors. d. Professional Liability Insurance. In addition to the coverages listed above, Consultant shall maintain a professional liability insurance policy in the amount of $2,000,000. Said policy need not name the City as an additional insured. It shall be Consultant’s responsibility to pay any retention or deductible for the professional liability insurance. Consultant agrees to maintain the professional liability insurance for a minimum of two (2) years following termination of this Agreement. e. Consultant shall maintain “stop gap” coverage if Consultant obtains Workers’ Compensation coverage from any state fund if Employer’s liability coverage is not available. f. All policies, except the Worker’s Compensation Policy, Automobile Policy, and Professional Liability Policy, shall name the “City of Eden Prairie” as an additional insured including products and completed operations. g. All policies, except the Professional Liability Policy, shall apply on a “per project” basis. h. All General Liability policies, Automobile Liability policies and Umbrella policies shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City. i. All policies, except for the Worker’s Compensation Policy and the Professional Liability Policy, shall be primary and non-contributory. j. All polices, except the Worker’s Compensation Policy, shall insure the defense and indemnity obligations assumed by Consultant under this Agreement. The Professional Liability policy shall insure the defense and indemnity obligations assumed by Consultant under this Agreement except with respect to the liability for loss or damage resulting from the negligence or fault of anyone other than the Consultant or others for whom the Consultant is legally liable. k. Consultant agrees to maintain all coverage required herein throughout the term of the Agreement and for a minimum of two (2) years following City’s written acceptance of the Work. Page 6 of 10 2017 06 01 l. It shall be Consultant’s responsibility to pay any retention or deductible for the coverages required herein. m. All policies shall contain a provision or endorsement that coverages afforded thereunder shall not be cancelled or non-renewed or restrictive modifications added, without thirty (30) days’ prior notice to the City, except that if the cancellation or non- renewal is due to non-payment, the coverages may not be terminated or non-renewed without ten (10) days’ prior notice to the City. n. Consultant shall maintain in effect all insurance coverages required under this Paragraph at Consultant’s sole expense and with insurance companies licensed to do business in the state in Minnesota and having a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A-, unless specifically accepted by City in writing. o. A copy of the Consultant’s Certificate of Insurance which evidences the compliance with this Paragraph, must be filed with City prior to the start of Consultant’s Work. Upon request a copy of the Consultant’s insurance declaration page, Rider and/or Endorsement, as applicable shall be provided. Such documents evidencing Insurance shall be in a form acceptable to City and shall provide satisfactory evidence that Consultant has complied with all insurance requirements. Renewal certificates shall be provided to City prior to the expiration date of any of the required policies. City will not be obligated, however, to review such Certificate of Insurance, declaration page, Rider, Endorsement or certificates or other evidence of insurance, or to advise Consultant of any deficiencies in such documents and receipt thereof shall not relieve Consultant from, nor be deemed a waiver of, City’s right to enforce the terms of Consultant’s obligations hereunder. City reserves the right to examine any policy provided for under this paragraph. p. Effect of Consultant’s Failure to Provide Insurance. If Consultant fails to provide the specified insurance, then Consultant will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, the City's officials, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability and expense (including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation) to the extent necessary to afford the same protection as would have been provided by the specified insurance. Except to the extent prohibited by law, this indemnity applies regardless of any strict liability or negligence attributable to the City (including sole negligence) and regardless of the extent to which the underlying occurrence (i.e., the event giving rise to a claim which would have been covered by the specified insurance) is attributable to the negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission (including breach of contract) of Consultant, its subcontractors, agents, employees or delegates. Consultant agrees that this indemnity shall be construed and applied in favor of indemnification. Consultant also agrees that if applicable law limits or precludes any aspect of this indemnity, then the indemnity will be considered limited only to the extent necessary to comply with that applicable law. The stated indemnity continues until all applicable statutes of limitation have run. Page 7 of 10 2017 06 01 If a claim arises within the scope of the stated indemnity, the City may require Consultant to: i. Furnish and pay for a surety bond, satisfactory to the City, guaranteeing performance of the indemnity obligation; or ii. Furnish a written acceptance of tender of defense and indemnity from Consultant's insurance company. Consultant will take the action required by the City within fifteen (15) days of receiving notice from the City. 12. Indemnification. Consultant will defend and indemnify City, its officers, agents, and employees and hold them harmless from and against all judgments, claims, damages, costs and expenses, including a reasonable amount as and for its attorney’s fees paid, incurred or for which it may be liable resulting from any breach of this Agreement by Consultant, its agents, contractors and employees, or any negligent or intentional act or omission performed, taken or not performed or taken by Consultant, its agents, contractors and employees, relative to this Agreement. City will indemnify and hold Consultant harmless from and against any loss for injuries or damages arising out of the negligent acts of the City, its officers, agents or employees. 13. Ownership of Documents. All plans, diagrams, analyses, reports and information generated in connection with the performance of the Agreement (“Information”) shall become the property of the City, but Consultant may retain copies of such documents as records of the services provided. The City may use the Information for its purposes and the Consultant also may use the Information for its purposes. Use of the Information for the purposes of the project contemplated by this Agreement (“Project”) does not relieve any liability on the part of the Consultant, but any use of the Information by the City or the Consultant beyond the scope of the Project is without liability to the other, and the party using the Information agrees to defend and indemnify the other from any claims or liability resulting therefrom. 14. Mediation. Each dispute, claim or controversy arising from or related to this agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to initiating arbitration or legal or equitable actions by either party. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the mediation shall be in accordance with the Commercial Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association then currently in effect. A request for mediation shall be filed in writing with the American Arbitration Association and the other party. No arbitration or legal or equitable action may be instituted for a period of 90 days from the filing of the request for mediation unless a longer period of time is provided by agreement of the parties. Cost of mediation shall be shared equally between the parties. Mediation shall be held in the City of Eden Prairie unless another location is mutually agreed upon by the parties. The parties shall memorialize any agreement resulting from the mediation in a mediated settlement agreement, which agreement shall be enforceable as a settlement in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Page 8 of 10 2017 06 01 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 15. Assignment. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, nor any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 16. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In providing services hereunder, the Consultant shall abide by statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. Any violation of statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the services to be provided shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the City to immediately terminate this Agreement. 17. Conflicts. No salaried officer or employee of the City and no member of the Council of the City shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement. The violation of this provision renders the Agreement void. 18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original. 19. Damages. In the event of a breach of this Agreement by the City, Contractor shall not be entitled to recover punitive, special or consequential damages or damages for loss of business. 20. Employees. Contractor agrees not to hire any employee or former employee of City and City agrees not to hire any employee or former employee of Contractor prior to termination of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, without prior written consent of the former employer in each case. 21. Enforcement. The Contractor shall reimburse the City for all costs and expenses, including without limitation, attorneys' fees paid or incurred by the City in connection with the enforcement by the City during the term of this Agreement or thereafter of any of the rights or remedies of the City under this Agreement. 22. Entire Agreement, Construction, Application and Interpretation. This Agreement is in furtherance of the City’s public purpose mission and shall be construed, interpreted, and applied pursuant to and in conformance with the City's public purpose mission. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Contract supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Contract shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 23. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Page 9 of 10 2017 06 01 24. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation or age. The Consultant shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Consultant shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. The Consultant further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes 363.01, et. seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 25. Notice. Any notice required or permitted to be given by a party upon the other is given in accordance with this Agreement if it is directed to either party by delivering it personally to an officer of the party, or if mailed in a sealed wrapper by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or if deposited cost paid with a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier, properly addressed to the address listed on page 1 hereof. Notices shall be deemed effective on the earlier of the date of receipt or the date of mailing or deposit as aforesaid, provided, however, that if notice is given by mail or deposit, that the time for response to any notice by the other party shall commence to run one business day after any such mailing or deposit. A party may change its address for the service of notice by giving written notice of such change to the other party, in any manner above specified, 10 days prior to the effective date of such change. 26. Rights and Remedies. The duties and obligations imposed by this Agreement and the rights and remedies available thereunder shall be in addition to and not a limitation of any duties, obligations, rights and remedies otherwise imposed or available by law. 27. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the Consultant not specifically provided for herein shall be honored by the City. 28. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement. 29. Statutory Provisions. a. Audit Disclosure. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the Consultant or other parties relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the City and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six (6) years after the effective date of this Agreement. b. Data Practices. Any reports, information, or data in any form given to, or prepared or assembled by the Consultant under this Agreement which the City requests to be kept confidential, shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the City's prior written approval. This Agreement is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Page 10 of 10 2017 06 01 Practice Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). All government data, as defined in the Data Practices Act Section 13.02, Subd 7, which is created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Consultant in performing any of the functions of the City during performance of this Agreement is subject to the requirements of the Data Practice Act and Consultant shall comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. All subcontracts entered into by Consultant in relation to this Agreement shall contain similar Data Practices Act compliance language. 30. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. Executed as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Mayor City Manager CONSULTANT By: Its: P R O P O S A L 2021 Eden Prairie Lake Sampling Program To: Leslie A. Stovring, Environmental Coordinator From: Steve McComas, Blue Water Science Date: April 9, 2021 Re: 2021 Lake Sampling Program Proposal for Eden Prairie The sampling program will include the Tasks outlined below. All lake water quality data collected will be entered into the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s water quality database. SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1 - WATER QUALITY MONITORING-NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED: BIRCH ISLAND The following samples will be collected every other week from May through end of October for Birch Island Lake. Samples will be collected, except for Secchi disc depth, from the surface to bottom of each lake in one-meter increments. Parameters to be analyzed in the field: • Secchi disc • Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles• Conductivity • pH Parameters to be analyzed by a laboratory: • Total phosphorus (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples) • Orthophosphate (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples)• Total dissolved phosphorus (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples)• Chlorophyll a (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples) • Ammonium • Nitrate/nitrite • Total Kjeldahl nitrogen • Total Alkalinity• Total Suspended Solids• Chloride • Iron -1- TASK 1 - WATER QUALITY MONITORING-RILEY PURGATORY BLUFF CREEKWATERSHED-McCOY, MITCHELL, ROUND, RED ROCK The following samples will be collected every other week from May through end of October for McCoy, Mitchell, Round, and Red Rock lakes. Samples will be collected, except for Secchi disc depth, from the surface to bottom of each lake in one-meter increments. Parameters to be analyzed in the field: • Secchi disc • Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles• Conductivity • pH Parameters to be analyzed by a laboratory: • Total phosphorus (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples)• Orthophosphate (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples)• Total dissolved phosphorus (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples) • Chlorophyll a (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples) • Ammonium • Nitrate/nitrite • Total Kjeldahl nitrogen • Total Alkalinity• Total Suspended Solids• Chloride • Iron TASK 2 - VEGETATION SAMPLING - POINT INTERCEPT SURVEY - BIRCH ISLANDBlue Water Science will conduct one mid-summer point intercept survey to map the aquatic vegetationwithin the lake. TASK 3 - PHYTOPLANKTON AND ZOOPLANKTON SAMPLING Conduct phytoplankton (to genus)(analyzed by PhytoTech) and zooplankton (to species) sampling inBirch Island Lake utilizing a vertical tow. The first sample must be collected in late May or early Juneand the second collected in August. TASK 4 - REPORT AND MEETING REQUIREMENTS Once the analysis is completed, one final report will be prepared which summarizes the results for thewater quality monitoring and vegetation-sampling program. The report must include: • Analysis of existing conditions. • Comparison with historical conditions. • Recommendations for future actions. • Copies of all laboratory reports. • Acknowledgement that all water quality results were entered into the MPCA’s database. Blue Water Science anticipates two meetings with City staff to discuss the sampling protocol and results. The final report should be submitted by March 31, 2022. -2- SECTION 2 - TERMS AND CONDITIONS Quote for 2021: Lake and Pond Water Sampling and Projects 2/Month May - OctSecchi disc, Temp, Diss oxygen, Conductivity, pH - profiles, TP, OP, TDP, and Chl - top, mid, bottom, NH3, NO3-NO2, TKN, Alk, TSS, Cl, Fe - top only Costs Total Costs Labor ForSampling LabCosts ReportCosts TASK 1. WATER QUALITY MONITORING Nine Mile Creek Watershed Birch Island 12 sampling trips $1,100 12 x $380= $4,560 $600 $6,260 Subtotal $1,100 $4,560 $600 $6,260 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed McCoy 12 sampling trips(top only)$1,100 12 x $225= $2,700 $600 $4,400 Mitchell 12 sampling trips $1,100 12 x $380= $4,560 $600 $6,260 Red Rock 12 sampling trips $1,100 12 x $380= $4,560 $600 $6,260 Round 12 sampling trips $1,100 12 x $380= $4,560 $600 $6,260 Subtotal $4,400 $16,380 $2,400 $23,180 Total Costs TASK 2. VEGETATION SAMPLING - POINT INTERCEPT SURVEY Birch Island Lake Mid Summer Point Intercept Plant Survey $1,900 Subtotal $1,900 Total Costs TASK 3. PHYTOPLANKTON AND ZOOPLANKTON SAMPLING Birch Island Lake Two algae and two zooplankton $400 Subtotal $400 Total Costs TASK 4. REPORT AND MEETING REQUIREMENTS Report preparation included Meetings (2 meetings at $300/meeting)$600 Subtotal $600 Summary of Proposed Costs for 2021 for Blue Water Science Total Proposed Costs Summary Task 1: Water Quality Monitoring - Nine Mile Creek Watershed $6,260 Task 1: Water Quality Monitoring - Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed $23,180 Task 2: Vegetation Sampling - Point Intercept Survey $1,900 Task 3: Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Sampling $400 Task 4: Report Requirements and Meeting $600 Total $32,340 -3- P R O P O S A L 2021 Eden Prairie Lake Sampling Program To: Leslie A. Stovring, Environmental Coordinator From: Steve McComas, Blue Water Science Date: April 9, 2021 Re: 2021 Lake Sampling Program Proposal for Eden Prairie The sampling program will include the Tasks outlined below. All lake water quality data collected will be entered into the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s water quality database. SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1 - WATER QUALITY MONITORING-NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED: BIRCH ISLAND The following samples will be collected every other week from May through end of October for Birch Island Lake. Samples will be collected, except for Secchi disc depth, from the surface to bottom of each lake in one-meter increments. Parameters to be analyzed in the field: • Secchi disc • Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles• Conductivity • pH Parameters to be analyzed by a laboratory: • Total phosphorus (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples) • Orthophosphate (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples)• Total dissolved phosphorus (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples)• Chlorophyll a (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples) • Ammonium • Nitrate/nitrite • Total Kjeldahl nitrogen • Total Alkalinity• Total Suspended Solids• Chloride • Iron -1- TASK 1 - WATER QUALITY MONITORING-RILEY PURGATORY BLUFF CREEKWATERSHED-McCOY, MITCHELL, ROUND, RED ROCK The following samples will be collected every other week from May through end of October for McCoy, Mitchell, Round, and Red Rock lakes. Samples will be collected, except for Secchi disc depth, from the surface to bottom of each lake in one-meter increments. Parameters to be analyzed in the field: • Secchi disc • Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles• Conductivity • pH Parameters to be analyzed by a laboratory: • Total phosphorus (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples)• Orthophosphate (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples)• Total dissolved phosphorus (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples) • Chlorophyll a (surface, mid-depth, and bottom samples) • Ammonium • Nitrate/nitrite • Total Kjeldahl nitrogen • Total Alkalinity• Total Suspended Solids• Chloride • Iron TASK 2 - VEGETATION SAMPLING - POINT INTERCEPT SURVEY - BIRCH ISLANDBlue Water Science will conduct one mid-summer point intercept survey to map the aquatic vegetationwithin the lake. TASK 3 - PHYTOPLANKTON AND ZOOPLANKTON SAMPLING Conduct phytoplankton (to genus)(analyzed by PhytoTech) and zooplankton (to species) sampling inBirch Island Lake utilizing a vertical tow. The first sample must be collected in late May or early Juneand the second collected in August. TASK 4 - REPORT AND MEETING REQUIREMENTS Once the analysis is completed, one final report will be prepared which summarizes the results for thewater quality monitoring and vegetation-sampling program. The report must include: • Analysis of existing conditions. • Comparison with historical conditions. • Recommendations for future actions. • Copies of all laboratory reports. • Acknowledgement that all water quality results were entered into the MPCA’s database. Blue Water Science anticipates two meetings with City staff to discuss the sampling protocol and results. The final report should be submitted by March 31, 2022. -2- SECTION 2 - TERMS AND CONDITIONS Quote for 2021: Lake and Pond Water Sampling and Projects 2/Month May - OctSecchi disc, Temp, Diss oxygen, Conductivity, pH - profiles, TP, OP, TDP, and Chl - top, mid, bottom, NH3, NO3-NO2, TKN, Alk, TSS, Cl, Fe - top only Costs Total Costs Labor ForSampling LabCosts ReportCosts TASK 1. WATER QUALITY MONITORING Nine Mile Creek Watershed Birch Island 12 sampling trips $1,100 12 x $380= $4,560 $600 $6,260 Subtotal $1,100 $4,560 $600 $6,260 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed McCoy 12 sampling trips(top only)$1,100 12 x $225= $2,700 $600 $4,400 Mitchell 12 sampling trips $1,100 12 x $380= $4,560 $600 $6,260 Red Rock 12 sampling trips $1,100 12 x $380= $4,560 $600 $6,260 Round 12 sampling trips $1,100 12 x $380= $4,560 $600 $6,260 Subtotal $4,400 $16,380 $2,400 $23,180 Total Costs TASK 2. VEGETATION SAMPLING - POINT INTERCEPT SURVEY Birch Island Lake Mid Summer Point Intercept Plant Survey $1,900 Subtotal $1,900 Total Costs TASK 3. PHYTOPLANKTON AND ZOOPLANKTON SAMPLING Birch Island Lake Two algae and two zooplankton $400 Subtotal $400 Total Costs TASK 4. REPORT AND MEETING REQUIREMENTS Report preparation included Meetings (2 meetings at $300/meeting)$600 Subtotal $600 Summary of Proposed Costs for 2021 for Blue Water Science Total Proposed Costs Summary Task 1: Water Quality Monitoring - Nine Mile Creek Watershed $6,260 Task 1: Water Quality Monitoring - Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed $23,180 Task 2: Vegetation Sampling - Point Intercept Survey $1,900 Task 3: Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Sampling $400 Task 4: Report Requirements and Meeting $600 Total $32,340 -3- CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Carter Schulze Public Works / Engineering ITEM DESCRIPTION: #15-5916 Approve License Agreement for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Hydrologic and Hydraulic Model ITEM NO.: VIII.K. Requested Action Move to: Approve License Agreement for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Hydrologic and Hydraulic Model Synopsis The License Agreement for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD) Hydrologic and Hydraulic Model would permit Bolton & Menk, City Consulting firm working on behalf of the City, to use the NMCWD model for the design of Willow Creek Road bridge replacement. Background Information Bolton & Menk have been working with the City to design a replacement for the Willow Creek Road Bridge. The NMCWD hydrologic and hydraulic model will assist them in evaluating the hydraulic impacts of design alternatives and in permitting the project. Attachment License Agreement for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Hydrologic and Hydraulic Model 1 LICENSE AGREEMENT NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT STORMWATER HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC MODEL Licensee: City of Eden Prairie THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is entered into by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD), a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, and the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation (User). WHEREAS NMCWD has developed a stormwater hydrologic and hydraulic model that may be used to generate stormwater flow volume and rate information, flood elevations, floodplain delineations and related data; WHEREAS the stormwater hydrologic and hydraulic model has been developed for application to watershed-wide planning as well as to the evaluation of local consequences of development or public infrastructure projects; WHEREAS the stormwater model has been developed with public resources, and it is NMCWD’s intent that it be made available for use by other public bodies, organizations, entities and the public generally to help ensure that planning, analysis, management and development and redevelopment and other work affecting the land and water in the watershed is conducted based on the best-possible hydrologic and hydraulic information; WHEREAS NMCWD finds that wide usage of the stormwater hydrologic and hydraulic model within the watershed has watershed-wide benefit, wishes to promote such use, and therefore has determined not to charge User to use the model and underlying data (the Model), except to the degree the preparation of the Model for User requires significant expenditure of time or resources by NMCWD; and WHEREAS NMCWD has determined that the Model is classified as nonpublic trade secret information and otherwise data not subject to disclosure under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes chapter 13. NMCWD has decided to provide for the disclosure of the Model in accordance with certain protections and commitments by User as set forth in this License Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, NMCWD and User agree as follows: 1. Use of the Model; Cost Reimbursement 1.1 Authorized Use. User is granted a nonexclusive, nontransferable and nonassignable (except as provided herein) license to use the Model exclusively for the purposes of 2 assessing stormwater flow related to assessment of operation of the Willow Creek Road crossing of Nine Mile Creek located directly downstream of Bryant Lake in Eden Prairie (the Project). This license will be in effect only during compliance by User and its agents, consultants and contractors (ACCs) with the terms and conditions of this License Agreement. User and, pursuant to section 1.3, its ACCs may use the Model in the form provided by NMCWD for the authorized Project purpose and for no other purpose. User and its ACCs may modify or transfer the Model, or merge the Model into other databases or applications only for User’s authorized Project purposes. User and its ACCs may operate on the Model using such proprietary or public software as they are independently authorized to use and may disclose or distribute the products of that operation, but may not disclose or distribute the Model in the same or substantially the same form as received from NMCWD. User may duplicate the Model for use by User and its ACCs, provided the computer central processing units on which the Model is maintained support only equipment operated by User and its ACCs, and the Model is used only for User’s authorized purpose. Except for off-site backup pursuant to established procedures, User and its ACCs will not remove the Model from their places of business. 1.2 Unauthorized Uses. User and its ACCs may not use the Model on behalf of any individual, organization, corporation, government entity, or any other party except as authorized herein. User’s ACCs will use the Model only in the conduct of User’s business and for User’s authorized purpose. User and its ACCs will not duplicate or disclose the Model to any third parties unless such use, duplication or disclosure is expressly authorized in writing by NMCWD. User and its ACCs will not charge third parties for the availability of the Model. This will not prevent User and its ACCs from charging third parties as otherwise authorized for its staff time, work products or ancillary costs associated with modeling and analysis using the Model. User acknowledges that NMCWD has declared the applicability of copyright protection to the Model. User will conform to all legal requirements related to the copyrighted status of the data as declared by NMCWD. 1.3 Third-Party Access. If it is necessary for User to make the Model available to an outside ACC for User’s authorized purposes, User must obtain from each ACC and provide to NMCWD a signed copy of the Model License Agreement Third-Party Certification attached to and incorporated into this License Agreement as Attachment A, and must receive written authorization from NMCWD. Under the Third-Party Certification, ACCs are subject to all terms and obligations of this License Agreement to the same extent as the terms and obligations apply to User. 1.4 Data Security. User and its ACCs agree to take all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure the Model is not disclosed or made accessible in whole or part to third parties 3 except as authorized in or pursuant to this License Agreement. User and its ACCs agree they will not knowingly or negligently allow their employees or agents to copy, sell, disclose or otherwise make the Model available to others. User and its ACCs agree to immediately notify NMCWD by telephone and in writing of any unauthorized sale or other disclosure. User and its ACCs further agree to prevent unauthorized disclosure through appropriate security measures and take all steps that they take to protect tangible and intangible data products of their own that they regard as proprietary, confidential or nonpublic. 1.5 Data Practices Act. User will treat the Model as nonpublic data not subject to public disclosure under the Minnesota Data Practices Act and will advise any requestor of the data classification accordingly. User will notify NMCWD immediately of any challenge to User’s withholding of the Model and will not release the Model, or any part thereof, pursuant to the Data Practices Act without written authorization from NMCWD. 1.6 Reservation of Rights. The Model is the exclusive property of NMCWD, which retains all right, title and interest in the Model, including the right to license the Model to other users. Any right or remedy provided to NMCWD in this License Agreement is nonexclusive and in addition to any other right or remedy available to NMCWD in law or equity. 1.7 Errors and Omissions. User timely will advise NMCWD in writing of any errors or omissions it finds within the Model. This includes but is not limited to advising NMCWD of new or omitted data of which User or its ACCs are aware, as well as of changes to the physical environment at a scale that would be recognized by the Model. 1.8 Cost Reimbursement. NMCWD, by and through its consulting engineer, as necessary, will endeavor to provide the Model in a form and format requested by User and suitable for the purposes for which the Model is to be provided to User. NMCWD may invoice User and User agrees to reimburse NMCWD within 30 days of receipt for staff or consultant time in excess of two hours spent preparing the Model for User or its ACCs. Costs will be assessed at rates in the adopt fee schedule for the NMCWD regulatory program. NMCWD will provide User with notice and an opportunity to withdraw User’s request for the Model, at no cost to User, before costs are incurred under this paragraph. An invoice issued under this paragraph will include an itemized schedule of time and costs incurred. This paragraph is not applicable and no costs will be assessed for work undertaken by NMCWD or its consulting engineer in accordance with tasks arising under paragraph 1.7 herein. 2. License Agreement Term and Termination 2.1 Term. The License Agreement is effective on execution by both parties and remains effective until the January 31 first following commencement. Notwithstanding, the 4 License Agreement will renew automatically from year to year unless terminated as provided herein. However, NMCWD assumes no duty to any User or ACC to update the Model and it remains the sole and absolute responsibility of User and its ACCs to ensure that the Model is current, accurate and adequate for their use and purposes. 2.2 Termination. NMCWD may terminate this License Agreement at any time on written notice to User if User or one or more of its ACCs fails to comply with the terms and conditions of this License Agreement. NMCWD also may independently revoke approval of one or more ACC and the associated Third-Party Certification(s) without necessarily terminating the License Agreement. NMCWD or User may terminate the License Agreement without cause on 30-day notice to the other party. 2.3 Return or Destruction of Model. When this License Agreement has been terminated, User must either destroy all copies of the Model and provide to NMCWD written certification of the destruction, or return all copies of the Model to NMCWD. 3. Limited Warranty and Disclaimers 3.1 Limited Warranty. The Model is provided by NMCWD to User subject to the following limitations and restrictions: (a) User is responsible for the installation and use of the Model and the results or consequences resulting from User’s installation or use of the Model. (b) NMCWD does not warrant that the Model is error free, and disclaims any other warranties, express or implied, respecting this License Agreement or the Model. (c) THE MODEL IS PROVIDED “AS IS” WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER AND WITHOUT WARRANTY AS TO ITS PERFORMANCE, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE MODEL IS ASSUMED BY USER. (d) NMCWD WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, COMPENSATORY OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, LOSS OF PROFIT, OTHER FINANCIAL LOSS, LOSS OF DATA, OR ANY OTHER DAMAGE OF ANY KIND ARISING OUT OF USER’S USE OR ATTEMPTED USE OF THE MODEL, OR ANY THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE USE OF THE MODEL, EVEN IF NMCWD HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH POTENTIAL LOSS OR DAMAGE. 3.2 Sole Remedies. User’s sole and exclusive remedies for breach of these limited warranties will be as follows: (a) User may return the Model to NMCWD, which, at its 5 discretion, may replace or repair the Model and return the Model to User; or (b) User may terminate this License Agreement in accordance with section 2, above. 3.3 Indemnification. User will hold harmless, defend and indemnify NMCWD, its officers, board members, employees and agents from any and all actions, costs, damages and liabilities of any nature related to User’s use of the Model, to the extent permitted by law. Nothing in this License Agreement will be construed to waive any immunity, defense or limit on liability applicable to NMCWD or User, or otherwise to create any right in User other than the remedies of section 3.2, or any right in any third party. 4. General Terms and Conditions 4.1 Whereas Clauses. All recitals included in this License Agreement are incorporated into and considered a part of the License Agreement. 4.2 Amendment. The terms of this License Agreement may be amended only by written agreement of NMCWD and User. 4.3 Governing Law. This License Agreement will be governed by and interpreted according to the laws of the State of Minnesota. 4.4 Waiver. No waiver of any violation of this License Agreement will constitute a waiver of any subsequent violation, whether of the same or of any other term. Subsequent performance of any of the terms of this License Agreement will not constitute a waiver of any preceding violation, regardless of the other party’s knowledge of the preceding violation at the time of subsequent performance. The delay or omission of any party’s exercise of any right arising from any default will not affect or impair the party’s rights regarding the same or future default. 4.5 No Agency. NMCWD and User are independent parties for all legal purposes hereunder, and nothing herein will be construed to create an agency, joint venture, partnership or other form of business association between the parties. 4.6 Assignment. User will not assign or transfer this License Agreement in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of NMCWD. Any attempt to assign or transfer this License Agreement without prior written consent will be void and of no force or effect. 4.7 Correspondence. Correspondence regarding this License Agreement or the Model will be directed as follows: To NMCWD: Administrator 6 Nine Mile Creek Watershed District 12800 Gerard Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55346 To User: Patrick Sejkora, PE Water Resources Engineer City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 4.8 Survival of Provisions. All obligations of User regarding use and protection of the Model; all obligations to hold harmless, defend and indemnify; and limitations on and disclaimers of all warranties in this License Agreement will survive termination of the Agreement. 4.9 Authority. The person or persons executing this License Agreement on behalf of User represent that they are duly authorized to execute this License Agreement on behalf of User and represent and warrant that this License Agreement is a legal, valid and binding obligation enforceable according to its terms. INTENDING TO BE LEGALLY BOUND by the foregoing terms: City of Eden Prairie _____________________ Date: Rick Getschow City Manager ___________________ Date: Ronald A. Case Mayor NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT _________________________ Date: Randy Anhorn, Administrator ATTACHMENT A MODEL LICENSE AGREEMENT THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION 7 Bolton & Menk Inc., hereby requests authority to exercise rights to use the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District’s Model as an agent, consultant or contractor to the City of Eden Prairie under the License Agreement executed on ________________ between City of Eden Prairie and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. In assuming that authority, and in consideration therefore, Bolton & Menk Inc. hereby represents and affirms that it has received and is familiar with the cited license agreement, that its authority is limited by the terms of the agreement, and that it is fully subject to all limitations, obligations and liabilities set forth in that agreement to the same extent as if it were a signatory thereto. Bolton & Menk Inc. By ___________________________ Date: Print name: Print title: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Carter Schulze Public Works / Engineering ITEM DESCRIPTION: #21815 Approve Construction Agreement with Xcel Energy for Street Lighting Facilities on Technology Drive ITEM NO.: VIII.L. Requested Action Move to: Approve Construction Agreement with Xcel Energy for Street Lighting Facilities on Technology Drive. Synopsis Xcel Energy will install 17 LED cobra fixtures on black fiberglass poles along the north side of Technology Drive between Prairie Center Drive and Flying Cloud Drive. Background Information This corridor of Technology Drive, which includes a multi-use trail, does not currently have any street lighting. See map attachment. A project to construct lighting along this corridor was included in the latest CIP. That plan included; hiring a contractor to install light pole bases, erect salvaged light poles from a previous project and retrofit the poles for new LED heads. After discussing power and LED options with Xcel Energy, required partners in the project, they offered to submit a quote to complete all of the work to install the lighting. After reviewing the quote and considering the alternatives of using salvaged poles, staff is recommending approval of this agreement to have Xcel complete the work. The schedule for this work is Summer 2021. Financial Implications The agreement with Xcel has a cost of $83,846.00. This also includes a monthly cost of $7.05 per luminaire, which is the standard rate for street lighting and will be included with the street lighting budget. These lights will be owned and operated by Xcel Energy. The funding source for the lighting project construction is the Transportation Fund. The CIP budget for the project is $240,000.00. Attachments Construction Agreement for Street Lighting Facilities Map of Lighting Corridor Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. Page 1 of 5 Outdoor Lighting 825 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55117 Construction Agreement For Street Lighting Facilities The customer identified below ("Customer") and Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. ("Xcel Energy" or "Company") agree to this Construction Agreement for Street Lighting Facilities, including the attached Terms and Conditions, for the following street light facilities: Customer: City of Eden Prairie Address: 8080 Mitchell Rd City: Eden Prairie State: MN Zip Code: 55344 Project charges of: Eighty-three thousand eight hundred forty-six dollars and 00/100 Dollars: $83,846.00 In accordance with the following terms of payment: Payment due 30 days after construction is completed For Association or City of: City of Eden Prairie Streetlights/Facilities Location: Technology Dr Rate Code: A30 Pre-Pay Option 110-165W LED (14,000 Lumens). Current monthly rate is $7.05 per luminaire. Service consisting of: Pre-Pay Option includes electricity and maintenance for 25 years from installation. Installation of Company Owned streetlight facilities consisting of: Designation of Lamps: Install 17 LED cobra fixtures on 30' direct buried fiberglass poles. Install by direct bore approx. 1480' of wire in 1½” conduit. Restoration is not included in this contract. Number of Luminaries: 17- 110-165W LED Cobra Fixtures Fixture Color –Grey 17- 30’ fiberglass Poles Pole Color – Black Project charges valid for 60 days from signing of contract. Customer and Xcel Energy agree to the attached terms and conditions for the installation and moving of the facilities identified above. Customer and Xcel Energy agree that the operation of the facilities shall be subject to the General Street Lighting Contract for Operations & Maintenance Services between Customer and Xcel Energy, dated Dated this _________ day of _______ 20 ________ Dated this _________ day of _______ 20 _______ Customer: City of Eden Prairie Xcel Energy: By:Title: By: By: Title: Title: Robert J Schommer, Senior Operations Manager – Minnesota as authorized agent for Northern States Power Co. XCEL ENERGY USE ONLY Date: 04/13/2021 Div: Edina Xcel Energy Outdoor Project Coordinator: Damon Erickson Xcel Energy Project Number: SAP Notification #12319886 Customer Charges Paid: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. Page 2 of 5 Outdoor Lighting 825 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55117 TERMS AND CONDITIONS Customer and Company agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. Acceptance. Execution of this Agreement constitutes Customer's acceptance of the express terms of Company’s proposal and the offer contained therein, which are included and incorporated into this Agreement. Any additional or different terms proposed by Customer, or any attempt by Customer to vary in any degree any of the terms in this Agreement in Customer’s acceptance, are hereby objected to and rejected, and (i) such additional or different terms shall not operate as a rejection of the incorporation of the Company's proposal in this Agreement unless such variances are with respect to terms involving the description, quantity, or delivery schedule of the Work to be performed by Company as described in Company’s proposal ("the Work” means the supplying of any labor, materials, or any other work of Company expressly described in Company’s proposal); (ii) such additional or different terms shall be deemed a material alteration hereof; and (iii) Company’s proposal shall be deemed accepted by Customer and incorporated into this Agreement without said additional or different terms. 2. Request for Installation; Rights. Customer requests that Company install outdoor lighting at the location(s) designated on page one and/or as shown on the attached exhibit. Customer grants Company any right, privilege and easement to install, operate and maintain its facilities, including underground facilities, on the property. 3. Installation Requirements. Customer agrees that, prior to Company starting work: (1) the route of Company’s service installation shall be accessible to Company’s equipment; (2) Customer will remove all obstructions from the route at no cost or expense to Company; (3) Customer will clearly mark all septic tanks, drain-fields, sprinkler systems, water wells, owner-installed electric or pipeline facilities, or other Customer-owned facilities in the installation route; and (4) the ground elevation along the route shall not be above or more than four inches below the final grade. Company will contact the appropriate agency to locate 3rd party utility facilities (phone, cable, etc.) on Customer property. Customer agrees Company is not responsible for damage to Customer-owned underground facilities not marked at the time of outdoor lighting service installation. 4. Installation Cost Contribution. Customer agrees to pay an installation cost contribution provided in Project Charges on page one. Customer is responsible for any additional installation costs incurred by Company because of (1) soil conditions that impair the installation of underground facilities, such as rock formations, etc., (2) extensive existing underground facilities, and (3) any existing conditions that exist but did not exist at the time the installation cost was determined, such as new sidewalks, curbing, black top, paving, sod or other landscaping and obstructions along the cable route. 5. Winter Construction Charges. When underground facilities are installed between October 1 and April 15, inclusive, because of failure of Customer to meet all requirements of the Company by September 30, or because the Customer's property, or the streets leading thereto, are not ready to receive the underground facilities by such date, such work will be subject to a Winter Construction Charge when winter conditions of six inches or more of frost exist, snow removal or plowing is required to install service, or burners must be set at the underground facilities in order to install service for the entire length of the underground service. Winter construction will not be undertaken by the Company where prohibited by law or where it is not practical to install underground facilities during the winter season. The charges apply to frost depths of 18” or less. At greater frost depths, the Company may individually determine the job cost. The Company also reserves the right to charge for any unusual winter construction expenses. All winter construction charges are non-refundable and are in addition to any normal construction charges. 6. Schedule; Delays. Quoted shipping and completion dates are approximate and are based on prompt receipt of all necessary information and approvals from Customer and access as required by Company and its contractors or subcontractors (if any) to the site and to the equipment which is the subject of this Agreement. If Company’s performance is delayed by Customer's suspension of work, in whole or in part, or by any act or omission of Customer, the time for performance will be extended by the period of time required by Company to return to the state of performance that existed before the delay. If the delay or suspension continues for sixty (60) days, Company has the right to cancel or renegotiate the Agreement. Customer will pay an equitable adjustment based on a claim submitted by Company for all reasonable costs, damages and expenses incurred by Company incident to the delay or suspension. Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. Page 3 of 5 Outdoor Lighting 825 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55117 7. Changes. The prices for any extras or changes to the scope of the Work or modifications to the payment or performance schedule will be agreed upon in writing before either party will be obligated to proceed with such changes. Performance of any change will not waive any claims for equitable adjustment in price or schedule. 8. Relocating Facilities. Customer agrees to pay the cost of relocating any portion of facilities, including underground facilities, to accommodate Customer or as required due to altering of grade, additions to structures, installation of patios, decks, gardens, sidewalks, curbing, paving, blacktop, sod, landscaping or any other condition which makes maintenance of the Company’s facilities impractical. Company shall notify Customer of such relocations prior to incurring relocation costs. 9. Environmental. Prior to the start of the Work, Customer will provide notice of any hazardous materials or hazardous situations that it is aware of with respect to the facilities where the Work is to be performed or that could affect the Work. In the event Company encounters the existence of asbestos, asbestos containing materials, formaldehyde, lead, or potentially toxic or otherwise hazardous material in the performance of the Work, the discovery thereof shall constitute a cause beyond Company’s reasonable control and Company shall have the right to cease or not commence the Work until the area has been made safe by Customer or Customer’s representative, at Customer’s expense. 10. Restoration. Company will restore any excavation of the boulevard on Customer’s property with existing soil so it is level and clean. Customer is responsible for the final compacting, loam, seeding, sod or watering of the boulevard at Customer’s expense unless otherwise noted on page one of this Agreement. 11. Additional Charges. In addition to the project charges on page one of this Agreement, Company shall be compensated for any added costs of performing the Work attributable to any one or more of the following: (i) any and all extras and change orders and any and all other additional work mutually agreed by Customer and Company; (ii) any and all costs and expenses related to asbestos or other environmental matters, any unforeseen conditions or any changes in the law; and (iii) any and all added costs and expenses of performing the Work attributable to any change by Customer in the criteria or information for the facility or to any delay or breach by Customer or its subcontractors. 12. Operations; Maintenance. Customer requests and authorizes Company to provide illumination and maintain the street lighting facilities under the Terms and Conditions as described in Customer’s General Street Lighting Contract for Operations & Maintenances Services with Company, which shall be effective upon the completion date of the street light installation. 13. Payments. Unless otherwise specified in Company’s proposal, Company may at its option invoice Customer upon completion of the Work or invoice Customer on a monthly basis for construction work performed under this Agreement. Customer shall pay Company all invoiced amounts within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice. 14. Termination. Customer may terminate the Agreement only upon written notice to Company and payment to Company for all (i) services and Work rendered or performed to the effective date of such termination; (ii) materials, supplies and equipment purchased prior to the effective date of such termination; and (iii) costs incurred by Company as a result of such termination. To the extent that Company uses the materials, supplies, or equipment on other projects or for maintenance purposes, Customer will not be charged for them. 15. Warranties. Company shall perform the Work in a safe and professional manner in accordance with all applicable codes, standards, regulations and laws. Company shall repair, replace or correct to Customer’s satisfaction all faulty or substandard work or defects in materials which appear within ninety (90) days from the date of completion of the Work. Acceptance of the Work or payment by Customer shall not affect this obligation. THE WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT ARE EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL STATUTORY OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES (INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE). 16. Limitation of Remedies. IN NO EVENT, WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, INDEMNITY, WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, SHALL COMPANY BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOSS OF PROFITS OR REVENUE. In no event whatsoever shall Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. Page 4 of 5 Outdoor Lighting 825 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55117 Company ever be liable to Customer for any damages or other amounts (including, without limitation, direct or actual damages), whether arising in contract or tort (including, without limitation, negligence) or otherwise, under or in connection with this Agreement or the Work, in an amount, in the aggregate, in excess of the total price paid for the Work; any and all claims for damages in excess of such amount being hereby forever waived and released by Customer; provided, however, that nothing contained in this sentence shall waive or limit any direct damages which Customer may suffer on account of Company’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. 17. Force Majeure. Neither party will be liable to the other for any delay or failure to perform due to any cause beyond its reasonable control, including fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, or act of any governmental authority. The party experiencing the force majeure will notify the other party promptly, and appropriate adjustments will be negotiated. In the event of delay in performance due to force majeure, the date of delivery or time for completion will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay, provided that if such delay continues for 60 days the party not experiencing the force majeure may terminate this Agreement. 18. Document Approval. Company may request that Customer review documents developed by Company for conformity with Customer requirements or specifications. Unless Customer advises Company otherwise in writing within fifteen (15) days after Company’s submission, Company may consider the documents approved and proceed with work. Changes thereafter, made at the direction of Customer, will entitle Company to adjustment by change order. 19. Documentation and Proprietary Information. Customer will provide Company with accurate and complete information in order to permit Company to successfully undertake and complete the Work. Company shall not be prohibited from disclosure or use of proprietary or confidential information or documents necessary for Company to secure or maintain in effect any license or permit, or otherwise to complete the Work. Where Customer information is incomplete or incorrect, resulting in delay or extra work, Company will be entitled to adjustment by change order. 20. Work Product. All reports, drawings, plans, specifications, calculations, studies, software programs, tapes, models and memoranda, if any, assembled or prepared by Company or Company’s affiliates, independent professional associates, agents, consultants, contractors or subcontractors pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of service in respect of the Work, and Company shall retain all ownership and property interest therein, whether or not the Work is completed. Customer may make and retain copies for information and reference in connection with the Work; provided, however, that it is understood and agreed that such documents are not intended to be re-used by Customer or others on extensions of the project or on any other project or any other purpose other than as expressly set forth in this Agreement, and Customer shall not re-use or disclose to any third party all or any portion of such work product without the express prior written consent of Company. 21. Customer Facilities. Company does not assume any responsibility for the adequacy, safety or satisfactory performance of Customer's facilities. Customer shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, defend and hold harmless Company and its officers, directors, agents, employees, and representatives from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, expenses (including attorneys' fees and costs) arising, for any reason whatsoever, out of the failure, non-operation or faulty performance of Customer's facilities (except to the extent of Company’s gross negligence or willful misconduct). 22. Subcontracting. Company may subcontract any portion or all of the Work without the approval of Customer. 23. Independent Contractor. Nothing contained in this Agreement nor any acts of the parties shall be construed to create the relationship of principal and agent, or of limited or general partner, or of joint venture or of any association between or among the parties to this Agreement, except that of owner and independent contractor. 24. Title; Rights of Access. Customer warrants that it has fee simple title to the property. Customer hereby grants to Company the right to enter and improve the real property for the purposes stated herein. 25. Ownership. Customer shall acquire no right, title or interest in any portion of the Work or Company’s equipment or facilities placed in, on, over, through and/or under the real property by Company. The Work constructed and installed by Company on the real property of Customer shall be and mean the personal property of Company, shall not be considered a fixture of the property, shall not attach to the realty, and shall not be alienable or Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. Page 5 of 5 Outdoor Lighting 825 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55117 lienable by Customer or any other party. Further, Company may remove, repair and replace the Work and its component system and equipment at any time without notice in Company’s sole and absolute discretion. 26. Other. It is agreed that failure by Customer or by Company at any time or from time to time to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of such provision or of Customer's right or Company’s right, respectively, to thereafter enforce each and every provision hereof. This Agreement contains, with respect to the specific services to be performed by Company, the entire understanding of the parties, and shall supersede any other oral or written agreements and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' successors and assigns. This Agreement may not be modified in any way without the written consent of both parties. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court to be unenforceable, then such provision will be deemed null and void but the remaining provisions shall be enforceable according to their terms. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Minnesota (as opposed to conflicts of laws provisions) as though all acts and omissions contemplated hereby or related hereto occurred in Minnesota. No course of prior dealing, usage of trade and course of performance shall be used to modify, supplement or explain any terms of this Agreement. Neither Party will assign or otherwise transfer its rights or obligations hereunder, in whole or in part, without the advance written consent of the other. Notwithstanding the above, Company may assign its rights or obligations to any of its affiliates without the written consent of Customer. 27. Governing Law. The Terms and Conditions provided herein and the rights of all the parties hereunder shall be construed under and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Attach 2 - Map of Lighting Corridor DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracyof this information. In no event will The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages,including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business informationor other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information itcontains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed.Any errors or omissions should be reported to The City of Eden Prairie. Street Lighting on Technology Drive F1:6,000Scale: 0 0.10.05Miles Miles 0 770385FeetFeet *Any aerial photography and parcel geometry wasobtained from Hennepin County and allusers are bound by the express written contract between Hennepin County and the Cityof Eden Prairie. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development/Planning Janet Jeremiah/ Beth Novak-Krebs ITEM DESCRIPTION: Noble Hill ITEM NO.: IX.A. Requested Action Option 1 Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt a Resolution Denying Citizen Petition for Preparation of an EAW • Adopt a Resolution for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres • Approve the 1st Reading of the Ordinance for a Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres • Adopt a Resolution for a Preliminary Plat to divide 3 parcels into 50 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres • Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Commission recommendations and Council conditions • Authorize the issuance of an early Land Alteration Permit for Noble Hill at the request of the Developer subject to the conditions outlined in the permit. Option 2 Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt a Resolution Granting Citizen Petition for Preparation of an EAW • Direct Staff to prepare Findings of Fact Supporting Grant of Citizen Petition for Preparation of an EAW • Postpone Indefinitely Action on the Following Items: • Resolution for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review of 27.51 acres • 1st Reading of the Ordinance for a Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres • Approval of Preliminary Plat to divide 3 parcels into 50 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres • Issuance of an early Land Alteration Permit for Noble Hill Synopsis The applicant is requesting approval to develop 50 single-family lots on 27.51 acres located at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road. The property currently includes a single family home and a former Christmas tree farm. There is nearly 150 feet of grade change from east to west on the property. Riley Creek runs through a portion of the west side of the property. There are significant wooded areas on the site. The primary access point is from Spring Road with the proposed streets in the neighborhood both terminating with a cul-de-sac. The proposal includes 4 outlots. The adjacent land uses include conservation land to the south, residential to the east, conservation land and one residential building to the west and conservation land to the north. The applicant has requested authorization for the issuance of an early Land Alteration Permit. With Council’s authorization, an early Land Alteration Permit can be issued prior to approval of the Development Agreement, but it is at the developer’s risk. An early Land Alteration Permit will not be issued until the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District has approved the Stormwater Management Plan and City staff has reviewed the application for the Land Alteration Permit. The City has received a Citizen Petition requesting that an EAW be completed for the project. The City must make a decision on the petition request prior to taking action on the development project applications. Background ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) PETITION Because the project proposes less than 250 unattached residential units, it does not meet the statutory threshold for a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The law provides a process, however, whereby any person may request the preparation of an EAW by filing a petition with the State Environmental Quality Board (EQB) that contains the signatures and mailing addresses of at least 100 individuals who reside or own property in Minnesota. Guidance found on EQB’s website informs potential petitioners that when starting a petition for environmental review, it is important to understand the following key points about the process: 1. The purpose of environmental review is not to cease projects, but to collect information about the likelihood of significant environmental effects and how they can be avoided or mitigated. 2. The petition process does not create an additional source of approval for projects. The EQB is not empowered to supersede or overrule local government or state agency decisions. The role of the EQB is simply to review the petition to determine if it meets the statutory criteria and contains all necessary information for a valid petition. If the petition is determined to be valid, the EQB then determines the responsible governmental unit (RGU) to review and respond to the petition request and sends the petition to the RGU. If the RGU has a governing board or council that meets only on a periodic basis, the RGU must make its decision on the need for an EAW within 30 business days of receipt of the petition from the EQB. Petitioner Rebecca Prochaska filed a Citizen’s Petition requesting preparation of an EAW for the Noble Hill project with the EQB on or about April 21, 2021. The petition was accompanied by the signatures of 221 individuals, more than half of which reside in Eden Prairie. On April 23, 2021, the EQB informed the City of the petition and its determination that the petition meets the statutory requirements, and designated the City as the RGU for the project. As the RGU, the City is required to make a decision to either grant the petition and order the preparation of an EAW or to deny the petition request based on its findings on whether the evidence presented demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The City may consider evidence presented by the petitioners, the project proposer (in this case Pulte Homes), and other persons or evidence otherwise known to the City. In considering the evidence, the City must take into account the following factors: A. The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. The cumulative potential effects, including the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project; C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other environmental impact statements. No final approvals can be granted for the project until the EAW determination has been made. The City is required to provide specific findings of fact supporting its decision to either grant the petition and order the preparation of an EAW or to deny the petition. The City is then required to notify the project proposer, the petitioner, and the EQB of its decision. Attached to this memo is the Citizen Petition and supporting evidence that was provided to the City. City staff has reviewed in detail the evidence presented by the petitioner, evidence presented by Pulte Homes, and other evidence known to the City and recommends denial of the petition. The following is a summary of staff’s findings: • There is no potential for significant environmental impacts related to biodiversity. The area of the Project site with the most biodiversity significance is outside of the grading limits of the Project and will be deeded to the City for preservation in perpetuity. • There is no potential for significant environmental impacts related to the impairment of Riley Creek. The stormwater management best management practices that will be employed on the Project will in fact reduce runoff and potential creek contamination. Engineered retaining walls will provide for proper drainage. Trees and native vegetation preserved within the outlot to be deeded to the City and the wetland buffer will provide protection to adjacent water resources. • There is no potential for significant environmental impacts related to the Fredrick-Miller Spring. The spring is a seep, not an artesian spring, that originates in the bluff west of Spring Road. Drainage from the Project site will flow to the south and east. Activities associated with the Project will have no impact on the quantity or quality of the water recharging the Spring. • There is no potential for significant environmental impacts related to traffic, safety, noise, or air pollution as a result of the Project. The design and construction of Spring Road will more than accommodate the anticipated traffic increase from the Project, and sight lines will be preserved, if not improved. The project will generate very minimal increases in noise and air pollution. Staff has prepared the attached Resolution denying the request for an EAW, which includes detailed findings of fact in response to the allegations, information, and evidence provided in the Citizen Petition. In the event the Council instead determines to grant the Citizen Petition and order an EAW, the Council should approve the attached Resolution granting the request for an EAW. Staff will then prepare supporting findings of fact as outlined by the Council that will be presented for approval at the May 18, 2021 Council meeting. If the Council grants the petition, action on the other proposed action items relating to the first reading for Noble Hill must be postponed indefinitely, as no action can be taken until the EAW is prepared and a determination made on whether an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 5-3 to recommend approval of the project at the March 22, 2021 meeting, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, staff received a number of letters and emails regarding the project. Those letters and emails are included in the Planning Commission staff report attached to this memo. At the Planning Commission meeting, residents and nonresidents spoke about the proposed project. The main concern expressed by those in opposition is the potential impact on the Fredrick- Miller Spring. Other concerns related to tree removal and replacement; stormwater management; environmentally sensitive areas; rare, endangered, and threatened species; and empty-nester housing. DEVELOPER RESPONSE As a follow-up to the concerns raised regarding the Fredrick-Miller Spring, the developer worked with Summit Envirosolutions Inc. to evaluate geological and hydrological impacts of the Noble Hill development. In addition, the developer compiled additional information regarding the other main issues that were raised at the Planning Commission meeting. The attached information, submitted by the developer, addresses each of the main concerns. The results of the Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. evaluation and the additional information is provided for Council review and consideration. In addition, the developer also explored the idea of saving the cluster of White Pines along the east property line and evaluated the impact it might have on the design of the neighborhood. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has submitted revised plans addressing all of the changes required as conditions of approval prior to the 1st reading as outlined in the Planning Commission staff report. The changes include adding trees as recommended by City staff. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as stated in the City Code is to provide for a more creative and efficient approach to the use of land within the City; to allow variety in the types of environment available to people and distribution of overall density of population and intensity of land use where desirable and feasible; and provide for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design. The requested waivers seem reasonable because the waivers allow for a design that meets the density requirements, a layout that respects the topography of the site, a design that protects and preserves the natural features on the site, and provides trail connections to a broader existing trail system. As a part of the PUD process, the applicant is seeking waivers to City Code requirements as outlined below. Minimum Lot Size City Code requires a minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet in the R1-9.5 zoning district. Five of the lots are under 9,500 square feet. These lots are 9,075 square feet in size. The waiver would allow Lots 2-6, Block 2, to be under the minimum lot size as depicted on the plans. Minimum Lot Width City Code requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet along the street, 55 feet on the bulb of the cul-de sac and 85 feet on corner lots. Twenty-three of the lots are narrower than the minimum lot width requirement. These lots along the street range in width from 61.15 feet to 68.74 feet. The lots on the bulb of the cul-de-sac have an average width of 44 feet with the narrowest being 46.37. The waiver would allow Lots 1-5 and 15 and 16, Block 1, Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, and Lots 4-6, 13-23, Block 3 to be narrower than required as depicted on the plans. Front Yard Setback City Code requires a front yard setback of 30 feet. The applicant is proposing a front yard setback of a minimum 25 feet. This provides more flexibility on home placement to deal with potential issues with grades. Homes on individual lots can have a setback deeper than 25 feet based on lot conditions and preferences. The waiver would allow all of the lots to have a 25 foot minimum front yard setback. Over length Cul-de-Sac. City Code states that a cul-de-sac shall not exceed 500 feet in length. Both of the cul-de-sac streets exceed 500 feet. With limited opportunities for street connections, the cul-de-sac streets provide for development of the site. The cul-de-sac terminating at the east property line is designed so that it could be connected in the future if conditions change. If the street is connected to Hennepin Village, a waiver would only be needed for the Osprey Point cul-de-sac. Attachments 1. Citizen Petition for an EAW and associated information 2. Pulte Homes Response 3. 2020 WOMP Monitoring Results Summary 4. Alliant Memorandum – Noble Hill Development dated 2/10/21 5. Geotechnical Evaluation – Standal Property 6. Hennepin County –Preliminary Plat Letter dated 3/1/21 7. Lower Minnesota River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load 8. Minnesota Stormwater Manual –Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater 9. Spack Solutions – Technical Memorandum-Traffic Assessment –Standal Concept 11/7/19 10. Summit Envirosolutions Report – Results of Impact Assessment Fredrick-Miller Spring 4/9/21 11. Supplemental Soil Borings Report – The Overlook 12. Resolution Denying Petition for Preparation of an EAW (Option 1) 13. Resolution Granting Petition for Preparation of an EAW (Option 2) 14. Ordinance for PUD District Review with Waivers and Rezoning 15. Resolution for PUD Concept 16. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 17. Planning Commission Staff Report with Submitted Comments 18. Land Use Map 19. Zoning Map 20. Aerial photo 21. Planning Commission Minutes 22. Comments Received After Planning Commission Meeting 1 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board VIA E-MAIL (cover letter & petition) 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, MN 55155 April 23, 2021 City of Eden Prairie Julie Klima City staff liaison for Planning Commission jklima@edenprairie.org RE: Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed Noble Hill project Dear Ms. Klima, The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared for the project described in the petition, and has determined the City of Eden Prairie is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW. The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of an EAW, can be found in Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410. The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set forth in part 4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include: 1. No final governmental approvals may be given to the project named in the petition, nor may construction on the project be started until the need for an EAW has been determined. Project construction includes any activities which directly affect the environment, including preparation of land. If the decision is to prepare an EAW, final governmental approval must be withheld until either a negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is issued or an EIS is determined adequate. See part 4410.3100, subparts 1 and 2 for the prohibitions on final governmental decisions. 2. To make the decision on the need for an EAW, compare the project to the mandatory EAW, EIS, and exemption categories listed in parts 4410.4300, 4410.4400, and 4410.4600, respectively. If the project should fall under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or prohibited. If this should be the case, proceed accordingly: a. If the project meets or exceeds the thresholds of any mandatory EAW or EIS category, then environmental review is required for the project. Please see the guidance documents on the EQB website for preparing an EAW or EIS. b. If the project is exempt from environmental review, please document the reason for the exemption in writing and notify both the petitioners’ representative and EQB of your conclusion. 3. If preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted, the City of Eden Prairie has the option to prepare a discretionary EAW in accordance with part 4410.1000, subpart 3, item B. The standard for making the decision on the need for an EAW is provided in part 4410.1100, subpart 6. When considering the evidence provided by the petitioners, proposers, or other Noble Hill Page 2 April 23, 2021 persons, the City of Eden Prairie must take into account the factors listed in part 4410.1700, subpart 7. Note that this requires that a record of decision, including specific findings of fact, be maintained. 4.You are allowed up to 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) for your decision if it will be made by a council, board, or other body which meets only periodically, or 15 working days if the decision will be made by a single individual. If the decision will be made by an individual, the individual may request an additional 15 working days from the EQB in accordance with part 4410.1100, subpart 7. 5.You must provide written notification of your decision to the proposer, the petitioners' representative, and the EQB, within 5 working days as described in part 4410.1100, subpart 8. Please provide written notification to these parties even in cases where an EAW or EIS will be prepared according to part 4410.1000, subparts 2 or 3, or the project is found to be exempt from environmental review. a.To notify the EQB of your decision on the need for an EAW, complete the EQB Monitor submission form found on the EQB website. The EQB requests that you upload a copy of your record of decision using the same electronic submission form, including instances where environmental review is mandatory, voluntary, or exempt. 6.If for any reason you are unable to act on the petition at this time (e.g., no application has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn or denied), the petition will remain in effect for a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any final decision concerning the project identified in the petition. It is recommended that you notify in writing both the petitioners’ representative and the EQB if you are unable to act on the petition at the time it is received. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the EQB Monitor on April 27, 2021. If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at env.review@state.mn.us or 651-757-2873. Sincerely, Katrina Hapka Katrina Hapka Environmental Review Program Coordinator Environmental Quality Board cc: Rebecca Prochaska, Petitioner’s Representative Katie Pratt, EQB Executive Director Denise Wilson, Director of Environmental Review Program Paul Heuer, Project Proposer, Pulte Group Dean Lotter, Project Proposer, Pulte Group CITIZENS’ PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR THE PROPOSED “NOBLE HILL” PROJECT TO: Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) c/o Katrina Hapka, Environmental Review Program Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, MN 55155 Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.1100, the undersigned petitioners, request that the EQB assign a Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) and proceed with the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Proposed Project and state and allege as follows: A. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pulte Homes (the applicant) is requesting a site plan and land use approvals from the City of Eden Prairie to develop 50 single-family lots on 27.51 acres located at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road. The property is located approximately 600 feet south of Prospect Road on the east side of Spring Road. B. PROJECT PROPOSER: Project Proposer and Applicant: Pulte Homes, 7500 Flying Cloud Drive Suite 670, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Owners: John and Carol Standal, 9875 and 9955 Spring Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55347 C. PETITIONER: Rebecca Prochaska, 15781 Porchlight Ln Eden Prairie, MN 55347, 612-396-3019, RLProchaska@Gmail.com D. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: See descriptions in supporting evidence power point. Additionally, listed below is a key point summary. Approval of this Proposed Project by the City has many potentially significant environmental effects which are described herein. These include, but are not limited to: irreparable impacts to local plant and animal communities, including Endangered and Threatened Species; degradation of natural surface and groundwater resources; exacerbation of existing sources of contamination contributing to impairment of existing surface water bodies; removal of scenic vistas and historic views to be replaced with single family homes; increase in vehicle emissions contributing to reduced air quality and health effects, potentially in violation of State Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan goals; Increased noise during and after project completion from additional traffic; and cumulative environmental effects from all the items described herein. 1) Biodiversity of Project Site A) The Hennepin County Natural Resources Inventory Maps show that this 28-acre site is uniquely important because of its high biodiversity significance rating. It is underlain by groundwaters rated highly vulnerable to contamination. See PowerPoint Slides 4 - 11 B) The Proposed Project site is designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA), specifically belonging to the Lower Minnesota River Valley Important Brid Area (MRVIBA). Meaning this site is a place of international signifigance for the conservation of migratory birds and other biodiversity. The most vulnerable groups being: waterfowl, raptors (Turkey Vulture, Osprey, buteos, and Bald Eagle), and migrant land birds. See Slide 12 - 13 C) DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program database lists an occurrence of Kitten-Tails (Threatened Species) and Petala Evening Primrose (Special Concern Species) in the vicinity. This site is a High Potential Zone (HPZ) for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Endangered Species). No study has been performed for the Proposed Project to rule out if these species are present. See Slides 14-15 D) 456 significant and heritage trees will be removed from the Proposed Project site. This reduction in forest cover will increase the proposed project’s impacts to soil erosion, ground waters, and the Riley Creek Watershed. Land development and alteration will change the way water moves across and through the property.. See attachments Protecting Rivers, Lakes, & Wetlands from Land Development Impacts, Section: Watershed Forest Cover & Streamside Buffers E) The Proposed Project will eliminate habitat for wildlife including at risk species and will stress their continued existence and remove important biodiversity elements for the future. . To conclude, this combination of factors indicates that the site is ecologically significant and should warrant an EAW to confirm. 2) Riley Creek Impairment A) According to U.S. Geological Survey StreamStats: 22% of the Riley Creek watershed is covered with buildings, streets and other impervious surfaces. Stream quality impairment begins at 10% impervious cover and at 25% restoration may not be possible. Forest covers 15% of the watershed and a minimum of 40% forest cover are needed to preserve a good quality stream quality. By increasing impervious area and further reducing watershed forest cover, the proposed project will make it impossible or more difficult to restore Riley Creek to a higher-quality condition. See Slide 21 B) The Riley Creek watershed is considered impaired for aquatic recreation and aquatic life by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Much of the impairment is from existing development. By increasing the impervious area and removing the forest cover, this Proposed Project will make it more difficult to restore Riley Creek to a higher-quality condition. See Slide 18, Lower MN River Watershed C) Landslides: The Proposed Project site is situated on a plot of land with a change of grade of nearly 150 feet from east to west per the City’s planning committee report. Because of this, there is significant landslide potential. Due to the topography of the site, a high number of retaining walls are being proposed, some reaching heights of nearly 15 feet tall. Slide 24, Landslides and Mudslides Worksheet and Landslides, Slopes Failure & Erosion E) Taken together, the increase in development intensity of the area, both during construction and establishment, will continue to exacerbate the sources and causes of impairment to this import surface water resource. Additional sedimentation and runoff into this watershed would be opposed by the watershed district, however, they do not have authority to regulate. Terry Jeffery, Interim District Administrator of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, confirmed the watershed district does not consider the cumulative effects of development on the watershed. Mr. Jeffery confirmed the City Council is the final rezoning decision-maker and the only body that can address the cumulative site impacts. See attachment Terry Jeffery email. In Conclusion: By increasing impervious area and further reducing watershed forest cover; this project will make it impossible or more difficult to restore Riley Creek to a higher-quality condition. 3) Fredrick Miller Spring Impact – Testing and Heritage A) The Fredrick-Miller spring is an artesian spring fed well and is a great source of untreated, natural water. Thousands come from all over the state to collect water from the spring to use as drinking water. The City only performs a pass/fail coliform bacteria test monthly on the spring water. No comprehensive testing is being done on the spring at this time. B) Expert Concern: Professor Calvin Alexander from the University of Minnesota outlines the potential for significant negative environmental effects on the Fredrick-Miller Spring and the Lower Riley Creek Watershed from the Proposed Project. Potential adverse environmental effects include, but are not limited to, degradation from: the removal of trees and other native land cover, increased impervious surface increasing run off, increased pollutant loads from construction and residential activities, lawn fertilizers, lawn insecticides runoff and infiltration to groundwater, etc. Any or all such activities can adversely affect the water surface and ground water quantity and quality. See slide 26 and attached email from Professor Alexander. C) In 1997 the city of Eden Prairie designated the spring, a local Heritage Preserve and it is considered a protected landmark and part of the history of the Eden Prairie area. See slide 28 D) Based on public information available from the Project Proposer and the City, it appears that no protection or mitigation measures are being required for this development to protect the natural spring. Without any such measures the potential for degradation of water quality along with the potential elimination of the spring is likely to occur. To conclude, the spring will be directly affected by the project and further development of the Riley Creek watershed places this highly valued resource at risk of destruction. An EAW is necessary to determine what mitigation measures are required to preserve this valuable resource and determine the long-term effect of an intensive development project on the spring. 4) Health, Safety and Quality of Life A) Impacts from existing housing developments to the north and east of the Proposed Project site have not been evaluated. The Hennepin Village community is up the ridge from Riley Creek and adjacent to the project area. This housing development has 140 single family homes, 150 townhome and 70 twin homes. This surrounding development has likely caused impact to the valuable water resources described herein, however, studies have not been done to confirm. B) The Proposed Project would add approximately 225 more residents to the area. This will increase traffic, noise and impact air quality levels. An increase in vehicles will create more noise and air pollution, in turn having a negative impact on community health. See slide 29 C) Road safety risks and sight-distance issues on Spring Road. A time-based study performed at the Proposed Project’s road access point indicates a sight-distance issue. See Slide 30 CONCLUSION: The Project as proposed clearly has the potential for significant environmental effects pursuant to Minn. Rule 4410.1000, Subp. 3. C and the EQB should designate an RGU. Additionally, it is quite possible that the Project is part of a connected and phased action that requires individual environmental review. The Project Proposers have clearly limited the size of the development in an attempt to circumvent a classification for a mandatory EAW pursuant to Minn. Rules 4410.4300, Subp. 19. However, as discussed within the Petition details, the Proposed Project is likely part of connected actions and phased actions by the City which have not adequately addressed all the potential for environmental impacts associated with the other projects in the area including: other unattached residential developments, highways, streets, utility lines, or systems. Collectively, the Proposed Project is collectively part of a large existing or planned network and for which the City has attempted to separate the approvals in order to make a determination that no environmental review is needed. One need look no further than the City’s website to find evidence of this long term series of connected actions (See Exhibits below). The first Exhibit shows the intense detached residential development that has taken place to the north and east of the subject property without any environmental review. This previous development has likely caused environmental impacts to the valuable resources identified herein with no study of these impacts. Further development of the Site will connect with previous development to further degrade this important resource. The attached portion of the City of Eden Prairie’s 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan shows that all land designated in yellow is going to be zoned for Medium Density Development thus magnifying the potential for significant environmental effects when developed. The City must treat the present proposal as the total proposal or select only some of the future elements for present consideration in the threshold determination and EAW. These selections must be logical in relation to the design of the total system or network and must not be made merely to divide a large system into exempted segments. SIGNATURE PAGES [see attachments] https://www.edenprairie.org/city-government/departments/community- development/planning/development-projects/noble-hill Eden Prairie 2040 Land Use Plan https://www.edenprairie.org/home/showpublisheddocument/15182/637082164022400000 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 1 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Elizabeth Fabel Address 15451 Village Woods Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address fabele@yahoo.com Phone Number 7638072794 #1#1 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:39:26 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:39:26 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:40:02 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:40:02 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3500:00:35 IP Address:IP Address: 98.240.143.20398.240.143.203 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 2 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Dena Talamantes Address 14004 Chestnut Drive, Apt 8 City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address dena.talamantes@gmail.com Phone Number 16125946512 #2#2 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:41:14 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:41:14 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:41:25 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:41:25 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1000:00:10 IP Address:IP Address: 65.128.25.8965.128.25.89 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 3 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Kaytie Kelm Address 7150 Quail Cir City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address kkelm22@yahoo.com Phone Number 19524651622 #3#3 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:44:07 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:44:07 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:44:20 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:44:20 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1200:00:12 IP Address:IP Address: 107.2.89.140107.2.89.140 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 4 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Gabrielle Feivor City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address feivorg@hotmail.com Phone Number 6127101585 #4#4 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:45:40 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:45:40 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:45:54 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:45:54 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1400:00:14 IP Address:IP Address: 73.164.17.3573.164.17.35 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 5 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Justin DeAngelo Address 112366 eitel circle City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address justin.deangelo@yahoo.com Phone Number 9524120711 #5#5 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:50:02 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:50:02 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:50:20 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:50:20 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1700:00:17 IP Address:IP Address: 174.219.136.132174.219.136.132 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 6 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jaimy Address Holmes City/Town Chaska State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address emerald84@live.com Phone Number 6514063511 #6#6 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:49:45 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:49:45 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:50:41 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:50:41 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5600:00:56 IP Address:IP Address: 73.62.178.15973.62.178.159 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 7 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jeffrey Heyen Address 18360 Ginavale Ln City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address jheyen1@comcast.net Phone Number 9524861011 #7#7 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:49:01 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:49:01 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:50:50 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:50:50 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:4900:01:49 IP Address:IP Address: 98.217.202.24298.217.202.242 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 8 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jean Grote City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address eggsnpeas@aol.com #8#8 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:50:46 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:50:46 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:51:04 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:51:04 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1700:00:17 IP Address:IP Address: 71.195.1.12471.195.1.124 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 9 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Ashley Kramin Address 1085 Rosemary Ct City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address ashleykramin@gmail.com Phone Number 6123603940 #9#9 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:51:46 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:51:46 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:52:36 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:52:36 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5000:00:50 IP Address:IP Address: 75.72.120.23075.72.120.230 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 10 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Ryan Westrum Address 10403 Brown Farm Circle City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address ryanwestrum@gmail.com Phone Number 9522615269 #10#10 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:53:29 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:53:29 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:53:51 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:53:51 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2200:00:22 IP Address:IP Address: 73.228.140.17973.228.140.179 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 11 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jolene Devine Address 8553 Braxton Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address cassiejo54@gmail.com Phone Number 9529137323 #11#11 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:53:52 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:53:52 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:54:00 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:54:00 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:0800:00:08 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.164.6775.73.164.67 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 12 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Michelle Smithson-Aldoubal City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address michellesmithson@gmail.com Phone Number 9524465454 #12#12 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:54:25 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:54:25 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:54:59 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:54:59 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3400:00:34 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.84.4172.58.84.4 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 13 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Gretchen Haynes City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address gp_haynes@yahoo.com Phone Number 630-484-7333 #13#13 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:54:31 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:54:31 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:55:38 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:55:38 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:0700:01:07 IP Address:IP Address: 174.20.182.207174.20.182.207 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 14 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name CARRIE WYMAN Address 9876 CRESTWOOD TERRACE City/Town EDEN PRAIRIE State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address CARRIE.WYMAN@STRATASYS.COM Phone Number 6127169643 #14#14 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:55:35 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:55:35 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:55:47 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:55:47 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1100:00:11 IP Address:IP Address: 66.41.244.16366.41.244.163 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 15 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Sue Bennett Address 9992 Indigo Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address SCBennett1957@Gmail.com Phone Number 952-334-5617 #15#15 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:55:26 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:55:26 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:56:02 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:56:02 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3500:00:35 IP Address:IP Address: 68.54.23.1168.54.23.11 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 16 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Susan Heyen Address 18360 Ginavale Lane City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address smh5555@comcast.net Phone Number 952-484-3069 #16#16 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:54:20 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:54:20 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:56:06 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:56:06 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:4600:01:46 IP Address:IP Address: 98.217.202.24298.217.202.242 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 17 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Bev Lovas City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address bevlovas@gmail.com Phone Number 9529135677 #17#17 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:57:10 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:57:10 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:57:29 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:57:29 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1900:00:19 IP Address:IP Address: 206.188.245.160206.188.245.160 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 18 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Rahn Yanes Address 10378 Greyfield Ct City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address bajista50@aol.com Phone Number 9523341338 #18#18 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:56:15 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:56:15 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:58:01 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:58:01 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:4600:01:46 IP Address:IP Address: 3.15.212.623.15.212.62 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 19 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Joselynne N Fynboh Address 9940 Frederick Pl City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address jnfynboh@gmail.com Phone Number 16514850917 #19#19 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:01:14 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:01:14 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:01:30 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:01:30 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1500:00:15 IP Address:IP Address: 73.228.168.11473.228.168.114 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 20 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Ann Bever Address 14301 Martin Drive #536 City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address ann326b@gmail.com Phone Number 6128687944 #20#20 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:59:46 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:59:46 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:01:31 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:01:31 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:4400:01:44 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.84.179172.58.84.179 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 21 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Kristine Benson City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address knycklemoe@yahoo.com Phone Number 9522123848 #21#21 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:03:47 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:03:47 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:04:00 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:04:00 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1200:00:12 IP Address:IP Address: 73.164.58.13873.164.58.138 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 22 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Gina Kirkeby Address 8913 darnel road City/Town Eden prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address gkirkeby@gmail.com #22#22 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:03:46 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:03:46 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:04:35 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:04:35 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4800:00:48 IP Address:IP Address: 97.116.173.22697.116.173.226 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 23 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name David Belfry City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address dpbelfry@gmail.com Phone Number 6123877263 #23#23 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:04:03 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:04:03 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:04:42 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:04:42 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3900:00:39 IP Address:IP Address: 73.242.41.6773.242.41.67 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 24 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Sarah Hamel Address 8310 Heather ave City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address sarahhamel97@gmail.com Phone Number 9528579822 #24#24 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:04:33 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:04:33 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:05:11 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:05:11 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3800:00:38 IP Address:IP Address: 144.191.148.6144.191.148.6 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 25 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Robb Carroll Address 18886 Magenta Bay City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address robbrcarroll@gmail.com #25#25 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:04:20 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:04:20 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:05:22 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:05:22 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:0100:01:01 IP Address:IP Address: 71.195.3.3071.195.3.30 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 26 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Corlyss Affeldt City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address corlyss@gmail.com Phone Number 6127204369 #26#26 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:07:12 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:07:12 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:08:11 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:08:11 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5900:00:59 IP Address:IP Address: 68.47.85.22368.47.85.223 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 27 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Nathan Lovas Address 9100 Riley Lake Road City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address lovasnj@gmail.com Phone Number 9525647286 #27#27 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:07:43 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:07:43 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:08:15 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:08:15 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3200:00:32 IP Address:IP Address: 97.116.95.13697.116.95.136 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 28 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Beverly Lovas Address 10465 Olympic Circle City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address bevlovas@gmail.com #28#28 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:09:10 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:09:10 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:09:46 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:09:46 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3600:00:36 IP Address:IP Address: 97.116.95.13697.116.95.136 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 29 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Virginia Davis Address 1045 Yellow Brick Rd #202 City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address Tunegoon22@yahoo.com Phone Number 9527152117 #29#29 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:10:44 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:10:44 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:11:24 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:11:24 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4000:00:40 IP Address:IP Address: 73.62.179.5573.62.179.55 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 30 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Annie Chesterfield Address 18716 Aubrie court City/Town Eden prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address annie.chesterfield@gmail.com Phone Number 8054038838 #30#30 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:11:09 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:11:09 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:11:41 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:11:41 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3200:00:32 IP Address:IP Address: 73.65.97.2073.65.97.20 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 31 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Andrew Syring Address 11970 Sunnybrook Rd City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address Dsyring@gmail.com Phone Number 6123101532 #31#31 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:14:24 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:14:24 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:14:59 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:14:59 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3500:00:35 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.77.4675.73.77.46 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 32 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jo Anne Sebanc Address 9055 Gould Rd City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address sebanc@yahoo.com Phone Number 6124816768 #32#32 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:15:36 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:15:36 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:16:43 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:16:43 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:0700:01:07 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.152.4875.73.152.48 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 33 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Sophia Schwob Address 10112 Trails End Rd City/Town Chanhassen State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55317-4593 Email Address sophia.cristina2003@gmail.com Phone Number 9523806571 #33#33 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:16:29 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:16:29 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:16:57 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:16:57 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2700:00:27 IP Address:IP Address: 173.31.220.26173.31.220.26 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 34 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Laura J Price Address 15480 Pioneer Trl City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55348 Email Address lauraprice18@gmail.com Phone Number 6129165876 #34#34 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:15:52 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:15:52 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:17:05 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:17:05 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:1300:01:13 IP Address:IP Address: 73.228.130.1373.228.130.13 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 35 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Mark Burns City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address mkjlsburnz@comcast.net Phone Number 6128026437 #35#35 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:17:17 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:17:17 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:18:19 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:18:19 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:0100:01:01 IP Address:IP Address: 107.77.207.58107.77.207.58 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 36 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jennifer Mettler Address 7171 Arrowhead Ct City/Town Chanhassen State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address jenskatebike@gmail.com Phone Number 6124081496 #36#36 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:21:11 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:21:11 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:21:44 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:21:44 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3200:00:32 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.87.107172.58.87.107 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 37 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Sarah Nelson Address 16350 S Hillcrest Ct City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address sarah_swims.foxjet@outlook.com Phone Number 9522121349 #37#37 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:22:03 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:22:03 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:22:48 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:22:48 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4500:00:45 IP Address:IP Address: 65.128.27.19565.128.27.195 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 38 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Kelly Blake Address 8040 hidden circle City/Town Chanhassen State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address k.blake97@gmail.com Phone Number 9522707191 #38#38 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:23:24 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:23:24 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:23:46 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:23:46 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2100:00:21 IP Address:IP Address: 24.91.8.7124.91.8.71 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 39 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Paul Richards Address 2630 ACORN ROAD City/Town CHASKA State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address richardspaul@aol.com Phone Number 9523616652 #39#39 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:23:44 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:23:44 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:23:54 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:23:54 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:0900:00:09 IP Address:IP Address: 64.206.120.12964.206.120.129 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 40 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Toni M Knorr Address 15383 Sandhill Circle City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address toni.m.knorr@gmail.com Phone Number 6512619797 #40#40 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:23:37 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:23:37 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:24:01 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:24:01 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2300:00:23 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.244.16675.73.244.166 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 41 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jeffrey Davison City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address jeffreydavison@earthlink.net Phone Number 6124862112 #41#41 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:25:51 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:25:51 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:26:11 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:26:11 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1900:00:19 IP Address:IP Address: 68.59.36.1668.59.36.16 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 42 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Kim and Tom McReavy City/Town Chanhassen State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address ktmtmcreavy@msn.com #42#42 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:26:06 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:26:06 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:26:23 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:26:23 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1600:00:16 IP Address:IP Address: 173.29.164.191173.29.164.191 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 43 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Vickie Berg Address 6430 City West Prkwy City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address vickie.berg11@gmail.com Phone Number 9528369747 #43#43 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:25:41 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:25:41 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:26:51 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:26:51 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:1000:01:10 IP Address:IP Address: 73.5.160.10973.5.160.109 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 44 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Carrie. Clark Address 9744 Woodridge srive City/Town Eden prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address carrieeeclark@hotmail.com Phone Number 9529204528 #44#44 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:27:11 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:27:11 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:27:59 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:27:59 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4800:00:48 IP Address:IP Address: 107.77.210.111107.77.210.111 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 45 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Andre Mittelmark Address 8754 Black Maple Dr. City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address andre@streamlineaudiomn.com Phone Number 6513247229 #45#45 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:29:43 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:29:43 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:30:05 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:30:05 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2200:00:22 IP Address:IP Address: 73.62.162.4973.62.162.49 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 46 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Katie Franz Address 14249 Carmody Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347-1605 Email Address kmafranz@gmail.com Phone Number 9528297483 #46#46 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:32:42 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:32:42 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:32:51 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:32:51 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:0900:00:09 IP Address:IP Address: 65.128.61.15165.128.61.151 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 47 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name John Dillon City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address jmd2nd@gmail.com Phone Number 6129403282 #47#47 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:34:49 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:34:49 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:35:00 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:35:00 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1000:00:10 IP Address:IP Address: 73.228.168.17773.228.168.177 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 48 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Cheral Tsuchiya Address 16165 Hillcrest Lane City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address bctsuchiya@q.com Phone Number 9529748354 #48#48 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:35:43 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:35:43 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:35:57 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:35:57 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1400:00:14 IP Address:IP Address: 65.128.61.9665.128.61.96 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 49 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Hannah Bauer Address 15460 E Sunrise Circle City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address hondahannah@gmail.com #49#49 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:35:52 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:35:52 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:36:29 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:36:29 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3600:00:36 IP Address:IP Address: 71.195.2.9371.195.2.93 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 50 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Robert G Becker Address 16597 Kenning Rd City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address becker300.bb@gmail.com Phone Number 9525679821 #50#50 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:41:35 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:41:35 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:42:02 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:42:02 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2600:00:26 IP Address:IP Address: 216.160.48.64216.160.48.64 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 51 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Heidi Groven Address 420 Pleasant view rd City/Town Chanhassen State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address hlgroven@gmail.com Phone Number 19522219373 #51#51 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:45:57 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:45:57 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:46:21 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:46:21 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2300:00:23 IP Address:IP Address: 174.20.210.117174.20.210.117 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 52 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jen Zachman Address 8909 Bradford Pl. City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address jennyjdz@gmail.com Phone Number 9522294500 #52#52 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:46:11 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:46:11 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:46:52 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:46:52 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4100:00:41 IP Address:IP Address: 73.185.147.13173.185.147.131 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 53 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Arya Zipoy Address 9602 Amesbury Ln City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address azipoy@gmail.com Phone Number 6126360460 #53#53 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:46:07 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:46:07 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:46:57 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:46:57 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5000:00:50 IP Address:IP Address: 73.62.162.18673.62.162.186 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 54 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Suneel Choudary Kommalapati City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address suneel.choudary@gmail.com #54#54 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:48:34 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:48:34 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:50:17 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:50:17 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:4200:01:42 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.157.4175.73.157.41 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 55 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Ja sivanich Address 17300 frondell ct City/Town eden prairie State/Province mn ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address jsivanich@baneng.com Phone Number 6125327466 #55#55 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:49:31 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:49:31 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:51:20 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:51:20 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:4900:01:49 IP Address:IP Address: 207.250.230.131207.250.230.131 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 56 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Leanne Segersin Address 9741 Purgatory Rd City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address l.m.segersin@gmail.com Phone Number 9522012783 #56#56 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:51:34 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:51:34 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:52:10 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:52:10 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3500:00:35 IP Address:IP Address: 98.240.140.11398.240.140.113 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 57 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Randy Groff Address Wessel Ct City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address randy.groff@gmail.com Phone Number 8479106871 #57#57 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:53:31 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:53:31 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:54:09 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:54:09 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3700:00:37 IP Address:IP Address: 107.77.209.8107.77.209.8 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 58 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Sheri Thorson Address 3410 Lakeshore Cv City/Town Chaska State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address sherijthorson@gmail.com #58#58 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:49:49 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:49:49 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:56:06 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:56:06 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:06:1700:06:17 IP Address:IP Address: 174.219.12.206174.219.12.206 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 59 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Miles J. Cohen Address 10040 Indigo Dr. City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address mcohen@ix.netcom.com Phone Number 9529342987 #59#59 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:56:09 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:56:09 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:57:37 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:57:37 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:2800:01:28 IP Address:IP Address: 75.168.238.22975.168.238.229 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 60 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Andrew Hope Address 9111 Lake Riley Blvd City/Town Chanhassen State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address 33hopeandrew@gmail.com Phone Number 9529990098 #60#60 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:56:02 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:56:02 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:57:50 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:57:50 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:4700:01:47 IP Address:IP Address: 50.80.144.18550.80.144.185 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 61 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Elizabeth Williams City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address elizabethACwilliams@gmail.com Phone Number 2032529626 #61#61 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:57:51 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:57:51 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:58:08 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:58:08 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1600:00:16 IP Address:IP Address: 73.242.65.12973.242.65.129 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 62 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Patti Jeppesen Address 7912 Bailey Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address pattijep@comcast.net Phone Number 9529349014 #62#62 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:58:19 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:58:19 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:00:37 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:00:37 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:02:1700:02:17 IP Address:IP Address: 68.46.53.15268.46.53.152 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 63 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Pooja Muruganandan Address 8917 Knollwood Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address poojamuruganandan@gmail.com Phone Number 9524840663 #63#63 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:02:50 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:02:50 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:03:07 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:03:07 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1700:00:17 IP Address:IP Address: 50.237.235.7850.237.235.78 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 64 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Stacy Kimal Address 8628 Braxton Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address stacykimal@gmail.com Phone Number 6128761834 #64#64 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:03:21 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:03:21 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:04:00 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:04:00 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3800:00:38 IP Address:IP Address: 73.242.40.273.242.40.2 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 65 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Anna Dressen Address 14390 Starrwood circle City/Town Eden prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address annammathis@hotmail.com Phone Number 9522396476 #65#65 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:03:45 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:03:45 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:04:26 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:04:26 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4100:00:41 IP Address:IP Address: 73.164.16.15173.164.16.151 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 66 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Margaret Stewart Address 15730 Village Woods Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address goldenthread952@gmail.com Phone Number 19522122640 #66#66 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:04:22 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:04:22 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:04:42 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:04:42 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1900:00:19 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.244.21975.73.244.219 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 67 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name John Dooley Address 6642 Leesborough Ave City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address southtrack3930@gmail.com Phone Number 612-396-3129 #67#67 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:02:30 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:02:30 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:05:51 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:05:51 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:03:2100:03:21 IP Address:IP Address: 174.219.14.71174.219.14.71 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 68 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jennifer Martin Address 9240 Talus Circle City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address jenniferkellymartin@gmail.com Phone Number 8057486227 #68#68 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:07:51 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:07:51 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:08:32 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:08:32 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4000:00:40 IP Address:IP Address: 68.35.250.21968.35.250.219 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 69 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Mylene morris Address 10339 concord dr City/Town Eden prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address mylenecmorris@gmail.com Phone Number 3162140676 #69#69 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:08:34 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:08:34 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:09:03 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:09:03 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2900:00:29 IP Address:IP Address: 24.7.232.15224.7.232.152 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 70 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Kendra Schulte Address 215 Darrick Road City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address lkygrl61@yahoo.com Phone Number 9522705258 #70#70 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:09:35 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:09:35 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:09:46 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:09:46 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1100:00:11 IP Address:IP Address: 73.62.150.10773.62.150.107 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 71 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Christopher Diaz Address 14256 Chestnut Drive #1 City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address chrisdiaz3d@gmail.com Phone Number 9524262303 #71#71 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:11:26 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:11:26 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:11:33 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:11:33 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:0700:00:07 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.83.45172.58.83.45 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 72 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Dan Lindahl Address 15131 Summerhill Driv.e City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address danjol60@gmail.com Phone Number 9522108502 #72#72 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:10:24 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:10:24 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:12:07 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:12:07 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:4300:01:43 IP Address:IP Address: 68.59.37.23668.59.37.236 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 73 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Rachel Dahlen Address 541 W 78th St City/Town Excelsior State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55331 Email Address rachel.c.dahlen@gmail.com Phone Number 6512603647 #73#73 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:15:22 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:15:22 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:15:50 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:15:50 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2800:00:28 IP Address:IP Address: 67.4.182.11067.4.182.110 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 74 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Charles K. Sween Address 459 Pleasant Court City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address cks55318@gmail.com Phone Number 16123856740 #74#74 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:15:43 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:15:43 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:16:59 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:16:59 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:1600:01:16 IP Address:IP Address: 75.72.112.2675.72.112.26 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 75 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Ruth Hadlund Address 8930 Knollwood Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55247 Email Address es150dn56@comcast.net Phone Number 9529378183 #75#75 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:18:20 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:18:20 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:19:08 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:19:08 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4800:00:48 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.247.5275.73.247.52 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 76 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Mike Fynboh Address 9940 Frederick Pl City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address mfynboh@hotmail.com Phone Number 16124837598 #76#76 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:20:29 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:20:29 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:20:47 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:20:47 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1800:00:18 IP Address:IP Address: 174.219.17.94174.219.17.94 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 77 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Mary Hyland Address 19001 Magenta Bay City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address hylandpml@gmail.com Phone Number 9529061710 #77#77 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:20:22 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:20:22 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:20:57 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:20:57 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3500:00:35 IP Address:IP Address: 174.219.3.26174.219.3.26 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 78 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Brittney Sanchez Address 17570 Pond Circle City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address brittneykrider@gmail.com Phone Number 6129901846 #78#78 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:21:08 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:21:08 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:21:20 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:21:20 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1200:00:12 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.83.55172.58.83.55 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 79 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Debra McBride City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address debramcbride@gmail.com Phone Number 9522502731 #79#79 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:21:18 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:21:18 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:21:35 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:21:35 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1700:00:17 IP Address:IP Address: 73.5.160.18073.5.160.180 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 80 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Thomas J. Marr, MD Address 15561 canyon ridge City/Town Eden prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address tjmarr@comcast.net Phone Number 6127203702 #80#80 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:21:35 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:21:35 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:22:47 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:22:47 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:1100:01:11 IP Address:IP Address: 174.53.215.4174.53.215.4 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 81 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Morgan Bock Address 555 Westwood lane City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address morganmain11@gmail.com Phone Number 9522371441 #81#81 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:23:49 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:23:49 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:24:07 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:24:07 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1800:00:18 IP Address:IP Address: 63.226.136.25463.226.136.254 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 82 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name John Lovas Address 10465 Olympic Circle City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address jingvald@gmail.com Phone Number 9529135678 #82#82 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:23:29 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:23:29 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:24:32 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:24:32 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:0300:01:03 IP Address:IP Address: 206.188.245.160206.188.245.160 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 83 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Ginny Wilkening Address 948 Bavaria Hills Ter City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address ggwilkening@gmail.com Phone Number 9524434748 #83#83 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:24:05 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:24:05 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:24:46 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:24:46 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4100:00:41 IP Address:IP Address: 73.242.23.5973.242.23.59 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 84 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Katy Sudlow Address 204 Main St E City/Town Carver State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55315 Email Address katysudlow7@gmail.com Phone Number 952-406-1903 #84#84 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:25:58 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:25:58 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:26:57 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:26:57 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5800:00:58 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.102.252172.58.102.252 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 85 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Ryan Nevin Address 9839 Crestwood Terrace City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address bizzeeintc@yahoo.com Phone Number 3192968853 #85#85 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:27:10 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:27:10 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:27:24 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:27:24 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1400:00:14 IP Address:IP Address: 73.242.41.8173.242.41.81 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 86 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Susan and Tom Clarke Address 16301 Hilltop Road City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address SueZC1@aol.com Phone Number 952-937-8128 #86#86 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:30:44 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:30:44 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:31:34 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:31:34 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5000:00:50 IP Address:IP Address: 45.56.142.1245.56.142.12 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 87 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Laurel M Trimbo Address 8309 Cypress Ln City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address obmirtl@gmail.com Phone Number 9529345263 #87#87 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:31:40 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:31:40 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:32:08 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:32:08 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2800:00:28 IP Address:IP Address: 63.231.147.2763.231.147.27 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 88 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Beth Burgstahler Address 7015 Pima Ln City/Town Chanhassen State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address bburgstahler@gmail.com Phone Number 16123843700 #88#88 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:34:26 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:34:26 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:34:51 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:34:51 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2500:00:25 IP Address:IP Address: 173.28.182.46173.28.182.46 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 89 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Katherine Johnson Address 13541 Carmody Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address norweegian@gmail.com Phone Number 6129103807 #89#89 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:34:15 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:34:15 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:35:13 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:35:13 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5700:00:57 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.149.16175.73.149.161 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 90 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Marcel Nienhuis Address 7946 Island Rd. City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address marceln@gmail.com Phone Number 16124320513 #90#90 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:37:39 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:37:39 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:37:45 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:37:45 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:0500:00:05 IP Address:IP Address: 73.5.161.4073.5.161.40 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 91 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Shreya Nagarale Address 15148 Plumstone Dr. City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address shreyanagarale@gmail.com Phone Number 6125781885 #91#91 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:37:30 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:37:30 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:38:28 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:38:28 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5700:00:57 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.156.19575.73.156.195 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 92 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Cindy Zierwick City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address czierwick@aol.com Phone Number 6126696578 #92#92 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:38:06 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:38:06 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:38:30 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:38:30 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2400:00:24 IP Address:IP Address: 70.176.69.13470.176.69.134 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 93 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Julie Jorgenson Address 570 Mission Hills Way West City/Town Chanhassen State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address julie.jorgenson@gmail.com Phone Number 6122058758 #93#93 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:39:42 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:39:42 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:39:52 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:39:52 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:0900:00:09 IP Address:IP Address: 65.128.199.6665.128.199.66 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 94 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jana wild Address 7337 top view rd City/Town Eden prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address Janalee.wild@gmail.com Phone Number 18304317271 #94#94 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:44:09 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:44:09 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:44:43 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:44:43 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3400:00:34 IP Address:IP Address: 73.32.89.8073.32.89.80 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 95 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Lindsey Bouffleur Address 9745 Bluff Rd City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address linds829@gmail.com Phone Number 6087381352 #95#95 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:49:33 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:49:33 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:49:50 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:49:50 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1700:00:17 IP Address:IP Address: 174.219.1.195174.219.1.195 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 96 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Dana Lair Address 18340 frontier place City/Town Eden prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address danamlair@gmail.com Phone Number 6127151725 #96#96 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:05 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:05 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:37 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:37 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3200:00:32 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.159.2975.73.159.29 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 97 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Charles Chuva Address PO Box 984 City/Town Chanhassen State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address chuv123@cs.com Phone Number 7632908508 #97#97 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:49:42 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:49:42 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:41 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:41 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5800:00:58 IP Address:IP Address: 173.25.242.77173.25.242.77 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 98 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name vinod kurudumale sridhar Address 7100 Sunshine Dr City/Town EDEN PRAIRIE State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address vinod.sridhar@gmail.com Phone Number 3012508725 #98#98 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:49:40 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:49:40 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:45 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:45 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:0500:01:05 IP Address:IP Address: 207.45.172.134207.45.172.134 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 99 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Therese O’Connell Address 13576 Berkshire Lane City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address taoc58@aol.com Phone Number 9529346985 #99#99 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:49:39 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:49:39 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:59 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:59 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:1900:01:19 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.76.1975.73.76.19 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 100 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Mary jo Zimney Address 8345 tamarack trail City/Town Eden prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address mjzimney@icloud.com Phone Number 952-934-2015 #100#100 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:20 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:20 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:51:25 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:51:25 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:0500:01:05 IP Address:IP Address: 75.168.228.23875.168.228.238 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 101 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Gabriela Johnson Address 10092 Meade Ln City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address gdlgjohnson@gmail.com Phone Number 9523345345 #101#101 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:03 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50:03 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:51:56 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:51:56 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:5200:01:52 IP Address:IP Address: 97.116.106.11197.116.106.111 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 102 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jed hicks Address 13228 Spencer Sweet Pea LN City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address Jedhickspersonal@yahoo.com Phone Number 16128100336 #102#102 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:53:16 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:53:16 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:53:32 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:53:32 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1500:00:15 IP Address:IP Address: 174.20.81.229174.20.81.229 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 103 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Helen Ann Johnson Address 14441 Village Woods Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347-1509 Email Address annj7679@gmail.com Phone Number 9524849380 #103#103 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:53:09 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:53:09 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:55:21 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:55:21 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:02:1200:02:12 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.149.6675.73.149.66 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 104 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Andrea Fletcher Address 10374 Newport Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address adfletcher@yahoo.com Phone Number 913-488-0024 #104#104 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:55:27 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:55:27 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:56:01 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:56:01 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3300:00:33 IP Address:IP Address: 98.240.141.12198.240.141.121 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 105 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Vickie Eichman City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address vmeichman@comcast.net Phone Number 9522702485 #105#105 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57:11 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57:11 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57:34 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57:34 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2300:00:23 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.153.11775.73.153.117 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 106 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Patricia Oen Address 7926 South Bay Curve City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address pat.oen@gmail.com Phone Number 952-937-5921 #106#106 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:56:44 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:56:44 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:58:20 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:58:20 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:3500:01:35 IP Address:IP Address: 207.224.65.42207.224.65.42 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 107 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Sharon M Kustritz Address 9824 Crestwood Ter City/Town EDEN PRAIRIE State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address kustritz@aol.com Phone Number 9529750493 #107#107 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:59:22 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:59:22 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:59:35 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:59:35 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1300:00:13 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.164.5275.73.164.52 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 108 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Bruce M Ferriss Address 6931 Autumn Terrace City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address barbandbruce@gmail.com Phone Number 6123825824 #108#108 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:00:47 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:00:47 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:03:19 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:03:19 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:02:3100:02:31 IP Address:IP Address: 73.185.183.25273.185.183.252 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 109 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Julie Stuart Address 17818 Inverness Curv City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address jad55433@gmail.com Phone Number 9529334260 #109#109 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:03:20 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:03:20 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:04:07 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:04:07 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4600:00:46 IP Address:IP Address: 107.2.88.61107.2.88.61 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 110 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Vicky Volstad Address 24 City/Town Rochester State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55906-2045 Email Address psychfam1@aol.com Phone Number 507-993-0364 #110#110 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:06:15 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:06:15 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:07:14 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:07:14 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5900:00:59 IP Address:IP Address: 24.179.250.9524.179.250.95 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 111 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Maya Dengel Address Dewey Court City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address dengelmaya@gmail.com Phone Number 6126360360 #111#111 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:07:43 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:07:43 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:07:59 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:07:59 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1600:00:16 IP Address:IP Address: 76.119.150.25476.119.150.254 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 112 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Randolph Liebo Address 18455 Twilight Trl City/Town Eden Prarie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address randy.liebo@gmail.com Phone Number 9526863332 #112#112 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:10:28 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:10:28 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:11:51 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:11:51 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:2300:01:23 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.164.23175.73.164.231 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 113 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Melissa Sandoval Address 705 Ravoux Road City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address melissandoval@yahoo.com Phone Number 6127601420 #113#113 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:11:40 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:11:40 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:12:24 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:12:24 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4300:00:43 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.86.167172.58.86.167 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 114 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Roman Loy Address 15589 Lilac Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address roman@loygroup.com Phone Number 6129409456 #114#114 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:12:20 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:12:20 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:12:37 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:12:37 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1600:00:16 IP Address:IP Address: 24.118.62.4124.118.62.41 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 115 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Theresa Shipp City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address tshipp0806@yahoo.com Phone Number 9529345892 #115#115 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:12:29 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:12:29 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:12:50 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:12:50 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2100:00:21 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.153.5275.73.153.52 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 116 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Kirsten Frisch Address 13182 Murdock Terrace City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address frischk@msn.com Phone Number 6125019759 #116#116 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:13:15 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:13:15 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:13:24 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:13:24 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:0900:00:09 IP Address:IP Address: 50.209.24.12150.209.24.121 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 117 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jane L Kelly Address 18097 Liv Ln City/Town Eden Prairie, MN State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address janelkelly650@gmail.com Phone Number 9529340647 #117#117 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:14:33 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:14:33 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:14:48 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:14:48 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1400:00:14 IP Address:IP Address: 68.46.53.23168.46.53.231 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 118 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Abbie Burgess Address 15526 Village Woods Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address burg0231@umn.edu Phone Number 7632133836 #118#118 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:16:20 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:16:20 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:17:03 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:17:03 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4200:00:42 IP Address:IP Address: 73.164.17.7773.164.17.77 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 119 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Melissa Wibbels Address 9822 Rodeo circle City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address melissawibbels@gmail.com Phone Number 3033496886 #119#119 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:24:55 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:24:55 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:25:52 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:25:52 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5600:00:56 IP Address:IP Address: 75.72.56.575.72.56.5 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 120 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name MIKE COCKSON Address 9949 FREDERICK PLACE City/Town EDEN PRAIRIE State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address MCOCKSON@YAHOO.COM Phone Number 480.471.1771 #120#120 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:28:15 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:28:15 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:29:01 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:29:01 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4500:00:45 IP Address:IP Address: 70.185.38.13370.185.38.133 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 121 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Maria Bliss Address 18136 Overland Trail City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address 2bblissfull@gmail.com Phone Number 9523035289 #121#121 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:36:27 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:36:27 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:37:03 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:37:03 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3500:00:35 IP Address:IP Address: 107.2.88.184107.2.88.184 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 122 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Cynthia Kalland Address 10700 Kiawah Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address cindykalland1@gmail.com Phone Number 6122073321 #122#122 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:39:04 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:39:04 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:39:55 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:39:55 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5000:00:50 IP Address:IP Address: 73.185.146.11173.185.146.111 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 123 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Janessa Address 8369 Mitchell Rd City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address janessam2001@gmail.com Phone Number 9528556268 #123#123 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:39:40 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:39:40 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:40:30 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:40:30 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5000:00:50 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.78.3675.73.78.36 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 124 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name anita alexanian Address 7906 Island Rd City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address a.alexanian55@gmail.com Phone Number 8182139343 #124#124 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:41:06 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:41:06 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:41:33 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:41:33 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2600:00:26 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.84.95172.58.84.95 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 125 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Tara Parmenter Address 510 Oak Hill Cir City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address Justduet17@gmail.com #125#125 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:41:30 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:41:30 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:41:59 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:41:59 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2800:00:28 IP Address:IP Address: 73.88.56.10773.88.56.107 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 126 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Marty Mueller Address 8673 Grier Lane City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address martymueller57@gmail.com Phone Number 6122204257 #126#126 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:41:19 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:41:19 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:42:08 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:42:08 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4900:00:49 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.245.11975.73.245.119 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 127 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Rachel Hanson Address 523 E 4th St Uppr B City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address rachelhanson333@gmail.com Phone Number 9529050932 #127#127 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:43:02 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:43:02 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:43:53 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:43:53 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5000:00:50 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.86.132172.58.86.132 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 128 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jenny Karkowski Address 10496 Wimbledon Court City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address tpks250@gmail.com Phone Number 12176906727 #128#128 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:45:01 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:45:01 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:45:18 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:45:18 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1600:00:16 IP Address:IP Address: 68.46.107.5068.46.107.50 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 129 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Kirsten Johnson Address 9026 Scarlet Globe Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address lovetorunmpls@yahoo.com Phone Number 6122476033 #129#129 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:46:49 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:46:49 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:47:05 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:47:05 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1600:00:16 IP Address:IP Address: 68.47.84.14968.47.84.149 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 130 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Miranda M Ruzich Address 12810 Primrose Ln City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province mn ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address msmirandamae@gmail.com Phone Number 9529051549 #130#130 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:49:18 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:49:18 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:49:31 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:49:31 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1200:00:12 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.76.2975.73.76.29 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 131 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Dawn Martin Address 11905 Runnel Circle City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address dawn@inksonpaper.com Phone Number 9529944608 #131#131 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:49:28 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:49:28 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:49:59 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:49:59 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3100:00:31 IP Address:IP Address: 73.5.142.18673.5.142.186 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 132 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Kelly Miller Address 11500 Riverview Road City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address millerkellyr@gmail.com Phone Number 612-310-2567 #132#132 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:49:24 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:49:24 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:50:27 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:50:27 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:0300:01:03 IP Address:IP Address: 156.99.124.166156.99.124.166 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 133 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Emily Kellum Address 400 83rd Ave NE City/Town Spring Lake Park State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55432 Email Address emilyekellum5@gmail.com Phone Number 6123102542 #133#133 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:52:35 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:52:35 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:53:21 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:53:21 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4500:00:45 IP Address:IP Address: 76.113.245.10676.113.245.106 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 134 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Carol Beveroth Address 11089 Mt Curve Rd City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address lolaboe@comcast.net Phone Number 9529415037 #134#134 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:53:17 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:53:17 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:55:11 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:55:11 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:5300:01:53 IP Address:IP Address: 107.77.206.128107.77.206.128 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 135 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Ted Devine Address 8553 Braxton Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address tdsvipers@yahoo.com Phone Number 6122378183 #135#135 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:54:37 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:54:37 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:55:40 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:55:40 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:0200:01:02 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.83.184172.58.83.184 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 136 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Benjamin Williams Address 660 Pleasant View Rd City/Town Chanhassen State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address waxley@gmail.com Phone Number 19527371731 #136#136 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:55:07 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:55:07 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:55:40 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:55:40 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3200:00:32 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.227.111172.58.227.111 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 137 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Leo Bulger Address 10000 Indigo Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address ljbulger@comcast.net Phone Number 952-457-9249 #137#137 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:57:11 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:57:11 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:57:49 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:57:49 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3800:00:38 IP Address:IP Address: 68.47.76.2968.47.76.29 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 138 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Wendell Christenson Address 6519 Countryside Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address wpchristenson@comcast.net Phone Number 19522974581 #138#138 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:59:34 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:59:34 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:59:57 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 9:59:57 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2300:00:23 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.154.23075.73.154.230 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 139 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Lindsay Belden Address 7128 park view ln City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address belden.lindsay@gmail.com Phone Number 6125014849 #139#139 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:05:18 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:05:18 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:05:57 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:05:57 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3900:00:39 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.165.22175.73.165.221 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 140 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Gabriel J. Riegert Address 16391 City/Town Eden prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address 90304394@ep-student.org Phone Number 9526497693 #140#140 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:25:53 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:25:53 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:26:29 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:26:29 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3600:00:36 IP Address:IP Address: 174.219.9.197174.219.9.197 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 141 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Dan Paquette Address 12810 Primrose Ln Apt 301 City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address danjpaquette@gmail.com Phone Number 7634584682 #141#141 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:27:17 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:27:17 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:27:51 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:27:51 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3300:00:33 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.143.209172.58.143.209 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 142 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Barbro Goransson Address 8503 Cortland Road City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address barbrog@comcast.net Phone Number 952-906-3445 #142#142 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:05:57 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:05:57 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:30:19 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:30:19 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 03:24:2203:24:22 IP Address:IP Address: 73.228.141.16573.228.141.165 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 143 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Tony Kelleran Address 10172 Kiersten Place City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address tkelleran@gmail.com Phone Number 612-695-5917 #143#143 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:30:16 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:30:16 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:31:01 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:31:01 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4500:00:45 IP Address:IP Address: 97.116.179.4697.116.179.46 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 144 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Kenzie Address 8560 north fairway point City/Town Victoria State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55386 Email Address kenziehoyer@gmail.com Phone Number 6124340775 #144#144 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:30:34 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:30:34 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:31:10 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:31:10 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3600:00:36 IP Address:IP Address: 173.16.60.61173.16.60.61 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 145 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Kathy Jarvis Address 11854 Runnel Cr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address kathy-jarvis@comcast.net Phone Number 6125980314 #145#145 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:34:24 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:34:24 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:35:30 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:35:30 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:0500:01:05 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.96.5475.73.96.54 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 146 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Christine Fahey Address 2630 Acorn Road City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address faheychr@aol.com Phone Number 6126690989 #146#146 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:37:06 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:37:06 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:38:53 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:38:53 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:4700:01:47 IP Address:IP Address: 67.4.99.21167.4.99.211 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 147 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Steven Stuart Address 17818 Inverness Curve City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address iamiam@hotmail.com Phone Number 9529334260 #147#147 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:42:08 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:42:08 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:42:36 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:42:36 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2800:00:28 IP Address:IP Address: 134.242.92.97134.242.92.97 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 148 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Elaine Ososki Address 6367 St Johns Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address emlegatt@yahoo.com Phone Number 9529060030 #148#148 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:44:42 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:44:42 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:45:36 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:45:36 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5400:00:54 IP Address:IP Address: 65.128.35.17765.128.35.177 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 149 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Andrew Kasid Address 16608 prospect place City/Town Wayzata State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55391 Email Address kasid69@gmail.com Phone Number 9522374906 #149#149 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:49:30 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:49:30 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:50:02 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:50:02 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3200:00:32 IP Address:IP Address: 174.219.10.168174.219.10.168 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 150 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Michael OConnell Address 13576 Berkshire Lane City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address mpoconnell40@gmail.com Phone Number 9529346985 #150#150 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:54:45 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:54:45 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:56:18 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:56:18 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:3300:01:33 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.76.1975.73.76.19 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 151 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Lapanika Sharma Address 10170 Indigo Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address lapanika.sharma@gmail.com Phone Number 4152052072 #151#151 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:00:10 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:00:10 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:01:01 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:01:01 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5100:00:51 IP Address:IP Address: 68.59.37.4568.59.37.45 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 152 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Ella Christensen Address 10 Pioneer Trail City/Town Chanhassen State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address ellac1221@gmail.com Phone Number 9522287665 #152#152 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:04:33 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:04:33 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:05:21 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:05:21 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4800:00:48 IP Address:IP Address: 75.168.244.7975.168.244.79 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 153 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Trejean Address 13780 McKenna Road NW City/Town Prior lake State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55379 Email Address trejean16@gmail.com Phone Number 6518889820 #153#153 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:05:23 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:05:23 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:06:10 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:06:10 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4600:00:46 IP Address:IP Address: 65.155.57.25065.155.57.250 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 154 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Holly W Address 9627 Sky Ln City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55347 #154#154 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:07:52 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:07:52 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:08:27 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:08:27 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3500:00:35 IP Address:IP Address: 73.164.109.9373.164.109.93 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 155 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name CHRISTINA MCDANIEL Address 9870 Laguna Circle City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address c.alicemcdaniel@gmail.com Phone Number 6122391460 #155#155 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:08:04 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:08:04 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:08:41 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:08:41 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3600:00:36 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.84.164172.58.84.164 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 156 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name David Smith Address 9500 Flying Cloud Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address smithrdave@gmail.com Phone Number 952-846-9448 #156#156 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:09:53 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:09:53 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:10:39 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:10:39 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4500:00:45 IP Address:IP Address: 97.116.171.23097.116.171.230 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 157 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Derek Dahlen Address 541 W 78th St City/Town Chanhassen State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address daheen70@hotmail.com Phone Number 6122171711 #157#157 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:13:47 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:13:47 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:15:22 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:15:22 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:3500:01:35 IP Address:IP Address: 67.4.182.11067.4.182.110 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 158 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Joyce Maruniak Address 17199 Acorn Rdg City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address maruniak@comcast.net Phone Number 9522212737 #158#158 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:18:04 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:18:04 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:18:55 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:18:55 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5000:00:50 IP Address:IP Address: 73.228.168.10373.228.168.103 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 159 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Michelle Thomas Address 17904 Haralson Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address walters_michelle@yahoo.com Phone Number 9523888583 #159#159 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:24:16 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:24:16 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:24:47 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:24:47 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3100:00:31 IP Address:IP Address: 73.5.161.15773.5.161.157 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 160 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Patrick Riley Address 8902 Peep Oday Trail City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address patjriley@comcast.net Phone Number 9525670341 #160#160 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:24:33 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:24:33 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:25:01 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:25:01 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2800:00:28 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.97.10375.73.97.103 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 161 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Mukund Mohan Address 9830 Eden Prairie Road City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address mukund.mohan@gmail.com Phone Number 6127708129 #161#161 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:25:14 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:25:14 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:26:51 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:26:51 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:3700:01:37 IP Address:IP Address: 106.207.47.10106.207.47.10 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 162 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jason David Turtle Address 15369 VILLAGE WOODS Drive City/Town EDEN PRAIRIE State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address jturtle77@gmail.com Phone Number 6123093105 #162#162 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:30:28 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:30:28 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:30:46 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:30:46 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1700:00:17 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.246.2575.73.246.25 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 163 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Lori Caron Address 1376 Romeo Court City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address lori.caron@gmail.com Phone Number 612-281-6772 #163#163 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:35:56 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:35:56 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:36:40 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:36:40 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4300:00:43 IP Address:IP Address: 4.19.78.1144.19.78.114 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 164 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Van Address 710 warren street City/Town Mankato State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 56004 Email Address vanessadang11@gmail.com Phone Number 9522001328 #164#164 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:45:33 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:45:33 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:46:31 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:46:31 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5700:00:57 IP Address:IP Address: 68.115.96.6668.115.96.66 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 165 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Timothy Perez Address 208 East 1st st City/Town Chaska State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address timothy.laplante@gmail.com Phone Number 7633506317 #165#165 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:46:33 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:46:33 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:47:06 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:47:06 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3200:00:32 IP Address:IP Address: 75.72.121.17775.72.121.177 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 166 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Renee Brown Address 6840 Park View Lane City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address renee@transformationkey.com Phone Number 9529349034 #166#166 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:51:55 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:51:55 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:53:12 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:53:12 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:1600:01:16 IP Address:IP Address: 73.164.59.4573.164.59.45 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 167 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jennifer Swanson Address 15771 Porchlight Ln City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address jswanson007@yahoo.com. Phone Number 6124329459 #167#167 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:54:17 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:54:17 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:55:08 AMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:55:08 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5000:00:50 IP Address:IP Address: 97.127.15.4297.127.15.42 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 168 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jill Fynboh Address 6175 Deer Ridge City/Town Excelsior State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55331 Email Address jsfynboh@yahoo.com Phone Number 9524741595 #168#168 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:00:19 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:00:19 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:00:33 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:00:33 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1300:00:13 IP Address:IP Address: 50.80.150.8350.80.150.83 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 169 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Nicole M Adair Address 18268 Cattail Court City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address nicoleadair67@gmail.com Phone Number 6122396966 #169#169 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:01:28 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:01:28 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:01:39 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:01:39 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1100:00:11 IP Address:IP Address: 174.20.222.41174.20.222.41 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 170 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Colin Robinson Address 8118 Currant Pl City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address crobinson159@gmail.com Phone Number 952-215-1598 #170#170 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:17:10 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:17:10 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:18:07 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:18:07 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5600:00:56 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.84.124172.58.84.124 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 171 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Timothy Edmund Address 10033 Frederick Place City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address timedmund@comcast.net Phone Number 612-325-4880 #171#171 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:19:57 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:19:57 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:20:30 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:20:30 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3200:00:32 IP Address:IP Address: 174.20.171.211174.20.171.211 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 172 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Robert Zobal Address 7208 Frontier Trail City/Town Chanhassen State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address boblevelbob98@gmail.com Phone Number 6128196007 #172#172 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:35:35 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:35:35 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:37:16 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:37:16 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:4100:01:41 IP Address:IP Address: 107.77.208.70107.77.208.70 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 173 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Siddharth Naik Address 15601 Lilac Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address siddharth95@gmail.com #173#173 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:41:22 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:41:22 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:41:53 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:41:53 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3100:00:31 IP Address:IP Address: 24.118.62.19024.118.62.190 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 174 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Kristi Marls Address 7362 Bridlewood Curve City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address kmarks132@gmail.com Phone Number 6514953590 #174#174 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:45:04 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:45:04 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:45:57 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:45:57 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5200:00:52 IP Address:IP Address: 73.185.182.16273.185.182.162 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 175 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Rebecca Wilson City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347-2128 Email Address rebamwilson@gmail.com Phone Number 6517557979 #175#175 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:46:28 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:46:28 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:46:47 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:46:47 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1800:00:18 IP Address:IP Address: 107.2.88.86107.2.88.86 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 176 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Karin Keeling Address 11447 Anderson Lakes Pkwy #172 City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address elefan6@yahoo.com Phone Number 7042818670 #176#176 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:49:48 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:49:48 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:50:52 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 12:50:52 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:0300:01:03 IP Address:IP Address: 216.161.198.251216.161.198.251 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 177 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Imre Olajos Address 17062 Bainbridge Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address imreolajos@transbyte.org Phone Number 702-372-5252 #177#177 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:00:17 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:00:17 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:00:46 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:00:46 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2900:00:29 IP Address:IP Address: 66.41.245.18066.41.245.180 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 178 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Bill fynboh Address 357 s shore circle City/Town Winsted State/Province Mn ZIP/Postal Code 55395 #178#178 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:04:36 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:04:36 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:05:30 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:05:30 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5400:00:54 IP Address:IP Address: 173.219.56.2173.219.56.2 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 179 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Amy Kornis City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address AmyKornis@gmail.com Phone Number 9524510502 #179#179 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:05:24 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:05:24 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:05:43 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:05:43 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1900:00:19 IP Address:IP Address: 73.228.140.11873.228.140.118 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 180 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Heather Hanson Address 770 Creekwood St City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address heatherjoyhanson@yahoo.con Phone Number 6784713185 #180#180 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:17:01 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:17:01 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:17:33 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:17:33 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3100:00:31 IP Address:IP Address: 65.128.139.15065.128.139.150 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 181 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jenifer Kenis Prince Address 13190 City/Town EDEN PRAIRIE State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address princehive@gmail.com Phone Number 9529440192 #181#181 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:21:24 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:21:24 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:21:40 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:21:40 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1500:00:15 IP Address:IP Address: 68.54.23.20668.54.23.206 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 182 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Larry Peterson Address 6636 Kara Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address spummerr@netzero.com Phone Number 7633255898 #182#182 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:31:45 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:31:45 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:31:55 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:31:55 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1000:00:10 IP Address:IP Address: 65.128.54.3265.128.54.32 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 183 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name tonilucas Address 6735 Nez Perce Drive City/Town Chanhassen State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address toni.lucas@mchsi.com Phone Number 952-474-5676 #183#183 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:33:18 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:33:18 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:34:07 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:34:07 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4900:00:49 IP Address:IP Address: 173.23.26.239173.23.26.239 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 184 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Al Caron Address 17558 INDUS ST NE City/Town FOREST LAKE State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55025-8559 Email Address allen.caron@gmail.com Phone Number 6513238215 #184#184 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:38:50 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:38:50 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:39:12 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 1:39:12 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2200:00:22 IP Address:IP Address: 212.102.44.51212.102.44.51 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 185 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Aaron Martin Address 9240 Talus Cir. City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address aaronnmartin@gmail.com Phone Number 9702946455 #185#185 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:08:00 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 2:08:00 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:08:30 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 2:08:30 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3000:00:30 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.77.6475.73.77.64 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 186 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Denise Finley Address 10022 Indigo Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address finley52@gmail.com Phone Number 6123824831 #186#186 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:26:44 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 2:26:44 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:27:15 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 2:27:15 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3100:00:31 IP Address:IP Address: 73.65.96.18473.65.96.184 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 187 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Valentina McCachren Address 5337 Scenic Heights Drive City/Town Minnetonka State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55345 Email Address valentina.mccachren@gmail.com Phone Number 6128062481 #187#187 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:34:17 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 2:34:17 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:34:42 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 2:34:42 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2500:00:25 IP Address:IP Address: 107.2.119.49107.2.119.49 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 188 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Meghan Petricka Address 9034 Neill Lake Rd City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address meghanpetricka@gmail.com Phone Number 16128490331 #188#188 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 3:09:22 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 3:09:22 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 3:09:34 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 3:09:34 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1200:00:12 IP Address:IP Address: 50.77.56.3750.77.56.37 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 189 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Maryjo Relitz Address 16315 Wagner Way Apt 109 City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address maryjo.relitz@yahoo.com Phone Number 6513542917 #189#189 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 3:09:33 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 3:09:33 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 3:10:23 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 3:10:23 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4900:00:49 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.86.165172.58.86.165 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 190 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Donald Minish Address 14009 Chestnut Dr Apt G City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address K100Motorrad@gmail.com Phone Number 9529372661 #190#190 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 3:38:40 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 3:38:40 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 3:40:04 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 3:40:04 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:2400:01:24 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.124.14275.73.124.142 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 191 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Angie Dusheck Address 9785 Emerson Court City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 #191#191 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:06:48 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 4:06:48 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:07:24 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 4:07:24 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3600:00:36 IP Address:IP Address: 66.41.200.5566.41.200.55 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 192 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Melody Turtle Address 15369 Village Woods Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address panicturtle@gmail.com Phone Number 9522709905 #192#192 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:25:21 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 4:25:21 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:25:37 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 4:25:37 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1500:00:15 IP Address:IP Address: 75.146.158.575.146.158.5 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 193 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Rebecca Rysted Address 8405 Valley Forge Road City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address rlrysted@yahoo.com Phone Number 9529929884 #193#193 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:30:40 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 4:30:40 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:31:22 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 4:31:22 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4100:00:41 IP Address:IP Address: 73.185.146.24073.185.146.240 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 194 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jackie Koske Address 8762 Black Maple Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address jakoske@yahoo.com Phone Number 9529426519 #194#194 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:43:14 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 4:43:14 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:44:29 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 4:44:29 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:1400:01:14 IP Address:IP Address: 98.240.140.23798.240.140.237 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 195 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Bethany Kelleran Address 10172 Kiersten Place City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address bkelleran@yahoo.com Phone Number 6122818277 #195#195 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:51:25 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 4:51:25 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:51:52 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 4:51:52 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2700:00:27 IP Address:IP Address: 97.116.179.4697.116.179.46 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 196 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Marilynn Torkelson Address 8956 BRAXTON DR City/Town EDEN PRAIRIE State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address marilynntorkelson@gmail.com Phone Number 9529061482 #196#196 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:56:31 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 4:56:31 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:56:51 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 4:56:51 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2000:00:20 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.164.7075.73.164.70 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 197 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Sara King Address 8534 Saratoga Lane City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address smrohe@yahoo.com Phone Number 952-200-0823 #197#197 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:00:03 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 5:00:03 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:00:45 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 5:00:45 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4100:00:41 IP Address:IP Address: 73.185.147.373.185.147.3 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 198 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Annette Guzman Flores Address 85 Thomas Lane City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address floresannetten@gmail.com Phone Number 6127307405 #198#198 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:15:51 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 5:15:51 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:16:02 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 5:16:02 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1100:00:11 IP Address:IP Address: 63.229.218.8763.229.218.87 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 199 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Richard Hartmann Address 18742 PINES WAY City/Town EDEN PRAIRIE State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address RICHARD_HARTMANN@HOTMAIL.COM Phone Number 9523535419 #199#199 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:34:18 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 5:34:18 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:34:40 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 5:34:40 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2100:00:21 IP Address:IP Address: 208.184.249.95208.184.249.95 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 200 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Thomas Torkelson Address 8956 Braxton Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address tmjt4@aol.com Phone Number 9524262393 #200#200 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:47:54 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 5:47:54 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:48:19 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 5:48:19 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2400:00:24 IP Address:IP Address: 173.234.62.164173.234.62.164 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 201 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Marcene Showalter Address 9764 Gable Dr. City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address marcene_showalter@hotmail.com Phone Number 9529492348 #201#201 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:51:47 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 5:51:47 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:51:59 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 5:51:59 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1200:00:12 IP Address:IP Address: 174.238.8.178174.238.8.178 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 202 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name David L Raby Address 10006 Indigo Dr City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address dave.raby@aol.com Phone Number 9529491230 #202#202 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:15:40 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:15:40 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:17:04 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:17:04 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:2300:01:23 IP Address:IP Address: 68.110.91.13268.110.91.132 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 203 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Tammy Doll Address 9257 Shetland Rd City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address tldoll0804@gmail.com Phone Number 6125084686 #203#203 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:19:27 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:19:27 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:20:24 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:20:24 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5600:00:56 IP Address:IP Address: 68.46.53.6868.46.53.68 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 204 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Vaibhav Agrawal Address 9140 harrow way City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address vagarwal1@yahoo.com Phone Number 9529947157 #204#204 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:21:11 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:21:11 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:22:33 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:22:33 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:2200:01:22 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.165.10875.73.165.108 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 205 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Bryan Saathoff Address 2910 Butternut Drive City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address bes3@comcast.net Phone Number 952-361-6701 #205#205 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:24:52 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:24:52 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:26:08 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:26:08 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:1600:01:16 IP Address:IP Address: 73.37.228.7273.37.228.72 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 206 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Kathryn Fischer Address 11965 Runnel Circle City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address marc0057@hotmail.com Phone Number (612) 839-8668 #206#206 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:40:30 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:40:30 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:41:20 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:41:20 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4900:00:49 IP Address:IP Address: 47.215.226.2847.215.226.28 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 207 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Debra L Wegler Address 8571 Saratoga Lane City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address dlwegler@comcast.net Phone Number 16123097539 #207#207 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:47:16 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:47:16 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:47:27 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:47:27 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1100:00:11 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.149.1575.73.149.15 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 208 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Gary Schmidt Address 17581 Pavelka Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address geschmidt7@comcast.net Phone Number 6128491736 #208#208 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:47:35 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:47:35 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:50:30 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 6:50:30 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:02:5400:02:54 IP Address:IP Address: 174.219.132.155174.219.132.155 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 209 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Amy Olsen-Schoo Address 885 Cascade Way City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address amy.c.olsen.schoo@gmail.com Phone Number 651-335-9312 #209#209 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:36:01 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:36:01 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:36:14 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:36:14 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1200:00:12 IP Address:IP Address: 68.46.48.468.46.48.4 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 210 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jon Pletcher Address 11447 Anderson Lakes Pkwy 160 City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address jon@pletchersworld.net Phone Number 507-388-7693 #210#210 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:36:03 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:36:03 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:36:46 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:36:46 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:4300:00:43 IP Address:IP Address: 207.191.154.63207.191.154.63 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 211 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Mark D Tolo Address 1790 Park Ridge Dr City/Town Chaska State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55318 Email Address marktolo@hotmail.com Phone Number 6122697433 #211#211 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:44:28 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:44:28 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:44:45 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:44:45 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1600:00:16 IP Address:IP Address: 75.72.124.23475.72.124.234 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 212 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Sandra Gazda Myles Address 8986 Belvedere Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address eliteintro@aol.com Phone Number 6129405061 #212#212 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:44:37 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:44:37 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:45:54 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:45:54 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:1700:01:17 IP Address:IP Address: 73.65.96.5973.65.96.59 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 213 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Lisa Rebeck Address 17724 Duck Lake Trail City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address topazlja@aol.com #213#213 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:49:52 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:49:52 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:50:24 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:50:24 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:3100:00:31 IP Address:IP Address: 73.228.168.16873.228.168.168 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 214 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name ROnnie Address 2724 north 4th City/Town Minn State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55411 Email Address ronniejohnstone731@gmail.com Phone Number 7633398579 #214#214 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:59:41 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 7:59:41 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:01:18 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:01:18 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:3600:01:36 IP Address:IP Address: 173.160.127.141173.160.127.141 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 215 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Jenna Wagner Address 7595 Carnelian Lane City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55346 Email Address wagner.j.m@gmail.com Phone Number 6129167607 #215#215 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:08:53 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:08:53 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:09:19 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:09:19 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2600:00:26 IP Address:IP Address: 66.41.168.9066.41.168.90 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 216 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Anita Lang Address 1840 Freedom Lane, # 205 City/Town Chanhassen State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address anitalang321@gmail.com Phone Number 9522176554 #216#216 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57:25 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57:25 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57:37 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57:37 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1100:00:11 IP Address:IP Address: 173.20.34.14173.20.34.14 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 217 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Heather Slinde Address 1952 Commonwealth Blvd City/Town Chanhassen State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55317 Email Address heatherslinde4@gmail.com Phone Number 19525949664 #217#217 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57:20 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57:20 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57:39 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57:39 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:1900:00:19 IP Address:IP Address: 173.18.9.49173.18.9.49 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 218 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name John Grotz Address 13527 Carmody Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address johng86@yahoo.com Phone Number 9528579485 #218#218 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:00:58 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:00:58 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:01:20 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:01:20 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:2100:00:21 IP Address:IP Address: 75.73.126.14575.73.126.145 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 219 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Sue Bulger Address 10000 Indigo Drive City/Town Eden Prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address sgbulger@comcast.net Phone Number 9522120079 #219#219 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:38:10 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:38:10 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:39:13 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 10:39:13 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:0300:01:03 IP Address:IP Address: 174.219.16.114174.219.16.114 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 220 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Keyana Jueneman Address 8560 Magnolia trail #411 City/Town Eden prairie State/Province Minnesota ZIP/Postal Code 55344 Email Address keyanajueneman@gmail.com #220#220 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:30:35 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:30:35 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:31:29 PMWednesday, April 14, 2021 11:31:29 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:00:5300:00:53 IP Address:IP Address: 24.118.228.8024.118.228.80 Page 1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill"Project SurveyMonkey 221 / 221 Q1 Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the "Noble Hill" DevelopmentWe, the undersigned, live in and/or own property in the state of Minnesota and request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed "Noble Hill" development, located in Eden Prairie, MN/Hennepin County. By signing, I support the concerns below and believe because of the nature or location of the proposed project there may be potential for significant environmental effects including, but not limited to:Concerns:· This project will make it difficult to restore Riley Creek, which already is in an impaired state per the MN PCA· Risks to Fredrick Miller Spring via Riley Creek watershed contamination · The site has a high biodiversity rating and is underlain by groundwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination· Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many defined as irreplaceable· Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds · Loss of wildlife and listed Threatened Species· Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use on the watershed Name Chaya Gopinath Address 15837 Porch light lane City/Town Eden prairie State/Province MN ZIP/Postal Code 55347 Email Address chaya_s_a@yahoo.com Phone Number 9529427637 #221#221 COMPLETECOMPLETE Collector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link) Started:Started: Thursday, April 15, 2021 8:43:37 AMThursday, April 15, 2021 8:43:37 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Thursday, April 15, 2021 8:44:53 AMThursday, April 15, 2021 8:44:53 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:1600:01:16 IP Address:IP Address: 73.164.109.4273.164.109.42 Page 1 April 20th, 2021 PRESERVE FREDRICK-MILLER SPRING & RILEY CREEK EAW PETITION SUBMITTED BY EDEN PRAIRIE RESIDENTS Project Summary PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pulte Homes is requesting a site plan and land use approvals from the City of Eden Prairie to develop 50 single-family lots on 27.51 acres located at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road. The property is located approximately 600 feet south of Prospect Road on the east side of Spring Road. The 28-acre wooded meadowland is adjacent to the Fredrick-Miller Spring, Riley Creek and the Prairie Bluff Conservation area. •Riley Creek is already impaired per the MN Pollution Control Agency, this project will further degrade the creek making it difficult or impossible to restore •Risks to the historic Fredrick Miller Spring •The site is uniquely important because of it’s high biodiversity rating and is underlain by grounwaters that are highly vulnerable to contamination •Impact to critical bird habitat, site is of international significance for the conservation of birds •Loss of wildlife, including Endangered and Threatened Species •Impacts of removing a large part of forest cover (456 trees), many trees defined as irreplaceable •Road safety hazard and sight-distance issues •Impact of increased fertilizers and pesticide use •Increase in noise, air pollution and traffic and community health effects •Cumulative environmental effects from existing development Key Concerns High Biodiversity Significance The Hennepin County Natural Resources Inventory Maps show that this 28-acre area is uniquely important: •It has a high biodiversity signifigance rating. •It contains an ecologically significant area which only occurs in 1/4 of Eden Prairie. •It is underlain by groundwaters rated high to highly vulnerable to contamination. Included are Natural Resources Inventory maps from the Hennepin County Geographic Information Systems. See following slides 5 -11 These maps show that the 28-acre Noble Hill site: Has a land cover of herbaceous plants and woodlands. Portions of the land cover are rated of moderate quality on a scale of poor, moderate, good and high quality. Has a biodiversity significance rated high on a scale of below, moderate, high and outstanding Contains ecologically significant areas which only occur in about a fourth of Eden Prairie, Is underlain by groundwaters which are rated highly and very highly vulnerable to contamination. The ratings scale is: low, medium, high and very high. In Conclusion: This combination of factors indicate that this site is uniquely important and should not be developed. NRI DNR Site Of Biodiversity Significance NRI Eden Prairie Ecologically Significate Area NRI Ground Water Sensitivity NRI Land Cover General NRI Land Cover Quality NRI Noble Hill Ecologically Significate Area NRI Noble Hill Topography Critical Bird Habitat •The site is designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA), specifically belonging to the Lower Minnesota River Valley IBA. •The most vulnerable groups: waterfowl, raptors (Turkey Vulture, Osprey, buteos, and Bald Eagle), and migrant land birds. •Conservation Issue: Many woodlands and savannas are being altered and eliminated as land use changes from agricultural to urban land uses such as housing, commercial and industrial development. •See attachment: Critical Bird Habitat https://www.audubon.org/important-bird-areas/lower-minnesota-river- valley-iba •See attachment: US Fish and Game Minnesota Map of Potential Bird Map Bald Eagles Osprey The green highlighted area shows the Lower Minnesota River Valley IBA (Important Bird Area) in Eden Prairie. The Red circle shows the location of Proposed Project. See attachment: Lower Minnesota River Valley map and information: pages 1-2 Endangered & Threatened Species The Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System queried by the MN DNR indicates the potential fo the presence of the following on the site: a dry sand-gravel prairie native plant community, Kitten-tail plants, the Lark Sparrow, the Gopher Snake, and the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee. DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program database also record an occurrence of Rhombic-Petala Evening Primrose (Special Concern Species)and Kitten-Tails (Threatened Species) in the vicinity. See Rusty Patch Bumble Bee High Potential Zone Map on following Slide 14 Kitten-Tails Threatened Species Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Endangered Species High Potential Zone (HPZ) See attachment: US Fish and Game High Potential Zones Rusty Patched Bumble Bee pages 1 -2 Removal of Forest Cover –456 Trees 456 significant or heritage trees to be removed Heritage trees are typically a large, individual tree with 32 inches or greater trunk measurement which is considered irreplaceable. The major criteria for heritage tree designation are age, rarity, and size, as well as aesthetic, botanical, ecological, and historical value. Significant trees are 20 feet or greater in height, or 12 inches or greater diameter of trunk measured at 4.5 feet above grade. The reduction in forest cover will increase impacts to soil erosion, ground waters, and Riley Creek watershed. The EAW should evaluate how the removal of 456 mature trees will affect the land and water. See : Protecting Rivers, Lakes, & Wetlands from Land Development Impacts, Section: Watershed Forest Cover & Streamside Buffers Supporting Evidence: Canopy Interception Canopy interception is the rainfall that is intercepted by the canopy of a tree and successively evaporates from the leaves. Precipitation that is not intercepted will fall as throughfall or stemflow on the forest floor. Removal of closed canopy vegetation (such as forests or dense grasslands) and replacement by open canopy will reduce interception and increase recharge and streamflow volumes See: Hennepin County Tree and Forestry Riley Creek Watershed Impairment The Riley Creek watershed is considered impaired for aquatic recreation and aquatic life by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. •Table 1.1, in the Lower Minnesota River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load, describes Riley Creek as impaired for aquatic recreation and aquatic life.This degradation is attributed to mostly existing development: •Table 1, page 16 •Table 3, page 29 •Table 7, page 43 By increasing impervious area and removing forest, this project will make it more difficult to restore Riley Creek to a higher-quality condition. A report entitled Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems showed that as the percent of a watershed covered by building, streets, and other impervious surfaces increases, stream quality declines. Other research shows a similar relationship between the percent of a watershed covered in forest or other native vegetation.The document, Impervious Area & Forest vs. Stream Quality on power point slide 19 relates watershed percentages of impervious area and percentages of forest cover to stream quality. See attached Impact of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems: page 54 The Aquatic BMP Graph Effectiveness on power point slide 20 presents the relative pollutant removal of six categories of stormwater runoff control Best Management Practices (BMPs). Note that the most effective BMPs infiltrate runoff into the soil. Project plans show that infiltration basins will be used to treat runoff.In some parts of the U.S., infiltration basins have a high rate of failure. In Conclusion: By increasing impervious area and further reducing watershed forest cover, Noble Hill will make it more difficult to restore Riley Creek to a higher-quality condition. Impervious Area & Forest vs. Stream Quality Aquatic BMP Graph Effectiveness Supporting Evidence: Watershed District Riley Creek Terry Jeffery Interim District Administrator from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District confirms that the watershed district has no land use authority so the density, land use type, impervious cover, etc is at the discretion of the municipality. Mr. Jeffery confirmed the City Council is the final rezoning decision-maker and the only body that can address cumulative site impacts: See email exchange with Terry Jeffery According to U.S. Geological Survey StreamStats: See Geological map on next slide Riley Creek at Spring Road drains a 10.22-square mile watershed: 1.Of which 22% is covered with buildings, parking lots, streets and other impervious surfaces.Stream ecosystems begin suffering when 10% of the watershed is impervious.Severe damage occurs at 25% impervious and may not be restorable past the 25% threshold. 2.Forest covers 15% of the watershed and a minimum of 40% forest cover is needed to preserve stream quality. 3.By increasing impervious area and removing forest, Noble Hill will make it more difficult to restore Riley Creek to a higher-quality condition. See attachments: Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems (page 54) and Protecting Rivers, Lakes, & Wetlands from Land Development Impacts, Section: Watershed Forest Cover & Streamside Buffers In Conclusion: By increasing impervious area and further reducing watershed forest cover, the Proposed Project will make it impossible or more difficult to restore Riley Creek to a higher-quality condition. The U.S. Geological Survey StreamStats Rain and snow melt run over the abundant impervious surfaces in urbanized areas —roads, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, roof tops, etc. —and pick up pesticides, fertilizers, oils, metals, road salt, sediment, trash, and other pollutants and carry them into storm drains. Storm drains discharge directly into lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands, so stormwater runoff is a leading source of water pollution. In addition, storm water runoff from impervious surfaces travels faster and in larger quantities, which results in damage to rivers, streams, and wetlands, the destruction of aquatic habitats, and elevated pollutant levels reaching surface waters. Impervious surfaces also prevent storm water from soaking into the ground and recharging groundwater. See Municipal Stormwater , Pages 1 -2 Supporting Evidence: Stormwater Runoff Riley Creek The Noble Hill site is situated on a plot of land with grading of nearly 150 feet from east to west per the planning committee's report. Because of this, there is significant landslide potential. Due to the topography of the site, a number of retaining walls are being proposed in order to develop the property. Some of the retaining walls will reach heights of near 15 feet tall. In 2014, a mudslide near a home on Purgatory Creek, approximately 5 miles from the Noble Hill location, was caused by heavy rainfall and increasing erosion concerns. From 2005-2015, the city of Eden Prairie has spent approximately 4.3 million on engineering and construction on the banks of Purgatory Creek. Due to it's proximity, the soil composition is very similar. See : Landslides, Slope Failures & Erosion pages 1 – 2 See: Landslides and Mudslides pages 1 -2 In conclusion, the combination of grading concerns, tree removal (which helps prevent soil erosion), soil composition, and the inevitable failure of retaining walls, there is significant landslide potential at the Noble Hill site. This increases runoff concerns and also imposes safety concerns. Supporting Evidence: Grading & Landslides The Fredrick-Miller spring on Spring Road is an artesian spring fed well. It runs around the clock, 365 days per year and is a great source of untreated, natural water. People come from miles around to the well with containers to take the water home for drinking and cooking. Spring Water Testing The City performs a coliform bacteria test monthly on the spring water. The test is pass/fail, so the results are only posted if a sample fails, and written notification is posted at the natural spring until there is a passing result. No comprehensive testing is done at this time. See attachment Spring Testing Fredrick Miller Spring Supporting Evidence: Fredrick Miller Spring Testing Excerpt from Protecting Water Quality in Fredrick-Miller Spring provided by: Professor E. Calvin Alexander Jr., Earth & Environmental Science Department, University of Minnesota: “Thousands of Minnesota citizens collect, use and drink water from the historic Fredrick-Miller Spring (MSI 27A3). The artesian spring emerges from glacial sediments in the Riley Creek Ravine at 9995 Spring Road, Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The proposed Noble Hill Development, near the Fredrick-Miller Spring may have the potential for significant negative environmental effects on the Spring and the lower Riley Creek watershed. Potential adverse environmental effects include, but are not limited to, degradation from: the removal of trees and other native land cover, increased impervious surface increasing run off, increased pollutant loads from construction and residential activities, lawn fertilizers, lawn insecticides runoff and infiltration to groundwater, etc. Any or all such activities can adversely affect the water surface and ground water quantity and quality in Riley Creek and the Fredrick-Miller Spring.” Supporting Evidence: Fredrick Miller Spring Based on public information available from the Project Proposer and the City, it appears that no protection or mitigation measures are being required for this development to protect this natural spring. Without any such measures the potential for degradation of water quality along with the potential elimination of the spring is likely to occur. See attachment: Nevada Springs Restoration Guide: Page 5 See attachment: Historic Resource •Frederick Miller Spring is consider part of the history of the Eden Prairie area. •Historic resources are also protected under the statute establishing the environmental review requirement (Minn. Stat. ch. 116D). •In conclusion: This endorses our request for an EAW to protect this historic area of Eden Prairie Supporting Evidence: Fredrick Miller Spring Safety and Quality of Life See Impact associated with Traffic, noise and air pollution Pages 1-5: Accidents: The main roadway of the development is curved and sloped, and is difficult to maintain in the winter. It has been the location of several accidents. See Roadway EAW Air Quality & Health: A typical U.S. car emits enough pollution to create five tons of carbon dioxide a year. Cars and trucks produce half of all toxic air pollution emitted in the U.S. Estimates indicate that air pollution from cars results in 120,000 premature deaths each year Noise and Traffic: Traffic noise can interfere with sleep, conversation, and other neighborhood pursuits Environmental impacts from existing development are unknown: The Hennepin Village Community is up the ridge from Riley Creek and adjacent to the Noble Hill area. This housing development has 140 single family homes, 150 townhome and 70 twin homes. The long term effect of this housing community on Riley Creek or the surrounding area has never been evaluated. Supporting Evidence: Road Safety / Traffic Issues Evaluation taken from City’s Roadway Environmental Assessment Worksheet: The roadway is curved and sloped, and is difficult to maintain in the winter. It has been the location of several accidents. There are five major deficiencies affecting safe operation of the south end of Eden Prairie Road. These include: · Sight distance limitations through curves · Curve design speed · Grades in excess of 14% · Width is less than 25 feet, should be 32 feet wide to handle the traffic projected for this area · Approach grade is greater than 1% at the intersection with Flying Cloud Drive Observations: With a posted speed limit of 40 mph, a driver waiting to turn onto Spring Road from Noble Hill should be able to see approaching vehicles when they are at least 550 feet away. While it appears that the driver would see vehicles approaching from the right when they are more than 550 feet away, this may not be true for cars coming from the left (southwest). We did a time study based on measurements from Google Map and the outcome was under 10 seconds which indicating a sight-distance issue. See attached EAW from 2007 Supporting Evidence: 3,000 people to date has signed our petition to oppose the City from rezoning: (https://ceds.org/) HOME (HTTPS://CEDS.ORG) ISSUES WE CAN HELP YOU WIN (HTTPS://CEDS.ORG/ISSUES-WE-CAN-HELP-YOU-WIN/) SUCCESSES (HTTPS://CEDS.ORG/SUCCESS-EXAMPLES/) PUBLICATIONS (HTTP://WWW.CED-S.ORG/PUBLICATIONS/) ABOUT (HTTPS://CEDS.ORG/ABOUT-CEDS/) CONTACT (HTTPS://CEDS.ORG/CONTACT) aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 1 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM ! Protecting Rivers, Lakes, & Wetlands from Land Development Impacts If you’re concerned about an aquatic resource threat anywhere in the USA then contact CEDS at 410-654-3021 or Help@ceds.org (mailto:Help@ceds.org) for an initial no-cost discussion of strategy options. In many parts of the nation, land development – housing projects, shopping centers, new highways, etc. – is the only source of aquatic resource degradation which is increasing. This degradation is caused by wetland and waterway destruction during site clearance, a dramatic increase in soil erosion and mud pollution in the construction phase, then accelerated channel erosion and stormwater runoff pollution from the completed project. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov/waterdata /national-water-quality-inventory-report-congress), urban stormwater runoff accounts for: 7% of impaired lakes; 9% of degraded streams and rivers; and 12% of our degraded tidal waters. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 2 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Though these percentages may sound low, consider that the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 80% of us live in suburban-urban areas (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases /2016/cb16-210.html). Large portions of the waters within these areas are su\ciently polluted by stormwater runoff that swimming or even wading would be unwise and many are devoid of ]sh and other aquatic organisms. There is likely no other source of aquatic resource degradation that robs more U.S. citizens of recreational opportunities than development related impacts. The good news is that technologies to reverse the effects of past development and gain the bene]ts of new development with minimal aquatic resource damage have advanced tremendously over the past couple of decades. In theory, it is now possible to develop the land with essentially no adverse effects. In reality though, few localities are requiring full use of this technology and fewer still have the inspection and enforcement programs in place to reap the bene]ts of the technology over a period of years, then decades. In this webpage we’ll introduce you to the: 1. Scienti]c research documenting how development impacts aquatic resources; 2. Methods to minimize these impacts on speci]c development sites; 3. How to responsibly manage growth throughout a watershed; and 4. Ensuring that inspection and maintenance programs keep our waters clean for decades to come. WHY CLEAN WATER IS IMPORTANT That clean water is vitally important should go without saying, but it helps sometimes to cite a few statistics. For example, the 2016 Gallup Poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/190034 aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 3 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM /americans-concerns-water-pollution-edge.aspx) found that 61% of Americans worry a great deal about clean water. A 2017 survey of things Americans fear (https://blogs.chapman.edu /wilkinson/2017/10/11/americas-top-fears-2017/) revealed that Pollution of Oceans, Rivers and Lakes was third from the top. In addition to the Flint, Michigan water supply disaster, Americans have many other good reasons to be concerned. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 4- to 32 million U.S. cases of illness (https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/burden/) are caused annually due to consumption of water from public systems. On average, homes with a waterfront view sell for twice (https://www.zillow.com/research/what-is-waterfront-worth- 7540/) as much as comparable homes lacking such a view. Research has shown a positive relationship between water quality and property value at many locations throughout the nation: Chesapeake Bay (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800906000760), Florida (https://www.eoridarealtors.org/ResearchAndStatistics/Other-Research-Reports /upload/FR_WaterQuality_Final_Mar2015.pdf), Lake Erie (http://ageconsearch.tind.io//bitstream/170611 /2/Estimating%20the%20impact%20of%20water%20quality%20on%20surrounding%20proper ty%20values%20in%20Upper%20Big%20Walnut%20Creek%20Watershed%20in%20Ohio%20fo r%20dynamic%20optimal%20control.pdf), Minnesota lakes (https://www.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/UWEXLakes/Documents/people/economics /76_mSPropertySales_krysel_paper.pdf), Ohio (http://ageconsearch.tind.io//bitstream/170611 /2/Estimating%20the%20impact%20of%20water%20quality%20on%20surrounding%20proper ty%20values%20in%20Upper%20Big%20Walnut%20Creek%20Watershed%20in%20Ohio%20fo r%20dynamic%20optimal%20control.pdf), and San Francisco Bay (https://www.researchgate.net/publication /291324085_The_effect_of_San_Francisco_Bay_water_quality_on_adjacent_property_values) to name a few. The latest U.S. Census showed that 80% of Americans live in suburban-urban areas (https://ask.census.gov/faq.php?id=5000&faqId=5971). Most of the waters in these areas are degraded by stormwater pollution, sewerline leakage and other sources. This means that the waters nearest four out of ]ve U.S. homes may be un]t for human use. We certainly would not want our children playing in these waters. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 4 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM PREVENTING IMPACTS IS EASY We assume you’re visiting this webpage because you’re concerned about how a proposed development project may impact a wetland, stream, lake or some other aquatic resource you treasure. If you are like most folks new to this form of advocacy you probably think its both di\cult and expensive to prevent impacts. The good news is that its actually quite easy. And you probably don’t need a lawyer or any other professionals. The reason is that its generally easy to modify most development proposals to utilize the highly-effective aquatic resource protection measures that have come into use over the past decade. And these measures can actually save the developer money. With your support the developer is more likely to gain approval from permitting agencies to use these measures. We’ve found most development companies are anxious to work with citizens who have realistic solutions to potential impacts. We call this approach Equitable Solutions (https://ceds.org/eqs/). We have a webpage devoted to the approach where you’ll ]nd detailed advice on how to make it work for you: Equitable Solutions (https://ceds.org/eqs/) webpage. And when the company isn’t so anxious, the CEDS Smart Legal Strategies (https://ceds.org/sls/) approach usually allows our clients to prevail. EXAMPLE OF CEDS ANALYSIS & VICTORY A massive commercial project was proposed along a river plagued by excessive nutrient inputs. Loadings of the key nutrient – nitrogen – under four scenarios is shown in the following graph. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 5 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM The local government had allowed the project to use antiquated stormwater controls. As shown in the graph, with no stormwater pollution control this project would have dumped 827 pounds of nitrogen a year into the river. The approved control would reduce the loading to 623 pounds, which was far in excess of that needed to protect the river. With the use of highly-effective controls – Environmental Site Design (https://ceds.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FS- ESDcompliance.pdf) (ESD) – only 287 pounds of pollution would have been released. Highly- effective controls are described later in this webpage. Initially both the developer and local government insisted that ESD would not work on the site. CEDS showed this was not true. We made this project the poster-child for poor stormwater management throughout the county. This and other actions eventually resulted in the developer agreeing to make full use of ESD. Plus this campaign raised compliance with ESD requirements from 27% to 75% countywide. For further detail see our analysis (https://ceds.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06 /NottinghamRidgeIssues.pdf_20190627084931.pdf). For an example of an analysis of rezoning and annexation impacts see: Ann Arbor Report (https://ceds.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06 /NottinghamRidgeIssues.pdf_20190627084931.pdf). An example of a CEDS evaluation of of how well a locality makes use of highly-effective protection measures can be found at: Montgomery County MD Environmental Site Design Audit (https://ceds.org/wp-content/uploads /2019/06/MontgomeryCountyESD-Report.pdf). HOW DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS AQUATIC RESOURCES Converting forest and farms to houses, streets, shopping centers and parking lots can greatly increase the volume of stormwater runoff as well as the quantity of pollutants entrained in runoff. Most of the impact comes from sealing the earth with impervious surfaces: asphalt, concrete, rooftops, etc. But initial damages occur during the construction phase due to direct physical impacts such as bulldozing stream channels or ]lling wetlands. These early impacts also include clearing streamside and watershed forests. During the construction phase soil erosion and mud pollution can increase by ten- to a hundred-fold. Post-construction impacts aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 6 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM include: accelerated channel erosion, loss of groundwater recharge, stormwater wash off of pollutants from lawns and impervious surfaces, discharge of heated runoff from streets and ponds, and eood damage to downstream structures. Impacts can also result from: poorly planned wells that can harm other groundwater users and aquatic resources; withdrawal of water from streams and other bodies; poorly planned septic systems; sewerlines, pumping stations and other sewage collection system components; and wastewater treatment plants. Construction Phase Mud Pollution Prior to 1970, land development occurred without any of the erosion and sediment control measures used today. At that time a single, 20-acre construction site could release enough eroded soil to damage three miles of downstream waters with recovery taking up to a century. Damage would result from the eroded soil (sediment) ]lling in wetlands, stream and river channels which made eooding worse. Boating channels lost depth. Sediment suspended in the water column would prevent light from reaching submerged aquatic vegetation. The suspended particles killed ]sh eggs and larvae along with other aquatic organisms. Sediment deposition can destroy habitat such as deep pools, undercut banks and rines. The suspended sediment also caused increased heating. A large part of the pollution released from construction sites, like pesticides from disturbing crop ]elds, are attached to clay particles which are di\cult to trap once eroded. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 7 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Channel Erosion As a result, watershed development causes the frequency and severity of downstream eooding to increase dramatically. In fact, converting a forest-covered watershed to homes on ¼-acre lots can cause eoodwater volumes to recur annually which were seen but once a century before development. This change threatens streamside homes, bridges and other structures. The increase in eoodwater eows also causes extensive stream channel erosion. As illustrated above, typically a stream channel would be scoured two- to eight-fold wider once the watershed was intensively developed. Groundwater Recharge & Dry-Weather InPow The increase in runoff comes at the expense of groundwater recharge. For example, an acre of Maryland forest typically absorbs about 250,000 gallons of precipitation per year and this water travels deep enough into the earth to recharge the groundwater system. As illustrated below, over a period of weeks to years this runoff travels beneath the earth to eventually emerge at a spring or seep where it becomes surface water again. It is this ineow that provides the water carried by a stream or river between storms. Recharge and ineow are crucial to maintaining the health of wetlands and tidal waterways. Ineowing groundwater is also exceptionally clean and dilutes the polluted runoff from developed portions of a watershed. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 8 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM After passing so far through the earth this ineow has an average temperature of 55°F with a range of 37°F at the Canadian border to 77°F in south Florida (see groundwater temperature map below). As explained in the next section, this ineow is crucial to minimizing the effect of heated runoff from impervious surfaces like asphalt or from stormwater pond overeow. Thermal Impact Development caused excessive water temperature impacts come from three causes: release of water heated in a stormwater pond, runoff from heated impervious surfaces, and removal of streamside shading vegetation. Ponds While water sits in a pond it comes to the same temperature as the overlying air. During a hot summer afternoon stormwater pond water can heat to the mid- to upper 80°F range (http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/4980/1/etd.pdf). When a thunderstorm generates runoff it displaces this heated water into a nearby waterway. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 9 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Heated Impervious Surfaces An asphalt parking lot can heat to 120 F° (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles /PMC1257665/) on a sunny afternoon. Runoff from the lot absorbs a large amount of this heat to reach a temperature in excess of 90°F (https://www.researchgate.net/pro]le/Omid_Mohseni /publication/227629278_Thermal_pollution_of_streams_by_runoff_from_paved_surfaces/links /0fcfd50d074f14ad4a000000.pdf). The heated runoff can then abruptly increase stream temperature by 12°F (https://www.researchgate.net/pro]le/Omid_Mohseni/publication /227629278_Thermal_pollution_of_streams_by_runoff_from_paved_surfaces/links /0fcfd50d074f14ad4a000000.pdf). Loss of Shading Vegetation A stream eowing from a forest, where it is heavily shaded, into a section where development has removed all shade, can exhibit a 20°F increase within the ]rst half-mile. Aquatic Resource Impact of Excess Temperature Some of our most important game ]sh, like trout and other salmonids, perish at a temperature in excess of 72°F. It is not unusual for trout stream to have a temperature is the mid- to upper-60°F range in the summer. A 12°F increase would be lethal at that time. Additionally, a heated pond, lake, tidal waterway or sluggish river exhibit more frequent dissolved oxygen de]ciencies as water temperature increases. Elevated water temperature also tends to increase the adverse effects of toxic pollutants. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 10 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Stormwater Pollution A tremendous quantity of air pollution settles upon rooftops, parking lots and other impervious surfaces. The pollution originates at distant coal-]red power plants and other industrial smokestacks. A large portion also comes from the vehicles we drive. Deicing salts has caused extensive ground and surface water contamination in some parts of the nation. Our pets contribute waste that washes off lawns along with the fertilizers and pesticides we apply. Lesser sources include driveway coating, metal roof gutters and downspouts, and car washing. All of these pollutants wash-off into nearby waterways with each storm that produces runoff. As a result, runoff from our homes, streets and lawns contain a tremendous amount of pollution. In many areas stormwater pollution from developed lands is the only source which is increasing. Following is a summary of the effect of common stormwater pollutants. Nutrients Nitrogen and phosphorus are the primary nutrients of concern. Both are needed by algae, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and other plants growing in our wetlands, streams, lakes and tidal waters. When present in excessive amounts nutrients can cause the eora of a waterway to transition from rooted plants to algae. SAV are essential habitat for ]sh and other aquatic organisms. The loss of SAVs can bring about a dramatic reduction in ]sh, shell]sh and the organisms they feed upon. If left unchecked the sheer abundance of decaying algae can lower dissolved oxygen levels to the point of causing mass ]sh kills. It can also lead to the proliferation of Harmful Algae Blooms (http://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/harmful-algal- blooms) which release substances toxic to aquatic life, humans and our pets. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 11 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Toxics The most common toxic pollutants present in stormwater runoff are the metals cadmium, copper, lead and zinc as well as nickel and chromium in some situations. A primary source of these metals is from motor vehicle exhaust as well as both engine and tire wear. Copper and zinc tend to be the pollutants most likely to cause a toxic effect. But when dealing with toxic pollutants one does not focus on average concentrations but the maximum likely to recur once every three years or so. This time period is based upon how frequently an aquatic community can be exposed to substances that kill without making recovery di\cult. Sediment Once a construction site is completed, very little sediment comes from buildings, streets, parking lots or even lawns. The source of most of the sediment is from accelerated channel erosion caused by the large increase in runoff volumes (see photo below). However, it is still essential that the sediment entrained in runoff be kept out of nearby waters. This is because a sizable portion of the pollutants carried in stormwater are attached to sediment particles. For example, up to 80% of the VOCs (https://www.researchgate.net/pro]le/Gregory_Granato /publication/268034460_National_Highway_Runoff_Water- Quality_Data_and_Methodology_Synthesis_Volume_I_-- Technical_issues_for_monitoring_highway_runoff_and_urban_stormwater/links /54b842540cf28faced62077c.pdf#page=243) discussed below enter waterways attached to sediment particles. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 12 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Disease-Causing Organisms Also known as biological pathogens, the organisms present in stormwater include those causing giardiasis, salmonellosis, infectious hepatitis, typhoid fever and cholera. In many suburban-urban area sewage from leaking or overeowing sewerlines is the source of these pathogens along with pet and wildlife wastes washed from our rooftops and lawns by stormwater. Other sources include leaking dumpsters, pools, hot tubs, along with a number of other sources where wastes from humans and other mammals may be washed into waterways. One study indicated that pathogen indicator organisms reached unsafe levels when watershed impervious area is around 15%. But a public health issue can occur at much lower development intensities. In other words, all suburban-urban waterways may contain unhealthful pathogen densities. Most homes in the nation are a few minutes walk from the nearest urban-suburban waterway. All parents know how di\cult it is to keep children from playing in these nearby waters. This means our only option is to restore all waters to a child safe and friendly condition. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 13 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs in drinking water may be harmful to the nervous system, kidneys and liver. VOCs detected in stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces include compounds such as benzene, chloroform, toluene and many others. A subgroup of VOCs known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are the major VOCs detected in highway runoff (https://www.researchgate.net/pro]le/Gregory_Granato/publication /268034460_National_Highway_Runoff_Water- Quality_Data_and_Methodology_Synthesis_Volume_I_-- Technical_issues_for_monitoring_highway_runoff_and_urban_stormwater/links /54b842540cf28faced62077c.pdf#page=243) and urban stormwater. PAHs come mostly from crankcase oil and vehicle emissions. VOCs tend to have a low direct toxicity to aquatic life, but can become a serious threat as they bioaccumulate. This is the process where the VOCs consumed by lower organisms are absorbed in their tissues then consumed and concentrated in the tissues of organisms higher link of the food chain. Eventually bioaccumulation causes harm to the higher organisms including humans. Deicing Salts Sodium chloride is the principle salt used to reduce road icing. Besides giving drinking water an unpleasant (salty) taste, this compound can harm human health and exert a toxic effect upon aquatic life. Salt pollutes waterways when it washes off of treated roads. It enters groundwater mostly by splashing onto roadside areas and in]ltrating down through the soil column. It can also be released from poorly designed salt storage sites. The U.S. Geological Survey found salt levels above aquatic life protection standards in 40% of the urban streams sampled but only 2% of wells exceeded drinking water standards (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20185170). The salt concentration in our waters has been increasing over time as we use ever greater amounts. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 14 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Impervious Area & Aquatic Resource Damage Beginning with a 1979 study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111 /j.1752-1688.1979.tb01074.x/abstract), researchers have found a close relationship between the health of aquatic resources and the percent of a watershed covered by impervious surfaces. The table below shows the IA% at which each aquatic resource begins to show stress due to increasing watershed development. In reality, aquatic resource impacts begin when the ]rst house is built in a forest-covered watershed without effective control measures. But we lack measurement techniques sensitive enough to detect these early impacts. And even if development remains below these thresholds aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 15 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM unique conditions may exist which cause impacts to be much higher than normal, like an abundance of highly-erodible soils. The table above shows that aquatic resource damage generally begins when watershed impervious area exceeds 5%. This equates to 660 feet of downstream waters degraded for each acre of impervious surface. We’ve entered into an era when most states are requiring the use of highly-effective measures to minimize the impacts of development. These new approaches are described below under Aquatic Resource Protection Methods. The new approaches offer the possibility of allowing us to reap the bene]ts of growth with no impact to aquatic resources. However, we will not be able to tell if the approaches really work for another 20 years or so. In the interim, it may be best to limit development in watersheds supporting high-quality waters or those with highly-regarded organisms, like game ]sh or threatened-endangered species, to the impervious area thresholds given above. Impervious Area & Aquatic Resource Health The overall health of streams, rivers and other waters is frequently rated as excellent, good, fair or poor. The following from a 2017, USEPA report (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/]les /2017-12/documents/305brtc_]nalowow_08302017.pdf) noted more than half our rivers and streams were in poor condition. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 16 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM The ratings are based upon samplings of the ]sh and macroinvertebrates (insects, worms, cray]sh, snails, etc.) inhabiting a waterway. Generally the more different kinds (taxa) of these critters the healthier the waterway. Mathematical models such as the Index of Biotic Integrity (http://www.cbr.washington.edu/salmonweb/bibi/biomonitor.html) are used to convert diversity and abundance into numeric ratings. These values can then be translated to the following narrative ratings: Excellent: No limits on human uses. Can support highly sensitive ]sh and other aquatic life. Waters smell and look very clean. Good: The most sensitive aquatic organisms may no longer thrive but game ]sh populations can be greater than in excellent quality waters. Other wise no restrictions on human uses. These waters may look a bit less clean. Fair: Sensitive aquatic organisms have been eliminated along with most game ]sh. People should not swim in these waters, though wading and paddling may be okay. However, fair quality waters may not look or smell clean. Poor: All but the most pollution tolerant ]sh and other organisms have been eliminated. Any direct body contact should be avoided. Extensive treatment may be needed prior to use as a public water supply. Dead: Though this rating seldom appears in reports, it should. When impervious area exceeds 25% a waterway may become quite devoid of aquatic life. Another rating system categorizes aquatic resource health as: Sensitive, Impacted and Non- Supporting (http://clear.uconn.edu/projects/tmdl/library/papers/Schueler_2003.pdf). Sensitive is equivalent to Good or Excellent. Impacted would be Fair to Poor. And Non-Supporting waterways are mostly Dead. The following table relates percent impervious area to categories of aquatic resource health. These are general ratings, not applicable to highly-sensitive waters. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 17 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Determining Existing & Future Imperviousness The easiest way to determine impervious area for the waterway or water body of concern to you is to do an internet search on the name + “percent impervious”. This should reveal any publications containing this information. Local environmental planning or stormwater management staff may have the data too. If you still cannot ]nd this information then ]rst delineate the watershed using the procedures in the NRCS publication: How to Read a Topographic Map and Delineate a Watershed (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet /FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_014819.pdf). To compute impervious area see: EPA’s Methodology to Calculate Baseline Estimates of. Impervious Area (IA) and. Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) (http://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/ma/IA-DCIA- Calculation-Methodology.pdf). Top Watershed Forest Cover & Streamside Buffers Forest provides many bene]ts that enhance aquatic resource health. Compared to other watershed land uses, forests: Have the lowest volume of erosion and other runoff pollution, Generate the smallest volume of eoodwaters, Provide the greatest amount of groundwater recharge and, therefore, dry-weather ineow to streams, wetlands, lakes, rivers and tidal waters, and The high-quality ineow from watershed forests dilutes the impact of pollution released from impervious surfaces, septic systems and other sources. The forests bordering a stream or other aquatic resources provide additional bene]ts: Shade provided by near-channel trees keeps water temperature cool in the summer, aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 18 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM The leaves, twigs and other tree material carried into waters by the wind is an essential source of the organic matter supporting aquatic ecosystems, Tree trunks and branches fallen into a waterway creates essential habitat for ]sh and other creatures, Trees protect channels from the erosive effects of eoodwaters, and Floodplain forests retard eoodwaters and lower the depth of inundation. Because of the many bene]ts listed above, scienti]c research (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu /viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.95.4037&rep=rep1&type=pdf) has shown that aquatic resource health is a direct reeection of the percentage of a watershed covered with forests as well as the percentage of channels with riparian (streamside) forests (https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Riparian_zone). The following table shows the minimum watershed forest cover and riparian buffer needed to retain four levels of health. Excellent conditions would be needed for high-quality waters, public water supplies and those supporting highly-sensitive species like salmonids or those aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 19 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM threatened-endangered. Good conditions are needed for most other game ]sh and an abundance, diverse aquatic community. Good conditions is the minimum we should accept for the waters closest to our homes where our children play. It is important to note that achieving these forest and buffer percentages will not result in higher quality waters unless other sources of degradation are mitigated. For example, in the suburban- urban watersheds where 80% of U.S. citizens live, runoff from all impervious surfaces must be treated with highly-effective Best Management Practices. Once this goal is achieved then reaching the forest-buffer thresholds will make it possible to attain a higher level of aquatic resource health. Water Withdrawals This impact category includes withdraw of water from the ground and from surface water bodies. Groundwater is the source of 37% of the water consumed in USA homes. Surface water bodies account for the other 63%. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/pdf/circ1405.pdf) Withdraws that are most harmful are those where so much water is consumed that other users or aquatic ecosystems suffer. But many uses then return a large part of the water. For example, in New Mexico (https://www.env.nm.gov/fod/LiquidWaste/documents /McQuillanandBassettNOWRA09.pdf) 43% of the groundwater withdrawn by a rural residential well will be returned via the septic system serving the rural home. On Cape Cod (https://books.google.com/books?id=t56rcYEbD3gC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9& dq=septic+system+recharge+85+percent&source=bl&ots=TvnQ3Oro4G& sig=tOzEKyhXfV2SrXoK3TCD0mEEqXU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyla- mq77KAhWKox4KHYFsAlUQ6AEIPjAF#v=onepage& aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 20 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM q=septic%20system%20recharge%2085%20percent&f=false) 85% of household water consumption was released into the soil through septic systems. Particularly harmful are uses that withdraw water from one watershed then discharge it in another watershed. The aquatic ecosystem impact of water withdrawals is much the same as for reduced groundwater recharge described above. Groundwater recharge comes mostly from rain or snow melt soaking beneath the root zone to reach the water table. But recharge can also come from rivers that leak into underlying groundwater systems. And arti]cial recharge occurs through stormwater in]ltration basins, injection wells, etc. As recharge decreases due to ground or surface withdrawals less water enters wetlands, streams, lakes and tidal waters via seeps and springs. This can lead to elevated water temperature, ]sh and other organisms can ]nd it harder to get past migration obstacles, habitat quality generally declines, there’s less high-quality groundwater ineow to support sensitive aquatic communities which worsens the impact of pollution releases. A proposed, rural development project may depend upon a separate, individual well for each proposed house or a central well in larger communities. Just as reduced recharge can lower groundwater supporting aquatic communities, it can also diminish the amount of water available for our use. Particularly at risk are rural homes served by wells or rural communities dependent upon a single groundwater source (aquifer). A typical rural resident uses 81 gallons of water per day (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/pdf/circ1405.pdf). If too many homes are allowed to tap the same water source then all will suffer come the next drought. The same is true if a major new user begins withdrawing vast amounts of surface water without verifying ]rst that existing users will not be harmed. Fortunately, most states have adopted permitting systems to ensure that a proposed water use will not harm either aquatic resources or other human users. More on this below in Preventing Water Withdraw Impacts. Wastewater Wastewater includes everything that comes from our toilets, sinks, showers, dishwashers and washing machines. It also includes all of the used water from our schools, businesses, industries, etc. In rural areas wastewater may be treated by discharge to the soil or into a waterway. But in suburban-urban areas it is usually piped via sewerlines and a sewage collection system to a central wastewater treatment plant. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 21 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Wastewater Impacts The organic matter in wastewater consumes oxygen as it is digested by bacteria and other organisms. Prior to the adoption of the Clean Water Act, it was quite common to see severe dissolved oxygen de]ciencies in waters receiving excessive ineows of poorly treated waste. Today the nutrients contained in treated wastewater are more likely to cause oxygen de]ciencies. Wastewater contains many disease-causing organisms. Chlorine used to disinfect treated wastewater can be toxic to many aquatic organisms. As a result alternative disinfection methods, like ultraviolet light, are coming into greater use. Septic Systems Wastewater from rural homes is usually discharged ]rst to a septic tank where solids settle. The partially treated liquid eows out into a series of pipes or pits known as a drain]eld. While septic systems do remove a large portion of the pollutants entrained in waster, it is far from 100%. In fact, a conventional septic system only reduces nitrogen levels by about 10%, which is why some states require additional treatment measures that can reduce nitrogen by 50%. Sewage Collection System Releases In recently developed areas stormwater and wastewater are carried by separate pipe systems. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 22 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM But in many cities combined sewers remain where sewage and stormwater mix. During mild storms the single pipe system carries all the liquid to a treatment plant. But larger runoff events exceed sewer capacity causing the runoff-sewage mixture to overeow into our waterways. Wastewater Treatment Plants Sewage collection systems deliver wastewater to a central treatment plant. The treated wastewater may be disposed of on the land or discharged into a stream, river, lake or tidal waters. Modern plants do a pretty good job of reducing organic matter (BOD-TOC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_organic_carbon) levels but require special upgrades to reduce nutrients to the point where excessive algae growth is not caused. If chlorine is used to kill the disease-causing organisms in wastewater then it can have a toxic effect upon aquatic organisms inhabiting the waters receiving the treated enuent. Many laws and programs are in aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 23 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM place to minimize the impact of wastewater. These will be summarized in the section below headed Preventing Wastewater Impacts. Disease & Public Health Bacteria, viruses and other disease-causing (pathogenic) organisms can enter suburban-urban waters with stormwater runoff, through sewerline releases, septic systems, and other sources. In a 2007 report (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/]les/2015-09/documents /2007_10_15_305b_2002report_report2002305b.pdf), the USEPA estimated that 45% of our streams and rivers were impaired by pathogens and sewage discharges along with 32% of our bays and estuaries. A 2017 update (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/]les/2017-12 /documents/305brtc_]nalowow_08302017.pdf) of the USEPA report noted that 23% of streams and rivers exhibited pathogen levels exceeding public health protection criteria. A 2004 USEPA (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/]les/2015-10/documents /csossortc2004_chapter06.pdf) report listed the following diseases caused by common pathogenic bacteria present in sewage: gastroenteritisis, salmonellosis, typhoid fever, cholera, shigellosis, and yersinosis. Others include the diseases caused by cryptospoidium and giardia (https://owl.cwp.org/mdocs-posts/elc_pwp17/). Symptoms of these diseases include vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, and nausea. Stormwater The pathogens Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lambia are among those present in stormwater runoff (http://clear.uconn.edu/projects/TMDL/library/papers/Schueler_2003.pdf) from suburban-urban lands. One study (http://clear.uconn.edu/projects/TMDL/library/papers /Schueler_2003.pdf) noted that fecal coliform bacteria were present at signi]cantly higher densities in suburban-urban waters compared to those of rural areas. The levels of these pathogens frequently exceed public health protection criteria during and immediately after runoff periods (https://owl.cwp.org/mdocs-posts/elc_pwp17/). The pathogens present in stormwater runoff come from dogs, cats, raccoons, rats, beaver, gulls, geese, pigeons and even insects. However, the wash-off of dog (https://owl.cwp.org/mdocs-posts/elc_pwp17/) waste from lawns and other surfaces is thought to be a major source. Sewerlines aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 24 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM In 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that a trillion gallons of untreated sewage (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4084971/#R2) enters our waters annually largely from sewerlines. The toilet, bath, kitchen and laundry wastewater from all homes and businesses is carried to a treatment system via pipes known as sewerlines. Leakage from these pipes can result in contamination of ground and surface waters with the disease- causing organisms present in the wastewater. The illustration below shows the sewerline system serving many U.S. homes and businesses. USEPA estimates that here are at least 23,000 – 75,000 (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/sanitary- sewer-overeows-ssos) sewage releases from sewerlines each year. One of the more common points of release are the pipes (called laterals) that carry sewage from a home or business to a sewerline. Laterals can account for half (https://www3.epa.gov/region1/sso/pdfs /PrivateSewerLaterals.pdf) of the total length of pipes in most sewage collection systems. Laterals are also present where sewage is treated with a septic system. One study (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es801505p) noted that leakage of sewage from the sewer pipes into storm drain systems could be a signi]cant source of pathogens entering aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 25 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM suburban-urban waters. Laterals carry wastewater to both septic systems and sewerlines. AQUATIC RESOURCE PROTECTION METHODS This section will provide a brief history of aquatic resource protection, the measures used to minimize each of the impacts described above, how the measures are applied to individual sites, and inspection-enforcement mechanisms. A Brief History Measures to reduce the impact of development upon aquatic resources began appearing in the mid 1960s. At ]rst the measures were limited to construction phase erosion and sediment controls. In the 1970s laws were enacted to reduce the physical disturbance of wetlands and waterways with bulldozers and other earth-moving equipment. It was also in the 1970s that ponds to control post-construction stormwater runoff came into use. At ]rst the ponds were intended to control downstream eooding. Later, pond designs included provisions to reduce channel erosion. In the 1980s and 90s other Best Management Practices (BMPs) were introduced to trap stormwater pollutants. In the 1990s and early 2000s groundwater recharge BMPs came into use. Around this same time aquatic resource buffers became a common requirement and some States-localities adopted forest conservation laws. Since 2010 an increasing number of States have been requiring the use of highly-effective runoff control measures along with other new aquatic resource protection methods. These new approaches are known as Low-Impact Development (http://www.lid-stormwater.net/index.html), Environmental Site Design (http://www.ceds.org/esd.html), Better Site Design (https://owl.cwp.org/mdocs-posts/better-site-design-part-1/), etc. Erosion & Sediment Control Today, most localities require a developer to submit an erosion and sediment control plan prior to clearing a site. The plan usually calls for clearing ]rst a swath along the downslope edge of a site. Within the swath silt fence (pictured below), ponds and other sediment trapping measures are installed along with ditches (swales) or berms needed to intercept uphill runoff then direct it to the trapping measures. All exposed soils within this perimeter swath are then covered with straw mulch and seeded with grass as shown below the silt fence photo. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 26 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 27 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Once the perimeter is stabilized then the developer can clear uphill areas of the site. Bulldozers and other heavy equipment cut and ]ll sloping sites to create the relatively eat areas needed to begin building roads, houses and other structures. When this point is reached the site is said to be at Rough Grade. Many localities will require stabilization of all areas of exposed soil once rough grade is reached. Road and parking lot beds are stabilized with four inches of stone. All other areas are stabilized with enough straw mulch that underlying soil cannot be seen. Areas that will remain idle for some time are stabilized with mulch and grass. Of the two approaches, erosion control through stabilization measures is far more effective compared to perimeter sediment trapping measures. Silt fence and ponds trap maybe 5% to 50% of the eroded soil. The rest eows offsite into a nearby waterway. A cover of straw thick enough to obscure underlying soil from view reduces erosion by 90% and runoff volume by 40%. A dense cover of grass slashes erosion by 99% and runoff volume by 90%. Erosion control is the only measure that can keep the most polluting soil particles – clay – from eowing into nearby waterways. For every dollar spent on erosion control we tax-payers save at least $100 in damages avoided (https://ceds.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2015GBSESPReport.pdf). So, whenever you see exposed soil on a construction site you can assume a nearby waterway will be polluted come the next major storm. Stormwater Management Following is a description of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) used from the late 1960s on to manage stormwater runoff from new development. This description will make more sense if we ]rst describe Design Storms and Hydrologic Soil Groups. Design Storms The earliest ponds were designed to control severe eooding by managing a storm recurring an average of once every 100 years. After development the volume of runoff might double or quadruple. The pond was sized to store the difference in runoff before and after development. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 28 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM The opening on the vertical spillway pipe (riser) was sized to release the stored runoff at the same rate that occurred prior to development. The ten-year storm was added to minimize the impact of lesser eood events. Next, ponds were designed to manage the two-year storm, which was thought to be key to minimizing channel erosion. Today, many states require management of the one-year storm for channel protection. Additionally, many states require passing the monthly storm through water quality BMPs designed to trap pollutants. The monthly storm produces about an inch of runoff from impervious surfaces. In many parts of the nation, a BMP designed for an inch of runoff will treat 90% of all runoff. Some states require in]ltrating a lesser amount of runoff to maintain groundwater recharge at predevelopment rates. Hydrologic Soil Groups Soils are assigned to one of four Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSG) based on permeability and the amount of runoff generated. Soils assigned to HSG “A” tend to be sandy and produce the least runoff. “D” soils tend to be clayey or have a shallow depth to bedrock or the water table and produce the greatest runoff. In]ltration, Sand Filters and Bioretention BMPs work best on “A” and “B” soils along with some “C” soils. But these BMPs can be used on even “D” soils but an underdrain is needed, which negates groundwater recharge and probably some pollutant removal. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service has a great website for determining the Hydrologic Soil Groups for any site: Web Soil Survey. There’s a wealth of other information available at Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov /App/HomePage.htm). Dry Ponds In the early days, Dry Ponds were the most common measure. These ponds were designed to store excess runoff from the 100-year storm then release it gradually after a major storm passed. As the name implies, Dry Ponds had a large opening at the bottom of the spillway which aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 29 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM allowed it to drain completely once runoff subsided. Since there was no place to store pollutants these facilities provided zero water quality protection, no groundwater recharge and probably made stream channel erosion worse. Extended Detention (ED) Ponds These ponds detained stormwater for a longer period of time. This was achieved with a Dewatering Device (see below) created by extending a perforated pipe from the bottom of the pond spillway riser. The pipe was wrapped in black ]lter cloth and covered with stone. With this design it would take 12- to 48-hours for the pond to drain completely. Initially ED ponds drained completely which meant very little pollution was retained and no recharge was provided. Later, ED ponds were designed to have a permanent pool of water which enhanced pollutant retention. Since the bottom of these ponds quickly sealed little recharge was provided. Both the ED Dry and Wet Ponds tended to make thermal impacts worse. ED ponds likely resolved channel erosion concerns. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 30 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Wet Pond These ponds store a much larger volume of runoff permanently. They are more effective than ED ponds in trapping pollutants, yet they do not provide recharge, can cause thermal impacts and may prevent channel erosion. Impervious Area Disconnects Some States give credit for discharging runoff from small impervious surfaces onto grass or other vegetated areas. For this approach to work runoff must eow from the impervious surface and onto the vegetation in a shallow sheet. During most storm events all the runoff will soak into the soil. However, a large portion of the pollutants may be retained at the soil surface. During larger storm events these pollutants may be resuspended and carried into nearby waters. Another problem is that these disconnects only work as long as sheet eow is maintained. Over time twigs, leaves and other objects tend to accumulate and cause sheet eow to form into channels. Very little of the pollutants entrained in channel eow will be captured. Most will travel to the nearest waterway. In summary, disconnects are one of the less reliable practices. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 31 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Level Spreaders & Buffers As the name implies, this measure is intended to convert channel eow into sheet eow by directing runoff over a broad, level surface. The runoff is then discharged as sheet eow into a grass or wooded buffer. As with disconnects, debris tends to accumulate on the top of the level spreader creating channel eow, which negates water quality bene]ts. While buffers may be effective in removing pollutants from cropland and pasture runoff, then do not work well on development sites. But buffers do provide substantial bene]ts in terms of preserving aquatic habitat and providing the shade needed to moderate water temperature. Grass Channel With regard to stormwater management, there are three grass channel types: grass ditches, grass swales. and Dry or Bio Swales. A grass ditch can be found along many rural roads particularly in older housing projects. They tend to be V-shaped and grass covered. As with Disconnects, the small quantity of pollutants captured by ditches accumulates at the soil surface and is washed downstream during larger storm events. A grass swale has much much wider and eatter bottom, which increases in]ltration and pollutant capture but still suffers from the resuspension problem. Dry and Bio Swales (pictured below) are created by excavating a long trench, ]lling it with a sand-organic matter mix and then the surface is planted in grass. Because of the highly-permeable sand, pollutants are carried far enough down in the soil column that they cannot be resuspended. This type of channel is highly-effective in pollutant removal and groundwater recharge. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 32 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM InXltration Basins & Trenches Both of these BMPs are restricted to permeable soils where runoff can be in]ltrated. The Basin resembles a dry pond except the ]rst spillway opening is set a foot or two above the eat Basin eoor. The one- to two-foot ponding area created this way holds the ]rst inch of runoff long enough for it to percolate down through the permeable soil on the eoor. Spillway openings are designed to release runoff from the 2- to 100-year storm at predevelopment rates. An In]ltration Trench is a rectangular pit ]lled with stone. Runoff is stored in the air spaces (interstices) between the stones until it can soak into adjacent and underlying soils. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 33 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Both in]ltration measures achieve very high pollutant removal, excellent groundwater recharge, can reduce channel erosion and resolve the thermal impact of heated runoff. Because of the large area draining to each they are more prone to failure then other BMP types. The larger the drainage area, the more likely soil will be exposed and eroded sediment will enter the BMP causing failure. The Trench is very hard to restore once it fails. Green Roof In recent years the Green Roof has become increasingly popular. A green roof is created by placing two- to eight-inches of soil on a roof then planting it with grass or other vegetation. A collection system underlies the soil to capture rainfall which has percolated through the soil. A Green Roof provides moderate pollutant removal, no groundwater recharge and minimal channel erosion protection. However, this practice can substantially lower heating and cooling cost for the underlying building. This bene]t can pay for the added cost of a Green Roof after the passage of several years. Sand Filter The Sand Filter was the ]rst to appear on development sites. The ]lter consists of 18 inches of sand placed upon a bed of gravel. A system of perforated pipes is laid within the gravel in the event the soil beneath the gravel clogged. The pipes would then carry runoff to a storm drain inlet or some other point where it could safely discharge. Sand Filters provide a moderate degree of pollutant removal, good recharge, resolve thermal impacts and reduced the volume of eows involved in channel erosion. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 34 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Bioretention Type Filters The ]rst bioretention BMPs were developed in the 1990s. They have since evolved into several variations – Micro-Bioretention, Dry Swales, Bio Swales, Landscape In]ltration, and others. Bioretention BMPs do best on more permeable soils. But when ]tted with under drains they can be used anywhere that the water table rises no closer than two feet from the BMP bottom. As illustrated below, a typical facility begins as an excavation four- to six-feet deep. A perforated pipe under drain is placed in a bed of gravel on the bottom. Three- or four-feet of a sand-organic matter mix is placed above the gravel. The surface may either have a layer of two- or three- inches of hardwood mulch or be grass. The surface is depressed six- to twelve-inches so the facility can treat the ]rst inch of runoff from the impervious surfaces draining to it. Runoff above this amount will usually exit via a pipe or concrete outlet. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 35 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Like in]ltration measures, Bioretention BMPs achieve a very high level of pollutant removal, cause no thermal impact and provide excellent recharge. A number of States now design Bioretention BMPs to manage the runoff from a one-year storm which should resolve channel erosion impacts. Because of a much smaller drainage area (0.5 acres or less) Bioretention BMPs are less likely to fail. If they do fail then it will most likely be due to sediment clogging the surface which makes restoration far easier than with an In]ltration Trench. Forebays, Sediment Chambers & Diaphragms All three of these measures are used to trap sediment before it can reach the main portion of a BMP. BMPs usually fail because of excess sediment entry. Forebays resemble a small pond and usually receive runoff before it enters the main pond. A sediment chamber is usually created by placing a stone, wood or concrete check dam across the upper half of a BMP. Runoff initially enters this upper half where sediment is deposited. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 36 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM A diaphragm consists of a one-foot wide by one-foot deep stone trench around the edge of Bioretention type BMPs. Runoff initially eows into the gravel where sediment is trapped. The cleaner runoff then overeows into the BMP. Stormwater Hotspots A number of States have identi]ed a set of land uses which tend to produce runoff with unusually high concentrations of pollutants that can contaminate groundwater. These land uses usually involve refueling or vehicle repair and other servicing. Frequently the use of in]ltration measures to treat hotspot runoff will be prohibited where a high groundwater contamination potential exists such as karst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karst) (limestone) areas, well-head protection areas (http://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/drinkwater/pc_wellhead_protection.html), or where shallow aquifers in very sandy soil are used as public water supplies. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 37 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Highly Effective BMPs The graph below compares pollutant removal of the various BMP categories presented above. The two pollutants compared are nitrogen and phosphorus. With the exception of road salt and a few others highly mobile in soils, nitrogen or phosphorus removal rates are much the same as for most other stormwater pollutants. The following table compares the bene]ts of stormwater BMPs. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 38 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Practices that achieve a high degree of groundwater recharge, pollutant removal and channel erosion prevention are termed highly-effective. From the table above, these practices include: Dry & Bio Swales, Bioretention and In]ltration. If all impervious surfaces of a proposed development project will drain to these highly-effective BMPs then nearby aquatic resources should not suffer due to stormwater pollution, loss of groundwater recharge or accelerated channel erosion. Forest, Steep Slopes & Buffers Preserving a wooded buffer along wetlands and waterways is essential to maintaining healthy aquatic ecosystems. Equally important is maintaining 45% or more of a watershed in forest. In most parts of the nation proposed development projects are required to maintain a minimum undisturbed buffer of native vegetation between the limits of disturbance and a wetland, waterway, lake or tidal creek. A number of localities also require the retention of large trees along with setting aside a certain percentage of a site for existing forest or reforestation. Also, preservation of steep slopes in not uncommon. Usually this involves slopes of 25% or greater. Such a slopes rises or falls 25 feet for every 100 feet of horizontal distance. The restriction may be limited to just steep slopes located on soils rated highly-erodible. Both of these characteristics can be determined from the Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm). Sediment & Stormwater Plans & Permitting Most states have adopted manuals providing a great deal of detail regarding how and where these practices are to be applied. In other states, projects disturbing one acre or more must conform the USEPA requirements (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-stormwater-program), Those wishing to develop must submit a plan showing how: erosion and sediment will be controlled during the construction phase, along with limits of aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 39 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM disturbance to preserve aquatic resource buffers and existing forest; and stormwater runoff will be managed and that speci]c aquatic resource protection criteria have been met, such as pollution reduction, groundwater recharge, channel erosion prevention and minimization of downstream eooding. If both plans conform to the State manual and local requirements then the developer must sign an agreement requiring that all plan provision will be met. The stormwater provisions then become binding on all future property owners. Something like a grading permit is then issued. Ideally a representative of the inspection-enforcement agency would meet onsite just prior to the start of site clearance to review the plans to ensure the developer and contractor understand each provision. The inspector would then return periodically to verify that BMPs are properly installed and maintained. If an inspector ]nds a de]ciency, like the overeowing silt fence below, then the developer is noti]ed and given a ]xed period to correct the problem. If the inspector ]nds that the corrections have not be made then a stop-work order can be issued and or a ]ne imposed. Stop-work orders are most effective when they halt all activity on a site (grading, plumbing, electrical, construction, etc.). Fines only work if they are far in excess of the cost of installing or maintaining a measure. Once site development is completed the inspector would verify that all erosion and sediment control BMPs have been removed, all disturbed soils are stabilized and all stormwater BMPs were properly installed. Another inspection of stormwater BMPs would occur a year after development completion, then perhaps every one- to three-years thereafter. Drinking Water Protection About 15% (https://www.epa.gov/privatewells/about-private-water-wells) of our homes are aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 40 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM served by individual wells while most are on public water supply systems. Of the public systems, 43% obtain water from community wells and the rest pump from reservoirs, rivers, lakes and other surface sources. Growth can affect both the quantity and quality of either ground or surface waters. Through the decline in recharge caused by impervious surfaces, groundwater levels can decline along with ineow to surface waters. A number of water supply sources have been contaminated by pollutants either carried into the soil then ground water or washed by stormwater into surface waters. An equally alarming impact can result from allowing growth to exceed the level that can be safely accommodated by available water supplies. This issue is later under Preventing Water Withdraw Impacts. Community Water Systems Public (community) water systems serving a year-round population are required to provide their customers with a Consumer Con]dence Report (https://www.epa.gov/ccr) detailing the results of water quality measurements contrasted with USEPA standards. If your home is one of the 85% connected to a community water supply system then you should receive an annual water quality report. If you don’t recall receiving a report then it may be available online via the USEPA Consumer Con]dence Reports (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/safewater/f?p=136:102::::::) webpage. If the report is not linked, the webpage provides the contact information needed to request one from your supplier. Should a report show that any contaminants exceeded state or USEPA drinking water standards (https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking- water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations) then the cause must be corrected before more homes or businesses are connected to the system. Private Wells Unlike community water supplies, wells serving a individual home are not routinely tested for quality. Usually well tests are conducted when a property is sold (https://www.fha.com /fha_article?id=600). Many local health authorities (https://www.epa.gov/home/health-and- environmental-agencies-us-states-and-territories) will test a well upon by request by the owner. Otherwise you can hire a commercial ]rm to test your well water. Data on regional well water quality may be available from the U.S. Geological Survey (https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/where- are-usgs-o\ces-located?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products) or state environmental agencies (https://www.epa.gov/home/health-and-environmental-agencies-us- aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 41 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM states-and-territories). The preceding provides a starting point for ensuring the adequacy of your water supply. It is vital that you ask hard questions should you suspect that reports and test results do not accurately reeect water quality. To see examples of these hard questions watch the PBS ]lm Poisoned Water (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/poisoned- water.html). Preventing Water Withdraw Impacts How can one ensure water use does not cause undue harm to other users or the environment? Use of water generally follows two broad doctrines (https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~saxowsky /aglawtextbk/chapters/waterlaw/Introduction.html) in the United States. In western states the Prior Appropriation doctrine generally says that the ]rst person to make use of a water resource has the right to continue that use. Others can make use of whatever is left over. In the east, the Riparian Rights Doctrine allows property owners to make reasonable use of the water on or adjoining their property provided the use does not adversely affect other uses and the environment. Of course there’s much more to both doctrines. The Prior Appropriation Doctrine is being hotly disputed in light of the California drought. For larger groundwater withdrawals, many states require a pump test to see how much the proposed use will draw down the underground reservoir surface. If the proposed rate causes a signi]cant drop in water levels at nearby wells or off the project site, then the withdrawal rate must be reduced. A water balance analysis will frequently be required for both ground and surface water withdrawals. Some States require that a proposed groundwater use be limited to the amount of recharge occurring on the site less the amount needed to preserve other uses. In Maryland, recharge averages 900 gallons per acre per day then half this amount during a drought. About 100 gallons per acre is set aside for aquatic resource protection. So a proposed use on a one- aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 42 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM acre site could withdraw 800 gallons per day under normal conditions but only half this amount come a drought. For streams and rivers several methods are in use to determine how much water is needed to safeguard aquatic organisms. The simplest is known as the Tennant Method (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.500.9949&rep=rep1&type=pdf), which calls for maintaining summer eows at 40% of the mean annual stream eow. At 40% good conditions are maintained. At 30% and 10% conditions are Fair and Poor, respectively. For example, in Maryland stream eow averages about one cubic foot per second per square mile of watershed area. So if a stream drains one square mile then summertime withdrawals should not cause eow volume to drop below 0.40 cubic feet per second if Good conditions are to be maintained. While all waters should be maintained in Good condition, its easiest to make a case for this eow when waters support a highly-regarded, important resource like game]sh, threatened-endangered species or the eow is needed to protect downstream water users. At least one study (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr02-340/html/summary.html) has found that the Tennant Method yields minimum eows close to that predicted using more sophisticated methods, like the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1 /Susitna/1/APA193.pdf) developed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (https://www.fws.gov/). With regard to the impact of a proposed major groundwater withdrawal, you should insist that a thorough hydrogeologic study (http://www.groundwaterscience.com/resources/tech-article- library/97-a-hydrogeologic-study-who-needs-it-or-source-water-protection-area-delineation-is- not-a-video-game.html) be prepared including the results of aquifers pump tests done on site along with observation wells located off-site. Unfortunately you’ll need the assistance of a hydrogeology expert to interpret the report. There are a number of these professionals in the CEDS network. This study is even more important if your area has a history of well failures and the need for replacement wells. Some of the agencies which may have this data include your: local or state health department (https://health]nder.gov/FindServices /SearchContext.aspx?show=1&topic=820); state water resources agency (http://www.waterwebster.com/state_framebottom.htm); state geological survey (http://www.stategeologists.org/surveys.php); or the U.S. Geological Survey (https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/where-are-usgs-o\ces-located). Your state water resources agency as well as your state or U.S. geological survey may have the stream eow data needed to determine if a new use will lower summer stream eow to less than aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 43 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM 40% of the annual average. Procedures for calculating average annual eow have been prepared by Oregon State University (http://streameow.engr.oregonstate.edu/analysis/annual /example.htm). Preventing Wastewater Impacts The prevention of wastewater impacts will be addressed under three headings: septic systems, wastewater collection systems and wastewater treatment facilities. Preventing Septic System Impacts The septic tank was invented in 1860 (http://www.vdwws.com/2015/01/a-short-history-of-the- septic-system/). Today they are part of a category of wastewater treatment facilities known as Onsite Sewage Disposal systems (OSDs). Approximately 25% – 30% of all USA homes are served by OSDs and are mostly located in rural areas. The system consists of a tank where solids settle from suspension. Tank enuent then eows to the drain]eld where it is released into the soil via a series of trenches or pits. The removal of pollutants and disease-causing organisms is far from 100%. And if the solids are not periodically removed from the tank the system can fail completely and result in sewage coming to the ground surface. In Michigan (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-swas-tmdl-draft-smithscreek_268855_7.pdf), it is estimated 5% – 10% of OSDs are failing. OSD owner education is crucial to keeping these systems working. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 44 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM A number of researchers (https://engineering.purdue.edu/~frankenb/NU-prowd/density.htm) have found a general relationship between septic system density and water quality. The USEPA de]nes an area as having a high density when there are 40 or more OSDs per square mile (or one system per 16 acres). In the post-WWII development boom many septic systems were built on lots as small as a ¼ acre. A large percentage of these systems failed and the homes are now connected to a wastewater collection system. Today, many states limit OSDs to lots one-acre or larger. OSDs are limited to soils that pass a percolation (perc) test to prove that in]ltration rates are acceptable. There should be enough suitable soils to allow for the construction of an initial drain]eld and at least two replacement ]elds. Very clayey soils and those where the water table or bedrock is close to the surface are usually unacceptable. OSDs should not be located upslope of a well. Usually minimum setbacks are required from property lines, steep slopes, waterways, wetlands, water bodies, and some stormwater BMPs. General information about site suitability for OSDs can be found on the USDA Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm) site. CEDS does a detailed comparison between these setbacks and local requirements whenever reviewing site plans for projects served by OSDs. We urge you to do the same. Preventing Wastewater Collection Impacts One million miles of pipes (http://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/primer.pdf) collect wastewater from each home, school or other building in the nation then carry it to a plant where the sewage is treated. The system is divided into separate sewers which only carry wastewater and combined sewers that also receive runoff from streets and other surfaces. The USEPA estimates (http://www3.epa.gov/region1/sso/index.html) that annually there are 40,000 releases totaling 10 billion gallons of wastewater from separate collection systems. And releases are even more frequent from combined systems. The most common cause of separate sewerline overeows is a blockage of the pipe aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 45 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM (http://www3.epa.gov/region1/sso/index.html). Even worse than sewage spilling into a nearby waterway are those occasions when the blockage causes sewage to backup into a home. About a fourth of all sewage releases are due to ground or surface water getting into separate sewers through: cracks in the pipe, manholes in low-lying areas or storm drains illegally connected to the sewer. Power outages and other mechanical failures at sewage pumping stations account for another 11% of the 40,000 annual separate sewer spills. If a proposed development project will connect to a sewerline then contact your local public works department or sewer authority to ]nd out whether the system has su\cient capacity to accommodate the increased eows. Most states have adopted tables showing the amount of wastewater generated by different land uses. For example, Connecticut o\cials assume 0.057 gallons per day per square foot of a proposed shopping center. (http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib /deep/water_regulating_and_discharges/subsurface/2006designmanual/completesec_3.pdf) So a 160,000 square foot center would generate 9,120 gallons of wastewater per day. If you know how many gallons of capacity remain in a sewer you can use these tables to determine if a development project will exceed the remaining capacity. If a project will discharge to a pumping station with a history of frequent spills then its reasonable to insist the cause be corrected before the project is allowed to release additional sewage to the station. Preventing Wastewater Treatment Plant Impacts There are more than 16,000 wastewater treatment plants in the nation (http://www3.epa.gov /npdes/pubs/primer.pdf). A great introduction to these facilities is provided in the USEPA Primer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems (http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/]les /2015-09/documents/primer.pdf). They are designed to eliminate a portion of the pollutants contained in wastewater. In the case of disease-causing organisms the removal rate can be very aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 46 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM near 100% through the use of chlorine, ultra-violet light or other disinfectants. Many of these plants are owned and operated by local or state agencies. Each plants holds a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (http://www.epa.gov/npdes) (NPDES) permit. The permit contains limits on the types and amounts of pollutants that can be released from the plant. These limits may be based on national guidelines or the result of a Total Maximum Daily Load (http://www.epa.gov/tmdl) (TMDL) evaluation of water quality violations in the receiving waters. The treated enuent may be disposed of through application to the land or discharged into a waterway or water body. Most states have received authority to administer their own NPDES program. These states reviews, issues and enforces each permit. Each permittee is required to submit regular Discharge Monitoring Reports (http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/) (DMR). The DMRs contain the results of tests conducted at various points within the plant, beginning with where wastewater ]rst enters then ending where the treated enuent is discharged. In addition to this self-reporting, the delegated states will send out inspectors to collect their own samples and to do a visual evaluation of plant condition. Unfortunately, many states simply lack enough inspectors to visit plants regularly. Some States set a policy that plants discharging one million gallons a day or more get inspected at least once a year. Others plants may be inspected only once every three to ]ve years. This is wholly inadequate and results in pollution violations that drag on for weeks, months or even a year or more. If you are concerned about a proposed development project that will connect to a sewerline then determine how well the treatment plant complies with their NPDES permit. To do this visit USEPAs Environmental Compliance History Online (http://echo.epa.gov/) (ECHO) website. After you ]gure out how to navigate around, you’ll ]nd a wealth of information about the treatment plant. If the plant has been aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 47 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM eagged for signi]cant violations then it would be reasonable to call for limiting new development and additional wastewater until the violations have been corrected. EVALUATING AQUATIC RESOURCE PROTECTION Following is general guidance for assessing how well a project has been planned with regard to aquatic resource protection. Usually an assessment can be made from a site plan which may also be called a development plan. Special Exception, Conditional Use or Concept plans usually lack the detail needed to make an assessment, but are better than nothing. To obtain project plans contact your local planning and zoning o\ce or the developer directly. Ask if you can get either a paper copy of the plans or an electronic version. We ]nd a pdf of plans easiest to work with plus they can be emailed. Following is a checklist for evaluating aquatic resource protection. 1. Will all impervious surfaces drain to BMPs rated High for recharge, pollutant removal and channel erosion prevention? 2. Are buffers shown along all wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources on or adjacent to the site? 3. Will forest conservation requirements be met onsite? 4. Are steep slopes protected from disturbance? 5. If the project will rely upon groundwater then does your area have a history of well failure? If yes then you should insist upon a hydrogeologic study before the project is approved. |. If the project will use an unusually large amount of ground and surface water then a water balance should be conducted to verify summer stream eows will not be reduced to 40% or less of average daily eow. 7. If Onsite Sewage Disposal systems are proposed then do site conditions fully meet all applicable criteria? }. If project wastewater will be discharged to a sewerline then does the: sewerline have a history of no overeows; sewerline have adequate capacity; wastewater treatment plant free of signi]cant violations; and plant have adequate capacity to handle the increased eow? aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 48 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM WATER QUALITY MONITORING Sampling aquatic resources for bacteria, dissolved oxygen and other physical, chemical or biological parameters is important. However, monitoring alone is not the shortest route to clean water. At most, monitoring reveals existing and past impacts. It does not prevent future impacts as do Watershed Audits. Also, most monitoring is done on nice, sunny days whereas water quality tends to be poorest when rainfall has washed pollutants into a waterway. Nevertheless, monitoring is an important element in a comprehensive program to preserve and enhance aquatic resource health. Following are links to water quality monitoring guidance documents: Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/]les /2015-06/documents/lakevolman.pdf) Citizen lake Monitoring Program Instruction Manual (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites /default/]les/wq-s1-13.pdf) A Citizens’ Guide to Understanding and Monitoring Lakes and Streams (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/94149.pdf) Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production /]les/2015-06/documents/stream.pdf) Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production /]les/2015-09/documents/2007_04_09_estuaries_monitoruments_manual.pdf) Again, water quality monitoring is most effective when paired with a Watershed Audit (https://ceds.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SevernRiverPWA_Report.pdf). WINNING BETTER AQUATIC RESOURCE PROTECTION If a plan meets the four evaluation criteria listed above then there is an excellent chance the project can be built with very little, if any, negative impact to aquatic resources. Of course there are two caveats. First, the agencies overseeing plan implementation must have a record of achieving a high degree of compliance. This issue is addressed in detail below in Inspection, Maintenance & Enforcement. Second, the project does not impact uniquely important or highly- sensitive aquatic communities. The new approach is experimental and only time will tell how well it will work. In the interim its best to keep impervious area threshold below the levels given aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 49 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM in the table above: Impervious Area & Aquatic Resource Damage in uniquely important, highly- regarded watersheds. So what if the plan fails to meet the four criteria? Well, the next question is: Does current law and policy require that all four criteria be met? If yes, then refer to the following chapters in our free 300-page book How To Win Land Development Issues (https://ceds.org/publications/) to learn how you can work with staff and their superiors to win greater compliance: Chapter 38: Working with Regulatory Staff; Chapter 39: Lobbying Final Decision-Makers; then Chapter 37: Negotiate with the Applicant. If no, current law and policy does NOT require compliance with all four criteria then consider changing the law. Strategies for achieving this goal are also described in How To Win Land Development Issues (https://ceds.org/publications/)chapters: Chapter 41: Changing the Law; Chapter 36: Mobilizing Support For Your Strategy; Chapter 38: Working with Regulatory Staff; Chapter 39: Lobbying Final Decision-Makers; then Chapter 42: Electing & Retaining Decision-Makers Committed To Responsible Growth Management. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about how to win better aquatic resource protection: 410-654-3021 or Help@ceds.org (mailto:Help@ceds.org). CEDS REVIEW OF PROJECT PLANS If you wish CEDS can review plans for a project of concern to you. Usually we can do a no-cost quick review for the four issues given above. We can then share our ]ndings along with strategy recommendations via a conference call with you and your allies. To get your project on our brief waiting list contact us at Help@ceds.org (mailto:Help@ceds.org) or 410-654-3021. INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE & ENFORCEMENT The Achilles Heel of aquatic resource protection is the oversight provided by local and state aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 50 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM agencies to ensure only good plans are approved, BMPs are installed properly then maintained as long as necessary. In some localities only 12% of construction sites fully comply with erosion control laws. In others up to half of stormwater BMPs are failing due to a lack of inspections, then maintenance. But this problem can be turned around and it doesn’t require expensive and lengthy law suits. In fact the best strategy is to organize citizen leaders to go out for a few hours to see how well construction site pollution is being managed and to assess the condition of stormwater BMPs. This approach costs almost nothing and has produced up to a 61% improvement in compliance in as little as a few months. CEDS has created several models for how you can ensure effective enforcement in your area: Greater Baltimore Survey: 2015 Survey Shows Construction Site Erosion Control Improves 61% Compared to 2014 (https://ceds.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06 /2015GBSESPReport.pdf); Stormwater Best Management Practices Greater Baltimore Survey 2016 (https://ceds.org /wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2016GBSBMPReport.pdf); and Montgomery County MD Environmental Site Design Audit (https://ceds.org/wp-content /uploads/2019/06/MontgomeryCountyESD-Report.pdf). For reasons that are unclear, few watershed organizations have assessed the compliance levels in their area with regard to construction site mud pollution and stormwater BMP maintenance. While these groups are engaged in very worthwhile education and restoration projects, the bene]ts of their efforts seldom show up in water quality data. This is frequently because excess pollution due to poor compliance masks the bene]ts achieved through education and restoration. It appears that part of the reason why watershed advocates tend to shy away from compliance oversight is fear of angering government o\cials and other funding sources. I suspect if the members of these groups were polled about activities which should be a priority, ensuring compliance with Clean Water laws would be near the top of the list. Fortunately, CEDS has developed an approach for improving compliance without making regulatory agencies look bad. And the approach imbues watershed groups with respect, not merely tolerance. Instead of blaming agency staff for poor compliance, the message is… We know inspection-enforcement staff and our elected oBcials are deeply committed to minimizing pollution, but they lack the public support needed to do their job. aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 51 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Supporting agencies in improving compliance is usually the quickest, least costly way of dramatically improving water quality. Additional guidance on assessing and improving compliance levels can be found at the following CEDS web pages: Watershed Audits (https://ceds.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06 /SevernRiverPWA_Report.pdf); Exposed Soil = Pollution (https://ceds.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/espguide.pdf); Environmental Site Design for Clean Water Advocates (https://ceds.org/wp-content/uploads /2019/06/FS-ESDcompliance.pdf); and Greater Baltimore Survey (https://ceds.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06 /2016GBSBMPReport.pdf). Please contact CEDS at 410-654-3021 or Help@ceds.org (mailto:Help@ceds.org) if you have any questions about assessing and improving compliance in your area. We can also discuss the possibility of CEDS conducting an assessment on your behalf or anonymously. Following are a couple of examples: Severn River (https://ceds.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06 /SevernRiverPWA_Report.pdf) (suburban) and Corsica River (https://ceds.org/wp-content /uploads/2019/06/CorsicaRiverPWA.pdf) (agricultural) Watershed Audits. WATERSHED GROWTH MANAGEMENT Many of the more densely populated areas of the nation have adopted a plan to guide future growth. It may go by names such as master plan, growth management plan, comprehensive plan, general development plan, etc. Most of these plans will contain a chapter on natural resources which then contains a section on aquatic resource protection. Following are the key items of information missing from most plans. 1. Existing impervious area for waterways third order or larger, nontidal and tidal; 2. Existing impervious area for wetlands, ponds, lakes and other water bodies deemed important because they are the focus of residential communities, support threatened- endangered species, are highly regarded for recreation, serve as a water supply source, are of exceptionally high quality, or are important for other reasons; 3. Existing forest cover and extent of 100-foot riparian buffer for all of the aquatic resources listed in #1 and #2, above; aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 52 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Share this: Twitter (https://ceds.org/aquatic/?share=twitter&nb=1) Facebook (https://ceds.org/aquatic/?share=facebook&nb=1) 4. Future impervious area for all the resources listed in #1 and #2 at build-out under current zoning; 5. For those aquatic resources which would exceed impervious area (IA) thresholds given above under Impervious Area & Aquatic Resource Damage, determine which are so important, so irreplaceable that exceeding the IA threshold cannot be risked. For these waters one should employ measures to keep future IA below the threshold, such as downzoning, land preservation through easements or acquisition, retro]tting existing IA with highly effective BMPs, etc. |. With regard to the uniquely important irreplaceable resources that will not meet the forest cover-buffer threshold for good to excellent conditions, use the techniques suggested in #5, above; 7. Include text in the plan strongly recommending the use of the highly-effective aquatic resource protection measures described in this webpage for development in all other watersheds; and }. Require that annexation-rezoning proposals or requests to extend public water-sewer go through a detailed analysis to determine if uniquely important or irreplaceable resources will be threatened. ! " Like this: Like Be the first to like this. Home (https://ceds.org)| Issues We Can Help You Win (https://ceds.org/issues-we- can-help-you-win/)| Successes (https://ceds.org /success-examples/)| Publications (http://www.ced- s.org/publications/)| About (https://ceds.org/about- ceds/)| Contact (https://ceds.org /contact) aquatic - Community & Environmental Defense Services https://ceds.org/aquatic/#buffer 53 of 53 4/19/21, 9:02 PM Name Lower Minnesota River Valley IBA Status Identified State Minnesota Priority State Counties Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Scott Proposed Criteria A1 Confirmed Criteria D1, D3, D4ii, D4iv, D5 Central Coordinates Area (acres)Elevation (meters) 44.85600, -93.22040 75,402 Min: Max: Avg: SITE DESCRIPTION The Lower Minnesota River Valley Important Bird Area (MRVIBA) includes, but is not limited to; Fort Snelling State Park, Minnesota River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Black Dog Lake and the Minnesota Valley State Recreation Area. The IBA incorporates the riparian corridor and adjacent river valley and upland communities along the Minnesota River from the Scott/Le Seuer county line to the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers at the eastern most part of Fort Snelling State Park. MRVIBA has numerous shallow flood plain lakes including Gun Club, Snelling, Long Meadow, Black Dog, Blue, Fisher, and Rice Lakes. There are also a number of streams, including Black Dog, Eagle, and Kennealey and Sand Creeks, Credit River, and numerous small streams. ORNITHOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE The site supports an exceptional diversity of birds including over 260 species being documented within Minnesota Valley NWR and the State Park area. Over 100 of the species nest in the area. There are eight species of nesting warblers including species of concern such as the Prothonotary Warbler which is found in the extensive floodplain habitats of the Refuge and State Park. In addition, Cerulean Warblers have been noted in high-quality floodplain forest surrounding Kelly Lake in the Park and Acadian Flycatchers have also been found in widely-scattered locations in the Minnesota River Valley. Nesting Bell? s Vireos and Willow Flycatchers have been observed nesting near Black Dog Lake. Oak savanna habitat in both the Park and Refuge attracts Red-headed Woodpeckers and Lark Sparrows. Common Name Date Seasonal/Daily Season Observed Density (#km/2) Units Proposed Confirmed American Coot 2003 S passage 50,000 Individuals -- Source :Minnesota Valley NWR Nesting Colony and Eagle Nest Surveys (1987-2003) Craig Mandel, Audubon Member, Personal Observations (over 11,000 records) SPECIES DATA AND CRITERIA LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY IBA 4/14/2021 8:43:08 PM Bald Eagle 2003 S breeding 4 Nests -- Source :Minnesota Valley NWR Nesting Colony and Eagle Nest Surveys (1987-2003) Minnesota Valley NWR Annual Narrative Reports, 1999-2003 Bell's Vireo 2003 S breeding Individuals -- Source :Craig Mandel, Audubon Member, Personal Observations (over 11,000 records) Black Tern 2001 S breeding 25 Individuals -- Source :Craig Mandel, Audubon Member, Personal Observations (over 11,000 records) Minnesota Valley NWR Annual Narrative Reports, 1999-2003 Canada Goose 2001 D passage 6,000 Individuals -- Source :Minnesota Valley NWR Waterfowl/Waterbird Surveys (1999-2003) Forster's Tern 2001 S breeding 25 Individuals -- Source :Craig Mandel, Audubon Member, Personal Observations (over 11,000 records) Minnesota Valley NWR Annual Narrative Reports, 1999-2003 Great Blue Heron 2003 S breeding 400 Individuals -- Source :Minnesota Valley NWR Waterfowl/Waterbird Surveys (1999-2003) Minnesota Valley NWR Nesting Colony and Eagle Nest Surveys (1987-2003) DNR Aerial Survey, 2003 Great Egret 2003 S breeding 400 Individuals -- Source :Minnesota Valley NWR Waterfowl/Waterbird Surveys (1999-2003) Minnesota Valley NWR Nesting Colony and Eagle Nest Surveys (1987-2003) DNR Aerial Survey, 2003 Henslow's Sparrow 2003 S breeding 3 Individuals -- National Audubon Society 2013 ® Important Bird Areas in the U.S. Available @ http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY IBA 4/14/2021 8:43:08 PM Henslow's Sparrow Source :Minnesota Valley State Rec Area Report Tom Cooper, PhD Candidate, South Dakota State University, 2003 Loggerhead Shrike 2003 S passage 1 Individuals -- Source :Craig Mandel, Audubon Member, Personal Observations (over 11,000 records) Minnesota Valley State Rec Area Report Mallard 2001 S breeding 6,000 Individuals -- Source :Minnesota Valley NWR Waterfowl/Waterbird Surveys (1999-2003) Peregrine Falcon 2003 S breeding 3 Individuals -- Source :Craig Mandel, Audubon Member, Personal Observations (over 11,000 records) Minnesota Valley State Rec Area Report Janzen Bird Surveys, 1998-2001 Prothonotary Warbler 2003 S breeding 20 Individuals -- Source :Craig Mandel, Audubon Member, Personal Observations (over 11,000 records) Minnesota Valley State Rec Area Report MCBS, 1990 and 1993 Janzen Bird Surveys, 1998-2001 Tom Cooper, PhD Candidate, South Dakota State University, 2003 Minnesota Valley NWR Bird List, 2002 Semipalmated Sandpiper 2009 S passage 200 Individuals A1 - Source :Ebird counts conducted in 2009. National Audubon Society 2013 ® Important Bird Areas in the U.S. Available @ http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY IBA 4/14/2021 8:43:08 PM OWNERSIP Assessment Date % of IBA Ownership 4/25/2006 -Township/Municipality -Non-profit -Individual -County/Parrish -Federal -State 4/25/2006 National Audubon Society 2013 ® Important Bird Areas in the U.S. Available @ http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY IBA 4/14/2021 8:43:08 PM HABITAT Assessment Date % of IBA Habitat 4/25/2006 15 Forested Upland/Deciduous forest 3 Herbaceous Upland/Grassland/Herbaceous 15 Wetlands/Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands/Wet Meadows (broad-lvd sedges) 10 Water/Open Water/Lake 5 Herbaceous Upland/Grassland/Herbaceous/Upland Native Prairie 15 Forested Upland/Deciduous forest/Lowl Decid Frst (floodplain forest) 15 Wetlands/Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands/Marsh (cattail/ mixed emergent) 2 Water/Open Water/River 5 Forested Upland/Mixed Forest/Deciduous/Mixed upland forest 15 Shrubland/Shrubland/Upland Savanna (jack pine/oak/asp.) 4/25/2006 National Audubon Society 2013 ® Important Bird Areas in the U.S. Available @ http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY IBA 4/14/2021 8:43:08 PM LAND USE Assessment Date % of IBA Land Use 4/25/2006 -nature conservation and research -tourism/recreation -water management -hunting -urban/industrial/transport -tourism/recreation/Fishing 4/25/2006 THREATS Assessment Date % of IBA Threat 4/25/2006 9 Industrialization/Urbanization 6 Filling-in of wetlands 6 Recreation/tourism 6 Disease 9 Disturbance to birds 6 Drainage 6 Extraction Industry 8 Water Diversions (incl. impact dikes/dams)/Groundwater extraction 6 Infrastructure/Wind towers 6 Pollution/Pesticide residue in soil 6 Natural events/Plant succession 9 Natural events/Storm (other) 9 Invasive species/Feral animals (other) 9 Industrialization/Urbanization/Habitat fragmentation 6 Intensified Forest Management/Commercial deforestation (legal/ illegal) National Audubon Society 2013 ® Important Bird Areas in the U.S. Available @ http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY IBA 4/14/2021 8:43:08 PM 4/25/2006 9 Invasive species/Non-native plants CONSERVATION ISSUES 4/25/2006 Power lines are found throughout the river corridor. Many woodlands and savannas are being altered and eliminated as land use changes from agricultural to urban land uses such as housing, commercial and industrial development. Drainage and storm water impacts are significant in the both the developed and rapidly developing parts of this site. Comprehensive storm water management and working with local communities is the most effective tool for addressing this issue. Sand and gravel mining in common in this site and in adjacent natural areas. Ground water extraction from municipal wells, and on going increases in water usage threaten a wide range of ground water dependant plant and animal communities. Especially sensitive are calcareous fens and associated cold water streams which are important habitats for numerous avian species. Feral and introduced species animals, as well as free roaming pets, have a major impact on ground nesting birds, small mammals, and larger wildlife including white tailed deer. Invasive and non native plants are changing the quality and structure in all community types found in the area. The species which are currently having the greatest impact include Phalaris arundinacea (Reed Canary Grass), Pragmites australis (Giant Reed Grass), Potamogeton crispus (Curly Leaved Pondweed), (Eurasian Water Milfoil), Allaria petiolata Garlic Mustard, Rhamnus cathartica and R. frangula (European and Glossy Buckthorn), Ulmus pumila (Siberian Elm), Robinia pseudoacacia (Black Locust), Lonicera sp. (honeysuckle), Centaurea maculosa (Spotted Knappweed), Coornilla varia (Crown Vetch), Euphorbia esula (Leafy Spurge), Lythrum salicaria (Purple Lossestrife). Control of exotic and problematic species is done using prescribed fire, mechanical methods, herbicide applications, and release of biological control agents. West Nile Virus has the potential to impact avian populations, especially corvids. National Audubon Society 2013 ® Important Bird Areas in the U.S. Available @ http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY IBA 4/14/2021 8:43:08 PM Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 1 Revised 2/05 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Note to preparers: This form is available at http://www.eqb.state.mn.us. EAW Guidelines will be available in Spring 1999 at the web site. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental Unit or its agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data for — but should not complete — the final worksheet. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. The complete question as well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. Attachments to the EAW: Figure 1. County map showing the general location of the project. Figure 2. U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries. Figure 3. Aerial photo showing proposed roadway alternatives. Figure 4. Map of areas with steep slopes. Figure 5. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage Database Review Letter. Figure 6. Minnesota State Archeologist’s Office Letter. Appendix A. Traffic Study. 1. Project title Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives 2. Proposer: City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota 3. RGU : City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Contact person: Mr. Gene Dietz, P.E. Contact person: Mr. Scott Neal Title : Director of Public Works Title: City Manager Address : 8080 Mitchell Road Address: 8080 Mitchell Road City, state, ZIP: Eden Prairie, MN 55344 City, state, ZIP: Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: 952-949-8310 Phone: 952-949-8300 Fax: 952-949-8326 Fax: 952-949-8326 E-mail: gdietz@edenprairie.org E-mail: communications@edenprairie.org 4. Reason for EAW preparation (check one) EIS Scoping _____ Mandatory EAW _____ Citizen Petition _____ RGU Discretion __X___ Proposer Volunteered _____ If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and name ____________________________________________________________ 5. Project location County: Hennepin City/Township: Eden Prairie NE, NW, SW ¼ Section 29 Township 116N Range 22W Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 2 The City of Eden Prairie is considering closing or rerouting the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Flying Cloud Drive. Six roadway alternates are being considered to provide for traffic flow and adequate emergency access. One of the alternates is a new crossing of Riley Creek upstream of Miller Spring. The southbound Eden Prairie Road approach to its intersection with Flying Cloud Drive is steep and winds down the bluff to the Minnesota River. The roadway is curved and sloped, and is difficult to maintain in the winter. It has been the location of several accidents. The City has evaluated options for upgrading Eden Prairie Road within its current alignment to improve public safety. There are five major deficiencies affecting safe operation of the south end of Eden Prairie Road. These include: • Sight distance limitations through curves • Curve design speed • Grades in excess of 14 percent • Width is less than 25 feet, should be 32 feet wide to handle the traffic projected for this area • Approach grade is greater than 1 percent at the intersection with Flying Cloud Drive (TH 212) These deficiencies combined make maintaining this segment an unacceptable connection of a neighborhood with a high volume and high speed segment of highway. As traffic is added through build-out conditions planned for in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, these deficiencies will be more likely to cause future traffic safety issues, and thus upgrade in place is not an appropriate solution as a roadway improvement alternative, and the City is now considering closing this intersection. If this intersection as it exists today is closed, then the city proposes to construct an alternate route to provide for adequate public and traffic safety, emergency response access, maintenance, and a continuous roadway system. For this analysis, it is assumed that Alternates 1, 2, and 6 would include the closure of the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Flying Cloud Drive, while Alternates 3, 4, and 5 would reroute Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection. Figure 3 illustrates the following proposed roadway alternates: No Build: As described above, this option was considered and rejected as infeasible. 1. Connect Dell Road to Eden Prairie Drive by extending and connecting Turnbull Road to Beverly Drive 2. Connect Dell Road to Eden Prairie Drive by extending and connecting Turnbull Road to a new street south of and paralleling Beverly Drive 3. Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Spring Road 400 feet north of Flying Cloud Drive 4. Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Spring Road 100 feet north of Flying Cloud Drive 5. Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Flying Cloud Drive 230 feet west of existing intersection 6. Connect Eden Prairie Road to Spring Road by extending Prospect Road west to Eden Prairie Road Construction of any selected Alternate would proceed using typical municipal roadway construction techniques, as either a public construction contract (Alternates 1 through 5) or by agreement with a developer (Alternate 6). Minimal roadway design for Alternates 1 though 5 has occurred, and design parameters such as roadway widths, cross section, alignment, grades, earthwork, and utility design have not been determined or determined only conceptually. A preliminary design by a developer has been proposed for Alternate 6. 6. Description a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 3 Closure or rerouting of Eden Prairie Drive and its intersection with Flying Cloud Drive would require construction of an alternate route. There are numerous residential properties on Eden Prairie Road, Beverly Drive, and a developing area off of Sky Lane that rely on Eden Prairie Road for access to Flying Cloud Drive or as a secondary emergency access to the area. Closure of the intersection would require an alternate east-west connection to either Spring Road to the east or Dell Road to the west to provide that access. It may also be possible to reroute Eden Prairie Road on an alternate alignment down the bluff. A sound roadway system with multiple routes to developed areas is critical for effective emergency response. The creation or maintenance of long cul-de-sacs is undesirable. If Eden Prairie Road is closed, as it would be under Alternates 1, 2, and 6, additional access to and from this area should be provided. In Alternates 1 and 2, the additional access is provided through the Turnbull Road extension to connect to Dell Road. Alternate 6 would extend Prospect Road to Eden Prairie Road, providing a new connection to Spring Road and improving public safety and transportation access to the existing residential area west of Spring Road at Prospect Road, which currently has only a single access point. Alternates 3, 4, and 5 continue to utilize Eden Prairie Road for additional access. A continuous roadway network is also important for effective road maintenance operations, including snowplowing and emergency repairs. Alternates 1 and 2 provide a new connection to Dell Road, which helps connect the study area with the area to the west. Alternates 3, 4, and 5 continue to use Eden Prairie Road as a connecting road through the study area. Alternate 6 creates a cul-de-sac on Eden Prairie Road while eliminating a dead end on Prospect Road, creating a new connection to Spring Road. The proposed project is a roadway project, not a development. Part of this study area was considered in the 2001 Charlson, Brown, & Standal Properties Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). This AUAR evaluated the impacts of a 318 acre multi-use development to the east of Alternates 3 through 6, including an extensive review of traffic impacts in the area and required roadway upgrades. The roadway improvements evaluated in this EAW were not considered in that AUAR. This EAW considers only the six roadway alternates detailed above and does not evaluate planned development in the study area. This EAW assumes the proposed Oak Creek at Hennepin Village and development west of Eden Prairie Road, north of Beverly Drive, off Sky Lane is in place. c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. d. Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or likely to happen? __Yes _x_No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? __Yes _x_No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 4 . Unit of government Type of application Status MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) – General Stormwater Construction Permit To be obtained Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Permit Review To be obtained MnDNR Public Waters Work Permit To be obtained USACOE Section 404 Permit To be obtained Current and recent land use in the alternative corridors is primarily low density single family residential and open space. The Alternate 2 corridor includes some agricultural, animal pasturage, and undeveloped land. The Alternate 6 corridor is a former golf course, and golf cart track and a culvert crossing of Riley Creek remain Alternate Roadway Length (feet) Impact Area* (acre) 1 – Extend and connect Turnbull to Beverly Drive 4,650 9.35 2 – Extend and connect Turnbull to a new street south of and paralleling Beverly Dr 4,270 8.46 3 – Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Spring Road 400 feet north of Flying Cloud Drive 1,900 6.74 4 - Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Spring Road 100 feet north of Flying Cloud Drive 1,910 6.15 5 – Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Flying Cloud Drive 230 feet west of existing intersection 1,630 6.03 6 – Extend Prospect Road west to Eden Prairie Road 1,385 2.16 *Impact area is the area within the estimated construction limits, including roadway bed and adjacent grading 7. Project magnitude data Total project acreage _________________________ or Length __________________________________ Number of residential units: Unattached _____-__ Attached ______ maximum units per building ____ Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet _______________ Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet): Office ______________________________________ Manufacturing __________________________ Retail ______________________________________ Other industrial _________________________ Warehouse __________________________________ Institutional ____________________________ Light industrial _______________________________ Agricultural ____________________________ Other commercial (specify) ______________________ Building height _____________ If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings ____________ 8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. 9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 5 from that development. No known environmental hazards are present in the corridors. This area is currently zoned for large-lot (one unit per 10 acres) single family development. The Comprehensive Guide Plan envisions the area of Alternates One through Five as low-density residential (0-2.5 units per acre). The area of Alternate 6 is guided as medium density residential, 2.5-10 units per acre. The areas immediately adjacent to Riley Creek are guided as Park and Open Space. The proposed use of land in these corridors for local road right of way is consistent with those land uses, as local roads are necessary to provide access to residential land use for transportation, maintenance, and emergency services. For purposes of estimating land cover post construction, the following assumptions were made: • Roadway width would be 30 feet. • Areas with existing turf grass would be restored with turf grass where possible. • Roadway side slopes in wooded or brush/grassland areas would be restored with native grassland vegetation. • It may be possible to reforest some of the side slope areas to mitigate tree loss in areas that would be converted from wooded to grassland, but no attempt was made to estimate how much could be accomplished. Alternate 1: Extend and connect Turnbull Road to Beverly Drive. Before After Before After Types 1-8 wetlands - - Lawn/landscaping 4.10 3.66 Wooded forest 3.42 - Impervious surfaces 1.83 3.20 Brush/grassland - 2.49 Other (describe) - - Cropland - - TOTAL 9.35 9.35 Alternate 2: Extend and connect Turnbull Road to a new street south of and paralleling Beverly Drive. Before After Before After Types 1-8 wetlands - - Lawn/landscaping 1.50 1.00 Wooded forest 6.47 - Impervious surfaces 0.49 2.94 Brush/grassland - 4.52 Other (describe) - - Cropland - - TOTAL 8.46 8.46 Alternate 3: Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Spring Road 400 feet north of Flying Cloud Drive(acres). Before After Before After Types 1-8 wetlands - - Lawn/landscaping 0.20 Wooded forest 5.89 1.10 Impervious surfaces 0.65 1.31 Brush/grassland - 4.33 Other (describe) - - Cropland - TOTAL 6.74 6.74 Alternate 4: Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Spring Road 100 feet north of Flying Cloud Drive. Before After Before After Types 1-8 wetlands - - Lawn/landscaping 0.15 - Wooded forest 2.15 0.10 Impervious surfaces 0.60 1.32 Brush/grassland 1.23 2.83 Other (dry prairie) 2.02 1.90 Cropland - - TOTAL 6.15 6.15 Alternate 5: Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Flying Cloud Drive 230 feet west of existing intersection. Before After Before After Types 1-8 wetlands - - Lawn/landscaping - - Wooded forest 4.18 1.00 Impervious surfaces - 1.12 Brush/grassland - 2.56 Other (dry prairie) 1.85 1.35 Cropland - - TOTAL 6.03 6.03 10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 6 Alternative 6: Extend Prospect Road west to Eden Prairie Road. Before After Before After Types 1-8 wetlands 0.06 0.06 Lawn/landscaping - - Wooded forest - - Impervious surfaces - 0.95 Brush/grassland 2.10 1.15 Other (describe) - - Cropland - - TOTAL 2.16 2.16 Alternates 1 though 5 would require the removal of existing forest and woodlands and would replace them with impervious surface and grassland, reducing wooded habitat and replacing it with tall grass habitat. For each of the alternates, tree removals would be a small percent of the existing wooded habitat, so it is unlikely that these removals would have more than a temporary impact on overall habitat availability. Restoration following construction could include reforestation where possible, mitigating some of the tree loss. Alternates 3, 4, and 5 would create a new cleared pathway through existing woodland or grassland, fragmenting habitat and creating a potential barrier for some types of wildlife migration. No mitigation measures are proposed. Alternate 6 is proposed as two alternates: a culvert crossing or a bridge crossing of Riley Creek. Riley Creek is home to various aquatic life typical of disturbed urban warm water streams (MCES, 2005; DNR, 2003). A bridge crossing is ecologically preferable as it minimizes the potential to impede upstream migration by fish and macroinvertebrates and provides a path for other wildlife to move from one side of the road to the other without crossing traffic. However, just upstream of the proposed crossing is a DNR carp barrier. Any barrier to fish movement that might result from the proposed culvert option would be inconsequential as the carp barrier already effectively limits upstream migration. The estimated increase in stormwater runoff volume from roadway new impervious surface (see #17 below) is small relative to existing subwatershed volume, so it is unlikely that any of the alternates would result in increased flow or velocities in Riley Creek that might affect the biota or impact the channel form. The estimated increase in pollutant loading (see #17 below) is small relative to existing loading, and would be further reduced by stormwater treatment. The fish community monitored by the DNR at locations upstream and downstream of the proposed Alternate 6 crossing is composed of common species that are pollution-tolerant. No pollution-intolerant species were identified at those locations. The macroinvertebrate community monitored at the Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (WOMP) station at Flying Cloud Drive downstream is composed of pollution-tolerant species. No pollution-intolerant species were identified at that location. While the fish and macroinvertebrate collections were not completed at the point where Alternate 6 would be expected to cross, it is likely the communities at that location are similar in composition to the sampled locations. No water quality-related impacts are expected to the biotic community. The new crossing and a proposed permanent NURP water quality pond south and west of the creek crossing may result in a redirection of local groundwater that presently discharges to Riley Creek through a series of springs, several of which have been delineated in the vicinity of the proposed crossing. The northern extent of springs tributary to Riley Creek is not fully delineated, however, it most likely follows the depth to bedrock contour 51-100 shown in the Hennepin County Geologic Atlas. The slight increase in runoff and the redirection of local groundwater to ponds may result in slightly higher temperatures of discharge to Riley Creek. However, those impacts would be extremely localized, and input from springs immediately downstream would mitigate any minor thermal impacts that might occur. No temperature-intolerant species are known to be present in Riley Creek. Discussion with DNR Fisheries staff (Ellison, pers. comm. 2006) and the most recent DNR fish survey (DNR, 2003) indicate that Riley Creek is unlikely to support a cold-water community. 11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 7 Alternates 1 and 2 pass adjacent to the Riley Creek Conservation Area, an area identified in the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) as a high quality natural community that includes a “Site of Biodiversity Significance.” Sites of Biodiversity Significance are identified by the Minnesota County Biological Survey as areas with varying levels of native biodiversity that may contain high-quality plant communities, rare plants, rare animals, and/or animal aggregations. Designation as such does not necessarily mean that all these features have been found in that location, but that the size and limited disturbance of such areas makes it more likely that such features exist or could be supported. Edge degradation is occurring in the area around Alternates 1 and 2 and may be due to Turnbull Road, private driveways and development on the ridge that currently serves as a transition between higher quality woods to the north and development to the south. Construction of either of these alternates may exacerbate those edge effects, which might include erosion and sedimentation, habitat fragmentation, or opportunities to introduce nonnative or exotic species. If either is constructed, special attention should be paid to minimizing removal of trees and preventing erosion and sedimentation. Alternates 3, 4, and 5 pass through an area that has been identified as a Site of Biodiversity Significance. The DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program database records an occurrence of Rhombic-Petaled Evening Primrose, a Special Concern plant species, in the vicinity of Alternates 3, 4, and 5. No site survey has been conducted in the vicinity of those alternates to evaluate for that or any other species, as this EAW was prepared outside of the growing season. The Alternates 3, 4, and 5 area also contains dry sand-gravel prairie and pin-oak-bur oak native plant communities. The DNR recommends avoiding impacts to this ecologically significant area (see attached DNR letter). If Alternates 3, 4, or 5 were to be pursued further, a more detailed, growing season site analysis must be conducted to determine whether Rhombic-Petaled Evening Primrose or other threatened or endangered species are present within the proposed construction limits. If found, the DNR must be consulted to develop a plan for avoiding impacts to these protected species. The DNR should also be consulted to develop a plan to minimize impacts to the ecologically sensitive native plant communities. A site assessment performed in the vicinity of Alternate 6 identified a community of Kitten-tails, a threatened species. A site survey performed by a wetland delineator identified the limits of the community area. The City has evaluated the design layout for Alternate 6 and has determined that the road and associated stormwater ponding requirements can be designed to avoid the kitten-tails and reduce the grading footprint. If Alternate 6 is pursued, the DNR should be consulted to determine any special requirements for ensuring the community is protected from possible construction impacts. One of the roadway alternates, the Prospect Road extension, would require a crossing of Riley Creek, and has two sub-alternates: a culvert crossing, and a bridge crossing. The culvert crossing option would require some 12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration — dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment — of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? _X_Yes _ _No If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI: Riley Creek. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. b. Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? _X_Yes __No If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number: ERDB 20070339. Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 8 temporary stream diversion during construction. The culvert would be sized to minimize increases to water surface elevations of Riley Creek and to minimize velocity impacts. Filling within the floodway and flood fringe is likely to be necessary to construct this option. Any floodplain fill would be mitigated with compensatory storage. A bridge crossing would be unlikely to impact water surface elevations or velocities. The riverine wetland of Riley Creek has been delineated. Alternate 6 has two sub-alternates: a culvert crossing and a bridge crossing. A culvert crossing would likely impact this wetland, and a mitigation plan developed and approved. A bridge crossing is more likely to avoid impacting this wetland. Alternate 6, the Prospect Road extension, would require a crossing of Riley Creek, and has two sub-alternates: a culvert crossing, and a bridge crossing. Either option may require temporary dewatering to construct bridge footings or to install the new culvert. Temporary dewatering discharges would be pretreated in a temporary settling basin prior to discharge to Riley Creek. Alternate 6 would cross a shoreland zoning district and Shore Impact Zone for Riley Creek, as well as cross the delineated 100-year floodplain for Riley Creek. Roadways may be placed in the Shore Impact Zone provided the conditions of the city’s zoning code are met. Section 11.50 Subd. 12(c) requires roads to be set back at least 50 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level. A crossing by definition must cross through the Shore Impact Zone and across the water body. The City Council must evaluate whether a waiver from this requirement should be granted based on the need for road construction. Alternate 6 also crosses the 100-year (one percent chance) floodplain. The City’s regulatory flood elevation is two feet above the 100-year frequency flood level. The bridge option of Alternate 6 should be designed such that the low chord elevation is at least two feet above that elevation. The road surface elevation of the culvert option should be at least two feet above the 100-year flood level. Floodplain fill may be required to construct either of these options. Floodplain fill is allowable if it is mitigated with compensatory storage and does not raise the flood stage of the regional flood event by more than 0.5 feet. Preliminary analysis of the culvert option performed by the developer of adjacent lands indicates that option would not raise the flood stage by more than 0.5 feet. N/A 13. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? _X_Yes __No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. 14. Water-related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? _X_Yes __No If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. 15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? __Yes _x_No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other uses. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 9 Figure 4 indicates areas determined by Hennepin County to have slopes in excess of 18 percent. Alternates 3, 4, 5, and 6 all cross areas of steep slopes. Erosion and sedimentation control measures during and after construction consistent with the city’s stormwater management ordinance would be developed as part of the construction plans and specifications, but likely would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as temporary and permanent vegetated slopes; double or reinforced silt fence; biologs; erosion control fabric; bale checks; and temporary sediment basins. The estimated increase in stormwater runoff volume and phosphorus and sediment export from existing conditions is small relative to subwatershed volume and loading. Runoff from Alternate 6 is proposed to be detained and treated in a stormwater detention pond prior to discharge to Riley Creek, which would significantly reduce phosphorus and sediment export shown in the table below. Alternate 6 would discharge directly to Riley Creek. If this alternate were implemented, ice control on the roadway would be limited to sand or a salt/sand mix to minimize chloride contributions to the creek. No specific Best Management Practices have yet been determined for Alternates 1 through 5, however, incorporation of alternative stormwater management techniques such as rain gardens and grassed swales could be incorporated into construction and provide infiltration and treatment for small events. According to the Minnesota State Stormwater Manual (MPCA, 2006), these small events result in 60-70 percent of the annual pollutant loading. Alternate Tributary Subwatershed Area (acres) Percent Increase in Impervious Area of Tributary Subwatershed Percent Increase in Runoff Volume Percent Increase in Phosphorus Export 1 – Extend and connect Turnbull to Beverly Drive 462 1.4% 0.058% 2.0% 2 – Extend and connect Turnbull to a new street south of and paralleling Beverly Dr 5,750 0.3% 0.007% 0.3% 3 – Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Spring Road 400 feet north of Flying Cloud Drive 5,534 0.1% 0.003% 0.1% Alternate Grading Area (acre) Estimated Cubic Yards of Soil to be Moved 1 – Extend and connect Turnbull to Beverly Drive 9.35 45,200 2 – Extend and connect Turnbull to a new street south of and paralleling Beverly Dr 8.46 41,000 3 – Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Spring Road 400 feet north of Flying Cloud Drive 6.74 65,200 4 - Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Spring Road 100 feet north of Flying Cloud Drive 6.15 59,500 5 – Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Flying Cloud Drive 230 feet west of existing intersection 6.03 58,300 6 – Extend Prospect Road west to Eden Prairie Road 2.16 15,600 16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. 17. Water quality: surface water runoff a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 10 Alternate Tributary Subwatershed Area (acres) Percent Increase in Impervious Area of Tributary Subwatershed Percent Increase in Runoff Volume Percent Increase in Phosphorus Export 4 - Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Spring Road 100 feet north of Flying Cloud Drive 5,996 0.1% 0.003% 0.1% 5 – Realign Eden Prairie Road to a new intersection on Flying Cloud Drive 230 feet west of existing intersection 5,750 0.1% 0.005% 0.1% 6 – Extend Prospect Road west to Eden Prairie Road 247 2.7% 0.308% 2.6% Alternates 1, 2, and 6 drain to Riley Creek and then to the Minnesota River. Alternates 3, 4, and 5 drain in part to Riley Creek and then the River, and in part directly to the Minnesota River. Incorporation of Best Management Practices into any of the six alternates would reduce the small increased volume and pollutant loading (see above) such that impact on downstream water quality would be negligible. A Watershed Outlet monitoring Program (WOMP) monitoring station is located downstream of the study area at Flying Cloud Drive. Hydrology, water quality, and biological data from this station were used to establish baseline conditions and evaluate the relative impact of volume and loading impacts that may result from any of these Alternates. Both Riley Creek and the adjacent reach of the Minnesota River are listed on the State of Minnesota 303(d) list of Impaired Waters for excess turbidity. Any selected alternate that is constructed must prevent any further turbidity impacts of those waters. No TMDLs have been completed for those impairments. Any future construction after completion of an approved TMDL Implementation Plan must be in compliance with that Implementation Plan. None. None. 18. Water quality: wastewaters a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 11 None. None. No sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, or karst conditions are known to be present in the study area. The Hennepin County Geologic Atlas indicates that the study area is sensitive to groundwater pollution due to the shallow depth of fractured bedrock aquifers in the area. The construction contractor would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit and prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention program that includes pollution prevention measures such as solid waste, hazardous waste, and spill management. Post construction stormwater runoff would be pretreated prior to discharge into surface waters. Infiltration areas would be designed to maximize treatment prior to infiltration into surficial groundwater. Alternate Depth to Bedrock Depth to Water Table 1 and 2 150-250 feet 10-20 feet 3 and 4 100-250 feet 10-20 feet 5 200-300 feet 10-20 feet 6 100-200 feet 0-20 feet Source: Hennepin County Geologic Atlas Construction equipment may be sources of petroleum product, hydraulic fluid, or other leakage or spills during construction of any of the alternates. The construction contractor would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit and a Land Alteration Permit, and prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention program that includes pollution prevention measures such as solid waste, hazardous waste, and spill management. Solid waste may be generated during construction, including materials such as asphalt and concrete debris, packaging, and incidental debris such as cans, bottles, and paper. Any materials removed by demolition, such as pavement or utility structures, would be removed offsite or recycled in place. The contractor would be required to use good site housekeeping practices during operation to minimize debris being washed or blown off the site, and to properly dispose of all waste. c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems. 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water. To bedrock. Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. 20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 12 Soils in the study area are all well drained sand and loam with moderate to good permeability with the exception of soils immediately adjacent to Riley Creek, which are fine sandy loam with poor permeability. Soils are generally of Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) A or B, indicating a high to moderate rate of transmission of water or liquids spilled on site. To minimize potential groundwater contamination the construction contractor would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit and prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention program that includes pollution prevention measures such as solid waste, hazardous waste, and spill management. Alternate Soil Type Soil Characteristics L70C2 Lester-Malardi complex, 6-12% slopes, eroded Well to excessively drained sandy loam, HSG B L47B Eden Prairie sandy loam, 2-6% slopes Well to excessively drained sandy loam, HSG B L22C2 Lester loam, morainic, 6-12% slopes, eroded Well drained loam, HSG B L70D2 Lester-Malardi complex, 12-18% slopes, eroded Well drained loam, HSG B L2B Malardi-Hawick complex, 1-6% slopes Excessively drained sandy loam, HSG B L2C Malardi-Hawick complex, 6-12% slopes Well to excessively drained sandy loam to loamy sand, HSG A to B 1 and 2 L60B Angus-Moon complex, 2-5% slopes Well drained loam to loamy fine sand, HSG B L70C2 Lester-Malardi complex, 6-12% slopes, eroded Well to excessively drained sandy loam, HSG B L32F Hawick loamy sand, 18-40% slopes Excessively drained loamy sand, HSG A 3 L32D Hawick loamy sand, 12-18% slopes Excessively drained loamy sand, HSG A L70C2 Lester-Malardi complex, 6-12% slopes, eroded Well to excessively drained sandy loam, HSG B L4C Crowfork loamy sand, 6-12% slopes Excessively drained loamy sand, HSG A L32F Hawick loamy sand, 18-40% slopes Excessively drained loamy sand, HSG A 4 L4D Crowfork loamy sand, 12-18% slopes Excessively drained loamy sand, HSG A L32F Hawick loamy sand, 18-40% slopes Excessively drained loamy sand, HSG A L22F Lester loam, morainic, 25-35% slopes Well drained loam, HSG B 5 L70C2 Lester-Malardi Complex, 6-12% slopes, eroded Well to excessively drained sandy loam, HSG B L2C Malardi-Hawick 6-12% slopes Excessively drained sandy loam, HSG B L2D Malardi-Hawick 12-18% slopes Well to excessively drained sandy loam, HSG B L32F Hawick loamy sand, 18-40% slopes Excessively drained loamy sand, HSG A L32D Hawick loamy sand, 12-18% slopes Excessively drained loamy sand, HSG A L47C Eden Prairie sandy loam, 6-12% slopes Somewhat excessively drained loamy sand, HSG B 6 L28A Suckercreek fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes, occasionally flooded, hydric Poorly drained fine sandy loam, HSG D Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Hennepin County Soil Survey. HSG = Hydrologic Soil Group. Construction equipment may be sources of petroleum product, hydraulic fluid, or other leakage or spills during construction of any of the alternates. The construction contractor would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit and prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention program that includes pollution prevention measures such as solid waste, hazardous waste, and spill management. b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 13 None. The proposed project would not generate new traffic, but would reroute existing and future traffic. The attached Appendix A, Traffic Impact Study for Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives, details the expected traffic impacts on study area streets. Weekday daily volumes were developed for the roadway network within the study area, and weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes were developed for the Spring Road/Prospect Road intersection. The following scenarios were modeled: 2006 Existing, 2008 No-Build, and 2008 Build. The 2008 No-Build scenario assumes that none of the six alternates would be built, but that the Oak Creek at Hennepin Village development and the development in the area west of Eden Prairie Road, north of Beverly Drive, off Sky Lane would be built. Appendix A provides detailed projected traffic counts at key intersections for each scenario. The traffic analysis concludes that: • All movements at the Spring Road/Prospect Road intersection operate at Level of Service B or better for all scenarios for all roadway alternates. Additional capacity exists to accommodate future residential development in the study area. • Daily volumes on the surrounding roadway system vary depending on the roadway alternative. All volumes are within ranges expected for these types of roadways. No operational or safety issues would be anticipated from these volumes. • All of the roadway alternatives provide additional emergency assess to the area through roadway extensions and removal of dead ends. • All of the roadway alternatives provide additional road maintenance access for snow plowing and emergency repairs through roadway extensions and removal of dead ends. The project will not generate new traffic, so no new emissions are expected. The project will not generate stationary source air emissions. c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. 21. Traffic. Parking spaces added _____. Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) ____. Estimated total average daily traffic generated ______. Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and time of occurrence ______. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. 22. Vehicle-related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. 23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals (chloro-fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 14 Temporary and transient odors, noise, and dust would likely be generated during construction. The construction contractor would be required to operate within the city’s noise ordinance limiting hours of construction. The construction specifications would include standard provisions for watering to settle dust. Post construction, there would be additional transient noise generated by traffic as it is rerouted across the roadway network. Archaeological, Historical, or Architectural Resources The State Archeologist’s Office notes that there are several recorded archeological sites and recorded burial areas in the study area, and that there is a good probability that unreported archeological properties might be present in the study area. The State Archeologist recommends that an archeological survey be completed for any area that is considered for construction impacts (see the attached letter from the Office of the State Archeologist). Alternates 1 and 3 cross known archeological sites. Alternates 2 and 4 pass adjacent to known archeological sites. Some of these sites are farmstead remnants, and some are burial mounds. If any of those alternates are pursued, further site evaluation including a Phase I (survey and investigation) and potentially a Phase II (excavation) archeological study must occur in consultation with the State Archeologist’s Office, and a plan prepared to protect these resources. Parks, Recreation Areas, and Trails The Riley Creek corridor in the study area is designated in the Eden Prairie Guide Plan as passive Park and Open Space. The proposed Alternate 6 would provide public access to the creek corridor through the trail built alongside the road for the Oak Creek development project. The Upgrala Unit of the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge is located nearby the study area, and is separated by Flying Cloud Drive from it. Alternates 1 and 2 are about 1,000 feet north of the unit, Alternate 6 about 3,000 feet north of the unit, and Alternates 3 and 4 are 300-900 feet to the north. Alternate 5 would require a new intersection with Flying Cloud Drive, and would thus be immediately adjacent to the Unit, although it would not require any construction in the Unit. Scenic Views and Vistas Alternates 1 and 2 would require the extension of Turnbull Road to the east, to connect with either Beverly Drive (Alternate 1) or a new road (Alternate 2). The new public road would be constructed on the alignment of what is now a private unimproved road located on a ridgeline between the bluff to the Minnesota River to the south and an extensive area of wooded open space to the north through which Riley Creek flows. Some tree 24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? _x_Yes __No If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.) 25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? _X_Yes __No Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? __Yes _X_No Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? _X_Yes __No Scenic views and vistas? _X_Yes __No Other unique resources? _X_Yes __No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 15 removals would be necessary to construct a wider roadway to city standard. The existing view from the open space looking south is a wooded hillside with an occasional car passing by on the private road. Under Alternates 1 and 2, the view would be a wooded hillside with a public road and associated traffic on top of the ridge. Alternates 3, 4, and 5 would require tree removals and construction of new roadways on the bluff, changing the appearance of the bluff. Alternate 6 would create a new crossing of Riley Creek through a corridor that currently has limited human- made structures, changing the appearance of the creek corridor. The Alternate 6 corridor would pass through an area that was formerly used as a golf course. A former golf cart trail crosses the creek in the study area. There is also a DNR concrete fish barrier structure in the study area. The city has a long-term plan to construct a trail in the creek corridor, and Alternate 6 would provide an opportunity to construct a portion of it concurrent with the road project, plus provide an additional access point. Other Unique Resources Downstream of the Riley Creek crossing proposed as part of Alternate 6 is Frederick-Miller Spring. This unique and historic resource draws persons from well beyond Eden Prairie, some of whom visit daily to fill their water bottles. A number of smaller springs and seeps have been delineated along Riley Creek. Construction of Alternate 6 is not likely to impact flow in Miller Spring. The presence of delineated springs along the creek from the area north of the proposed Alternate 6 crossing to Spring Road is strong evidence the riparian area of the creek is in the groundwatershed of Riley Creek, not Miller Spring. Flow measurements in Riley Creek taken in late fall 2006 show an increasing flow from a point north of the proposed Alternate 6 crossing to Spring Road, further indicating that groundwater in the vicinity of the creek is being expressed into the creek, not into Miller Spring. While the groundwatershed of Miller Spring has not been delineated (Ekman, pers. comm., 2006; Obermeyer, pers. comm., 2006), the spring originates in the bluff area directly west across Spring Road from the current spring trough location. It is likely that the Miller Spring groundwatershed is west and northwest of the spring. It is unknown whether construction of Alternates 1 through 5 would impact Miller Spring. Construction of Alternate 6 may impact some of the smaller springs in the vicinity of the crossing and thus may impact baseflow in Riley Creek. Dewatering for construction and installation of a stormwater detention pond to treat road runoff may temporarily or permanently redirect local surficial groundwater being expressed in the small springs in the area. There is not enough information available on the hydrogeology of the area to predict the specific impacts to these springs or whether there would be any net loss of groundwater contributions to baseflow. To minimize localized groundwater impacts, infiltration should be considered where possible. However, this area is also highly sensitive to groundwater pollution, so any infiltration facilities should maximize treatment to minimize pollutant transport into the surficial groundwater. None identified. 26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? __Yes _X_No If yes, explain. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 16 As discussed in item #14 above, a part of Alternate 6 falls within a Shore Impact Zone. Roadways may be placed in the Shore Impact Zone provided the conditions of the city’s zoning code are met. Section 11.50 Subd. 12(c) requires roads to be set back at least 50 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level. A crossing by definition must cross through the Shore Impact Zone and across the water body. The City Council must evaluate whether a waiver from this requirement should be granted based on the need for road construction. Alternates 3, 4, 5, and 6 partly fall within a Bluff Impact Zone and would be subject to the city’s stormwater management ordinance provisions regarding construction on steep slopes. Similar to the Shore Impact Zone ordinance, Section 11.50 Subd. 12(c) requires roads in Bluff Impact Zones to be set back at least 50 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level. However, roads are permitted to be constructed on steep slopes provided adequate erosion control measures are taken. The City Council must evaluate whether erosion control measures proposed for any selected alternate for construction in the Bluff Impact Zone meets those requirements or whether a waiver should be granted based on the need for road construction. The alternates are also subject to regulations of the Riley-Bluff-Purgatory Creek Watershed District, under which any of these alternates would be compatible providing water quantity/quality and floodplain regulations are met. Construction of new roadway would require construction of additional storm sewer and/or stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as detention ponding or bioinfiltration/filtration. Land Use The area within which these Alternates are located includes a number of large-lot developments that are likely to redevelop over time as higher-density residential development. In fact, the City’s Comprehensive Guide Plan envisions this area, which is now zoned for large lot (one unit per 10 acres) single family development, as being in the future low density residential (0-2.5 units per acre). The extent, nature, and timing of this expected redevelopment is difficult to predict and is related mainly to market conditions. Construction of Alternates 1 or 2 may increase the attractiveness of redevelopment west of Eden Prairie Road by improving access, and that redevelopment may occur on a faster timeframe than expected. 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? _x_Yes __No. If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain. 28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? _X_Yes __No. If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for details.) 29. Cumulative impacts. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form). Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 17 Water Quality Redevelopment of any part of the study area would likely create more stormwater runoff and would be subject to city and Watershed District stormwater management and Nondegradation rules and standards that limit additional impacts to downstream water quantity and water quality. If redevelopment occurred after completion of an approved TMDL Implementation Plan, it may also be subject to specific requirements limiting or reducing turbidity impacts on Riley Creek and the Minnesota River. Any redevelopment would also be subject to bluff management, erosion control, tree conservation, and other city ordinances limiting impacts. These regulations would limit any additional downstream impacts to the water resources in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Transportation The City’s 1997 Transportation Plan evaluated transportation and road needs based on expected full build-out conditions, including conversion of the Study area from large lot to low density residential. In 2002 that was updated to take into account the expected year 2020 population. This Transportation Plan is again being reviewed and updated as a part of the 2008 Guide Plan Update. The Transportation Plan provides guidance on long-term transportation network needs. Localized traffic impacts are monitored annually and improvements such as intersection upgrades that may be required are considered through the City’s annual Capital Improvement Program. The road networks in place have the capacity to carry expected road volumes under full build-out. Dell Road is currently under design for future upgrade, and the intersection design of Turnbull Road and Dell Road and Dell Road and Flying Cloud Drive will take into account potential traffic impacts should Alternates 1 or 2 be selected. Other Impacts Visual impacts in the bluff zone have already occurred due to land and roadway development. Alternates 3, 4, and 5 may result in additional visual impacts and may be visible from the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge, adding to the cumulative visual impact. None identified. Because a preliminary design has already been developed for Alternate 6, this EAW has been able to more completely identify the potential environmental impacts of that Alternate than of the other Alternates, for which only conceptual designs were available. Should the City elect to provided with any of Alternates 1 to 5, then a more detailed environmental evaluation based on a more detailed preliminary design should be developed prior to more formal consideration of that Alternate. The following sections summarize mitigative measures and additional analysis that should be completed should the City decide to proceed with any of the Alternates. Mitigative Measures Cover Types • Reforest cleared areas where feasible. 30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. 31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EAW. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 18 Physical Impacts on Water Resources • Provide compensatory storage for floodplain areas filled by the project as needed. • Mitigate or replace filled wetlands as needed. Water Use • Design and incorporate temporary settling basin(s) to treat any temporary dewatering discharges due to creek crossing construction. Erosion and Sedimentation • Ensure compliance with the City’s stormwater management ordinance, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) stormwater pollution prevention program and Watershed District requirements. Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff • Incorporate infiltration, including rainwater gardens, grassed swales or stormwater ponds, to remove nutrients and sediment and reduce thermal loads to water resources. Geologic Hazards & Soil Conditions • Prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention program that includes best management practices for solid waste, hazardous waste and spill management. Other Unique Resources • Maximize use of infiltration where possible, while maximizing treatment prior to transport to the surficial groundwater. Additional Analysis Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources • Conduct an evaluation for special concern, threatened or endangered species within the selected corridor and prepare plans to avoid or minimize impacts to the identified species in conjunction with the DNR • Evaluate use of a bridge crossing (Alternative 6) to determine if it would significantly reduce impacts to upstream migration of fish, if needed • Evaluate stormwater treatment alternatives and their potential impacts to resources (including fish, wildlife, ecologically sensitive, water and archeological resources) within the selected corridor Physical Impacts on Water Resources • Evaluate construction of a bridge crossing (Alternative 6) to determine costs, construction limitations and whether it would significantly reduce impacts to the floodplain and/or wetlands within the crossing area • Evaluate culvert sizing to minimize increases in creek surface elevations and velocity impacts to the creek (Alternative 6) Archeological, Historical or Architectural Resources • Conduct an archeological study and prepare a mitigation plan as needed (Alternatives 1 through 4) for any areas within the construction limits prior to development of construction plans Other Unique Resources • Conduct further analysis to evaluate groundwater flow towards Frederick-Miller Spring as needed (Alternatives 1 through 5) Compatibility With Land Use Regulations • Evaluate the Shore Impact and Bluff Impact Zone ordinances and requirements to determine whether a waiver from any of these requirements would be necessary and should be granted based on the need for road construction, and any necessary mitigative measures. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 19 REFERENCES CITED Balaban, N. H. 1989. Geologic Atlas, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey Atlas C-4. St. Paul, MN. University of Minnesota. Ekman, Julie. 2006. Personal communication, 11/06. DNR Central Region 3 Area Hydrologist, Carver/Hennepin- South Counties. Ellison, Daryl. 2006. Personal communication, 11/06. DNR West Metro Area Fisheries Manager. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). 2005. 2003 Stream Monitoring Report. St. Paul, MN. Environmental Quality Assurance Department. <<http://www.metrocouncil.org/Environment/RiversLakes/Streams/StreamResults.htm>>. Accessed December 4, 2006. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2003. Riley Creek Stream Survey, Field Work 8-14-03 and 8- 15-03. Eden Prairie, MN. DNR file report. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2006. Minnesota Stormwater Manual. St. Paul, MN. <<http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/stormwater-manual.html>>. Accessed December 4, 2006. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2004. Hennepin County Soil Survey. <<http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/>>. Accessed December 4, 2006. Obermeyer, Bob. 2006. Personal communication, 11/06. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Engineer, Barr Engineering Company. Raleigh, Robert F. et al. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream Flow Suitability Curves: Brown Trout. US Department of the Interior: National Ecology Center, Division of Wildlife and Contaminant Research, Research and Development, Fish and Wildlife Service. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW April 2007 20 RGU CERTIFICATION. The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. • The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively. • Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature _________________________________________ Date ____________________________ Title ____________________________________________ The format of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at the Administration Department. For additional information, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651-296-8253, or http://www.eqb.state.mn.us Wenck Associates, Inc. Environmental Engineers CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Hennepin Village Roadway AlternativesGeneral Location Map DEC 2006 Figure 11800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429COPYRIGHT5052.5 Miles ³Mxd: L:\templates\templates\8.5x11_Portrait.mxd.mxtLast Modified: 3/27/2006 4:47:38 PM Hennepin County EdenPrairie ProjectLocation CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives Study Area DEC 2006 Figure 2 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives Areas With Steep Slopes DEC 2006 Figure 4COPYRIGHT5000500250 Feet -L:/0094/0094-12 EAW/mxd/Steep Slopes Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie RoadSpring RoadB e v erly DriveS ky La Dell RoadTurnbull Rd Dell RdSteep Slope data, Hennepin CountyRoadway Alternates and Estimated Grading Areas, City of Eden Priaire Roadway Alternate 6 Roadway Alternate 3 Roadway Alternate 4 Roadway Alternate 5 Roadway Alternate 1 Roadway Alternate 2 (Alignment to be determined) Roadway Alternative Streams Steep Slopes Areas where slopes of 12% to 18% are more likely to be found Areas where slopes greater than 18% are more likely to be found Estimated Grading Area 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429 Wenck Associates, Inc. Environmental Engineers https://ceds.org/traffic/ Traffic Impacts This section provides a description of the impacts commonly resulting from poorly managed growth. Options for preventing proposed development from causing these impacts is described in the next section: Preventing Traffic Impacts Caused By Proposed Development. Accidents According to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, nationwide motor vehicles accidents are: A leading cause of death; In 2012, more than 2.5 million drivers and passengers were treated in emergency rooms for injuries suffered in vehicle accidents; and Productivity losses and medical care costs due to traffic accidents total $80 billion annually. The six most common causes of vehicle accidents are: distraction, fatigue, being under the influence, speeding, aggressive driving and weather. However, poorly planned growth can exacerbate accident rates by increasing congestion, which tends to cause some drivers to speed up and take more risks. Or a new intersection may be created at a point where motorists traveling on one road cannot see approaching vehicles in time to avoid a collision. Turning a dead-end (cul-de-sac) street into a through-road can cause traffic volume to increase many fold along with an increase in average vehicle speed, the result of which is an increase in both vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist accidents. Air Quality & Health A typical U.S. car emits enough pollution to create five tons of carbon dioxide a year. Cars and trucks produce half of all toxic air pollution emitted in the U.S. Estimates indicate that air pollution from cars results in 120,000 premature deaths each year in the U.S. Traffic generated air pollution also accounts for $40-$50 billion in health care costs each year in this country. In addition to these regional issues, some proposed development projects can create localized air quality problems. Locating a truck stop next to homes could create a health issue if diesel engines are idling for long periods. And whenever there is a large increase in truck traffic on a road lined with homes there will likely be an increase in the concentration of the particles emitted from diesel engines that account for most of the respiratory impact. There is some evidence indicating that those living within 600 feet of a major highway may be particularly at risk due air pollution. Large gas stations are another source but are addressed on the CEDS Convenience Stores & Gas Stations webpage. Aquatic Resource Impacts A new road can destroy aquatic resources when built upon a wetland, stream or other aquatic resource. One would think that this is no longer permitted, but that’s sadly not the case. Nationwide thousands of permits are issued annually allowing new development – particularly roads – to be built within waterways. But the greatest impact is the tremendous quantity of pollution washed from road surfaces with each storm. These pollutants include nutrients, sediment, and road salt along with a long list of toxic and even carcinogenic contaminants. A large portion of the pollution comes from vehicle exhaust as well as engine-body wear. Generally, as traffic volume increases the quantity of these pollutants increases as well. While these impacts can be greatly reduced they cannot be eliminated. This is why its vital that new roads be restricted where they may impact high-quality waters or highly-sensitive aquatic resources. Noise, Health & Property Value Traffic noise can interfere with sleep, conversation, and other neighborhood pursuits. About 9.5% of us are exposed to traffic noise at a level which affects health. Sound becomes noise when it interferes with our quality of life. Sound is measured in units known as decibels (dB) and highway noise is measured on an “A-weighted decibel” (dBA) scale. 70 dBA is eight times as loud as 60 dBA. The noise level in a library might be 30 dBA while an air conditioner would emit 60 dBA. Traffic volume, speed, and vehicle type all affect noise levels. At 2,000 vehicles per hour (vph) traffic noise will sound twice as loud as at 200 vph. Traffic moving at 65 mph will sound twice as loud as at 30 mph. And one truck traveling at 55 mph will sound as loud as 28 cars moving at the same speed. Traffic noise can have a significant effect on property value. A home located adjacent to a major highway may sell for 8% to 10% less when compared to one located along a quiet neighborhood street. Heavy truck traffic lowers property value at a rate 150 times greater than cars. This is because at 50 feet heavy trucks emit noise at 90 dBA while a car traffic produces noise at a level of 50 dBA.5 An increase in heavy truck traffic may also cause damage to nearby homes through vibrations transmitted through the earth. While some truck traffic is essential on neighborhood streets (e.g. refuse collection, delivery trucks, and fire engines) an increase in trucks passing through a neighborhood could lower property value and overall quality of life. Land uses that generate large amounts of truck traffic, such as mining, landfills or power plants, should be sited where there’s direct access to major highways; not residential streets. Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety In 2013, 4,735 pedestrians were killed in the U.S. by automobiles and 55% of these fatalities occurred on neighborhood streets. For every pedestrian killed by a car, another 15 were injured. Speed is a major factor determining whether a pedestrian will be killed or injured by an automobile. A pedestrian is nine times more likely to die if struck by a car traveling at 30 mph compared to 20 mph. Other factors contributing to the high pedestrian accident rate on neighborhood streets include lack of adequate sidewalks, bike lanes, and crossings. Wasted Time Traffic congestion is one of the most frustrating and costly symptoms of poorly regulated growth. Today a typical commuter spends an extra 42 hours traveling due to congestion which is up from 18 hours in 1982. Every weekday we spend 14.5 million hours stuck in congested traffic. That’s a lot of time spent unproductively. In 2014, the costs related to congestion totaled $160 billion nationally. And we wasted 3.1 billion gallons of fuel while stuck in congestion. While one often hears that new development is needed to bolster the local economy, it is rare to see the other side of the balance sheet showing for each dollar added how much is lost due to wasted time along with health impacts, reduced property value, etc. This issue is addressed in detail below under the heading Congestion & Economic Development. Wildlife New roads can harm wildlife if wetlands or waterways are destroyed, upland forests or other habitat is bulldozed away, barriers to fish and wildlife migrations are created and due to vehicle collisions with wildlife once the road is built. Of course pollutants washed from road surfaces also harms wildlife. Traffic noise also has a significant, negative effect on birds and mammals. Nationwide one- to two-million animals are killed on our roads annually. Preventing Impacts from Proposed Development A new housing project, office building or shopping center can increase congestion and delay, cause accident rates to increase or turn a once quiet neighborhood street into a noisy danger zone. Following is a brief description of the traffic related issues CEDS examines when reviewing a proposed development project. Through our Equitable Solutions and Smart Legal Strategy approach we resolve 90% of the issues we identify. If you wish CEDS can review plans for a project of concern to you. Usually we can do a no-cost quick (one-hour) review for a number of issues, but not all. Some require a lengthy review by one of our traffic engineers or other professionals. These reviews are done for a modest fee. To get your project on our brief waiting list contact us at Help@ceds.org or 410-654-3021. Adequate Public Facilities An Adequate Public Facilities law restricts development when traffic congestion would exceed a specific threshold. An APF law is also known as concurrency requirements, a subdivision staging policy, growth policy, and by other labels. To prevent excessive delay and an increase in traffic accidents the law must either: prohibit development that would exceed the threshold, or require the developer to make the road improvements needed to increase traffic capacity and drop congestion below the threshold. Usually the threshold is defined by a Level Of Service standard. Level of Service (LOS) grades traffic congestion on a scale of A to F. Like school grades, A is best while F is gridlock. At an LOS of E you’ll spend two to four times longer in congested traffic compared to a D level of service. In suburban-urban areas an LOS of E-F is usually considered unacceptable. Development should be prohibited if it will add traffic to roads with an LOS of E or F. Growth should also be restricted if it would cause LOS to decline from D to E. However, some ultra-urban areas allow LOS to reach E before imposing development restrictions. In rural areas C may be the most severe congestion considered acceptable. Many local governments lack a formal Adequate Public Facilities law but their zoning-subdivision regulations contain a requirement that development not cause an adverse effect on public safety. There are usually even more traffic-specific requirements. The requirements can be used to prevent excessive congestion in the same way as an Adequate Public Facilities law. Nevertheless, you may wish to consider calling for the adoption of the APF law, though this may require State authorizing legislation. For advice on changing the law see Chapter 41 in the free CEDS 300-page book How To Win Land Development Issues. For further information on Adequate Public Facility laws see: Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances: An Effective Land Use Tool for Local Governments in Georgia; Creating Effective Land Use Regulations through Concurrency; Concurrency: Levels of Service for Public Access; or Keeping a Foot in Each Camp: Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances as Both a Concurrency Tool and Means of Generating Revenue. Aquatic Resource Impact Minimization Traffic related impacts to wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes and tidal waters result from building new roads within 100 feet of these aquatic resources or from the pollutants washed from road surfaces by stormwater. Groundwater is another aquatic resource which can impacted by covering the land surface with asphalt, concrete or other impervious surfaces. These impervious materials prevent precipitation from soaking into the earth and recharging groundwater systems. But traffic pollutants can also be carried into adjoining soils and cause well contamination. Road salt is probably the best example of a traffic related polluted which has caused extensive ground and surface water contamination. With the exception of road salt, stormwater filtering-infiltration systems are highly effective in removing most pollutants from road runoff and maintaining groundwater recharge. IMPACTS of ImperviousCover onAquatic Systems Center forWatershedProtection March 2003 Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1 Cover photograph Ellicott City, Maryland 2003. Courtesy Anne Kitchell, Center for Watershed Protection. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems March 2003 Prepared by: Center for Watershed Protection 8391 Main Street Ellicott City, MD 21043 www.cwp.org www.stormwatercenter.net Copyright (c) 2003 by the Center for Watershed Protection. Material may be quoted provided credit is given. Printed in the United States of Amercia on recycled paper. Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems i Foreword Foreword We are extremely pleased to launch the first edition of a new series called Watershed Protection Research Monographs. Each monograph will synthesize emerging research within a major topical area in the practice of watershed protection. The series of periodic monographs will replace our journal Watershed Protection Techniques, which lapsed in 2002. We hope this new format will provide watershed managers with the science and perspectives they need to better protect and restore their local watersheds. This monograph was written to respond to many inquiries from watershed managers and policy makers seeking to understand the scientific basis behind the relationship between impervious cover and the health of aquatic ecosystems. It reviews more than 225 research studies that have explored the impact of impervious cover and other indicators of urbanization on aquatic systems. This report comprehensively reviews the available scien- tific data on how urbanization influences hydrologic, physical, water quality, and biological indicators of aquatic health, as of late 2002. Our intention was to organize the available scientific data in a manner that was accessible to watershed leaders, policy-makers and agency staff. In addition, the research itself, which spans dozens of different academic departments and disciplines, was conducted in many different eco-regions, climatic zones, and stream types. In order to communicate across such a wide audience, we have resorted to some simplifications, avoided some impor- tant particulars, refrained from some jargon, and tried, wherever possible, to use consistent terminology. Thus, the interpretations and conclusions contained in this document are ours alone, and our readers are encouraged to consult the original sources when in doubt. We would also like to note that the Center for Watershed Protection and the University of Alabama are currently developing a major national database on stormwater quality. The database will contain nearly 4,000 station- storm events collected by municipalities as part of the U.S. EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I Storm- water Permit Program. We anticipate releasing a data report in late 2003 that will provide a much needed update of stormwater event mean concentrations (EMCs). As of this writing, many research efforts are underway that will further test and refine these relationships (most notably, the U.S. Geologi- cal Survey gradients initiative, but also many other local, state and academic efforts). We hope that this report provides a useful sum- mary of the existing science, suggests some directions for new research, and stimulates greater discussion of this important topic in watershed management. We also feel it is time for a major conference or symposium, where this diverse community can join together to discuss methods, findings and the important policy implications of their research. ii Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Foreword Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems iii Acknowledgments Acknowledgments Putting this first research monograph together took a lot of energy, editing and analysis, and many Center staff devoted their time and energy over the last two years to get it done. The project team consisted of Karen Cappiella, Deb Caraco, Samantha Corbin, Heather Holland, Anne Kitchell, Stephanie Linebaugh, Paul Sturm, and Chris Swann. Special thanks are extended to Tiffany Wright, who worked tirelessly to assemble, edit and otherwise polish the final draft. I am also grateful to Michael Paul of Tetratech, Inc., who graciously provided us with an exten- sive literature review from his PhD days at the University of Georgia that contained many obscure and hard to find citations. Portions of this monograph were developed as part of a literature review conducted as part of a work assignment for the U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management in 2001, which proved indispensable in our efforts. Lastly, I would like to thank the hundreds of scientists who have contributed their time and data to explore and test the relation- ships between urbanization and aquatic health. Tom Schueler Center for Watershed Protection iv Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Acknowledgments Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems v Table of Contents Table of Contents Foreword ..................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................... iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...........................................................................................................xi Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Is Impervious Cover Still Important? A Review of Recent Stream Research ............................ 1 1.1.1 Strength of the Evidence for the ICM..................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Reinterpretation of the ICM..................................................................................... 5 1.1.3 Influence of Watershed Treatment Practices on the ICM ................................... 9 1.1.4 Recommendations for Further ICM Research..................................................... 12 1.2 Impacts of Urbanization on Downstream Receiving Waters.................................................... 14 1.2.1 Relationship Between Impervious Cover and Stormwater Quality................... 14 1.2.2 Water Quality Response to Stormwater Pollution................................................ 15 1.2.3 Effect of Watershed Treatment on Stormwater Quality ..................................... 18 1.3 Implications of the ICM for Watershed Managers .................................................................... 21 1.3.1 Management of Non-Supporting Streams............................................................ 21 1.3.2 Use of the ICM for Urban Stream Classification .................................................. 22 1.3.3 Role of the ICM In Small Watershed Planning ..................................................... 22 1.4 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 24 Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 25 2.2 Increased Runoff Volume............................................................................................................. 27 2.3 Increased Peak Discharge Rate.................................................................................................. 30 2.4 Increased Bankfull Flow ................................................................................................................ 31 2.5 Decreased Baseflow..................................................................................................................... 34 2.6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 37 Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover 3.1 Difficulty in Measuring Habitat..................................................................................................... 40 3.1.1 The Habitat Problem............................................................................................... 40 3.2 Changes in Stream Geometry..................................................................................................... 42 3.2.1 Channel Enlargement............................................................................................ 42 3.2.2 Effect of Channel Enlargement on Sediment Yield............................................ 45 3.3 Effect on Composite Measures of Stream Habitat.................................................................... 46 3.4 Effect on Individual Elements of Stream Habitat ....................................................................... 47 3.4.1 Bank Erosion and Bank Stability............................................................................. 47 3.4.2 Embeddedness ....................................................................................................... 47 3.4.3 Large Woody Debris (LWD).................................................................................... 49 3.4.4 Changes in Other Individual Stream Parameters ............................................... 49 3.5 Increased Stream Warming ......................................................................................................... 50 3.6 Alteration of Stream Channel Networks ..................................................................................... 52 3.6.1 Channel Modification ............................................................................................ 52 3.6.2 Barriers to Fish Migration......................................................................................... 53 3.7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 54 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 55 4.2 Summary of National and Regional Stormwater Pollutant Concentration Data .................. 56 4.2.1 National Data.......................................................................................................... 56 4.2.2 Regional Differences Due to Rainfall ................................................................... 56 4.2.3 Cold Region Snowmelt Data................................................................................. 58 4.3 Relationship Between Pollutant Loads and Impervious Cover: The Simple Method............. 61 4.4 Sediment .................................................................................................................................. 63 vi Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Table of Contents 4.4.1 Concentrations ....................................................................................................... 63 4.4.2 Impacts of Sediment on Streams .......................................................................... 63 4.4.3 Sources and Source Areas of Sediment .............................................................. 64 4.5 Nutrients .................................................................................................................................. 67 4.5.1 Concentrations ....................................................................................................... 67 4.5.2 Impacts of Nutrients on Streams ........................................................................... 68 4.5.3 Sources and Source Areas of Nutrients................................................................ 69 4.6 Trace Metals .................................................................................................................................. 71 4.6.1 Concentrations ....................................................................................................... 71 4.6.2 Impacts of Metals on Streams ............................................................................... 72 4.6.3 Sources and Source Areas of Trace Metals......................................................... 73 4.7 Hydrocarbons: PAH, Oil and Grease......................................................................................... 75 4.7.1 Concentrations ....................................................................................................... 75 4.7.2 Impacts of Hydrocarbons on Streams .................................................................. 75 4.7.3 Sources and Source Areas of Hydrocarbons ...................................................... 76 4.8 Bacteria & Pathogens .................................................................................................................. 77 4.8.1 Concentrations ....................................................................................................... 77 4.8.2 Impacts of Bacteria and Pathogens on Streams ................................................ 79 4.8.3 Sources and Source Areas of Bacteria and Pathogens .................................... 80 4.9 Organic Carbon............................................................................................................................ 82 4.9.1 Concentrations ....................................................................................................... 82 4.9.2 Impacts of Organic Carbon on Streams.............................................................. 82 4.9.3 Sources and Source Areas of Total Organic Carbon ......................................... 82 4.10 MTBE .................................................................................................................................. 83 4.10.1 Concentrations ....................................................................................................... 83 4.10.2 Impacts of MTBE on Streams.................................................................................. 83 4.10.3 Sources and Source Areas of MTBE ...................................................................... 84 4.11 Pesticides ............................................................................................................................... 85 4.11.1 Concentrations ....................................................................................................... 86 4.11.2 Impacts of Pesticides on Streams ......................................................................... 86 4.11.3 Sources and Source Areas of Pesticides.............................................................. 87 4.12 Deicers .................................................................................................................................. 88 4.12.1 Concentrations ....................................................................................................... 89 4.12.2 Impacts of Deicers on Streams ............................................................................. 89 4.12.3 Sources and Source Areas of Deicers .................................................................. 90 4.13 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 91 Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 93 5.2 Indicators and General Trends .................................................................................................... 95 5.2.1 Biological Indicators.................................................................................................95 5.2.2 Watershed Development Indices .......................................................................... 95 5.2.3 General Trends ......................................................................................................... 97 5.3 Effects on Aquatic Insect Diversity ............................................................................................ 100 5.3.1 Findings Based on Impervious Cover Indicators.................................................. 100 5.3.2 Findings Based on Other Development Indicators ............................................. 104 5.4 Effects on Fish Diversity ............................................................................................................... 105 5.4.1 Findings Based on Impervious Cover Indicators.................................................. 105 5.4.2 Findings Based on other Development Indicators .............................................. 110 5.5 Effects on Amphibian Diversity .................................................................................................. 112 5.6 Effects on Wetland Diversity....................................................................................................... 114 5.7 Effects on Freshwater Mussel Diversity ......................................................................................115 5.8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 116 References ................................................................................................................................ 117 Glossary ................................................................................................................................ 137 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems vii Table of Contents List of Tables 1 The Strength of Evidence: A Review of Current Research on Urban Stream Quality Indicators .............................................................................................................................4 2 Land Use/IC Relationships for Suburban Areas of the Chesapeake Bay ..................................9 3 Summary of Urban Stormwater Pollutant Loads on Quality of Receiving Waters...................14 4 The Effectiveness of Stormwater Treatment Practices in Removing Pollutants - Percent Removal Rate...............................................................................................18 5 Median Effluent Concentrations from Stormwater Treatment Practices.................................19 6 Additional Considerations for Urban Stream Classification .......................................................23 7 Research Review of Increased Runoff Volume and Peak Discharge in Urban Streams........28 8 Hydrologic Differences Between a Parking Lot and a Meadow..............................................29 9 Comparison of Bulk Density for Undisturbed Soils and Common Urban Conditions...............29 10 Research Review of Increased Bankfull Discharge in Urban Streams......................................32 11 Research Review of Decreased Baseflow in Urban Streams ....................................................34 12 Physical Impacts of Urbanization on Streams .............................................................................41 13 Research Review of Channel Enlargement and Sediment Transport in Urban Streams........43 14 Research Review of Changes in Urban Stream Habitat............................................................48 15 Research Review of Thermal Impacts in Urban Streams ...........................................................50 16 National EMCs for Stormwater Pollutants ....................................................................................57 17 Regional Groupings by Annual Rainfall Amount ........................................................................58 18 Stormwater Pollutant EMCs for Different U.S. Regions................................................................59 19 Mean and Median Nutrient and Sediment Stormwater Concentrations for Residential Land Use Based on Rainfall Regions.........................................................................59 20 EPA 1986 Water Quality Standards and Percentage of Metal Concentrations Exceeding Water Quality Standards by Rainfall Region ............................................................60 21 Runoff and Pollutant Characteristics of Snowmelt Stages ........................................................60 22 EMCs for Total Suspended Solids and Turbidity ...........................................................................63 23 Summary of Impacts of Suspended Sediment on the Aquatic Environment..........................64 24 Summary of Impacts of Deposited Sediments on the Aquatic Environment..........................64 25 Sources and Loading of Suspended Solids Sediment in Urban Areas......................................65 26 Source Area Geometric Mean Concentrations for Suspended Solids in Urban Areas..........66 27 Mean TSS Inflow and Outflow at Uncontrolled, Controlled and Model Construction Sites ...66 28 EMCs of Phosphorus and Nitrogen Urban Stormwater Pollutants.............................................67 29 Source Area Monitoring Data for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus in Urban Areas........69 30 EMCs and Detection Frequency for Metals in Urban Stormwater............................................71 31 Average Total Recoverable and Dissolved Metals for 13 Stormwater Flows and Nine Baseflow Samples from Lincoln Creek in 1994 ...................................................................72 32 Percentage of In-situ Flow-through Toxicity Tests Using Daphnia magna and Pimephales promelas with Significant Toxic Effects from Lincoln Creek..................................73 33 Metal Sources and Source Area “Hotspots” in Urban Areas.....................................................74 34 Metal Source Area Concentrations in the Urban Landscape ..................................................74 35 Hydrocarbon EMCs in Urban Areas..............................................................................................75 36 Bacteria EMCs in Urban Areas ......................................................................................................78 37 Cryptosporidium and Giardia EMCs............................................................................................79 38 Percent Detection of Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts in Subwatersheds and Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent in the New York City Water Supply Watersheds ..........80 39 Typical Coliform Standards for Different Water Uses ..................................................................80 40 EMCs for Organic Carbon in Urban Areas ..................................................................................82 41 MTBE Detection Frequency ...........................................................................................................83 42 Median Concentrations and Detection Frequency of Herbicides and Insecticides in Urban Streams .......................................................................................................85 43 Use and Water Quality Effect of Snowmelt Deicers ...................................................................88 44 EMCs for Chloride in Snowmelt and Stormwater Runoff in Urban Areas .................................89 45 Summary of State Standards for Salinity of Receiving Waters...................................................90 viii Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Table of Contents 46 Review of Stressors to Urban Streams and Effects on Aquatic Life...........................................94 47 Examples of Biodiversity Metrics Used to Assess Aquatic Communities ...................................96 48 Alternate Land Use Indicators and Significant Impact Levels ..................................................98 49 Recent Research Examining the Relationship Between IC and Aquatic Insect Diversity in Streams............................................................................................................101 50 Recent Research Examining the Relationship of Other Indices of Watershed Development on Aquatic Insect Diversity in Streams ..............................................................102 51 Recent Research Examining the Relationship Between Watershed IC and the Fish Community..............................................................................................................106 52 Recent Research Examining Urbanization and Freshwater Fish Community Indicators ......108 53 Recent Research on the Relationship Between Percent Watershed Urbanization and the Amphibian Community..........................................................................113 54 Recent Research Examining the Relationship Between Watershed Development and Urban Wetlands ....................................................................................................................114 List of Figures 1 Impervious Cover Model .................................................................................................................2 2 Typical Scatter Found in IC/Stream Quality Indicator Research ................................................5 3 Relationship of IC and FC in Puget Sound Subwatersheds .........................................................6 4 The Double Scatter Problem: Difficulties in Detecting the Effect of Watershed Treatment ..10 5 Estimated Phosphorous Load as a Function of IC, Discounted Stormwater Treatment and Better Site Design .................................................................................................19 6 Altered Hydrograph in Response to Urbanization ......................................................................25 7 Runoff Coefficient vs. IC................................................................................................................27 8 Discharge for Urban and Rural Streams in North Carolina ........................................................30 9 Effect on Flood Magnitudes of 30% Basin IC...............................................................................31 10 Relationship of Urban/Rural 100-year Peak Flow Ratio to Basin Development Factor and IC.........................................................................................................31 11 Increase in Bankfull Flows Due to Urbanization...........................................................................32 12 Increase in Number of Exceedences of Bankfull Flow Over Time With Urbanization.............33 13 Percent of Gage Reading Above Mean Annual Flow ..............................................................33 14 Relationship Between Baseflow and Watershed Impervious Cover ........................................34 15 Baseflow Response to Urbanization .............................................................................................35 16 Relationship Between Percentage Baseflow and Percent IC ..................................................35 17 Effect of IC on Summer Baseflow (Corrected for Catchment Area) .......................................36 18 Effect of Watershed IC on Summer Stream Velocity..................................................................36 19 Urban Stream Channels with Progressively Greater IC ..............................................................40 20 Increased Shear Stress from a Hydrograph .................................................................................42 21 Stream Channel Enlargement in Watts Branch ..........................................................................44 22 Ultimate Channel Enlargement ....................................................................................................45 23 Relationship Between Habitat Quality and IC in Maine Streams..............................................46 24 Fine Material Sediment Deposition as a Function of IC .............................................................47 25 LWD as a Function of IC.................................................................................................................49 26 Stream Temperature Increase in Response to Urbanization .....................................................51 27 Drainage Network of Rock Creek, D.C. and Four Mile Creek, VA Before and After Urbanization ......................................................................................................52 28 Fish Migration Barriers in the Urbanized Anacostia Watershed .................................................53 29 Snowmelt Runoff Hydrograph.......................................................................................................60 30 The Simple Method - Basic Equations ..........................................................................................61 31 TSS from Bank Erosion vs. IC ...........................................................................................................65 32 Nitrate-Nitrogen Concentration in Stormwater Runoff ..............................................................68 33 Total Phosphorus Concentration in Stormwater .........................................................................68 34 Total Phosphorus From Bank Erosion as a Function of IC ...........................................................70 35 Fecal Coliform Levels in Urban Stormwater ................................................................................77 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems ix Table of Contents 36 Relationship Between IC and Fecal Coliform Concentrations .................................................79 37 MTBE Concentrations in Surface Water from Eight Cities ..........................................................83 38 Concentrations of Pesticides in Stormwater in King County, WA .............................................87 39 U.S. Highway Salt Usage Data.......................................................................................................88 40 Combined Fish and Benthic IBI vs. IC ...........................................................................................98 41 Relationship Between B-IBI, Coho/Cutthroat Ratios, and Watershed IC .................................99 42 Index for Biological Integrity as a Function of Population Density ............................................99 43 Trend Line Indicating Decline in Benthic IBI as IC Increases....................................................103 44 Compilation of Puget Lowland Watershed Biological Data ...................................................103 45 IC and IBI at Stream Sites in the Patapsco River Basin, MD .....................................................103 46 IC vs. Aquatic Insect Sensitivity - EPT scores in Delaware Streams..........................................103 47 Average and Spring EPT Index Values vs. % IC in 20 Small Watersheds in Maine..................104 48 Fish IBI vs. Watershed IC for Streams in Patapsco River Basin, MD ..........................................105 49 Fish IBI and Number of Species vs. % IC in Wisconsin Streams.................................................107 50 IC and Effects on Fish Species Diversity in Four Maryland Subwatersheds ............................107 51 Coho Salmon/Cutthroat Trout Ratio for Puget Sound..............................................................109 52 Mean Proportion of Fish Taxa in Urban and Non-Urban Streams, Valley Forge Watershed, PA ........................................................................................................110 53 Relationship Between Watershed Population Density and Stream IBI Scores .......................111 54 Amphibian Species Richness as a Function of Watershed IC in Puget Sound Lowland Wetlands.................................................................................................113 x Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Table of Contents Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems xi Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and Abbreviations B-IBI Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity BOD Biological Oxygen Demand BSD Better Site Design C-IBI Combined Index of Biotic Integrity cfs cubic feet per second COD Chemical Oxygen Demand CSO Combined Sewer Overflow Cu Copper DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon du/ac dwelling units per acre EMC Event Mean Concentration EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera FC Forest Cover GIS Geographic Information Systems IBI Index of Biotic Integrity IC Impervious Cover ICM Impervious Cover Model lbs/ac pounds per acre LWD Large Woody Debris mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/l milligrams per liter (equal to ppm) MPN Most Probable Number MTBE Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether N Number of Studies N/R data not reported NO2 Nitrite NO3 Nitrate NOx Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit NURP National Urban Runoff Program PAH Polycylic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl ppb Parts per billion (equal to ug/l) ppm Parts per million (equal to mg/l) RBP Rapid Bioassessment Protocol SLAMM Source Loading Assessment/ Management Model SPMD Semi-Permeable Membrane Device SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow STP Stormwater Treatment Practice TC Turf Cover TDS Total Dissolved Solids TKN Total Kjeldhal Nitrogen TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load Total N Total Nitrogen Total P Total Phosphorous TOC Total Organic Carbon TSS Total Suspended Solids ug/l micrograms per liter (equal to ppb) VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compound WLF Water Level Fluctuation WTP Wastewater Treatment Plant xii Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Acronyms and Abbreviations Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 1: Introduction This research monograph comprehensively reviews the available scientific data on the impacts of urbanization on small streams and receiving waters. These impacts are generally classified according to one of four broad categories: changes in hydrologic, physical, water quality or biological indicators. More than 225 research studies have documented the adverse impact of urbanization on one or more of these key indicators. In general, most research has focused on smaller watersheds, with drainage areas ranging from a few hun- dred acres up to ten square miles. Streams vs. Downstream Receiving Waters Urban watershed research has traditionally pursued two core themes. One theme has evaluated the direct impact of urbanization on small streams, whereas the second theme has explored the more indirect impact of urbaniza- tion on downstream receiving waters, such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries and coastal areas. This report is organized to profile recent research progress in both thematic areas and to discuss the implications each poses for urban watershed managers. When evaluating the direct impact of urbaniza- tion on streams, researchers have emphasized hydrologic, physical and biological indicators to define urban stream quality. In recent years, impervious cover (IC) has emerged as a key paradigm to explain and sometimes predict how severely these stream quality indicators change in response to different levels of watershed development. The Center for Watershed Protection has integrated these research findings into a general watershed planning model, known as the impervious cover model (ICM). The ICM predicts that most stream quality indicators decline when watershed IC exceeds 10%, with severe degradation expected beyond 25% IC. In the first part of this review, we critically analyze the scientific basis for the ICM and explore some of its more interesting technical implica- tions. While many researchers have monitored the quality of stormwater runoff from small watersheds, few have directly linked these pollutants to specific water quality problems within streams (e.g., toxicity, biofouling, eutrophication). Instead, the prevailing view is that stormwater pollutants are a downstream export. That is, they primarily influence downstream receiving water quality. There- fore, researchers have focused on how to estimate stormwater pollutant loads and then determine the water quality response of the rivers, lakes and estuaries that receive them. To be sure, there is an increasing recognition that runoff volume can influence physical and biological indicators within some receiving waters, but only a handful of studies have explored this area. In the second part of this review, we review the impacts of urbanization on downstream receiving waters, primarily from the standpoint of stormwater quality. We also evaluate whether the ICM can be extended to predict water quality in rivers, lakes and estuaries. This chapter is organized as follows: 1.1 A Review of Recent Urban Stream Research and the ICM 1.2 Impacts of Urbanization on Downstream Receiving Waters 1.3 Implications of the ICM for Watershed Managers 2 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 A Review of Recent Urban Stream Research and the ICM In 1994, the Center published “The Importance of Imperviousness,” which outlined the scien- tific evidence for the relationship between IC and stream quality. At that time, about two dozen research studies documented a reason- ably strong relationship between watershed IC and various indicators of stream quality. The research findings were subsequently integrated into the ICM (Schueler, 1994a and CWP, 1998). A brief summary of the basic assump- tions of the ICM can be found in Figure 1. The ICM has had a major influence in watershed planning, stream classification and land use regulation in many communities. The ICM is a deceptively simple model that raises extremely complex and profound policy implications for watershed managers. The ICM has been widely applied in many urban watershed settings for the purposes of small watershed planning, stream classifica- tion, and supporting restrictive development regulations and watershed zoning. As such, the ICM has stimulated intense debate among the planning, engineering and scientific communi- ties. This debate is likely to soon spill over into the realm of politics and the courtroom, given its potential implications for local land use and environmental regulation. It is no wonder that the specter of scientific uncertainty is fre- quently invoked in the ICM debate, given the land use policy issues at stake. In this light, it is helpful to review the current strength of the evidence for and against the ICM. The ICM is based on the following assump- tions and caveats: •Applies only to 1st, 2nd and 3rd order streams. •Requires accurate estimates of percent IC, which is defined as the total amount of impervious cover over a subwatershed area. •Predicts potential rather than actual stream quality. It can and should be expected that some streams will depart from the predic- tions of the model. For example, monitor- ing indicators may reveal poor water quality in a stream classified as “sensitive” or a surprisingly high biological diversity Watershed Impervious CoverStream QualityFigure 1: Impervious Cover Model Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 3 Chapter 1: Introduction score in a “non-supporting” one. Conse- quently, while IC can be used to initially diagnose stream quality, supplemental field monitoring is recommended to actually confirm it. •Does not predict the precise score of an individual stream quality indicator but rather predicts the average behavior of a group of indicators over a range of IC. Extreme care should be exercised if the ICM is used to predict the fate of indi- vidual species (e.g., trout, salmon, mus- sels). •“Thresholds” defined as 10 and 25% IC are not sharp “breakpoints,” but instead reflect the expected transition of a composite of individual indicators in that range of IC. Thus, it is virtually impossible to distin- guish real differences in stream quality indicators within a few percentage points of watershed IC (e.g., 9.9 vs. 10.1%). •Should only be applied within the ecoregions where it has been tested, including the mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Southeast, Upper Midwest, and Pacific Northwest. •Has not yet been validated for non-stream conditions (e.g., lakes, reservoirs, aquifers and estuaries). •Does not currently predict the impact of watershed treatment. In this section, we review available stream research to answer four questions about the ICM: 1. Does recent stream research still support the basic ICM? 2. What, if any, modifications need to be made to the ICM? 3. To what extent can watershed practices shift the predictions of the ICM? 4. What additional research is needed to test the ICM? 1.1.1 Strength of the Evidence for the ICM Many researchers have investigated the IC/ stream quality relationship in recent years. The Center recently undertook a comprehensive analysis of the literature to assess the scientific basis for the ICM. As of the end of 2002, we discovered more than 225 research studies that measured 26 different urban stream indicators within many regions of North America. We classified the research studies into three basic groups. The first and most important group consists of studies that directly test the IC/stream quality indicator relationship by monitoring a large population of small watersheds. The second and largest group encompasses secondary studies that indirectly support the ICM by showing significant differences in stream quality indicators between urban and non- urban watersheds. The third and last group of studies includes widely accepted engineering models that explicitly use IC to directly predict stream quality indicators. Examples include engineering models that predict peak discharge or stormwater pollutant loads as a direct function of IC. In most cases, these relation- ships were derived from prior empirical research. Table 1 provides a condensed summary of recent urban stream research, which shows the impressive growth in our understanding of urban streams and the watershed factors that influence them. A negative relationship between watershed development and nearly all of the 26 stream quality indicators has been established over many regions and scientific disciplines. About 50 primary studies have tested the IC/stream quality indicator relation- ship, with the largest number looking at biological indicators of stream health, such as the diversity of aquatic insects or fish. Another 150 or so secondary studies provide evidence that stream quality indicators are significantly different between urban and non-urban water- sheds, which lends at least indirect support for the ICM and suggests that additional research to directly test the IC/stream quality indicator 4 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 1: Introduction Table 1: The Strength of Evidence: A Review of the Current Research on Urban Stream Indicators Stream Quality Indicator #IC UN EM RV Notes Increased Runoff Volume 2 Y Y Y N extensive national data Increased Peak Discharge 7 Y Y Y Y type of drainage system key Increased Frequency of Bankfull Flow 2 ?Y N N hard to measure Diminished Baseflow 8 ?Y N Y inconclusive data Stream Channel Enlargement 8 Y Y N Y stream type important Increased Channel Modification 4 Y Y N ?stream enclosure Loss of Riparian Continuity 4 Y Y N ?can be affected by buffer Reduced Large Woody Debris 4 Y Y N ?Pacific NW studies Decline in Stream Habitat Quality 11 Y Y N ? Changes in Pool Riffle/Structure 4 Y Y N ? Reduced Channel Sinuosity 1 ?Y N ?straighter channels Decline in Streambed Quality 2 Y Y N ?embeddedness Increased Stream Temperature 5 Y Y N ?buffers and ponds also a factor Increased Road Crossings 3 ?Y N ?create fish barriers Increased Nutrient Load 30+?Y Y N higher stormwater EMCs Increased Sediment Load 30+?Y N Y higher EMCs in arid regions Increased Metals & Hydrocarbons 20+?Y Y N related to traffic/VMT Increased Pesticide Levels 7 ?Y N Y may be related to turf cover Increased Chloride Levels 5 ?Y N Y related to road density Violations of Bacteria Standards 9 Y Y N Y indirect association Decline in Aquatic Insect Diversity 33 Y Y N N IBI and EPT Decline in Fish Diversity 19 Y Y N N regional IBI differences Loss of Coldwater Fish Species 6 Y Y N N trout and salmon Reduced Fish Spawning 3 Y Y N ? Decline in Wetland Plant Diversity 2 N Y N ?water level fluctuation Decline in Amphibian Community 5 Y Y N ?few studies #: total number of all studies that evaluated the indicator for urban watersheds IC: does balance of studies indicate a progressive change in the indicator as IC increases? Answers: Yes, No or No data (?) UN: If the answer to IC is no, does the balance of the studies show a change in the indicator from non-urban to urban watersheds? Yes or No EM Is the IC/stream quality indicator relationship implicitly assumed within the framework of widely accepted engineering models? Yes, No or No models yet exist (?) RV: If the relationship has been tested in more than one eco-region, does it generally show major differences between ecoregions? Answers: Yes, No, or insufficient data (?) Table 1: The Strength of Evidence: A Review of the Current Research on Urban Stream Indicators Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 5 Chapter 1: Introduction relationship is warranted. In some cases, the IC/stream quality indicator relationship is considered so strongly established by historical research that it has been directly incorporated into accepted engineering models. This has been particularly true for hydrological and water quality indicators. 1.1.2 Reinterpretation of the ICM Although the balance of recent stream research generally supports the ICM, it also offers several important insights for interpreting and applying the ICM, which are discussed next. Statistical Variability Scatter is a common characteristic of most IC/ stream quality indicator relationships. In most cases, the overall trend for the indicator is down, but considerable variation exists along the trend line. Often, linear regression equa- tions between IC and individual stream quality indicators produce relatively modest correla- tion coefficients (reported r2 of 0.3 to 0.7 are often considered quite strong). Figure 2 shows typical examples of the IC/ stream quality indicator relationship that illustrate the pattern of statistical variability. Variation is always encountered when dealing with urban stream data (particularly so for biological indicators), but several patterns exist that have important implications for watershed managers. d. Biological Condition vs. Total Watershed IC (Booth, 2000) Figure 2: Typical Scatter Found in IC/Stream Quality Indicator Research a. Fish IBI vs. IC in Fairfax, VA (Fairfax County, 2001)b. CPSS vs. IC in Montgomery County, MD (MNCPPC, 2000) c. Large Woody Debris vs. IC (Booth et al., 1997) 6 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 1: Introduction The first pattern to note is that the greatest scatter in stream quality indicator scores is frequently seen in the range of one to 10% IC. These streams, which are classified as “sensi- tive” according to the ICM, often exhibit low, moderate or high stream quality indicator scores, as shown in Figure 2. The key interpre- tation is that sensitive streams have the poten- tial to attain high stream quality indicator scores, but may not always realize this poten- tial. Quite simply, the influence of IC in the one to 10% range is relatively weak compared to other potential watershed factors, such as percent forest cover, riparian continuity, historical land use, soils, agriculture, acid mine drainage or a host of other stressors. Conse- quently, watershed managers should never rely on IC alone to classify and manage streams in watersheds with less than 10% IC. Rather, they should evaluate a range of supplemental watershed variables to measure or predict actual stream quality within these lightly developed watersheds. The second important pattern is that variability in stream quality indicator data is usually dampened when IC exceeds 10%, which presumably reflects the stronger influence of stormwater runoff on stream quality indicators. In particular, the chance that a stream quality indicator will attain a high quality score is sharply diminished at higher IC levels. This trend becomes pronounced within the 10 to 25% IC range and almost inevitable when watershed IC exceeds 25%. Once again, this pattern suggests that IC is a more robust and reliable indicator of overall stream quality beyond the 10% IC threshold. Other Watershed Variables and the ICM Several other watershed variables can poten- tially be included in the ICM. They include forest cover, riparian forest continuity and turf cover. Forest cover (FC) is clearly the main rival to IC as a useful predictor of stream quality in urban watersheds, at least for humid regions of North America. In some regions, FC is simply the reciprocal of IC. For example, Horner and May (1999) have demonstrated a strong interrelationship between IC and FC for subwatersheds in the Puget Sound region (Figure 3). In other regions, however, “pre- Figure 3: Relationship of IC and FC in Puget Sound Subwatersheds (Horner and May, 1999) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 7 Chapter 1: Introduction development” land use represents a complex mosaic of crop land, pasture and forest. Therefore, an inverse relationship between FC and IC may not be universal for subwatersheds that have witnessed many cycles of deforesta- tion and cultivation. It should come as little surprise that the progressive loss of FC has been linked to declining stream quality indicators, given that forested watersheds are often routinely used to define natural reference conditions for streams (Booth, 2000 and Horner et al., 2001). Mature forest is considered to be the main benchmark for defining pre-development hydrology within a subwatershed, as well. Consequently, FC is perhaps the most powerful indicator to predict the quality of streams within the “sensitive” category (zero to 10% IC). To use an extreme example, one would expect that stream quality indicators would respond quite differently in a subwatershed that had 90% FC compared to one that had 90% crop cover. Indeed, Booth (1991) suggests that stream quality can only be maintained when IC is limited to less than 10% and at least 65% FC is retained within a subwatershed. The key management implication then is that stream health is best managed by simultaneously minimizing the creation of IC and maximizing the preservation of native FC. FC has also been shown to be useful in predict- ing the quality of terrestrial variables in a subwatershed. For example, the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (USEPA, 2000) has documented that watershed FC can reliably predict the diversity of bird, reptile and am- phibian communities in the mid-Atlantic region. Moreover, the emerging discipline of landscape ecology provides watershed manag- ers with a strong scientific foundation for deciding where FC should be conserved in a watershed. Conservation plans that protect and connect large forest fragments have been shown to be effective in conserving terrestrial species. Riparian forest continuity has also shown considerable promise in predicting at least some indicators of stream quality for urban watersheds. Researchers have yet to come up with a standard definition of riparian continu- ity, but it is usually defined as the proportion of the perennial stream network in a subwatershed that has a fixed width of mature streamside forest. A series of studies indicates that aquatic insect and fish diversity are associated with high levels of riparian continu- ity (Horner et al., 2001; May et al., 1997; MNCPPC, 2000; Roth et al., 1998). On the other hand, not much evidence has been presented to support the notion that riparian continuity has a strong influence on hydrology or water quality indicators. One watershed variable that received little attention is the fraction of watershed area maintained in turf cover (TC). Grass often comprises the largest fraction of land area within low-density residential development and could play a significant role in streams that fall within the “impacted” category (10 to 25% IC). Although lawns are pervious, they have sharply different properties than the forests and farmlands they replace (i.e., irrigation, com- pacted soils, greater runoff, and much higher input of fertilizers and pesticides, etc.). It is interesting to speculate whether the combined area of IC and TC might provide better predic- tions about stream health than IC area alone, particularly within impacted subwatersheds. Several other watershed variables might have at least supplemental value in predicting stream quality. They include the presence of extensive wetlands and/or beaverdam com- plexes in a subwatershed; the dominant form of drainage present in the watershed (tile drains, ditches, swales, curb and gutters, storm drain pipes); the average age of development; and the proximity of sewer lines to the stream. As far as we could discover, none of these variables has been systematically tested in a controlled population of small watersheds. We have observed that these factors could be important in our field investigations and often measure them to provide greater insight into subwatershed behavior. Lastly, several watershed variables that are closely related to IC have been proposed to predict stream quality. These include popula- 8 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 1: Introduction tion, percent urban land, housing density, road density and other indices of watershed devel- opment. As might be expected, they generally track the same trend as IC, but each has some significant technical limitations and/or difficul- ties in actual planning applications (Brown, 2000). Individual vs. Multiple Indicators The ICM does not predict the precise score of individual stream quality indicators, but rather predicts the average behavior of a group of indicators over a range of IC. Extreme care should be exercised if the ICM is used to predict the fate of individual indicators and/or species. This is particularly true for sensitive aquatic species, such as trout, salmon, and freshwater mussels. When researchers have examined the relationship between IC and individual species, they have often discovered lower thresholds for harm. For example, Boward et al. (1999) found that brook trout were not found in subwatersheds that had more than 4% IC in Maryland, whereas Horner and May (1999) asserted an 8% threshold for sustaining salmon in Puget Sound streams. The key point is that if watershed managers want to maintain an individual species, they should be very cautious about adopting the 10% IC threshold. The essential habitat requirements for many sensitive or endangered species are probably determined by the most sensitive stream quality indicators, rather than the average behavior of all stream quality indicators. Direct Causality vs. Association A strong relationship between IC and declining stream quality indicators does not always mean that the IC is directly responsible for the decline. In some cases, however, causality can be demonstrated. For example, increased stormwater runoff volumes are directly caused by the percentage of IC in a subwatershed, although other factors such as conveyance, slope and soils may play a role. In other cases, the link is much more indirect. For these indicators, IC is merely an index of the cumulative amount of watershed develop- ment, and more IC simply means that a greater number of known or unknown pollutant sources or stressors are present. In yet other cases, a causal link appears likely but has not yet been scientifically demonstrated. A good example is the more than 50 studies that have explored how fish or aquatic insect diversity changes in response to IC. While the majority of these studies consistently shows a very strong negative association between IC and biodiversity, they do not really establish which stressor or combination of stressors contributes most to the decline. The widely accepted theory is that IC changes stream hydrology, which degrades stream habitat, and in turn leads to reduced stream biodiversity. Regional Differences Currently, the ICM has been largely confirmed within the following regions of North America: the mid-Atlantic, the Northeast, the Southeast, the upper Midwest and the Pacific Northwest. Limited testing in Northern California, the lower Midwest and Central Texas generally agrees with the ICM. The ICM has not been tested in Florida, the Rocky Mountain West, and the Southwest. For a number of reasons, it is not certain if the ICM accurately predicts biological indicators in arid and semiarid climates (Maxted, 1999). Measuring Impervious Cover Most researchers have relied on total impervi- ous cover as the basic unit to measure IC at the subwatershed level. The case has repeatedly been made that effective impervious cover is probably a superior metric (e.g., only counting IC that is hydraulically connected to the drainage system). Notwithstanding, most researchers have continued to measure total IC because it is generally quicker and does not require extensive (and often subjective) engineering judgement as to whether it is connected or not. Researchers have used a wide variety of techniques to estimate subwatershed IC, including satellite imagery, analysis of aerial photographs, and derivation from GIS land use layers. Table 2 presents some standard land use/IC relationships that were developed for suburban regions of the Chesapeake Bay. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 9 Chapter 1: Introduction Three points are worth noting. First, it is fair to say that most researchers have spent more quality control effort on their stream quality indicator measurements than on their subwatershed IC estimates. At the current time, no standard protocol exists to estimate subwatershed IC, although Cappiella and Brown (2001) presented a useful method. At best, the different methods used to measure IC make it difficult to compare results from different studies, and at worst, it can introduce an error term of perhaps +/- 10% from the true value within an individual subwatershed. Second, it is important to keep in mind that IC is not constant over time; indeed, major changes in subwatershed IC have been ob- served within as few as two years. Conse- quently, it is sound practice to obtain subwatershed IC estimates from the most recent possible mapping data, to ensure that it coincides with stream quality indicator mea- surements. Lastly, it is important to keep in mind that most suburban and even rural zoning categories exceed 10% IC (see Table 2). Therefore, from a management standpoint, planners should try to project future IC, in order to determine the future stream classifica- tion for individual subwatersheds. 1.1.3 Influence of Watershed Treatment Practices on the ICM The most hotly debated question about the ICM is whether widespread application of watershed practices such as stream buffers or stormwater management can mitigate the impact of IC, thereby allowing greater devel- opment density for a given watershed. At this point in time, there are fewer than 10 studies that directly bear on this critical question. Before these are reviewed, it is instructive to look at the difficult technical and scientific issues involved in detecting the effect of watershed treatment, given its enormous implications for land use control and watershed management. The first tough issue is how to detect the effect of watershed treatment, given the inherent scatter seen in the IC/stream quality indicator relationship. Figure 4 illustrates the “double scatter” problem, based on three different urban stream research studies in Delaware, Maryland and Washington. A quick inspection of the three plots shows how intrinsically hard it is to distinguish the watershed treatment effect. As can be seen, stream quality indica- tors in subwatersheds with treatment tend to Land Use Category Sample Number (N) Mean IC (SE) Land Use Category Sample Number (N) Mean IC (SE) Agriculture 8 1.9 – 0.3 Institutional 30 34.4 – 3.45 Open Urban Land 11 8.6 – 1.64 Light 20 53.4 – 2.8 2 Acre Lot Residential 12 10.6 – 0.65 Commercia 23 72.2 – 2.0 1 Acre Lot Residential 23 14.3 – 0.53 Churches 8 39.9 – 7.8 1 1/2 Acre Lot Residential 20 21.2 – 0.78 Schools 13 30.3 – 4.8 1/4 Acre Lot Residential 23 27.8 – 0.60 Municipals 9 35.4 – 6.3 1/8 Acre Lot Residential 10 32.6 – 1.6 Golf 4 5.0 – 1.7 Townhome Residential 20 40.9 – 1.39 Cemeteries 3 8.3 – 3.5 Multifamily Residential 18 44.4 – 2.0 Parks 4 12.5 – 0.7 Table 2: Land Use/IC Relationships for Suburban Areas of the Chesapeake Bay (Cappiella and Brown, 2001) 10 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 1: Introduction overplot those in subwatersheds that lack treatment. While subtle statistical differences may be detected, they are not visibly evident. This suggests that the impact of watershed treatment would need to be extremely dramatic to be detected, given the inherent statistical variability seen in small watersheds (particu- larly so within the five to 25% IC range where scatter is considerable). In an ideal world, a watershed study design would look at a controlled population of small urban watersheds that were developed with and without watershed practices to detect the impact of “treatment.” In the real world, however, it is impossible to strictly control subwatershed variables. Quite simply, no two subwatersheds are ever alike. Each differs slightly with respect to drainage area, IC, forest cover, riparian continuity, historical land use, and percent watershed treatment. Re- searchers must also confront other real world issues when designing their watershed treat- ment experiments. For example, researchers must carefully choose which indicator or group of indicators will be used to define stream health. IC has a negative influence on 26 stream quality indicators, yet nearly all of the watershed treatment research so far has focused on just a few biological indicators (e.g., aquatic insect or fish diversity) to define stream health. It is conceivable that watershed treatment might have no effect on biological indicators, yet have a positive influence on hydrology, habitat or water quality indicators. At this point, few of these indicators have been systematically a. Horner and May, 1999 c. Maxted and Shaver, 1997 Figure 4: The Double Scatter Problem: Difficulties in Detecting the Effect of Watershed Treatment b. MNCPPC, 2000 a.b. c. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 11 Chapter 1: Introduction tested in the field. It is extremely doubtful that any watershed practice can simultaneously improve or mitigate all 26 stream quality indicators, so researchers must carefully interpret the outcomes of their watershed treatment experiments. The second issue involves how to quantify watershed treatment. In reality, watershed treatment collectively refers to dozens of practices that are installed at individual devel- opment sites in the many years or even decades it takes to fully “build out” a subwatershed. Several researchers have discovered that watershed practices are seldom installed consistently across an entire subwatershed. In some cases, less than a third of the IC in a subwatershed was actually treated by any practice, because development occurred prior to regulations; recent projects were exempted, waived or grandfathered; or practices were inadequately constructed or maintained (Horner and May, 1999 and MNCPPC, 2000). Even when good coverage is achieved in a watershed, such as the 65 to 90% reported in studies of stormwater ponds (Jones et al., 1996; Maxted, 1999; Maxted and Shaver, 1997), it is still quite difficult to quantify the actual quality of treatment. Often, each subwatershed contains its own unique mix of stormwater practices installed over several decades, designed under diverse design crite- ria, and utilizing widely different stormwater technologies. Given these inconsistencies, researchers will need to develop standard protocols to define the extent and quality of watershed treatment. Effect of Stormwater Ponds With this in mind, the effect of stormwater ponds and stream buffers can be discussed. The effect of larger stormwater ponds in mitigating the impacts of IC in small water- sheds has received the most scrutiny to date. This is not surprising, since larger ponds often control a large fraction of their contributing subwatershed area (e.g. 100 to 1,000 acres) and are located on the stream itself, therefore lending themselves to easier monitoring. Three studies have evaluated the impact of large stormwater ponds on downstream aquatic insect communities (Jones et al., 1996; Maxted and Shaver, 1997; Stribling et al., 2001). Each of these studies was conducted in small headwater subwatersheds in the mid-Atlantic Region, and none was able to detect major differences in aquatic insect diversity in streams with or without stormwater ponds. Four additional studies statistically evaluated the stormwater treatment effect in larger populations of small watersheds with varying degrees of IC (Horner and May, 1999; Horner et al., 2001; Maxted, 1999; MNCPPC, 2000). These studies generally sampled larger water- sheds that had many stormwater practices but not necessarily complete watershed coverage. In general, these studies detected a small but positive effect of stormwater treatment relative to aquatic insect diversity. This positive effect was typically seen only in the range of five to 20% IC and was generally undetected beyond about 30% IC. Although each author was hesitant about interpreting his results, all generally agreed that perhaps as much as 5% IC could be added to a subwatershed while maintaining aquatic insect diversity, given effective stormwater treatment. Forest reten- tion and stream buffers were found to be very important, as well. Horner et al. (2001) re- ported a somewhat stronger IC threshold for various species of salmon in Puget Sound streams. Some might conclude from these initial findings that stormwater ponds have little or no value in maintaining biological diversity in small streams. However, such a conclusion may be premature for several reasons. First, the generation of stormwater ponds that was tested was not explicitly designed to protect stream habitat or to prevent downstream channel erosion, which would presumably promote aquatic diversity. Several states have recently changed their stormwater criteria to require extended detention for the express purpose of preventing downstream channel erosion, and these new criteria may exert a stronger influence on aquatic diversity. In- stead, their basic design objective was to maximize pollutant removal, which they did reasonably well. 12 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 1: Introduction The second point to stress is that streams with larger stormwater ponds should be considered “regulated streams” (Ward and Stanford, 1979), which have a significantly altered aquatic insect community downstream of the ponds. For example, Galli (1988) has reported that on-stream wet stormwater ponds shift the trophic structure of the aquatic insect commu- nity. The insect community above the pond was dominated by shredders, while the insect community below the pond was dominated by scrapers, filterers and collectors. Of particular note, several pollution-sensitive species were eliminated below the pond. Galli reported that changes in stream temperatures, carbon supply and substrate fouling were responsible for the downstream shift in the aquatic insect commu- nity. Thus, while it is clear that large stormwa- ter ponds can be expected to have a negative effect on aquatic insect diversity, they could still exert positive influence on other stream quality indicators. Effect of Stream Buffers A handful of studies have evaluated biological indicator scores for urban streams that have extensive forest buffers, compared to streams where they were mostly or completely absent (Horner and May, 1999; Horner et al., 2001; May et al., 1997; MNCPPC, 2000; Roth et al., 1998; Steedman, 1988). Biological indicators included various indices of aquatic insect, fish and salmon diversity. Each study sampled a large population of small subwatersheds over a range of IC and derived a quantitative measure to express the continuity, width and forest cover of the riparian buffer network within each subwatershed. Riparian forests were hypothesized to have a positive influence on stream biodiversity, given the direct ways they contribute to stream habitat (e.g., shading, woody debris, leaf litter, bank stability, and organic carbon supply). All five studies detected a small to moderate positive effect when forested stream buffers were present (frequently defined as at least two-thirds of the stream network with at least 100 feet of stream side forest). The greatest effect was reported by Horner and May (1999) and Horner et al. (2001) for salmon streams in the Puget Sound ecoregion. If excellent riparian habitats were preserved, they generally reported that fish diversity could be maintained up to 15% IC, and good aquatic insect diversity could be maintained with as much as 30% IC. Steedman (1988) reported a somewhat smaller effect for Ontario streams. MNCPPC (2000), May et al. (1997), and Roth et al. (1998) could not find a statistically significant relationship between riparian quality and urban stream quality indicators but did report that most outliers (defined as higher IC subwatersheds with unusually high biological indicator scores) were generally associated with exten- sive stream side forest. 1.1.4 Recommendations for Further ICM Research At this point, we recommend three research directions to improve the utility of the ICM for watershed managers. The first direction is to expand basic research on the relationship between IC and stream quality indicators that have received little scrutiny. In particular, more work is needed to define the relationship between IC and hydrological and physical indicators such as the following: •Physical loss or alteration of the stream network •Stream habitat measures •Riparian continuity •Baseflow conditions during dry weather In addition, more watershed research is needed in ecoregions and physiographic areas where the ICM has not yet been widely tested. Key areas include Florida, arid and semiarid climates, karst areas and mountainous regions. The basic multiple subwatershed monitoring protocol set forth by Schueler (1994a) can be used to investigate IC/stream quality relation- ships, although it would be wise to measure a wider suite of subwatershed variables beyond IC (e.g., forest cover, turf cover, and riparian continuity). The second research direction is to more clearly define the impact of watershed treat- ment on stream quality indicators. Based on Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 13 Chapter 1: Introduction the insurmountable problems encountered in controlling variation at the subwatershed level, it may be necessary to abandon the multiple watershed or paired watershed sampling approaches that have been used to date. Instead, longitudinal monitoring studies within individual subwatersheds may be a more powerful tool to detect the effect of watershed treatment. These studies could track changes in stream quality indicators in individual subwatersheds over the entire development cycle: pre-development land use, clearing, construction, build out, and post construction. In most cases, longitudinal studies would take five to 10 years to complete, but they would allow watershed managers to measure and control the inherent variability at the subwatershed level and provide a “before and after” test of watershed treatment. Of course, a large population of test subwatersheds would be needed to satisfactorily answer the water- shed treatment question. The third research direction is to monitor more non-supporting streams, in order to provide a stronger technical foundation for crafting more realistic urban stream standards and to see how they respond to various water- shed restoration treatments. As a general rule, most researchers have been more interested in the behavior of sensitive and impacted streams. The non-supporting stream category spans a wide range of IC, yet we do not really under- stand how stream quality indicators behave over the entire 25 to 100% IC range. For example, it would be helpful to establish the IC level at the upper end of the range where streams are essentially transformed into an artificial conveyance system (i.e., become pipes or artificial channels). It would also be interesting to sample more streams near the lower end of the non-supporting category (25 to 35% IC) to detect whether stream quality indicators respond to past watershed treatment or current watershed restoration efforts. For practical reasons, the multiple subwatershed sampling approach is still recommended to characterize indicators in non-supporting streams. However, researchers will need to screen a large number of non-supporting subwatersheds in order to identify a few subwatersheds that are adequate for subsequent sampling (i.e., to control for area, IC, develop- ment age, percent watershed treatment, type of conveyance systems, etc.). 14 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 1: Introduction 1.2 Impacts of Urbanization on Downstream Receiving Waters In this section, we review the impacts of urbanization on downstream receiving waters, primarily from the standpoint of impacts caused by poor stormwater quality. We begin by looking at the relationship between IC and stormwater pollutant loadings. Next, we discuss the sensitivity of selected downstream receiving waters to stormwater pollutant loads. Lastly, we examine the effect of watershed treatment in reducing stormwater pollutant loads. 1.2.1 Relationship Between Impervious Cover and Stormwater Quality Urban stormwater runoff contains a wide range of pollutants that can degrade downstream water quality (Table 3). Several generalizations can be supported by the majority of research conducted to date. First, the unit area pollutant load delivered by stormwater runoff to receiv- ing waters increases in direct proportion to watershed IC. This is not altogether surprising, since pollutant load is the product of the average pollutant concentration and stormwa- ter runoff volume. Given that runoff volume increases in direct proportion to IC, pollutant loads must automatically increase when IC increases, as long the average pollutant con- centration stays the same (or increases). This relationship is a central assumption in most simple and complex pollutant loading models (Bicknell et al., 1993; Donigian and Huber, 1991; Haith et al., 1992; Novotny and Chester, 1981; NVPDC, 1987; Pitt and Voorhees, 1989). The second generalization is that stormwater pollutant concentrations are generally similar Pollutants in Urban Stormwater WQ Impacts To:Higher Unit Load? Load a function of IC? Other Factors Important in LoadingRLEAW Suspended Sediment Y Y Y N Y Y [ag]Y channel erosion Total Nitrogen N N Y Y N Y [ag]Y septic systems Total Phosphorus Y Y N N Y Y [ag]Y tree canopy Metals Y Y Y ?N Y Y vehicles Hydrocarbons Y Y Y Y Y Y ?related to VMTs and hotspots Bacteria/Pathogens Y Y Y N Y Y Y many sources Organic Carbon N ???Y Y Y MTBE N N N Y Y Y ?roadway, VMTs Pesticides ????Y Y ?turf/landscaping Chloride ?Y N Y Y Y ?road density Trash/Debris Y Y Y N ?Y Y curb and gutters Major Water Quality Impacts Reported for: R = River, L = Lake, E = Estuary, A = Aquifer, W = Surface Water Supply Higher Unit Area Load? Yes (compared to all land uses) [ag]: with exception of cropland Load a function of IC? Yes, increases proportionally with IC Pollutants in Urban Stormwater WQ Impacts To:Higher Unit Load? Load a function of IC? Other Factors Important in LoadingRLEAW Suspended Sediment Y Y Y N Y Y [ag]Y channel erosion Total Nitrogen N N Y Y N Y [ag]Y septic systems Total Phosphorus Y Y N N Y Y [ag]Y tree canopy Metals Y Y Y ?N Y Y vehicles Hydrocarbons Y Y Y Y Y Y ?related to VMTs and hotspots Bacteria/Pathogens Y Y Y N Y Y Y many sources Organic Carbon N ???Y Y Y MTBE N N N Y Y Y ?roadway, VMTs Pesticides ????Y Y ?turf/landscaping Chloride ?Y N Y Y Y ?road density Trash/Debris Y Y Y N ?Y Y curb and gutters Major Water Quality Impacts Reported for: R = River, L = Lake, E = Estuary, A = Aquifer, W = Surface Water Supply Higher Unit Area Load? Yes (compared to all land uses) [ag]: with exception of cropland Load a function of IC? Yes, increases proportionally with IC Table 3: Summary of Urban Stormwater Pollutant Loads on Quality of Receiving Waters Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 15 Chapter 1: Introduction at the catchment level, regardless of the mix of IC types monitored (e.g., residential, commer- cial, industrial or highway runoff). Several hundred studies have examined stormwater pollutant concentrations from small urban catchments and have generally found that the variation within a catchment is as great as the variation between catchments. Runoff concen- trations tend to be log-normally distributed, and therefore the long term “average” concen- tration is best expressed by a median value. It should be kept in mind that researchers have discovered sharp differences in pollutant concentrations for smaller, individual compo- nents of IC (e.g., rooftops, parking lots, streets, driveways and the like). Since most urban catchments are composed of many kinds of IC, this mosaic quality tempers the variability in long term pollutant concentrations at the catchment or subwatershed scale. The third generalization is that median concen- trations of pollutants in urban runoff are usually higher than in stormwater runoff from most other non-urban land uses. Consequently, the unit area nonpoint pollutant load generated by urban land normally exceeds that of nearly all watershed land uses that it replaces (forest, pasture, cropland, open space — see Table 3). One important exception is cropland, which often produces high unit area sediment and nutrient loads in many regions of the country. In these watersheds, conversion of intensively managed crops to low density residential development may actually result in a slightly decreased sediment or nutrient load. On the other hand, more intensive land development (30% IC or more) will tend to equal or exceed cropland loadings. The last generalization is that the effect of IC on stormwater pollutant loadings tends to be weakest for subwatersheds in the one to 10% IC range. Numerous studies have suggested that other watershed and regional factors may have a stronger influence, such as the underly- ing geology, the amount of carbonate rock in the watershed, physiographic region, local soil types, and most important, the relative fraction of forest and crop cover in the subwatershed (Herlihy et al., 1998 and Liu et al., 2000). The limited influence of IC on pollutant loads is generally consistent with the finding for hydrologic, habitat and biological indicators over this narrow range of IC. Once again, watershed managers are advised to track other watershed indicators in the sensitive stream category, such as forest or crop cover. 1.2.2 Water Quality Response to Stormwater Pollution As noted in the previous section, most ICM research has been done on streams, which are directly influenced by increased stormwater. Many managers have wondered whether the ICM also applies to downstream receiving waters, such as lakes, water supply reservoirs and small estuaries. In general, the exact water quality response of downstream receiving waters to increased nonpoint source pollutant loads depends on many factors, including the specific pollutant, the existing loading gener- ated by the converted land use, and the geom- etry and hydraulics of the receiving water. Table 3 indicates the sensitivity of rivers, lakes, estuaries, aquifers and water supply reservoirs to various stormwater pollutants. Lakes and the ICM The water column and sediments of urban lakes are impacted by many stormwater pollutants, including sediment, nutrients, bacteria, metals, hydrocarbons, chlorides, and trash/debris. Of these pollutants, limnologists have always regarded phosphorus as the primary lake management concern, given that more than 80% of urban lakes experience symptoms of eutrophication (CWP, 2001a). In general, phosphorus export steadily in- creases as IC is added to a lake watershed, although the precise amount of IC that triggers eutrophication problems is unique to each urban lake. With a little effort, it is possible to calculate the specific IC threshold for an individual lake, given its internal geometry, the size of its contributing watershed, current in- lake phosphorus concentration, degree of watershed treatment, and the desired water quality goals for the lake (CWP, 2001a). As a general rule, most lakes are extremely sensitive 16 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 1: Introduction to increases in phosphorus loads caused by watershed IC. Exceptions include lakes that are unusually deep and/or have very small drain- age area/lake area ratios. In most lakes, how- ever, even a small amount of watershed development will result in an upward shift in trophic status (CWP, 2001a). Reservoirs and the ICM While surface water supply reservoirs respond to stormwater pollutant loads in the same general manner as lakes, they are subject to stricter standards because of their uses for drinking water. In particular, water supply reservoirs are particularly sensitive to in- creased turbidity, pathogens, total organic carbon, chlorides, metals, pesticides and hydrocarbon loads, in addition to phosphorus (Kitchell, 2001). While some pollutants can be removed or reduced through expanded filtering and treatment at drinking water intakes, the most reliable approach is to protect the source waters through watershed protection and treatment. Consequently, we often recommend that the ICM be used as a “threat index” for most drinking water supplies. Quite simply, if current or future development is expected to exceed 10% IC in the contributing watershed, we recommend that a very aggressive water- shed protection strategy be implemented (Kitchell, 2001). In addition, we contend that drinking water quality cannot be sustained once watershed IC exceeds 25% and have yet to find an actual watershed where a drinking water utility has been maintained under these conditions. Small Tidal Estuaries and Coves and the ICM The aquatic resources of small tidal estuaries, creeks, and coves are often highly impacted by watershed development and associated activi- ties, such as boating/marinas, wastewater discharge, septic systems, alterations in freshwater flow and wetland degradation and loss. Given the unique impacts of eutrophica- tion on the marine system and stringent water quality standards for shellfish harvesting, the stormwater pollutants of greatest concern in the estuarine water column are nitrogen and fecal coliform bacteria. Metals and hydrocar- bons in stormwater runoff can also contami- nate bottom sediments, which can prove toxic to local biota (Fortner et al., 1996; Fulton et al., 1996; Kucklick et al., 1997; Lerberg et al., 2000; Sanger et al., 1999; Vernberg et al., 1992). While numerous studies have demonstrated that physical, hydrologic, water quality and biological indicators differ in urban and non- urban coastal watersheds, only a handful of studies have used watershed IC as an indicator of estuarine health. These studies show signifi- cant correlations with IC, although degradation thresholds may not necessarily adhere to the ICM due to tidal dilution and dispersion. Given the limited research, it is not fully clear if the ICM can be applied to coastal systems without modification. Atmospheric deposition is considered a primary source of nitrogen loading to estuarine watersheds. Consequently, nitrogen loads in urban stormwater are often directly linked to IC. Total nitrogen loads have also been linked to groundwater input, especially from subsur- face discharges from septic systems, which are common in low density coastal development (Swann, 2001; Valiela et al., 1997; Vernberg et al., 1996a). Nitrogen is generally considered to be the limiting nutrient in estuarine systems, and increased loading has been shown to increase algal and phytoplankton biomass and cause shifts in the phytoplankton community and food web structure that may increase the potential for phytoplankton blooms and fish kills (Bowen and Valiela, 2001; Evgenidou et al., 1997; Livingston, 1996). Increased nitrogen loads have been linked to declining seagrass communities, finfish populations, zooplankton reproduction, inver- tebrate species richness, and shellfish popula- tions (Bowen and Valiela, 2001; Rutkowski et al., 1999; Short and Wyllie-Echeverria, 1996; Valiela and Costa, 1988). Multiple studies have shown significant increases in nitrogen loading as watershed land use becomes more urban (Valiela et al., 1997; Vernberg et al. 1996a; Wahl et al., 1997). While a few studies Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 17 Chapter 1: Introduction link nitrogen loads with building and popula- tion density, no study was found that used IC as an indicator of estuarine nitrogen loading. The second key water quality concern in small estuaries is high fecal coliform levels in stormwater runoff, which can lead to the closure of shellfish beds and swimming beaches. Waterfowl and other wildlife have also been shown to contribute to fecal coliform loading (Wieskel et al., 1996). Recent research has shown that fecal coliform standards are routinely violated during storm events at very low levels of IC in coastal watersheds (Mallin et al., 2001; Vernberg et al., 1996b; Schueler, 1999). Maiolo and Tschetter (1981) found a significant correlation between human popula- tion and closed shellfish acreage in North Carolina, and Duda and Cromartie (1982) found greater fecal coliform densities when septic tank density and IC increased, with an approximate threshold at 10% watershed IC. Recently, Mallin et al. (2000) studied five small North Carolina estuaries of different land uses and showed that fecal coliform levels were significantly correlated with watershed population, developed land and IC. Percent IC was the most statistically significant indicator and could explain 95% of the variability in fecal coliform concentrations. They also found that shellfish bed closures were possible in watersheds with less than 10% IC, common in watersheds above 10% IC, and almost certain in watersheds above 20% IC. While higher fecal coliform levels were observed in devel- oped watersheds, salinity, flushing and proxim- ity to pollution sources often resulted in higher concentrations at upstream locations and at high tides (Mallin et al., 1999). While these studies support the ICM, more research is needed to prove the reliability of the ICM in predicting shellfish bed closures based on IC. Several studies have also investigated the impacts of urbanization on estuarine fish, macrobenthos and shellfish communities. Increased PAH accumulation in oysters, negative effects of growth in juvenile sheeps- head minnows, reduced molting efficiency in copepods, and reduced numbers of grass shrimp have all been reported for urban estuaries as compared to forested estuaries (Fulton et al., 1996). Holland et al. (1997) reported that the greatest abundance of penaid shrimp and mummichogs was observed in tidal creeks with forested watersheds compared to those with urban cover. Porter et al. (1997) found lower grass shrimp abundance in small tidal creeks adjacent to commercial and urban development, as compared to non-urban watersheds. Lerberg et al. (2000) studied small tidal creeks and found that highly urban watersheds (50% IC) had the lowest benthic diversity and abundance as compared to suburban and forested creeks, and benthic communities were numerically dominated by tolerant oligocha- etes and polychaetes. Suburban watersheds (15 to 35% IC) also showed signs of degradation and had some pollution tolerant macrobenthos, though not as markedly as urban creeks. Percent abundance of pollution-indicative species showed a marked decline at 30% IC, and the abundance of pollution-sensitive species also significantly correlated with IC (Lerberg et al., 2000). Holland et al. (1997) reported that the variety and food availability for juvenile fish species was impacted at 15 to 20% IC. Lastly, a limited amount of research has focused on the direct impact of stormwater runoff on salinity and hypoxia in small tidal creeks. Blood and Smith (1996) compared urban and forested watersheds and found higher salinities in urban watersheds due to the increased number of impoundments. Fluctua- tions in salinity have been shown to affect shellfish and other aquatic populations (see Vernberg, 1996b). When urban and forested watersheds were compared, Lerberg et al. (2000) reported that higher salinity fluctuations occurred most often in developed watersheds; significant correlations with salinity range and IC were also determined. Lerberg et al. (2000) also found that the most severe and frequent hypoxia occurred in impacted salt marsh creeks and that dissolved oxygen dynamics in tidal creeks were comparable to dead-end canals common in residential marina-style 18 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 1: Introduction Practice N TSS TP OP TN NOx Cu Zn Oil/ Grease11 Bacteria Dry Ponds 9 47 19 N/R 25 3.5 26 26 3 44 Wet Ponds 43 80 51 65 33 43 57 66 78 70 Wetlands 36 76 49 48 30 67 40 44 85 78 Filtering Practices2 18 86 59 57 38 -14 49 88 84 37 Water Quality Swales 9 81 34 1.0 84 31 51 71 62 -25 Ditches3 9 31 -16 N/R -9.0 24 14 0 N/R 0 Infiltration 6 95 80 85 51 82 N/R N/R N/R N/R 1: Represents data for Oil and Grease and PAH 2: Excludes vertical sand filters 3: Refers to open channel practices not designed for water quality N/R = Not Reported coastal developments. Suburban watersheds (15 to 35% IC) exhibited signs of degradation and had some pollution-tolerant macrobenthic species, though not to the extent of urban watersheds (50% IC). In summary, recent research suggests that indicators of coastal watershed health are linked to IC. However, more research is needed to clarify the relationship between IC and estuarine indicators in small tidal estuaries and high salinity creeks. 1.2.3 Effect of Watershed Treatment on Stormwater Quality Over the past two decades, many communities have invested in watershed protection prac- tices, such as stormwater treatment practices (STPs), stream buffers, and better site design, in order to reduce pollutant loads to receiving waters. In this section, we review the effect of watershed treatment on the quality of stormwa- ter runoff. Effect of Stormwater Treatment Practices We cannot directly answer the question as to whether or not stormwater treatment practices can significantly reduce water quality impacts at the watershed level, simply because no controlled monitoring studies have yet been conducted at this scale. Instead, we must rely on more indirect research that has tracked the change in mass or concentration of pollutants as they travel through individual stormwater treatment practices. Thankfully, we have an abundance of these performance studies, with nearly 140 monitoring studies evaluating a diverse range of STPs, including ponds, wetlands, filters, and swales (Winer, 2000). These studies have generally shown that stormwater practices have at least a moderate ability to remove many pollutants in urban stormwater. Table 4 provides average removal efficiency rates for a range of practices and stormwater pollutants, and Table 5 profiles the mean storm outflow concentrations for various practices. As can be seen, some groups of practices perform better than others in remov- ing certain stormwater pollutants. Conse- quently, managers need to carefully choose which practices to apply to solve the primary water quality problems within their water- sheds. It is also important to keep in mind that site- based removal rates cannot be extrapolated to the watershed level without significant adjust- ment. Individual site practices are never implemented perfectly or consistently across a watershed. At least three discount factors need to be considered: bypassed load, treatability and loss of performance over time. For a review on how these discounts are derived, consult Schueler and Caraco (2001). Even under the most optimistic watershed imple- mentation scenarios, overall pollutant reduc- Table 4: The Effectiveness of Stormwater Treatment Practices in Removing Pollutants - Percent Removal Rate (Winer, 2000) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 19 Chapter 1: Introduction tions by STPs may need to be discounted by at least 30% to account for partial watershed treatment. Even with discounting, however, it is evident that STPs can achieve enough pollutant reduction to mimic rural background loads for many pollutants, as long as the watershed IC does not exceed 30 to 35%. This capability is illustrated in Figure 5, which shows phospho- rus load as a function of IC, with and without stormwater treatment. Effect of Stream Buffers/Riparian Areas Forested stream buffers are thought to have very limited capability to remove stormwater pollutants, although virtually no systematic monitoring data exists to test this hypothesis. The major reason cited for their limited removal capacity is that stormwater generated from upland IC has usually concentrated before it reaches the forest buffer and therefore crosses the buffer in a channel, ditch or storm drain pipe. Consequently, the opportunity to filter runoff is lost in many forest buffers in urban watersheds. Effect of Better Site Design Better site design (BSD) is a term for nonstructural practices that minimize IC, conserve natural areas and distribute stormwa- ter treatment across individual development sites. BSD is also known by many other names, including conservation development, low-impact development, green infrastructure, and sustainable urban drainage systems. While Practice N TSS TP OP TN NOx Cu11 Zn11 Dry Ponds2 3 28 0.18 N/R 0.86 N/R 9.0 98 Wet Ponds 25 17 0.11 0.03 1.3 0.26 5.0 30 Wetlands 19 22 0.20 0.07 1.7 0.36 7.0 31 Filtering Practices3 8 11 0.10 0.07 1.1 0.55 9.7 21 Water Quality Swales 7 14 0.19 0.09 1.1 0.35 10 53 Ditches4 3 29 0.31 N/R 2.4 0.72 18 32 1. Units for Zn and Cu are micrograms per liter (Fg/l) 2. Data available for Dry Extended Detention Ponds only 3. Excludes vertical sand filters 4. Refers to open channel practices not designed for water quality N/R = Not Reported Table 5: Median Effluent Concentrations from Stormwater Treatment Practices (mg/l) (Winer, 2000) Figure 5: Estimated Phosphorus Load as a Function of Impervious Cover, Discounted Stormwater Treatment and Better Site Design (Schueler and Caraco, 2001) Impervious Cover (%) 20 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 1: Introduction some maintain that BSD is an alternative to traditional STPs, most consider it to be an important complement to reduce pollutant loads. While BSD has become popular in recent years, only one controlled research study has evaluated its potential performance, and this is not yet complete (i.e. Jordan Cove, CT). Indirect estimates of the potential value of BSD to reduce pollutant discharges have been inferred from modeling and redesign analyses (Zielinski, 2000). A typical example is pro- vided in Figure 5, which shows the presumed impact of BSD in reducing phosphorus load- ings. As is apparent, BSD appears to be a very effective strategy in the one to 25% IC range, but its benefits diminish beyond that point. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 21 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.3 Implications of the ICM for Watershed Managers One of the major policy implications of the ICM is that in the absence of watershed treatment, it predicts negative stream impacts at an extremely low intensity of watershed development. To put this in perspective, consider that a watershed zoned for two-acre lot residential development will generally exceed 10% IC, and therefore shift from a sensitive to an impacted stream classification (Cappiella and Brown, 2001). Thus, if a community wants to protect an important water resource or a highly regarded species (such as trout, salmon or an endangered freshwater mussel), the ICM suggests that there is a maximum limit to growth that is not only quite low, but is usually well below the current zoning for many suburban or even rural watersheds. Consequently, the ICM suggests the unpleasant prospect that massive down- zoning, with all of the associated political and legal carnage involving property rights and economic development, may be required to maintain stream quality. It is not surprising, then, that the ICM debate has quickly shifted to the issue of whether or not watershed treatment practices can provide adequate mitigation for IC. How much relief can be expected from stream buffers, stormwa- ter ponds, and other watershed practices, which might allow greater development density within a given watershed? Only a limited amount of research has addressed this question, and the early results are not reassuring (re- viewed in section 1.1.3). At this early stage, researchers are still having trouble detecting the impact of watershed treatment, much less defining it. As noted earlier, both watershed research techniques and practice implementa- tion need to be greatly improved if we ever expect to get a scientifically defensible answer to this crucial question. Until then, managers should be extremely cautious in setting high expectations for how much watershed treat- ment can mitigate IC. 1.3.1 Management of Non-Supporting Streams Most researchers acknowledge that streams with more than 25% IC in their watersheds cannot support their designated uses or attain water quality standards and are severely degraded from a physical and biological standpoint. As a consequence, many of these streams are listed for non-attainment under the Clean Water Act and are subject to Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations. Communities that have streams within this regulatory class must prepare implementation plans that demonstrate that water quality standards can ultimately be met. While some communities have started to restore or rehabilitate these streams in recent years, their efforts have yielded only modest improvements in water quality and biological indicators. In particular, no community has yet demonstrated that they can achieve water quality standards in an urban watershed that exceeds 25% IC. Many communities are deeply concerned that non-supporting streams may never achieve water quality standards, despite massive investments in watershed restoration. The ICM suggests that water quality standards may need to be sharply revised for streams with more than 25% IC, if they are ever to come into attainment. While states have authority to create more achievable standards for non-supporting streams within the regulatory framework of the Clean Water Act (Swietlik, 2001), no state has yet exercised this authority. At this time, we are not aware of any water quality standards that are based on the ICM or similar urban stream classification techniques. Two political perceptions largely explain why states are so reticent about revising water quality standards. The first is a concern that they will run afoul of anti-degradation provi- sions within the Clean Water Act or be accused of “backsliding” by the environmental commu- nity. The second concern relates to the demo- graphics of watershed organizations across the country. According to recent surveys, slightly more than half of all watershed organizations 22 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 1: Introduction represent moderately to highly developed watersheds (CWP, 2001a). These urban watershed organizations often have a keen interest in keeping the existing regulatory structure intact, since it is perceived to be the only lever to motivate municipalities to implement restoration efforts in non-support- ing streams. However, revised water quality standards are urgently needed to support smart growth efforts. A key premise of smart growth is that it is more desirable to locate new development within a non-supporting subwatershed rather than a sensitive or impacted one (i.e., concen- trating density and IC within an existing subwatershed helps prevent sprawl from encroaching on a less developed one). Yet while smart growth is desirable on a regional basis, it will usually contribute to already serious problems in non-supporting water- sheds, which makes it even more difficult to meet water quality standards. This creates a tough choice for regulators: if they adopt stringent development criteria for non-supporting watersheds, their added costs can quickly become a powerful barrier to desired redevelopment. If, on the other hand, they relax or waive environmental criteria, they contribute to the further degradation of the watershed. To address this problem, the Center has developed a “smart watersheds” program to ensure that any localized degrada- tion caused by development within a non- supporting subwatershed is more than compen- sated for by improvements in stream quality achieved through municipal restoration efforts (CWP, in press). Specifically, the smart watersheds program includes 17 public sector programs to treat stormwater runoff, restore urban stream corridors and reduce pollution discharges in highly urban watersheds. It is hoped that communities that adopt and imple- ment smart watershed programs will be given greater flexibility to meet state and federal water quality regulations and standards within non-supporting watersheds. 1.3.2 Use of the ICM for Urban Stream Classification The ICM has proven to be a useful tool for classifying and managing the large inventory of streams that most communities possess. It is not unusual for a typical county to have several thousand miles of headwater streams within its political boundaries, and the ICM provides a unified framework to identify and manage these subwatersheds. In our watershed practice, we use the ICM to make an initial diagnosis rather than a final determination for stream classification. Where possible, we conduct rapid stream and subwatershed assessments as a final check for an individual stream classifi- cation, particularly if it borders between the sensitive and impacted category. As noted earlier, the statistical variation in the IC/stream quality indicator makes it difficult to distin- guish between a stream with 9% versus 11% IC. Some of the key criteria we use to make a final stream classification are provided in Table 6. 1.3.3 Role of the ICM in Small Watershed Planning The ICM has also proven to be an extremely important tool for watershed planning, since it can rapidly project how streams will change in response to future land use. We routinely estimate existing and future IC in our water- shed planning practice and find that it is an excellent indicator of change for subwatersheds in the zero to 30% IC range. In particular, the ICM often forces watershed planners to directly confront land use planning and land conservation issues early in the planning process. On the other hand, we often find that the ICM has limited planning value when subwatersheds exceed 30% IC for two practi- cal reasons. First, the ICM does not differenti- ate stream conditions within this very large span of IC (i.e., there is no difference in the stream quality prediction for a subwatershed that has 39.6% IC versus one that has 58.4% IC). Second, the key management question for non-supporting watersheds is whether or not Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 23 Chapter 1: Introduction they are potentially restorable. More detailed analysis and field investigations are needed to determine, in each subwatershed, the answer to this question. While a knowledge of IC is often used in these feasibility assessments, it is but one of many factors that needs to be consid- ered. Lastly, we have come to recognize several practical factors when applying the ICM for small watershed planning. These include thoughtful delineation of subwatershed bound- aries, the proper accounting of a direct drain- age area in larger watersheds, and the critical need for the most recent IC data. More guid- ance on these factors can be found in Zielinski (2001). Stream Criteria Reported presence of rare, threatened or endangered species in the aquatic community (e.g., freshwater mussels, fish, crayfish or amphibians) Confirmed spawning of cold-water fish species (e.g., trout) Fair/good, good, or good to excellent macro invertebrate scores More than 65% of EPT species present in macro-invertebrate surveys No barriers impede movement of fish between the subwatershed and downstream receiving waters Stream channels show little evidence of ditching, enclosure, tile drainage or channelization Water quality monitoring indicates no standards violations during dry weather Stream and flood plain remain connected and regularly interact Stream drains to a downstream surface water supply Stream channels are generally stable, as determined by the Rosgen level analysis Stream habitat scores are rated at least fair to good Subwatershed Criteria Contains terrestrial species that are documented as rare, threatened and endangered Wetlands, flood plains and/or beaver complexes make up more than 10% of subwatershed area Inventoried conservation areas comprise more than 10% of subwatershed area More than 50% of the riparian forest corridor has forest cover and is either publicly owned or regulated Large contiguous forest tracts remain in the subwatershed (more than 40% in forest cover) Significant fraction of subwatershed is in public ownership and management Subwatershed connected to the watershed through a wide corridor Farming, ranching and livestock operations in the subwatershed utilize best management practices Prior development in the subwatershed has utilized stormwater treatment practices Impervious cover is not a perfect indicator of existing stream quality. A number of stream and subwatershed criteria should be evaluated in the field before a final classification deci- sion is made, particularly when the stream is on the borderline between two classifications. We routinely look at the stream and subwatershed criteria to decide whether a borderline stream should be classified as sensitive or impacted. Table 6 reviews these additional criteria. Table 6: Additional Considerations for Urban Stream Classification 24 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 1: Introduction 1.4 Summary The remainder of this report presents greater detail on the individual research studies that bear on the ICM. Chapter 2 profiles research on hydrologic indicators in urban streams, while Chapter 3 summarizes the status of current research on the impact of urbanization on physical habitat indicators. Chapter 4 presents a comprehensive review of the impact of urbanization on ten major stormwater pollutants. Finally, Chapter 5 reviews the growing body of research on the link between IC and biological indicators within urban streams and wetlands. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 25 Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover The natural hydrology of streams is fundamen- tally changed by increased watershed develop- ment. This chapter reviews the impacts of watershed development on selected indicators of stream hydrology. This chapter is organized as follows: 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Increased Runoff Volume 2.3 Increased Peak Discharge Rates 2.4 Increased Bankfull Flow 2.5 Decreased Baseflow 2.6 Conclusions 2.1 Introduction Fundamental changes in urban stream hydrol- ogy occur as a result of three changes in the urban landscape that accompany land develop- ment. First, large areas of the watershed are paved, rendering them impervious. Second, soils are compacted during construction, which significantly reduces their infiltration capabili- ties. Lastly, urban stormwater drainage sys- tems are installed that increase the efficiency with which runoff is delivered to the stream (i.e., curbs and gutters, and storm drain pipes). Consequently, a greater fraction of annual rainfall is converted to surface runoff, runoff occurs more quickly, and peak flows become larger. Additionally, dry weather flow in streams may actually decrease because less groundwater recharge is available. Figure 6 illustrates the change in hydrology due to increased urban runoff as compared to pre- development conditions. Research has demonstrated that the effect of watershed urbanization on peak discharge is more marked for smaller storm events. In particular, the bankfull, or channel forming flow, is increased in magnitude, frequency and duration. Increased bankfull flows have strong ramifications for sediment transport and channel enlargement. All of these changes in the natural water balance have impacts on the physical structure of streams, and ultimately affect water quality and biological diversity. Figure 6: Altered Hydrograph in Response to Urbanization (Schueler, 1987) 26 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover The relationship between watershed IC and stream hydrology is widely accepted, and has been incorporated into many hydrologic engineering models over the past three de- cades. Several articles provide a good sum- mary of these (Bicknell et al., 1993; Hirsch et al., 1990; HEC, 1977; Huber and Dickinson, 1988; McCuen and Moglen, 1988; Overton and Meadows, 1976; Pitt and Voorhees, 1989; Schueler, 1987; USDA, 1992; 1986). The primary impacts of watershed develop- ment on stream hydrology are as follows: •Increased runoff volume •Increased peak discharge rates •Increased magnitude, frequency, and duration of bankfull flows •Diminished baseflow Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 27 Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover 2.2 Increased Runoff Volume Impervious cover and other urban land use alterations, such as soil compaction and storm drain construction, alter infiltration rates and increase runoff velocities and the efficiency with which water is delivered to streams. This decrease in infiltration and basin lag time can significantly increase runoff volumes. Table 7 reviews research on the impact of IC on runoff volume in urban streams. Schueler (1987) demonstrated that runoff values are directly related to subwatershed IC (Figure 7). Runoff data was derived from 44 small catchment areas across the country for EPA’s Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Table 8 illustrates the difference in runoff volume between a meadow and a parking lot, as compiled from engineering models. The parking lot produces more than 15 times more runoff than a meadow for the same storm event. Urban soils are also profoundly modified during the construction process. The compac- tion of urban soils and the removal of topsoil can decrease the infiltration capacity, causing increases in runoff volumes (Schueler, 2000). Bulk density is often used to measure soil compaction, and Table 9 illustrates how bulk density increases in many urban land uses. Figure 7: Runoff Coefficient vs. IC (Schueler, 1987) Note: 44 small urban catchments monitored during the national NURP study 28 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover Reference Key Finding Location Increased Runoff Volume Schueler, 1987 Runoff coefficients were found to be strongly correlated with IC at 44 sites nationwide.U.S. Neller, 1988 Urban watershed produced more than seven times as much runoff as a similar rural watershed. Average time to produce runoff was reduced by 63% in urban watersheds compared to rural watersheds. Australia Increased Peak Discharge Hollis, 1975 Review of data from several studies showed that floods with a return period of a year or longer are not affected by a 5% watershed IC; small floods may be increased 10 times by urbanization; flood with a return period of 100 years may be doubled in size by a 30% watershed IC. N/A Leopold, 1968 Data from seven nationwide studies showed that 20% IC can cause the mean annual flood to double.U.S. Neller, 1988 Average peak discharge from urban watersheds was 3.5 times higher than peak runoff from rural watersheds.Australia Doll et al., 2000 Peak discharge was greater for 18 urban streams versus 11 rural Piedmont streams.NC Sauer et al., 1983 Estimates of flood discharge for various recurrence intervals showed that less than 50% watershed IC can result in a doubling of the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year floods. U.S. Leopold, 1994 Watershed development over a 29-year period caused the peak discharge of the 10-year storm to more than double.MD Kibler et al., 1981 Rainfall/runoff model for two watersheds showed that an increase in IC caused a significant increase in mean annual flood.PA Konrad and Booth, 2002 Evaluated streamflow data at 11 streams and found that the fraction of annual mean discharges was exceeded and maximum annual instantaneous discharges were related to watershed development and road density for moderately and highly developed watersheds. WA Table 7: Research Review of Increased Runoff Volume and Peak Discharge in Urban Streams Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 29 Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover Hydrologic or Water Quality Parameter Parking Lot Meadow Runoff Coefficient 0.95 0.06 Time of Concentration (minutes)4.8 14.4 Peak Discharge, two-year, 24-hour storm (cfs)4.3 0.4 Peak Discharge Rate, 100-year storm (cfs)12.6 3.1 Runoff Volume from one-inch storm (cu. ft)3,450 218 Runoff Velocity @ two-year storm (ft/sec)8 1.8 Key Assumptions: 2-yr, 24-hr storm = 3.1 in; 100-yr storm = 8.9 in. Parking Lot: 100% imperviousness; 3% slope; 200ft flow length; hydraulic radius =.03; concrete channel; suburban Washington C values Meadow: 1% impervious; 3% slope; 200 ft flow length; good vegetative condition; B soils; earthen channel Source: Schueler, 1994a Table 8: Hydrologic Differences Between a Parking Lot and a Meadow (Schueler, 1994a) Undisturbed Soil Type or Urban Condition Surface Bulk Density (grams/cubic centimeter) Urban Condition Surface Bulk Density (grams/cubic centimeter) Peat 0.2 to 0.3 Urban Lawns 1.5 to 1.9 Compost 1.0 Crushed Rock Parking Lot 1.5 to 1.9 Sandy Soils 1.1 to 1.3 Urban Fill Soils 1.8 to 2.0 Silty Sands 1.4 Athletic Fields 1.8 to 2.0 Silt 1.3 to 1.4 Rights-of-Way and Building Pads (85%) 1.5 to 1.8 Silt Loams 1.2 to 1.5 Rights-of-Way and Building Pads (95%)1.6 to 2.1 Organic Silts/Clays 1.0 to 1.2 Concrete Pavement 2.2 Glacial Till 1.6 to 2.0 Rock 2.65 Table 9: Comparison of Bulk Density for Undisturbed Soils and Common Urban Conditions (Schueler, 2000) 30 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover 2.3 Increased Peak Discharge Rate Watershed development has a strong influence on the magnitude and frequency of flooding in urban streams. Peak discharge rates are often used to define flooding risk. Doll et al. (2000) compared 18 urban streams with 11 rural streams in the North Carolina Piedmont and found that unit area peak discharge was always greater in urban streams (Figure 8). Data from Seneca Creek, Maryland also suggest a similar increase in peak discharge. The watershed experienced significant growth during the 1950s and 1960s. Comparison of pre- and post- development gage records suggests that the peak 10-year flow event more than doubled over that time (Leopold, 1994). Hollis (1975) reviewed numerous studies on the effects of urbanization on floods of differ- ent recurrence intervals and found that the effect of urbanization diminishes when flood recurrence gets longer (i.e., 50 and 100 years). Figure 9 shows the effect on flood magnitude in urban watersheds with 30% IC, and shows the one-year peak discharge rate increasing by a factor of 10, compared to an undeveloped watershed. In contrast, floods with a 100-year recurrence interval only double in size under the same watershed conditions. Sauer et al. (1983) evaluated the magnitude of flooding in urban watersheds throughout the United States. An equation was developed for estimating discharge for floods of two-year, 10-year, and 100-year recurrence intervals. The equations used IC to account for increased runoff volume and a basin development factor to account for sewers, curbs and gutters, channel improvements and drainage develop- ment. Sauer noted that IC is not the dominant factor in determining peak discharge rates for extreme floods because these storm events saturate the soils of undeveloped watersheds and produce high peak discharge rates. Sauer found that watersheds with 50% IC can in- crease peak discharge for the two-year flood by a factor of four, the 10-year flood by a factor of three, and the 100-year flood by a factor of 2.5, depending on the basin development factor (Figure 10). Figure 8: Peak Discharge for Urban and Rural Streams in North Carolina (Doll et al., 2000) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 31 Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover 2.4 Increased Bankfull Flow Urbanization also increases the frequency and duration of peak discharge associated with smaller flood events (i.e., one- to two-year return storms). In terms of stream channel morphology, these more frequent bankfull flows are actually much more important than large flood events in forming the channel. In fact, Hollis (1975) demonstrated that urbaniza- tion increased the frequency and magnitude of bankfull flow events to a greater degree than the larger flood events. Figure 10: Relationship of Urban/Rural 100-Year Peak Flow Ratio to Basin Development Factor and IC (Sauer et al., 1983) Figure 9: Effect on Flood Magnitudes of 30% Basin IC (Hollis, 1975) An example of the increase in bankfull flow in arid regions is presented by the U.S. Geologi- cal Survey (1996), which compared the peak discharge rate from two-year storm events before and after watersheds urbanized in Parris Valley, California. Over an approximately 20- year period, watershed IC increased by 13.5%, which caused the two-year peak flow to more than double. Table 10 reviews other research studies on the relationship between watershed IC and bankfull flows in urban streams. 32 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover Leopold (1968) evaluated data from seven nationwide studies and extrapolated this data to illustrate the increase in bankfull flows due to urbanization. Figure 11 summarizes the relationship between bankfull flows over a range of watershed IC. For example, water- sheds that have 20% IC increase the number of flows equal to or greater than bankfull flow by a factor of two. Leopold (1994) also observed a dramatic increase in the frequency of the bankfull event in Watts Branch, an urban subwatershed in Rockville, Maryland. This watershed experienced significant urban development during the 1950s and 1960s. Leopold compared gage records and found that the bankfull storm event frequency increased from two to seven times per year from 1958 to 1987. More recent data on bankfull flow frequency was reported for the Rouge River near Detroit, Michigan by Fongers and Fulcher (2001). They noted that channel-forming flow (1200 cfs) was exceeded more frequently as urbanization increased in the watershed and had become three times more frequent between 1930 and 1990 (Figure 12). McCuen and Moglen (1988) have documented the increase in duration of bankfull flows in response to urbanization using hydrology models. MacRae (1996), monitored a stream in Markham, Ontario downstream of a stormwa- ter pond and found that the hours of Reference Key Finding Location Booth and Reinelt, 1993 Using a simulation model and hydrologic data from four watersheds, it was estimated that more than 10% watershed IC may cause discharge from the two-year storm under current conditions to equal or exceed discharge from the 10-year storm under forested conditions. WA Fongers and Fulcher, 2001 Bankfull flow of 1200 cfs was exceeded more frequently over time with urbanization, and exceedence was three times as frequent from 1930s to 1990s. MI USGS, 1996 Over a 20-year period, IC increased 13.5%, and the two-year peak flow more than doubled in a semi-arid watershed.CA Henshaw and Booth, 2000 Two of three watersheds in the Puget Sound lowlands showed increasing flashiness over 50 years with urbanization.WA Leopold, 1968 Using hydrologic data from a nine-year period for North Branch Brandywine Creek, it was estimated that for a 50% IC watershed, bankfull frequency would be increased fourfold. PA Leopold, 1994 Bankfull frequency increased two to seven times after urbanization in Watts Branch. MD MacRae, 1996 For a site downstream of a stormwater pond in Markham, Ontario hours of exceedence of bankfull flows increased by 4.2 times after the watershed urbanized (34% IC) Ontario Figure 11: Increase in Bankfull Flows Due to Urbanization (Leopold, 1968) Table 10: Research Review of Increased Bankfull Discharge in Urban Streams Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 33 Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover Figure 12: Increase in Number of Exceedences of Bankfull Flow Over Time With Urbanization in the Rouge River, MT (Fongers and Fulcher, 2001) exceedence of bankfull flows increased by a factor of 4.2 once watershed IC exceeded 30%. Modeling for seven streams also downstream of stormwater ponds in Surrey, British Colum- bia also indicated an increase in bankfull flooding in response to watershed development (MacRae, 1996). Watershed IC also increases the “flashiness” of stream hydrographs. Flashiness is defined here Figure 13: Percent of Gage Reading Above Mean Annual Flow for Puget Sound Lowland Streams (Henshaw and Booth, 2000) as the percent of daily flows each year that exceeds the mean annual flow. Henshaw and Booth (2000) evaluated seven urbanized watersheds in the Puget Sound lowland streams and tracked changes in flashiness over 50 years (Figure 13). The most urbanized watersheds experienced flashy discharges. Henshaw and Booth concluded that increased runoff in urban watersheds leads to higher but shorter-duration peak discharges. River Rouge - Number of Exceedances of 1200 cfs Decade 34 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover Reference Key Finding Location Finkenbine et al., 2000 Summer base flow was uniformly low in 11 streams when IC reached 40% or greater.Vancouver Klein, 1979 Baseflow decreased as IC increased in Piedmont streams.MD Saravanapavan, 2002 Percentage of baseflow decreased linearly as IC increased for 13 subwatersheds of Shawsheen River watershed.MA Simmons and Reynolds, 1982 Dry weather flow dropped 20 to 85% after development in several urban watersheds on Long Island.NY Spinello and Simmons, 1992 Baseflow in two Long Island streams went dry as a result of urbanization.NY Konrad and Booth, 2002 No discernable trend over many decades in the annual seven day low flow discharge for 11 Washington streams.WA Wang et al., 2001 Stream baseflow was negatively correlated with watershed IC in 47 small streams, with an apparent breakpoint at 8 to 12% IC.WI Evett et al., 1994 No clear relationship between dry weather flow and urban and rural streams in 21 larger watersheds.NC 2.5 Decreased Baseflow As IC increases in a watershed, less groundwa- ter infiltration is expected, which can poten- tially decrease stream flow during dry periods, (i.e. baseflow). Several East Coast studies provide support for a decrease in baseflow as a result of watershed development. Table 11 reviews eight research studies on baseflow in urban streams. Klein (1979) measured baseflow in 27 small watersheds in the Maryland Piedmont and reported an inverse relationship between IC and baseflow (Figure 14). Spinello and Simmons (1992) demonstrated that baseflow in two urban Long Island streams declined seasonally as a result of urbanization (Figure 15). Saravanapavan (2002) also found that percentage of baseflow decreased in direct proportion to percent IC for 13 subwatersheds of the Shawsheen River watershed in Massa- chusetts (Figure 16). Table 11: Research Review of Decreased Baseflow in Urban Streams Figure 14: Relationship Between Baseflow and Watershed IC in the Streams on Maryland Piedmont (Klein, 1979) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 35 Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover Figure 15: Baseflow Response to Urbanization in Long Island Streams (Spinello and Simmons, 1992) Figure 16: Relationship Between Percentage Baseflow and Percent IC in Massachusetts Streams (Saravanapan, 2002) 36 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover Finkebine et al. (2000) monitored summer baseflow in 11 streams near Vancouver, British Columbia and found that stream base flow was uniformly low due to decreased groundwater recharge in watersheds with more than 40% IC (Figure 17). Baseflow velocity also consis- tently decreased when IC increased (Figure 18). The study cautioned that other factors can affect stream baseflow, such as watershed geology and age of development. Other studies, however, have not been able to establish a relationship between IC and declin- ing baseflow. For example, a study in North Carolina could not conclusively determine that urbanization reduced baseflow in larger urban and suburban watersheds in that area (Evett et al., 1994). In some cases, stream baseflow is supported by deeper aquifers or originate in areas outside the surface watershed boundary. In others, baseflow is augmented by leaking sewers, water pipes and irrigation return flows. This appears to be particularly true in arid and semi-arid areas, where baseflow can actually increase in response to greater IC (Hollis, 1975). For instance, Crippen and Waananen (1969) found that Sharon Creek near San Francisco changed from an ephemeral stream into a perennial stream after urban develop- ment. Increased infiltration from lawn watering and return flow from sewage treatment plants are two common sources of augmented baseflows in these regions (Caraco, 2000a). Figure 18: Effect of Watershed IC on Summer Stream Velocity in Vancouver Streams (Finkerbine et al., 2000) Figure 17: Effect of IC on Summer Baseflow in Vancouver Streams (Finkerbine et al., 2000) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 37 Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover 2.6 Conclusions The changes in hydrology indicators caused by watershed urbanization include increased runoff volume; increased peak discharge; increased magnitude, frequency and duration of bankfull flows; flashier/less predictable flows; and decreased baseflow. Many studies support the direct relationship between IC and these indicators. However, at low levels of watershed IC, site-specific factors such as slope, soils, types of conveyance systems, age of development, and watershed dimensions often play a stronger role in determining a watershed’s hydrologic response. Overall, the following conclusions can be drawn from the relationship between watershed IC and hydrology indicators: •Strong evidence exists for the direct relationship between watershed IC and increased stormwater runoff volume and peak discharge. These relationships are considered so strong that they have been incorporated into widely accepted engi- neering models. •The relationship between IC and bankfull flow frequency has not been extensively documented, although abundant data exists for differences between urban and non- urban watersheds. •The relationship between IC and declining stream flow is more ambiguous and appears to vary regionally in response to climate and geologic factors, as well as water and sewer infrastructure. The changes in hydrology indicators caused by watershed urbanization directly influence physical and habitat characteristics of streams. The next chapter reviews how urban streams physically respond to the major changes to their hydrology. 38 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 2: Hydrologic Impacts of Impervious Cover Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 39 Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover A growing body of scientific literature docu- ments the physical changes that occur in streams undergoing watershed urbanization. This chapter discusses the impact of watershed development on various measures of physical habitat in urban stream channels and is orga- nized as follows: 3.1 Difficulty in Measuring Habitat 3.2 Changes in Channel Geometry 3.3 Effect on Composite Indexes of Stream Habitat 3.4 Effect on Individual Elements of Stream Habitat 3.5 Increased Stream Warming 3.6 Alteration of Stream Channel Network 3.7 Conclusion This chapter reviews the available evidence on stream habitat. We begin by looking at geo- morphological research that has examined how the geometry of streams changes in response to altered urban hydrology. The typical response is an enlargement of the cross-sectional area of the stream channel through a process of channel incision, widening, or a combination of both. This process triggers an increase in bank and/or bed erosion that increases sedi- ment transport from the stream, possibly for several decades or more. Next, we examine the handful of studies that have evaluated the relationship between watershed development and composite indica- tors of stream habitat (such as the habitat Rapid Bioassessment Protocol, or RBP). In the fourth section, we examine the dozen studies that have evaluated how individual habitat elements respond to watershed development. These studies show a consistent picture. Generally, streams with low levels of IC have stable banks, contain considerable large woody debris (LWD) and possess complex habitat structure. As watershed IC increases, however, urban streambanks become increasingly unstable, streams lose LWD, and they develop a more simple and uniform habitat structure. This is typified by reduced pool depths, loss of pool and riffle sequences, reduced channel roughness and less channel sinuosity. Water temperature is often regarded as a key habitat element, and the fifth section describes the stream warming effect observed in urban streams in six studies. The last section looks at the effect of watershed development on the stream channel network as a whole, in regard to headwater stream loss and the creation of fish barriers. 40 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover 3.1 Difficulty in Measuring Habitat The physical transformation of urban streams is perhaps the most conspicuous impact of watershed development. These dramatic physical changes are easily documented in sequences of stream photos with progressively greater watershed IC (see Figure 19). Indeed, the network of headwater stream channels generally disappears when watershed IC exceeds 60% (CWP). 3.1.1 The Habitat Problem It is interesting to note that while the physical impacts of urbanization on streams are widely accepted, they have rarely been documented by the research community. As a consequence, no predictive models exist to quantify how physical indicators of stream habitat will decline in response to watershed IC, despite the fact that most would agree that some kind of decline is expected (see Table 12). Figure 19: Urban Stream Channels with Progressively Greater IC 10% IC 28% IC 31% IC 40% IC 53% IC 55% IC Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 41 Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover The main reason for this gap is that “habitat” is extremely hard to define, and even more difficult to measure in the field. Most indices of physical habitat involve a visual and qualita- tive assessment of 10 or more individual habitat elements that are perceived by fishery and stream biologists to contribute to quality stream habitat. Since these indices include many different habitat elements, each of which is given equal weight, they have not been very useful in discriminating watershed effects (Wang et al., 2001). Researchers have had greater success in relating individual habitat elements to water- shed conditions, such as large woody debris (LWD), embeddedness, or bank stability. Even so, direct testing has been limited, partly because individual habitat elements are hard to measure and are notoriously variable in both space and time. Consider bank stability for a moment. It would be quite surprising to see a highly urban stream that did not have unstable banks. Yet, the hard question is exactly how would bank instability be quantitatively measured? Where would it be measured — at a point, a cross-section, along a reach, on the left bank or the right? Geomorphologists stress that no two stream reaches are exactly alike, due to differences in gradient, bed material, sediment transport, hydrology, watershed history and many other factors. Consequently, it is difficult to make controlled comparisons among different streams. Indeed, geomorphic theory stresses that individual stream reaches respond in a highly dynamic way to changes in watershed hydrology and sediment transport, and can take several decades to fully adjust to a new equi- librium. Returning to our example of defining bank stability, how might our measure of bank instability change over time as its watershed gradually urbanizes, is built out, and possibly reaches a new equilibrium over several de- cades? It is not very surprising that the effect of watershed development on stream habitat is widely observed, yet rarely measured. Specific Impacts Sediment transport modified Channel enlargement Channel incision Stream embeddedness Loss of large woody debris Changes in pool/riffle structure Loss of riparian cover Reduced channel sinuosity Warmer in-stream temperatures Loss of cold water species and diversity Channel hardening Fish blockages Loss of 1st and 2nd order streams through storm drain enclosure Table 12: Physical Impacts of Urbanization on Streams 42 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover 3.2 Changes in Stream Geometry As noted in the last chapter, urbanization causes an increase in the frequency and duration of bankfull and sub-bankfull flow events in streams. These flow events perform more “effective work” on the stream channel, as defined by Leopold (1994). The net effect is that an urban stream channel is exposed to more shear stress above the critical threshold needed to move bank and bed sediments (Figure 20). This usually triggers a cycle of active bank erosion and greater sediment transport in urban streams. As a consequence, the stream channel adjusts by expanding its cross-sectional area, in order to effectively accommodate greater flows and sediment supply. The stream channel can expand by incision, widening, or both. Incision refers to stream down-cutting through the streambed, whereas widening refers to lateral erosion of the stream bank and its flood plain (Allen and Narramore, 1985; Booth, 1990; Morisawa and LaFlure, 1979). 3.2.1 Channel Enlargement A handful of research studies have specifically examined the relationship between watershed development and stream channel enlargement (Table 13). These studies indicate that stream cross-sectional areas can enlarge by as much as two to eight times in response to urbanization, although the process is complex and may take several decades to complete (Pizzuto et al., 2000; Caraco, 2000b; Hammer, 1972). An example of channel enlargement is provided in Figure 21, which shows how a stream cross- section in Watts Branch near Rockville, Maryland has expanded in response to nearly five decades of urbanization (i.e., watershed IC increased from two to 27%). Figure 20: Increased Shear Stress from a Hydrograph (MacRae and Rowney, 1992) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 43 Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover Reference Key Finding Location % IC used as Indicator Caraco, 2000b Reported enlargement in ratios of 1.5 to 2.2 for 10 stream reaches in Watts Branch and computed ultimate enlargement ratios of 2.0 MD MacCrae and De Andrea, 1999 Introduced the concept of ultimate channel enlargement based on watershed IC and channel characteristics. Ontario, TX Morse, 2001 Demonstrated increased erosion rates with increases in IC (channels were generally of the same geomorphic type).ME Urbanization Used as Indicator Allen and Narramore, 1985 Enlargement ratios in two urban streams ranged from 1.7 to 2.4.TX Bledsoe, 2001 Reported that channel response to urbanization depends on other factors in addition to watershed IC including geology, vegetation, sediment and flow regimes. N/A Booth and Henshaw, 2001 Evaluated channel cross section erosion rates and determined that these rates vary based on additional factors including the underlying geology, age of development and gradient. WA Hammer, 1972 Enlargement ratios ranged from 0.7 to 3.8 in urban watersheds.PA Neller, 1989 Enlargement ratios in small urban catchments ranged from two to 7.19, the higher enlargement ratios were primarily from incision occurring in small channels. Australia Pizzuto et al., 2000 Evaluated channel characteristics of paired urban and rural streams and demonstrated median bankfull cross sectional increase of 180%. Median values for channel sinuosity were 8% lower in urban streams; Mannings N values were found to be 10% lower in urban streams. PA Hession et al., in press Bankfull widths for urban streams were significantly wider than non-urban streams in 26 paired streams. Forested reaches were consistently wider than non-forested reaches in urban streams. MD, DE, PA Dartiguenave et al., 1997 Bank erosion accounted for up to 75% of the sediment transport in urban watersheds.TX Trimble, 1997 Demonstrated channel enlargement over time in an urbanizing San Diego Creek; Bank erosion accounted for over 66% of the sediment transport. CA Table 13: Research Review of Channel Enlargement and Sediment Transport in Urban Streams 44 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover Some geomorphologists suggest that urban stream channels will reach an “ultimate enlargement” relative to pre-developed chan- nels (MacRae and DeAndrea, 1999) and that this can be predicted based on watershed IC, age of development, and the resistance of the channel bed and banks. A relationship between ultimate stream channel enlargement and watershed IC has been developed for alluvial streams in Texas, Vermont and Maryland (Figure 22). Other geomorphologists such as Bledsoe (2001) and Booth and Henshaw (2001) contend that channel response to urbanization is more complex, and also de- pends on geology, grade control, stream gradient and other factors. Channel incision is often limited by grade control caused by bedrock, cobbles, armored substrates, bridges, culverts and pipelines. These features can impede the downward erosion of the stream channel and thereby limit the incision process. Stream incision can become severe in streams that have softer substrates such as sand, gravel and clay (Booth, 1990). For example, Allen and Narramore (1985) showed that channel en- largement in chalk channels was 12 to 67% greater than in shale channels near Dallas, Texas. They attributed the differences to the softer substrate, greater velocities and higher shear stress in the chalk channels. Neller (1989) and Booth and Henshaw (2001) also report that incised urban stream channels possess cross-sectional areas that are larger than would be predicted based on watershed area or discharge alone. This is due to the fact that larger floods are often contained within the stream channel rather than the floodplain. Thus, incised channels often result in greater erosion and geomorphic change. In general, stream conditions that can foster incision include erodible substrates, moderate to high stream gradients, and an absence of grade control features. Channel widening occurs more frequently when streams have grade control and the stream has cut into its bank, thereby expanding its cross-sectional area. Urban stream channels often have artificial grade controls caused by frequent culverts and road crossings. These grade controls often cause localized sediment deposition that can reduce the capacity of culverts and bridge crossings to pass flood waters. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Cross Section Stations (ft) - Looking DownstreamElevation (ft-msl)Historic Section Current Section Bankfull Depth Ultimate Section ? Historic cross-section Current cross-section Ultimate cross-section ? Figure 21: Stream Channel Enlargement in Watts Branch, MD 1950-2000 (Caraco, 2000b) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 45 Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover The loss of flood plain and riparian vegetation has been strongly associated with watershed urbanization (May et al., 1997). A few studies have shown that the loss of riparian trees can result in increased erosion and channel migra- tion rates (Beeson and Doyle, 1995 and Allmendinger et al., 1999). For example, Beeson and Doyle (1995) found that meander bends with vegetation were five times less likely to experience significant erosion from a major flood than non-vegetated meander bends.Hession et al. (in press) observed that forested reaches consistently had greater bankfull widths than non-forested reaches in a series of urban streams in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware. 3.2.2 Effect of Channel Enlargement on Sediment Yield Regardless of whether a stream incises, widens, or does both, it will greatly increase sediment transport from the watershed due to erosion. Urban stream research conducted in California and Texas suggests that 60 to 75% of the sediment yield of urban watersheds can be derived from channel erosion (Trimble, 1997 and Dartingunave et al., 1997) This can be compared to estimates for rural streams where channel erosion accounts for only five to 20% of the annual sediment yield (Collins et al., 1997 and Walling and Woodward, 1995). Some geomorphologists speculate that urban stream channels will ultimately adjust to their post-development flow regime and sediment supply. Finkenbine et al. (2000) observed these conditions in Vancouver streams, where study streams eventually stabilized two decades after the watersheds were fully developed. In older urban streams, reduced sediment transport can be expected when urbanization has been completed. At this point, headwater stream channels are replaced by storm drains and pipes, which can transport less sediment. The lack of available sediment may cause down- stream channel erosion, due to the diminished sediment supply found in the stream. Figure 22: Ultimate Channel Enlargement in MD, UT and TX Alluvial Streams (MacRae and DeAndrea, 1999 and CWP, 2001b) 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 Imperviousness (%)Enlargement Ratio 46 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover 3.3 Effect on Composite Measures of Stream Habitat Composite measures of stream habitat refer to assessments such as EPA’s Habitat Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) that combine multiple habitat elements into a single score or index (Barbour et al., 1999). For example, the RBP requires visual assessment of 10 stream habitat elements, including embeddedness, epifaunal substrate quality, velocity/depth regime, sediment deposition, channel flow status, riffle frequency, bank stabilization, streambank vegetation and riparian vegetation width. Each habitat element is qualitatively scored on a 20 point scale, and each element is weighted equally to derive a composite score for the stream reach. To date, several studies have found a relation- ship between declining composite habitat indicator scores and increasing watershed IC in different eco-regions of the United States. A typical pattern in the composite habitat scores is provided for headwater streams in Maine (Morse, 2001; Figure 23). This general finding has been reported in the mid-Atlantic, North- east and the Northwest (Black and Veatch, 1994; Booth and Jackson, 1997; Hicks and Larson, 1997; Maxted and Shaver, 1997; Morse, 2001; Stranko and Rodney, 2001). However, other researchers have found a much weaker relationship between composite habitat scores and watershed IC. Wang and his col- leagues (2001) found that composite habitat scores were not correlated with watershed IC in Wisconsin streams, although it was corre- lated with individual habitat elements, such as streambank erosion. They noted that many agricultural and rural streams had fair to poor composite habitat scores, due to poor riparian management and sediment deposition. The same basic conclusion was also reported for streams of the Maryland Piedmont (MNCPPC, 2000). Figure 23: Relationship Between Habitat Quality and IC in Maine Streams (Morse, 2001) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 47 Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover 3.4 Effect on Individual Elements of Stream Habitat Roughly a dozen studies have examined the effect of watershed development on the degradation of individual stream habitat features such as bank stability, embeddedness, riffle/pool quality, and loss of LWD (Table 14). Much of this data has been acquired from the Pacific Northwest, where the importance of such habitat for migrating salmon has been a persistent management concern. 3.4.1 Bank Erosion and Bank Stability It is somewhat surprising that we could only find one study that related bank stability or bank erosion to watershed IC. Conducted by Booth (1991) in the streams of the Puget Sound lowlands, the study reported that stream banks were consistently rated as stable in watersheds with less than 10% IC, but became progressively more unstable above this thresh- old. Dozens of stream assessments have found high rates of bank erosion in urban streams, but none, to our knowledge, has systematically related the prevalence or severity of bank erosion to watershed IC. As noted earlier, this may reflect the lack of a universally recog- nized method to measure comparative bank erosion in the field. 3.4.2 Embeddedness Embeddedness is a term that describes the extent to which the rock surfaces found on the stream bottom are filled in with sand, silts and clay. In a healthy stream, the interstitial pores between cobbles, rock and gravel generally lack fine sediments, and are an active habitat zone and detrital processing area. The in- creased sediment transport in urban streams can rapidly fill up these pores in a process known as embedding. Normally, embeddedness is visually measured in riffle zones of streams. Riffles tend to be an impor- tant habitat for aquatic insects and fish (such as darters and sculpins). Clean stream substrates are also critical to trout and salmon egg incubation and embryo development. May et al. (1997) demonstrated that the percent of fine sediment particles in riffles generally increased with watershed IC (Figure 24). However, Finkenbine et al. (2000) reported that embeddedness eventually decreased slightly after watershed land use and sediment trans- port had stabilized for 20 years. Figure 24: Fine Material Sediment Deposition as a Function of IC in Pacific Northwest Streams (Horner et al., 1997) 48 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover Reference Key Finding Location % IC Used as Indicator Black & Veatch, 1994 Habitat scores were ranked as poor in five subwatersheds that had greater than 30% IC.MD Booth and Jackson, 1997 Increase in degraded habitat conditions with increases in watershed IC. WA Hicks and Larson, 1997 Reported a reduction in composite stream habitat indices with increasing watershed IC. MA May et al., 1997 Composite stream habitat declined most rapidly during the initial phase of the watershed urbanization, when percent IC exceeded the 5-10% range.WA Stranko and Rodney, 2001 Composite index of stream habitat declined with increasing watershed IC in coastal plain streams.MD Wang et al., 2001 Composite stream habitat scores were not correlated with watershed IC in 47 small watersheds, although channel erosion was. Non-urban watersheds were highly agricultural and often lacked riparian forest buffers. WI MNCPPC, 2000 Reported that stream habitat scores were not correlated with IC in suburban watersheds. MD Morse, 2001 Composite habitat values tended to decline with increases in watershed IC.ME Booth, 1991 Channel stability and fish habitat quality declined rapidly after 10% watershed IC.WA Booth et al., 1997 Decreased LWD with increased IC.PNW Finkenbine et al., 2000 LWD was scarce in streams with greater than 20% IC in Vancouver.B.C. Horner & May, 1999 When IC levels were >5%, average LWD densities fell below 300 pieces/kilometer. PNW Horner et al., 1997 Interstitial spaces in streambed sediments begin to fill with increasing watershed IC.PNW Urbanization Used as Indicator Dunne and Leopold, 1978 Natural channels replaced by storm drains and pipes; increased erosion rates observed downstream. MD May et al., 1997 Forested riparian corridor width declines with increased watershed IC.PNW MWCOG, 1992 Fish blockages caused by bridges and culverts noted in urban watersheds.D.C. Pizzuto et al., 2000 Urban streams had reduced pool depth, roughness, and sinuosity, compared to rural streams; Pools were 31% shallower in urban streams compared to non-urban ones. PA Richey, 1982 Altered pool/riffle sequence observed in urban streams.WA Scott et al., 1986 Loss of habitat diversity noted in urban watersheds.PNW Spence et al., 1996 Large woody debris is important for habitat diversity and anadromous fish.PNW Table 14: Research Review of Changes in Urban Stream Habitat Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 49 Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover 3.4.3 Large Woody Debris (LWD) LWD is a habitat element that describes the approximate volume of large woody material (< four inches in diameter) found in contact with the stream. The presence and stability of LWD is an important habitat parameter in streams. LWD can form dams and pools, trap sediment and detritus, stabilize stream chan- nels, dissipate flow energy, and promote habitat complexity (Booth et al., 1997). LWD creates a variety of pool features (plunge, lateral, scour and backwater); short riffles; undercut banks; side channels; and a range of water depths (Spence et al., 1996). Urban streams tend to have a low supply of LWD, as increased stormwater flows transport LWD and clears riparian areas. Horner et al. (1997) presents evidence from Pacific Northwest streams that LWD decreases in response to increasing watershed IC (Figure 25). 3.4.4 Changes in Other Individual Stream Parameters One of the notable changes in urban stream habitat is a decrease in pool depth and a general simplification of habitat features such as pools, riffles and runs. For example, Richey (1982) and Scott et al. (1986) reported an increase in the prevalence of glides and a corresponding altered riffle/pool sequence due to urbanization. Pizzuto et al. (2000) reported a median 31% decrease in pool depth in urban streams when compared to forested streams. Pizzuto et al. also reported a modest decrease in channel sinuosity and channel roughness in the same urban streams in Pennsylvania. Several individual stream habitat parameters appear to have received no attention in urban stream research to date. These parameters include riparian shading, wetted perimeter, various measures of velocity/depth regimes, riffle frequency, and sediment deposition in pools. More systematic monitoring of these individual stream habitat parameters may be warranted. Figure 25: LWD as a Function of IC in Puget Sound Streams (Horner et al., 1997) 50 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover Reference Key Finding Location %IC Used as Indicator Galli, 1990 Increase in stream temperatures of five to 12 degrees Fahrenheit in urban watersheds; stream warming linked to IC.MD Urbanization Used as Indicator Johnson, 1995 Up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit increases in stream temperatures after summer storm events in an urban area MN LeBlanc et al., 1997 Calibrated a model predicting stream temperature increase as a result of urbanization Ontario MCDEP, 2000 Monitoring effect of urbanization and stormwater ponds on stream temperatures revealed stream warming associated with urbanization and stormwater ponds MD Paul et al., 2001 Daily mean stream temperatures in summer increased with urban land use GA 3.5 Increased Stream Warming IC directly influences our local weather in urban areas. This effect is obvious to anyone walking across a parking lot on a hot summer day, when temperatures often reach a scorch- ing 110 to 120 degrees F. Parking lots and other hard surfaces tend to absorb solar energy and release it slowly. Furthermore, they lack the normal cooling properties of trees and vegetation, which act as natural air condition- ers. Finally, urban areas release excess heat as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels for heating, cooling and transportation. As a result, highly urban areas tend to be much warmer than their rural counterparts and are known as urban heat islands. Researchers have found that summer temperatures tend to be six to eight degrees F warmer in the summer and two to four degrees F warmer during the winter months. Water temperature in headwater streams is strongly influenced by local air temperatures. Summer temperatures in urban streams have been shown to increase by as much as five to 12 degrees F in response to watershed develop- ment (Table 15). Increased water temperatures can preclude temperature-sensitive species from being able to survive in urban streams. Figure 26 shows the stream warming phenom- enon in small headwater streams in the Mary- land Piedmont. Galli (1990) reported that stream temperatures throughout the summer increased in urban watersheds. He monitored five headwater streams in the Maryland Piedmont with different levels of IC. Each urban stream had mean temperatures that were consistently warmer than a forested reference stream, and stream warming appeared to be a direct function of watershed IC. Other factors, such as lack of riparian cover and the presence of ponds, were also demonstrated to amplify stream warming, but the primary contributing factor appeared to be watershed IC. Johnson (1995) studied how stormwater influenced an urban trout stream in Minnesota and reported up to a 10 degree F increase in stream water temperatures after summer storm events. Paul et al. (2001) evaluated stream temperatures for 30 subwatersheds to the Etowah River in Georgia, which ranged from five to 61% urban land. They found a correla- tion between summer daily mean water tem- peratures and the percentage of urban land in a subwatershed. Table 15: Research Review of Thermal Impacts in Urban Streams Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 51 Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover Discharges from stormwater ponds can also contribute to stream warming in urban water- sheds. Three studies highlight the temperature increase that can result from stormwater ponds. A study in Ontario found that baseflow tem- peratures below wet stormwater ponds in- creased by nine to 18 degrees F in the summer (SWAMP, 2000a, b). Oberts (1997) also Figure 26: Stream Temperature Increase in Response to IC in Maryland Piedmont Streams (Galli, 1990) measured change in the baseflow temperature as it flowed through a wetland/wet pond system in Minnesota. He concluded that the temperature had increased by an average of nine degrees F during the summer months. Galli (1988) also observed a mean increase of two to 10 degrees F in four stormwater ponds located in Maryland. 52 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover 3.6 Alteration of Stream Channel Networks Urban stream channels are often severely altered by man. Channels are lined with rip rap or concrete, natural channels are straightened, and first order and ephemeral streams are enclosed in storm drain pipes. From an engi- neering standpoint, these modifications rapidly convey flood waters downstream and locally stabilize stream banks. Cumulatively, however, these modifications can have a dramatic effect on the length and habitat quality of headwater stream networks. 3.6.1 Channel Modification Over time, watershed development can alter or eliminate a significant percentage of the perennial stream network. In general, the loss of stream network becomes quite extensive when watershed IC exceeds 50%. This loss is striking when pre- and post-development stream networks are compared (Figure 27). The first panel illustrates the loss of stream network over time in a highly urban Northern Virginia watershed; the second panel shows how the drainage network of Rock Creek has changed in response to watershed develop- ment. Figure 27: a. Drainage Network of Rock Creek, D.C. (Dunne and Leopold, 1978) and b. Drainage Network of Four Mile Run, VA Before and After Urbanization (NVRC, 2001) a. b. 1913 1964 1917 1998 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 53 Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover In a national study of 269 gaged urban water- sheds, Sauer et al. (1983) observed that channelization and channel hardening were important watershed variables that control peak discharge rates. The channel modifica- tions increase the efficiency with which runoff is transported through the stream channel, increasing critical shear stress velocities and causing downstream channel erosion. Figure 28: Fish Migration Barriers in the Anacostia Watershed of D.C. and MD (MWCOG, 1992) 3.6.2 Barriers to Fish Migration Infrastructure such as bridges, dams, pipelines and culverts can create partial or total barriers to fish migration and impair the ability of fish to move freely in a watershed. Blockages can have localized effects on small streams where non-migratory fish species can be prevented from re-colonizing upstream areas after acutely toxic events. The upstream movement of anadromous fish species such as shad, herring, salmon and steelhead can also be blocked by these barriers. Figure 28 depicts the prevalence of fish barriers in the Anacostia Watershed (MWCOG, 1992). 54 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 3: Physical Impacts of Impervious Cover 3.7 Conclusion Watershed development and the associated increase in IC have been found to significantly degrade the physical habitat of urban streams. In alluvial streams, the effects of channel enlargement and sediment transport can be severe at relatively low levels of IC (10 to 20%). However, the exact response of any stream is also contingent upon a combination of other physical factors such as geology, vegetation, gradient, the age of development, sediment supply, the use and design of storm- water treatment practices, and the extent of riparian buffers (Bledsoe, 2001). Despite the uncertainty introduced by these factors, the limited geomorphic research to date suggests that physical habitat quality is almost always degraded by higher levels of watershed IC. Even in bedrock-controlled channels, where sediment transport and channel enlargement may not be as dramatic, researchers have noted changes in stream habitat features, such as embeddedness, loss of LWD, and stream warming. Overall, the following conclusions can be made about the influence of watershed devel- opment on the physical habitat of urban streams: •The major changes in physical habitat in urban streams are caused by the increased frequency and duration of bankfull and sub-bankfull discharges, and the attendant changes in sediment supply and transport. As a consequence, many urban streams experience significant channel enlarge- ment. Generally, channel enlargement is most evident in alluvial streams. •Typical habitat changes observed in urban streams include increased embeddedness, reduced supply of LWD, and simplifica- tion of stream habitat features such as pools, riffles and runs, as well as reduced channel sinuosity. •Stream warming is often directly linked to watershed development, although more systematic subwatershed sampling is needed to precisely predict the extent of warming. •Channel straightening, hardening and enclosure and the creation of fish barriers are all associated with watershed develop- ment. More systematic research is needed to establish whether these variables can be predicted based on watershed IC. •In general, stream habitat diminishes at about 10% watershed IC, and becomes severely degraded beyond 25% watershed IC. While our understanding of the relationship between stream habitat features and watershed development has improved in recent years, the topic deserves greater research in three areas. First, more systematic monitoring of compos- ite habitat variables needs to be conducted across the full range of watershed IC. In particular, research is needed to define the approximate degree of watershed IC where urban streams are transformed into urban drainage systems. Second, additional research is needed to explore the relationship between watershed IC and individual and measurable stream habitat parameters, such as bank erosion, channel sinuosity, pool depth and wetted perimeter. Lastly, more research is needed to determine if watershed treatment such as stormwater practices and stream buffers can mitigate the impacts of watershed IC on stream habitat. Together, these three research efforts could provide a technical foundation to develop a more predictive model of how watershed development influences stream habitat. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 55 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover This chapter presents information on pollutant concentrations found in urban stormwater runoff based on a national and regional data assessment for nine categories of pollutants. Included is a description of the Simple Method, which can be used to estimate pollut- ant loads based on the amount of IC found in a catchment or subwatershed. This chapter also addresses specific water quality impacts of stormwater pollutants and explores research on the sources and source areas of stormwater pollutants. This chapter is organized as follows: 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Summary of National and Regional Stormwater Pollutant Concentration Data 4.3 Relationship Between Pollutant Loads and IC: The Simple Method 4.4 Sediment 4.5 Nutrients 4.6 Trace Metals 4.7 Hydrocarbons (PAH and Oil and Grease) 4.8 Bacteria and Pathogens 4.9 Organic Carbon 4.10 MTBE 4.11 Pesticides 4.12 Deicers 4.13 Conclusion 4.1 Introduction Streams are usually the first aquatic system to receive stormwater runoff, and their water quality can be compromised by the pollutants it contains. Stormwater runoff typically contains dozens of pollutants that are detect- able at some concentration, however small. Simply put, any pollutant deposited or derived from an activity on land will likely end up in stormwater runoff, although certain pollutants are consistently more likely to cause water quality problems in receiving waters. Pollut- ants that are frequently found in stormwater runoff can be grouped into nine broad catego- ries: sediment, nutrients, metals, hydrocarbons, bacteria and pathogens, organic carbon, MTBE, pesticides, and deicers. The impact that stormwater pollutants exert on water quality depends on many factors, includ- ing concentration, annual pollutant load, and category of pollutant. Based on nationally reported concentration data, there is consider- able variation in stormwater pollutant concen- trations. This variation has been at least partially attributed to regional differences, including rainfall and snowmelt. The volume and regularity of rainfall, the length of snow accumulation, and the rate of snowmelt can all influence stormwater pollutant concentrations. The annual pollutant load can have long-term effects on stream water quality, and is particu- larly important information for stormwater managers to have when dealing with non-point source pollution control. The Simple Method is a model developed to estimate the pollutant load for chemical pollutants, assuming that the annual pollutant load is a function of IC. It is an effective method for determining annual sediment, nutrient, and trace metal loads. It cannot always be applied to other stormwater pollutants, since they are not always correlated with IC. The direct water quality impact of stormwater pollutants also depends on the type of pollut- ant, as different pollutants impact streams differently. For example, sediments affect stream habitat and aquatic biodiversity; nutrients cause eutrophication; metals, hydro- carbons, deicers, and MTBE can be toxic to aquatic life; and organic carbon can lower dissolved oxygen levels. The impact stormwater pollutants have on 56 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover water quality can also directly influence human uses and activities. Perhaps the pollutants of greatest concern are those with associated public health impacts, such as bacteria and pathogens. These pollutants can affect the availability of clean drinking water and limit consumptive recreational activities, such as swimming or fishing. In extreme situations, these pollutants can even limit contact recre- ational activities such as boating and wading. It should be noted that although there is much research available on the effects of urbaniza- tion on water quality, the majority has not been focused on the impact on streams, but on the response of lakes, reservoirs, rivers and estuaries. It is also important to note that not all pollutants are equally represented in moni- toring conducted to date. While we possess excellent monitoring data for sediment, nutrients and trace metals, we have relatively little monitoring data for pesticides, hydrocar- bons, organic carbon, deicers, and MTBE. 4.2 Summary of National and Regional Stormwater Pollutant Concentration Data 4.2.1 National Data National mean concentrations of typical stormwater pollutants are presented in Table 16. National stormwater data are compiled from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), with additional data obtained from the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS), as well as initial stormwater monitoring conducted for EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimina- tion System (NPDES) Phase I stormwater program. In most cases, stormwater pollutant data is reported as an event mean concentration (EMC), which represents the average concen- tration of the pollutant during an entire storm- water runoff event. When evaluating stormwater EMC data, it is important to keep in mind that regional EMCs can differ sharply from the reported national pollutant EMCs. Differences in EMCs between regions are often attributed to the variation in the amount and frequency of rainfall and snowmelt. 4.2.2 Regional Differences Due to Rainfall The frequency of rainfall is important, since it influences the accumulation of pollutants on IC that are subsequently available for wash-off during storm events. The USGS developed a national stormwater database encompassing 1,123 storms in 20 metropolitan areas and used it as the primary data source to define regional differences in stormwater EMCs. Driver (1988) performed regression analysis to determine which factors had the greatest influence on stormwater EMCs and determined that annual rainfall depth was the best overall predictor. Driver grouped together stormwater EMCs based on the depth of average annual rainfall, and Table 17 depicts the regional rainfall groupings and general trends for each Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 57 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover Pollutant Source EMCs Number of EventsMeanMedian Sediments (mg/l) TSS (1)78.4 54.5 3047 Nutrients (mg/l) Total P (1)0.32 0.26 3094 Soluble P (1)0.13 0.10 1091 Total N (1)2.39 2.00 2016 TKN (1)1.73 1.47 2693 Nitrite & Nitrate (1)0.66 0.53 2016 Metals (Fg/l) Copper (1)13.4 11.1 1657 Lead (1)67.5 50.7 2713 Zinc (1)162 129 2234 Cadmium (1)0.7 N/R 150 Chromium (4)4 7 164 Hydrocarbons (mg/l) PAH (5)3.5 N/R N/R Oil and Grease (6)3 N/R N/R Bacteria and Pathogens (colonies/ 100ml) Fecal Coliform (7)15,038 N/R 34 Fecal Streptococci (7)35,351 N/R 17 Organic Carbon (mg/l) TOC (11)17 15.2 19 studies BOD (1)14.1 11.5 1035 COD (1)52.8 44.7 2639 MTBE (Fg/l) MTBE (8)N/R 1.6 592 Pesticides (Fg/l) Diazinon (10)N/R 0.025 326 (2)N/R 0.55 76 Chlorpyrifos (10)N/R N/R 327 Atrazine (10)N/R 0.023 327 Prometon (10)N/R 0.031 327 Simazine (10)N/R 0.039 327 Chloride (mg/l) Chloride (9)N/R 397 282 Sources: (1) Smullen and Cave, 1998; (2) Brush et al., 1995; (3) Baird et al., 1996; (4) Bannerman et al., 1996; (5) Rabanal and Grizzard, 1995; (6) Crunkilton et al., 1996; (7) Schueler, 1999; (8) Delzer, 1996; (9) Environment Canada, 2001; (10) USEPA, 1998; (11) CWP, 2001a N/R - Not Reported Pollutant Source EMCs Number of EventsMeanMedian Sediments (mg/l) TSS (1)78.4 54.5 3047 Nutrients (mg/l) Total P (1)0.32 0.26 3094 Soluble P (1)0.13 0.10 1091 Total N (1)2.39 2.00 2016 TKN (1)1.73 1.47 2693 Nitrite & Nitrate (1)0.66 0.53 2016 Metals (Fg/l) Copper (1)13.4 11.1 1657 Lead (1)67.5 50.7 2713 Zinc (1)162 129 2234 Cadmium (1)0.7 N/R 150 Chromium (4)4 7 164 Hydrocarbons (mg/l) PAH (5)3.5 N/R N/R Oil and Grease (6)3 N/R N/R Bacteria and Pathogens (colonies/ 100ml) Fecal Coliform (7)15,038 N/R 34 Fecal Streptococci (7)35,351 N/R 17 Organic Carbon (mg/l) TOC (11)17 15.2 19 studies BOD (1)14.1 11.5 1035 COD (1)52.8 44.7 2639 MTBE (Fg/l) MTBE (8)N/R 1.6 592 Pesticides (Fg/l) Diazinon (10)N/R 0.025 326 (2)N/R 0.55 76 Chlorpyrifos (10)N/R N/R 327 Atrazine (10)N/R 0.023 327 Prometon (10)N/R 0.031 327 Simazine (10)N/R 0.039 327 Chloride (mg/l) Chloride (9)N/R 397 282 Sources: (1) Smullen and Cave, 1998; (2) Brush et al., 1995; (3) Baird et al., 1996; (4) Bannerman et al., 1996; (5) Rabanal and Grizzard, 1995; (6) Crunkilton et al., 1996; (7) Schueler, 1999; (8) Delzer, 1996; (9) Environment Canada, 2001; (10) USEPA, 1998; (11) CWP, 2001a N/R - Not Reported MTBE (Fg/l) 592 Table 16: National EMCs for Stormwater Pollutants region. Table 18 illustrates the distribution of stormwater EMCs for a range of rainfall regions from 13 local studies, based on other monitoring studies. In general, stormwater EMCs for nutrients, suspended sediment and metals tend to be higher in arid and semi-arid 58 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover regions and tend to decrease slightly when annual rainfall increases (Table 19). It is also hypothesized that a greater amount of sediment is eroded from pervious surfaces in arid or semi-arid regions than in humid regions due to the sparsity of protective vegetative cover. Table 19 shows that the highest concen- trations of total suspended solids were re- corded in regions with least rainfall. In addi- tion, the chronic toxicity standards for several metals are most frequently exceeded during low rainfall regions (Table 20). 4.2.3 Cold Region Snowmelt Data In colder regions, snowmelt can have a signifi- cant impact on pollutant concentrations. Snow accumulation in winter coincides with pollut- ant build-up; therefore, greater concentrations of pollutants are measured during snowmelt events. Sources of snowpack pollution in urban areas include wet and dry atmospheric deposi- tion, traffic emissions, urban litter, deteriorated infrastructure, and deicing chemicals and abrasives (WERF, 1999). Oberts et al. (1989) measured snowmelt pollutants in Minnesota streams and found that as much as 50% of annual sediment, nutrient, hydrocarbon and metal loads could be attrib- uted to snowmelt runoff during late winter and early spring. This trend probably applies to any region where snow cover persists through much of the winter. Pollutants accumulate in the snowpack and then contribute high concen- trations during snowmelt runoff. Oberts (1994) Region Annual Rainfall States Monitored Concentration Data Region I: Low Rainfall <20 inches AK, CA, CO, NM, UT Highest mean and median values for Total N, Total P, TSS and COD Region II: Moderate Rainfall 20 40 inches HA, IL, MI, MN, MI, NY, TX, OR, OH, WA, WI Higher mean and median values than Region III for TSS, dissolved phosphorus and cadmium Region III: High Rainfall >40 inches FL, MD, MA, NC, NH, NY, TX, TN, AR Lower values for many parameters likely due to the frequency of storms and the lack of build up in pollutants Table 17: Regional Groupings by Annual Rainfall Amount (Driver, 1988) described four types of snowmelt runoff events and the resulting pollutant characteristics (Table 21). A typical hydrograph for winter and early spring snow melts in a northern cold climate is portrayed in Figure 29. The importance of snowpack melt on peak runoff during March 1989 can clearly be seen for an urban water- shed located in St. Paul, Minnesota. Major source areas for snowmelt pollutants include snow dumps and roadside snowpacks. Pollutant concentrations in snow dumps can be as much as five times greater than typical stormwater pollutant concentrations (Environ- ment Canada, 2001). Snow dumps and packs accumulate pollutants over the winter months and can release them during a few rain or snow melt events in the early spring. High levels of chloride, lead, phosphorus, biochemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids have been reported in snow pack runoff ( La Barre et al, 1973; Oliver et al., 1974; Pierstorff and Bishop, 1980; Scott and Wylie, 1980; Van Loon, 1972). Atmospheric deposition can add pollutants to snow piles and snowpacks. Deposited pollut- ants include trace metals, nutrients and par- ticles that are primarily generated by fossil fuel combustion and industrial emissions (Boom and Marsalek, 1988; Horkeby and Malmqvist, 1977; Malmqvist, 1978; Novotny and Chester, 1981; Schrimpff and Herrman, 1979). Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 59 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover Region Total N (median)Total P (median)TSS (mean) Region I: Low Rainfall 4 0.45 320 Region II: Moderate Rainfall 2.3 0.31 250 Region III: High Rainfall 2.15 0.31 120 Table 19: Mean and Median Nutrient and Sediment Stormwater Concentrations for Residential Land Use Based on Rainfall Regions (Driver, 1988) Region I - Low Rainfall Region II - Moderate Rainfall Region III - High Rainfall Snow NationalPhoenix, AZSan Diego, CABoise, IDDenver, CODallas, TXMarquette, MIAustin, TXMDLouisville, KYGAFLMNReference (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(11)(12) Annual Rainfall (in.) N/A 7.1" 10"11"15"28"32"32"41"43"51"52"N/R Number of Events 3000 40 36 15 35 32 12 N/R 107 21 81 N/R 49 Pollutant TSS 78.4 227 330 116 242 663 159 190 67 98 258 43 112 Total N 2.39 3.26 4.55 4.13 4.06 2.70 1.87 2.35 N/R 2.37 2.52 1.74 4.30 Total P 0.32 0.41 0.7 0.75 0.65 0.78 0.29 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.38 0.70 Soluble P 0.13 0.17 0.4 0.47 N/R N/R 0.04 0.24 N/R 0.21 0.14 0.23 0.18 Copper 14 47 25 34 60 40 22 16 18 15 32 1.4 N/R Lead 68 72 44 46 250 330 49 38 12.5 60 28 8.5 100 Zinc 162 204 180 342 350 540 111 190 143 190 148 55 N/R BOD 14.1 109 21 89 N/R 112 15.4 14 14.4 88 14 11 N/R COD 52.8 239 105 261 227 106 66 98 N/R 38 73 64 112 Sources: Adapted from Caraco, 2000a: (1) Smullen and Cave, 1998; (2) Lopes et al.; 1995; (3) Schiff, 1996; (4) Kjelstrom, 1995 (computed); (5) DRCOG, 1983, (6) Brush et al., 1995; (7) Steuer et al., 1997; (8) Barrett et al., 1995; (9) Barr, 1997; (10) Evaldi et al., 1992; (11) Thomas and McClelland, 1995; (12) Oberts, 1994 N/R = Not Reported; N/A = Not Applicable Table 18: Stormwater Pollutant Event Mean Concentration for Different U.S. Regions (Units: mg/l, except for metals which are in FFFFFg/l) 60 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover Cadmium Copper Lead Zinc EPA Standards 10 Fg/l 12 Fg/l 32 Fg/l 47 Fg/l Percent Exceedance of EPA Standards Region I: Low Rainfall 1.5%89%97%97% Region II: Moderate Rainfall 0 78%89%85% Region III: High Rainfall 0 75%91%84% Table 20: EPA 1986 Water Quality Standards and Percentage of Metal Concentrations Exceeding Water Quality Standards by Rainfall Region (Driver, 1988) Snowmelt Stage Duration /Frequency Runoff Volume Pollutant Characteristics Pavement Short, but many times in winter Low Acidic, high concentrations of soluble pollutants; Chloride, nitrate, lead; total load is minimal Roadside Moderate Moderate Moderate concentrations of both soluble and particulate pollutants Pervious Area Gradual, often most at end of season High Dilute concentrations of soluble pollutants; moderate to high concentrations of particulate pollutants depending on flow Rain-on-Snow Short Extreme High concentrations of particulate pollutants; moderate to high concentrations of soluble pollutants; high total load Table 21: Runoff and Pollutant Characteristics of Snowmelt Stages (Oberts, 1994) Figure 29: Snowmelt Runoff Hydrograph for Minneapolis Stream (Oberts, 1994) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 61 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.3 Relationship Between Pollutant Loads and IC: The Simple Method Urban stormwater runoff contains a wide range of pollutants that can degrade downstream water quality. The majority of stormwater monitoring research conducted to date supports several generalizations. First, the unit area pollutant load delivered to receiving waters by stormwater runoff increases in direct propor- tion to watershed IC. This is not altogether surprising, since pollutant load is the product of the average pollutant concentration and stormwater runoff volume. Given that runoff volume increases in direct proportion to IC, pollutant loads must automatically increase when IC increases, as long the average pollut- ant concentration stays the same (or increases). This relationship is a central assumption in most simple and complex pollutant loading models (Bicknell et al., 1993; Donigian and Huber, 1991; Haith et al., 1992; Novotny and Chester, 1981; NVPDC, 1987; Pitt and Voorhees, 1989). Recognizing the relationship between IC and pollutant loads, Schueler (1987) developed the “Simple Method” to quickly and easily esti- mate stormwater pollutant loads for small urban watersheds (see Figure 30). Estimates of pollutant loads are important to watershed managers as they grapple with costly decisions on non-point source control. The Simple Method is empirical in nature and utilizes the extensive regional and national database (Driscoll, 1983; MWCOG, 1983; USEPA, 1983). Figure 30 provides the basic equations to estimate pollutant loads using the Simple Figure 30: The Simple Method - Basic Equations The Simple Method estimates pollutant loads as the product of annual runoff volume and pollutant EMC, as: (1) L = 0.226 * R * C * A Where: L = Annual load (lbs), and: R = Annual runoff (inches) C = Pollutant concentration in stormwater, EMC (mg/l) A = Area (acres) 0.226 = Unit conversion factor For bacteria, the equation is slightly different, to account for the differences in units. The modified equation for bacteria is: (2) L = 1.03 *10-3 * R * C * A Where: L = Annual load (Billion Colonies), and: R = Annual runoff (inches) C = Bacteria concentration (#/100 ml) A = Area (acres) 1.03 * 10-3 = Unit conversion factor Annual Runoff The Simple Method calculates the depth of annual runoff as a product of annual runoff volume and a runoff coefficient (Rv). Runoff volume is calculated as: (3) R = P * Pj * Rv Where: R = Annual runoff (inches), and: P = Annual rainfall (inches) Pj = Fraction of annual rainfall events that produce runoff (usually 0.9) Rv = Runoff coefficient In the Simple Method, the runoff coefficient is calculated based on IC in the subwatershed. The following equation represents the best fit line for the data set (N=47, R2=0.71). (4) Rv=0.05+0.9Ia Where: Rv = runoff coefficient, and: Ia = Impervious fraction 62 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover Method. It assumes that loads of stormwater pollutants are a direct function of watershed IC, as IC is the key independent variable in the equation. The technique requires a modest amount of information, including the subwatershed drainage area, IC, stormwater runoff pollutant EMCs, and annual precipitation. With the Simple Method, the investigator can either divide up land use into specific areas (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial, and road- way) and calculate annual pollutant loads for each land use, or utilize a generic urban land use. Stormwater pollutant EMC data can be derived from the many summary tables of local, regional, or national monitoring efforts provided in this chapter (e.g., Tables 16, 18, 22, 28, 30, 35, 36, 40, and 44). The model also requires different IC values for separate land uses within a subwatershed. Representative IC data from Cappiella and Brown (2001) were provided in Table 2 (Chapter 1). Additionally, the Simple Method should not be used to estimate annual pollutant loads of deicers, hydrocarbons and MTBE, because they have not been found to be correlated with IC. These pollutants have been linked to other indicators. Chlorides, hydrocarbons and MTBE are often associated with road density and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Pesticides are associated with turf area, and traffic patterns and “hotspots” have been noted as potential indicators for hydrocarbons and MTBE. Limitations of the Simple Method The Simple Method should provide reasonable estimates of changes in pollutant export resulting from urban development. However, several caveats should be kept in mind when applying this method. The Simple Method is most appropriate for assessing and comparing the relative stormflow pollutant load changes from differ- ent land uses and stormwater treatment sce- narios. The Simple Method provides estimates of storm pollutant export that are probably close to the “true” but unknown value for a development site, catchment, or subwatershed. However, it is very important not to over- emphasize the precision of the load estimate obtained. For example, it would be inappropri- ate to use the Simple Method to evaluate relatively similar development scenarios (e.g., 34.3% versus 36.9% IC). The Simple Method provides a general planning estimate of likely storm pollutant export from areas at the scale of a development site, catchment or subwatershed. More sophisticated modeling is needed to analyze larger and more complex watersheds. In addition, the Simple Method only estimates pollutant loads generated during storm events. It does not consider pollutants associated with baseflow during dry weather. Typically, baseflow is negligible or non-existent at the scale of a single development site and can be safely neglected. However, catchments and subwatersheds do generate significant baseflow volume. Pollutant loads in baseflow are generally low and can seldom be distin- guished from natural background levels (NVPDC, 1979). Consequently, baseflow pollutant loads normally constitute only a small fraction of the total pollutant load delivered from an urban area. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the load estimates refer only to storm event derived loads and should not be confused with the total pollutant load from an area. This is particularly important when the development density of an area is low. For example, in a low density residential subwatershed (IC < 5%), as much as 75% of the annual runoff volume could occur as baseflow. In such a case, annual baseflow load may be equivalent to the annual stormflow load. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 63 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.4 Sediment Sediment is an important and ubiquitous pollutant in urban stormwater runoff. Sediment can be measured in three distinct ways: Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and turbidity. TSS is a measure of the total mass suspended sediment particles in water. The measurement of TSS in urban stormwater helps to estimate sediment load transported to local and downstream receiving waters. Table 22 summarizes stormwater EMCs for total suspended solids, as reported by Barrett et al. (1995), Smullen and Cave (1998), and USEPA (1983). TDS is a measure of the dissolved solids and minerals present in stormwater runoff and is used as a primary indication of the purity of drinking water. Since few stormwater monitoring efforts have focused on TDS, they are not reported in this document. Turbidity is a measure of how suspended solids present in water reduce the ability of light to penetrate the water column. Turbidity can exert impacts on aquatic biota, such as the ability of submerged aquatic vegetation to receive light and the ability of fish and aquatic insects to use their gills (Table 23). 4.4.1 Concentrations TSS concentrations in stormwater across the country are well documented. Table 18 reviews mean TSS EMCs from 13 communities across the country and reveals a wide range of re- corded concentrations. The lowest concentra- tion of 43 mg/l was reported in Florida, while TSS reached 663 mg/l in Dallas, Texas. Variation in sediment concentrations has been attributed to regional rainfall differences (Driver, 1988); construction site runoff (Leopold, 1968); and bank erosion (Dartiguenave et al., 1997). National values are provided in Table 22. Turbidity levels are not as frequently reported in national and regional monitoring summaries. Barrett and Malina (1998) monitored turbidity at two sites in Austin, Texas and reported a mean turbidity of 53 NTU over 34 storm events (Table 22). 4.4.2 Impacts of Sediment on Streams The impacts of sediment on aquatic biota are well documented and can be divided into impacts caused by suspended sediment and those caused by deposited sediments (Tables 23 and 24). In general, high levels of TSS and/or turbidity can affect stream habitat and cause sedimenta- tion in downstream receiving waters. Depos- ited sediment can cover benthic organisms such as aquatic insects and freshwater mus- sels. Other problems associated with high sediments loads include stream warming by reflecting radiant energy due to increased turbidity (Kundell and Rasmussen, 1995), decreased flow capacity (Leopold, 1973), and increasing overbank flows (Barrett and Malina, 1998). Sediments also transport other pollut- ants which bind to sediment particles. Signifi- cant levels of pollutants can be transported by sediment during stormwater runoff events, Pollutant EMCs Number of Events Source Mean Median TSS (mg/l) 78.4 54.5 3047 Smullen and Cave, 1998 174 113 2000 USEPA, 1983 Turbidity (NTU)53 N/R 423 Barrett and Malina, 1998 N/R = Not Reported Pollutant EMCs Number of Events Source Mean Median TSS (mg/l) 78.4 54.5 3047 Smullen and Cave, 1998 174 113 2000 USEPA, 1983 Turbidity (NTU)53 N/R 423 Barrett and Malina, 1998 N/R = Not Reported Table 22: EMCs for Total Suspended Solids and Turbidity 64 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover including trace metals, hydrocarbons and nutrients (Crunkilton et al., 1996; Dartiguenave et al., 1997; Gavin and Moore, 1982; Novotny and Chester, 1989; Schueler 1994b). 4.4.3 Sources and Source Areas of Sediment Sediment sources in urban watersheds include stream bank erosion; erosion from exposed soils, such as from construction sites; and washoff from impervious areas (Table 25). As noted in this chapter, streambank erosion is generally considered to be the primary source of sediment to urban streams. Recent studies by Dartiguenave et al. (1997) and Trimble (1997) determined that streambank erosion contributes the majority of the annual sediment budget of urban streams. Trimble (1997) directly measured stream cross sections, sediment aggradation and suspended sediment loads and determined that two-thirds of the annual sediment budget of a San Diego, California watershed was supplied by streambank erosion. Dartiguenave et al. (1997) developed a GIS based model in Austin, Texas to determine the effects of stream bank erosion on the annual sediment budget. They compared modeled sediment loads from the watershed with the actual sediment loads measured at USGS gaging stations and concluded that more than 75% of the sediment load came from streambank erosion. Dartiguenave et al. (1997) reported that sediment load per unit area increases with increasing IC (Figure 31). 1. Physical smothering of benthic aquatic insect community 2. Reduced survival rates for fish eggs 3. Destruction of fish spawning areas and eggs 4. Embeddedness of stream bottom reduced fish and macroinvertebrate habitat value 5. Loss of trout habitat when fine sediments are deposited in spawning or riffle-runs 6. Sensitive or threatened darters and dace may be eliminated from fish community 7. Increase in sediment oxygen demand can deplete dissolved oxygen in streams 8. Significant contributing factor in the alarming decline of freshwater mussels 9. Reduced channel capacity, exacerbating downstream bank erosion and flooding 10. Reduced flood transport capacity under bridges and through culverts 11. Deposits diminish scenic and recreational values of waterways Abrades and damages fish gills, increasing risk of infection and disease Scouring of periphyton from stream (plants attached to rocks) Loss of sensitive or threatened fish species when turbidity exceeds 25 NTU Shifts in fish community toward more sediment-tolerant species Decline in sunfish, bass, chub and catfish when month turbidity exceeds 100 NTU Reduces sight distance for trout, with reduction in feeding efficiency Reduces light penetration causing reduction in plankton and aquatic plant growth Adversely impacts aquatic insects, which are the base of the food chain Slightly increases the stream temperature in the summer Suspended sediments can be a major carrier of nutrients and metals Reduces anglers chances of catching fish Table 23: Summary of Impacts of Suspended Sediment on the Aquatic Environment (Schueler and Holland, 2000) Table 24: Summary of Impacts of Deposited Sediments on the Aquatic Environment (Schueler and Holland, 2000) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 65 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover Sediment loads are also produced by washoff of sediment particles from impervious areas and their subsequent transport in stormwater runoff sediment. Source areas include parking lots, streets, rooftops, driveways and lawns. Streets and parking lots build up dirt and grime from the wearing of the street surface, exhaust particulates, “blown on” soil and organic matter, and atmospheric deposition. Lawn runoff primarily contains soil and organic matter. Urban source areas that produce the highest TSS concentrations include streets, parking lots and lawns (Table 26). Parking lots and streets are not only respon- sible for high concentrations of sediment but also high runoff volumes. The SLAMM source loading model (Pitt and Voorhees, 1989) looks at runoff volume and concentrations of pollut- ants from different urban land uses and pre- dicts stream loading. When used in the Wis- consin and Michigan subwatersheds, it demon- strated that parking lots and streets were responsible for over 70% of the TSS delivered to the stream. (Steuer et al., 1997; Waschbusch et al., 2000). Figure 31: TSS from Bank Erosion vs. IC in Texas Streams (Daringuenave et al., 1997) Sources Loading Source Bank Erosion 75% of stream sediment budget Dartinguenave et al., 1997 66% of stream sediment budget Trimble, 1997 Overland Flow- Lawns 397 mg/l (geometric mean)Bannerman et al., 1993 262 mg/l Steuer et al., 1997 11.5% (estimated; 2 sites)Waschbusch et al., 2000 Construction Sites 200 to 1200 mg/l Table 27 Washoff from Impervious Surfaces 78 mg/l (mean)Table 16 Sources Loading Source Bank Erosion 75% of stream sediment budget Dartinguenave et al., 1997 66% of stream sediment budget Trimble, 1997 Overland Flow- Lawns 397 mg/l (geometric mean)Bannerman et al., 1993 262 mg/l Steuer et al., 1997 11.5% (estimated; 2 sites)Waschbusch et al., 2000 Construction Sites 200 to 1200 mg/l Table 27 Washoff from Impervious Surfaces 78 mg/l (mean)Table 16 Table 25: Sources and Loading of Suspended Solids Sediment in Urban Areas 66 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover The third major source of sediment loads is erosion from construction sites. Several studies have reported extremely high TSS concentra- tions in construction site runoff, and these findings are summarized in Table 27. TSS concentrations from uncontrolled construction Source Mean Inflow TSS Concentration (mg/l) Mean Outflow TSS Concentration (mg/l) Location Uncontrolled Sites Horner et al., 1990 7,363 281 PNW Schueler and Lugbill,1990 3,646 501 MD York and Herb, 1978 4,200 N/R MD Islam et al., 1988 2,950 N/R OH Controlled Sites Schueler and Lugbill, 1990 466 212 MD Simulated Sediment Concentrations Jarrett, 1996 9,700 800 PA Sturm and Kirby, 1991 1,500-4,500 200-1,000 GA Barfield and Clar, 1985 1,000-5,000 200-1,200 MD Dartiguenave et al., 1997 N/R 600 TX N/R = Not Reported sites can be more than 150 times greater than those from undeveloped land (Leopold, 1968) and can be reduced if erosion and sediment control practices are applied to construction sites. Source Area Suspended Solids (mg/l) Source (1)(2)(3) Commercial Parking Lot 110 58 51 High Traffic Street 226 232 65 Medium Traffic Street 305 326 51 Low Traffic Street 175 662 68 Commercial Rooftop 24 15 18 Residential Rooftop 36 27 15 Residential Driveway 157 173 N/R Residential Lawn 262 397 59 Sources: (1) Steuer et al., 1997; (2) Bannerman et al., 1993; (3) Waschbusch et al., 2000; N/R = Not Reported Table 26: Source Area Geometric Mean Concentrations for Suspended Solids in Urban Areas Table 27: Mean TSS Inflow and Outflow at Uncontrolled, Controlled and Simulated Construction Sites Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 67 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.5 Nutrients Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential nutrients for aquatic systems. However, when they appear in excess concentrations, they can exert a negative impact on receiving waters. Nutrient concentrations are reported in several ways. Nitrogen is often reported as nitrate (NO3) and nitrite (NO2), which are inorganic forms of nitrogen; total nitrogen (Total N), which is the sum of nitrate, nitrite, organic nitrogen and ammonia; and total Kjeldhal nitrogen (TKN), which is organic nitrogen plus ammonia. Phosphates are frequently reported as soluble phosphorus, which is the dissolved and reac- tive form of phosphorus that is available for uptake by plants and animals. Total phospho- rus (Total P) is also measured, which includes both organic and inorganic forms of phospho- rus. Organic phosphorus is derived from living plants and animals, while inorganic phosphate is comprised of phosphate ions that are often bound to sediments. 4.5.1 Concentrations Many studies have indicated that nutrient concentrations are linked to land use type, with urban and agricultural watersheds producing the highest nutrient loads (Chessman et al. 1992; Paul et al., 2001; USGS, 2001b and Wernick et al.,1998). Typical nitrogen and phosphorus EMC data in urban stormwater runoff are summarized in Table 28. Some indication of the typical concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus in stormwater runoff are evident in Figures 32 and 33. These graphs profile average EMCs in stormwater runoff recorded at 37 residential catchments across the U.S. The average nitrate EMC is remark- ably consistent among residential neighbor- hoods, with most clustered around the mean of 0.6 mg/l and a range of 0.25 to 1.4 mg/l. The concentration of phosphorus during storms is also very consistent with a mean of 0.30 mg/l and a rather tight range of 0.1 to 0.66 mg/l (Schueler, 1995). The amount of annual rainfall can also influ- ence the magnitude of nutrient concentrations in stormwater runoff. For example, both Caraco (2000a) and Driver (1988) reported that the highest nutrient EMCs were found in stormwater from arid or semi-arid regions. Pollutant EMCs (mg/l)Number of Events Source Mean Median Total P 0.315 0.259 3094 Smullen and Cave, 1998 0.337 0.266 1902 USEPA, 1983 Soluble P 0.129 0.103 1091 Smullen and Cave, 1998 0.1 0.078 767 USEPA, 1983 Total N 2.39 2.00 2016 Smullen and Cave, 1998 2.51 2.08 1234 USEPA, 1983 TKN 1.73 1.47 2693 Smullen and Cave, 1998 1.67 1.41 1601 USEPA, 1983 Nitrite & Nitrate 0.658 0.533 2016 Smullen and Cave, 1998 0.837 0.666 1234 USEPA, 1983 Pollutant EMCs (mg/l)Number of Events Source Mean Median Total P 0.315 0.259 3094 Smullen and Cave, 1998 0.337 0.266 1902 USEPA, 1983 Soluble P 0.129 0.103 1091 Smullen and Cave, 1998 0.1 0.078 767 USEPA, 1983 Total N 2.39 2.00 2016 Smullen and Cave, 1998 2.51 2.08 1234 USEPA, 1983 TKN 1.73 1.47 2693 Smullen and Cave, 1998 1.67 1.41 1601 USEPA, 1983 Nitrite & Nitrate 0.658 0.533 2016 Smullen and Cave, 1998 0.837 0.666 1234 USEPA, 1983 Table 28: EMCs of Phosphorus and Nitrogen Urban Stormwater Pollutants 68 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.5.2 Impacts of Nutrients on Streams Much research on the impact of nutrient loads has been focused on lakes, reservoirs and estuaries, which can experience eutrophication. Nitrogen and phosphorus can contribute to algae growth and eutrophic conditions, de- pending on which nutrient limits growth (USEPA, 1998). Dissolved oxygen is also affected by eutrophication. When algae or aquatic plants that are stimulated by excess nutrients die off, they are broken down by bacteria, which depletes the oxygen in the water. Relatively few studies have specifically explored the impact of nutrient enrichment on urban streams. Chessman et al. (1992) studied the limiting nutrients for periphyton growth in a variety of streams and noted that the severity of eutrophication was related to low flow conditions. Higher flow rates in streams may cycle nutrients faster than in slow flow rates, thus diminishing the extent of stream eutrophi- cation. Figure 32: Nitrate-Nitrogen Concentration in Stormwater Runoff at 37 Sites Nationally (Schueler, 1999) Figure 33: Total Phosphorus Concentration in Stormwater at 37 Sites Nationally (Schueler, 1999)mg/lmg/l Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 69 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.5.3 Sources and Source Areas of Nutrients Phosphorus is normally transported in surface water attached to sediment particles or in soluble forms. Nitrogen is normally trans- ported by surface water runoff in urban water- sheds. Sources for nitrogen and phosphorus in urban stormwater include fertilizer, pet waste, organic matter (such as leaves and detritus), and stream bank erosion. Another significant source of nutrients is atmospheric deposition. Fossil fuel combustion by automobiles, power plants and industry can supply nutrients in both wet fall and dry fall. The Metropolitan Wash- ington Council of Governments (MWCOG, 1983) estimated total annual atmospheric deposition rates of 17 lbs/ac for nitrogen and 0.7 lbs/ac for phosphorus in the Washington, D.C. metro area. Research from the upper Midwest suggests “hot spot” sources can exist for both nitrogen and phosphorus in urban watersheds. Lawns, in particular, contribute greater concentrations of Total N, Total P and dissolved phosphorus than other urban source areas. Indeed, source research suggests that nutrient concentrations in lawn runoff can be as much as four times greater than other urban sources such as streets, rooftops or driveways (Bannerman et al., 1993; Steuer et al., 1997 and Waschbusch et al., 2000) (Table 29). This finding is signifi- cant, since lawns can comprise more than 50% of the total area in suburban watersheds. Lawn care, however, has seldom been directly linked to elevated nutrient concentrations during storms. A very recent lakeshore study noted that phosphorus concentrations were higher in fertilized lawns compared to unfertilized lawns, but no significant difference was noted for nitrogen (Garn, 2002). Wash-off of deposited nutrients from IC is thought to be a major source of nitrogen and phosphorus during storms (MWCOG, 1983). While the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus from parking lots and streets is lower than lawns, the volume of runoff is significantly higher. In two studies using the SLAMM source loading model (Pitt and Voorhees, 1989), parking lots and streets were responsible for over 30% of the nitrogen and were second behind lawns in their contribu- tions to the phosphorus load (Steuer et al., 1997; Waschbusch et al., 2000). Source Area Total N (mg/l) Total P (mg/l) Source (1)(1)(2)(3) Commercial Parking Lot 1.94 0.20 N/R 0.10 High Traffic Street 2.95 0.31 0.47 0.18 Med. Traffic Street 1.62 0.23 1.07 0.22 Low Traffic Street 1.17 0.14 1.31 0.40 Commercial Rooftop 2.09 0.09 0.20 0.13 Residential Rooftop 1.46 0.06 0.15 0.07 Residential Driveway 2.10 0.35 1.16 N/R Residential Lawn 9.70 2.33 2.67 0.79 Basin Outlet 1.87 0.29 0.66 N/R (1) Steuer et al., 1997; (2) Bannerman et al., 1993; (3) Waschbusch et al., 2000; N/R= Not Reported Table 29: Source Area Monitoring Data for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous in Urban Areas 70 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover Streambank erosion also appears to be a major source of nitrogen and phosphorus in urban streams. Both nitrogen and phosphorus are often attached to eroded bank sediment, as indicated in a recent study by Dartiguenave et al. (1997) in Austin, Texas. They showed that channel erosion contributed nearly 50% of the Total P load shown for subwatersheds with IC levels between 10 and 60 % (Figure 34). These findings suggest that prevention or reduction of downstream channel erosion may be an important nutrient reduction strategy for urban watersheds. Snowmelt runoff generally has higher nutrient EMCs, compared to stormwater runoff. Oberts (1994) found that TKN and nitrate EMCs were much higher in snowmelt at all sites. The same pattern has also been observed for phosphorus EMCs during snowmelt and stormwater runoff. Zapf-Gilje et al. (1986) found that the first 20% of snowmelt events contained 65% of the phosphorus and 90% of the nitrogen load. Ayers et al. (1985) reported that a higher percentage of the annual nitrate, TKN and phosphorus load was derived from snowmelt runoff compared to stormwater runoff in an urban Minnesota watershed, which presumably reflects the accumulation of nutrients in the snowpack during the winter. Figure 34: Total Phosphorus from Bank Erosion as a Function of IC in Texas Streams (Dartiguenave et al., 1997) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 71 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover Metal Detection Frequency(1)(1) EMCs (Fg/l)Number of Events Source Mean Median Zinc 94% 162 129 2234 Smullen and Cave, 1998 176 140 1281 USEPA, 1983 Copper 91% 13.5 11.1 1657 Smullen and Cave, 1998 66.6 54.8 849 USEPA, 1983 Lead 94% 67.5 50.7 2713 Smullen and Cave, 1998 175( 2)131 (2)1579 USEPA, 1983 Cadmium 48% 0.7 N/R 150 USEPA, 1983 0.5 N/R 100 USEPA, 1993 N/R 0.75 R 0.96 C 2.1 I 30 Baird et al., 1996 3 I 1U N/R 9 Doerfer and Urbonas, 1993 Chromium 58% 4 N/R 32 Baird et al., 1996 N/R 2.1 R 10 C 7 I 30 Baird et al., 1996 N/R 7 164 Bannerman et al., 1993 N/R = Not Reported; R- Residential, C- Commercial, I- Industrial; (1) as reprinted in USEPA, 1983; (2) Lead levels have declined over time with the introduction of unleaded gasoline Metal Detection Frequency(1)(1) EMCs (Fg/l)Number of Events Source Mean Median Zinc 94% 162 129 2234 Smullen and Cave, 1998 176 140 1281 USEPA, 1983 Copper 91% 13.5 11.1 1657 Smullen and Cave, 1998 66.6 54.8 849 USEPA, 1983 Lead 94% 67.5 50.7 2713 Smullen and Cave, 1998 175( 2)131 (2)1579 USEPA, 1983 Cadmium 48% 0.7 N/R 150 USEPA, 1983 0.5 N/R 100 USEPA, 1993 N/R 0.75 R 0.96 C 2.1 I 30 Baird et al., 1996 3 I 1U N/R 9 Doerfer and Urbonas, 1993 Chromium 58% 4 N/R 32 Baird et al., 1996 N/R 2.1 R 10 C 7 I 30 Baird et al., 1996 N/R 7 164 Bannerman et al., 1993 N/R = Not Reported; R- Residential, C- Commercial, I- Industrial; (1) as reprinted in USEPA, 1983; (2) Lead levels have declined over time with the introduction of unleaded gasoline 4.6 Trace Metals Many trace metals can be found at potentially harmful concentrations in urban stormwater. Certain metals, such as zinc, copper, lead, cadmium and chromium, are consistently present at concentrations that may be of concern. These metals primarily result from the use of motor vehicles, weathering of metals and paints, burning of fossil fuels and atmo- spheric deposition. Metals are routinely reported as the total recoverable form or the dissolved form. The dissolved form refers to the amount of metal dissolved in the water, which excludes metals attached to suspended particles that cannot pass through a 0.45 micron filter. Total recov- erable refers to the concentration of an unfil- tered sample that is treated with hot dilute mineral acid. In general, the toxicity of metals is related more to the dissolved form than the recoverable form. 4.6.1 Concentrations Stormwater EMCs for zinc, copper, lead, cadmium and chromium vary regionally and are reviewed in Table 30. Regional differences in trace metal concentrations and water quality standard exceedence appears to be related to climate. In general, drier regions often have a Table 30: EMCs and Detection Frequency for Metals in Urban Stormwater 72 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover higher risk of exceeding trace metal concentra- tion standards. Crunkilton et al. (1996) measured recoverable and dissolved metals concentrations in Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin and found higher EMCs during storm events compared to baseflow periods (Table 31). They also found that total recoverable metal concentrations were almost always higher than the dissolved concentration (which is the more available form). 4.6.2 Impacts of Trace Metals on Streams Although a great deal is known about the concentration of metals in urban stormwater, much less is known about their possible toxicity on aquatic biota. The primary concern related to the presence of trace metals in streams is their potential toxicity to aquatic organisms. High concentrations can lead to bioaccumulation of metals in plants and animals, possible chronic or acute toxicity, and contamination of sediments, which can affect bottom dwelling organisms (Masterson and Bannerman, 1994). Generally, trace metal concentrations found in urban stormwater are not high enough to cause acute toxicity (Field and Pitt, 1990). The cumulative accumulation of trace metal concentrations in bottom sedi- ments and animal tissues are of greater con- cern. Some evidence exists for trace metal accumulation in bottom sediments of receiving waters and for bioaccumulation in aquatic species (Bay and Brown, 2000 and Livingston, 1996). Relatively few studies have examined the chronic toxicity issue. Crunkilton et al. (1996) found that concentrations of lead, zinc and copper exceeded EPA’s Chronic Toxicity Criteria more than 75% of the time in stormflow in stormwater samples for Lincoln Creek in Wisconsin. When exposed to storm and base flows in Lincoln Creek, Ceriodaphnia dubia, a common invertebrate test species, demonstrated significant mortality in extended flow-through tests. Around 30% mortality was recorded after seven days of exposure and 70% mortality was recorded after 14 days. Crunkilton et al. (1996) also found that signifi- cant mortality in bullhead minnows occurred in only 14% of the tests by the end of 14 days, but mortality increased to 100% during expo- sures of 17 to 61 days (see Table 32). In a related study in the same watershed, Masterson and Bannerman (1994) determined that cray- fish in Lincoln Creek had elevated levels of lead, cadmium, chromium and copper when compared to crayfish from a reference stream. The Lincoln Creek research provides limited evidence that prolonged exposure to trace metals in urban streams may result in signifi- cant toxicity. Most toxicity research conducted on urban stormwater has tested for acute toxicity over a short period of time (two to seven days). Shorter term whole effluent toxicity protocols are generally limited to seven days (Crunkilton et al., 1996). Research by Ellis (1986) reported delayed toxicity in urban streams. Field and Pitt (1990) demonstrated that pollutants deposited to the stream during storm events Total Recoverable Dissolved Metal (Fg/l)Storm Flow Baseflow Storm Flow Baseflow Lead 35 3 1.7 1.2 Zinc 133 22 13 8 Copper 23 7 5 4 Cadmium 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 Table 31: Average Total Recoverable and Dissolved Metals for 13 Stormwater Flows and Nine Baseflow Samples from Lincoln Creek in 1994 (Crunkilton et al., 1996) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 73 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover may take upwards of 10 to 14 days to exert influence. The research suggests that longer term in-situ and flow-through monitoring are needed to definitively answer the question whether metal levels in stormwater can be chronically toxic. An additional concern is that trace metals co- occur with other pollutants found in urban stormwater, and it is not clear whether they interact to increase or decrease potential toxicity. Hall and Anderson (1988) investi- gated the toxicity and chemical composition of urban stormwater runoff in British Columbia and found that the interaction of pollutants changed the toxicity of some metals. In labora- tory analysis with Daphnia pulex, an aquatic invertebrate, they found that the toxicity of iron was low and that its presence reduced the toxicity of other metals. On the other hand, the presence of lead increased the toxicity of copper and zinc. Interaction with sediment also influences the impact of metals. Often, over half of the trace metals are attached to sediment (MWCOG, 1983). This effectively removes the metals from the water column and reduces the avail- ability for biological uptake and subsequent bioaccumulation (Gavin and Moore, 1982 and OWML, 1983). However, metals accumulated in bottom sediment can then be resuspended during storms (Heaney and Huber, 1978). It is important to note that the toxic effect of metals can be altered when found in conjunction with other substances. For instance, the presence of chlorides can increase the toxicity of some metals. Both metals and chlorides are common pollutants in snowpacks (see section 4.2 for more snow melt information). 4.6.3 Sources and Source Areas of Trace Metals Research conducted in the Santa Clara Valley of California suggests that cars can be the dominant loading source for many metals of concern, such as cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc (EOA, Inc., 2001). Other sources are also important and include atmospheric deposition, rooftops and runoff from industrial and residential sites. The sources and source areas for zinc, copper, lead, chromium and cadmium are listed in Table 33. Source areas for trace metals in the urban environment include streets, parking lots, snowpacks and rooftops. Copper is often found in higher concentrations on urban streets, because some vehicles have brake pads that contain copper. For example, the Santa Clara study estimated that 50% of the total copper load was due to brake pad wear (Wood- ward-Clyde, 1992). Sources of lead include atmospheric deposition and diesel fuel emis- sions, which frequently occur along rooftops Species Effect Percent of Tests with Significant (p<0.05) Toxic Effects as Compared to Controls According to Exposure 48 hours 96 hours 7 days 14 days 17-61 days D. magna Mortality 0 N/R 36%93%N/R Reduced Reproduction 0 N/R 36%93%N/R P. promelas Mortality N/R 0 0 14%100% Reduced Biomass N/R N/R 60%75%N/R N/R = Not Reported Table 32: Percentage of In-situ Flow-through Toxicity Tests Using Daphnia magna and Pimephales promelas with Significant Toxic Effects from Lincoln Creek (Crunkilton et al., 1996) 74 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover and streets. Zinc in urban environments is a result of the wear of automobile tires (esti- mated 60% in the Santa Clara study), paints, and weathering of galvanized gutters and downspouts. Source area concentrations of trace metals are presented in Table 34. In general, trace metal concentrations vary Source Area Dissolved Zinc Total Zinc Dissolved Copper Total Copper Dissolved Lead Total Lead Source (1)(2)(1)(2)(2)(1)(3)(1)(3)(2) Commercial Parking Lot 64 178 10.7 9 15 N/R N/R 40 N/R 22 High Traffic Street 73 508 11.2 18 46 2.1 1.7 37 25 50 Medium Traffic Street 44 339 7.3 24 56 1.5 1.9 29 46 55 Low Traffic Street 24 220 7.5 9 24 1.5 .5 21 10 33 Commercial Rooftop 263 330 17.8 6 9 20 N/R 48 N/R 9 Residential Rooftop 188 149 6.6 10 15 4.4 N/R 25 N/R 21 Residential Driveway 27 107 11.8 9 17 2.3 N/R 52 N/R 17 Residential Lawn N/R 59 N/R 13 13 N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R Basin Outlet 23 203 7.0 5 16 2.4 N/R 49 N/R 32 Sources: (1) Steuer et al., 1997; (2) Bannerman et al., 1993; (3) Waschbusch, 2000; N/R = Not Reported Table 34: Metal Source Area Concentrations in the Urban Landscape (FFFFFg/l) considerably, but the relative rank among source areas remains relatively constant. For example, a source loading model developed for an urban watershed in Michigan estimated that parking lots, driveways and residential streets were the primary source areas for zinc, copper and cadmium loads (Steuer et al., 1997). Metal Sources Source Area Hotspots Zinc tires, fuel combustion, galvanized pipes, roofs and gutters, road salts *estimate of 60% from tires parking lots, commercial and industrial rooftops, and streets Copper auto brake linings, pipes and fittings, algacides, and electroplating *estimate of 50% from brake pad wear parking lots, commercial roofs and streets Lead diesel fuel, paints and stains parking lots, rooftops, and streets Cadmium component of motor oil and corrodes from alloys and plated surfaces parking lots, rooftops, and streets Chromium found in exterior paints and corrodes from alloys and plated surfaces most frequently found in industrial and commercial runoff Sources: Bannerman et al., 1993; Barr, 1997; Steuer et al., 1997; Good, 1993; Woodward - Clyde, 1992 Table 33: Metal Sources and Source Area “Hotspots” in Urban Areas Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 75 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.7 Hydrocarbons: PAH, Oil and Grease Hydrocarbons are petroleum-based substances and are found frequently in urban stormwater. The term “hydrocarbons” is used to refer to measurements of oil and grease and polycy- clic-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Certain components of hydrocarbons, such as pyrene and benzo[b]fluoranthene, are carcinogens and may be toxic to biota (Menzie-Cura , 1995). Hydrocarbons normally travel attached to sediment or organic carbon. Like many pollut- ants, hydrocarbons accumulate in bottom sediments of receiving waters, such as urban lakes and estuaries. Relatively few studies have directly researched the impact of hydrocarbons on streams. 4.7.1 Concentrations Table 35 summarizes reported EMCs of PAH and oil and grease derived from storm event monitoring at three different areas of the U.S. The limited research on oil and grease concen- trations in urban runoff indicated that the highest concentrations were consistently found in commercial areas, while the lowest were found in residential areas. 4.7.2 Impacts of Hydrocarbons on Streams The primary concern of PAH and oil and grease on streams is their potential bioaccumulation and toxicity in aquatic organisms. Bioaccumulation in crayfish, clams and fish has been reported by Masterson and Bannerman (1994); Moring and Rose (1997); and Velinsky and Cummins (1994). Hydrocarbon Indicator EMC Number of Events Source Location Mean PAH (Fg/l) 3.2*12 Menzie-Cura, 1995 MA 7.1 19 Menzie-Cura, 1995 MA 13.4 N/R Crunkilton et al., 1996 WI Oil and Grease (mg/l) 1.7 R** 9 C 3 I 30 Baird et al., 1996 TX 3 N/R USEPA, 1983 U.S. 5.4*8 Menzie-Cura, 1995 MA 3.5 10 Menzie-Cura, 1995 MA 3.89 R 13.13 C 7.10 I N/R Silverman et al., 1988 CA 2.35 R 5.63 C 4.86 I 107 Barr, 1997 MD N/R = Not Reported; R = Residential, C = Commercial, I = Industrial; * = geometric mean, ** = median Hydrocarbon Indicator EMC Number of Events Source Location Mean PAH (Fg/l) 3.2*12 Menzie-Cura, 1995 MA 7.1 19 Menzie-Cura, 1995 MA 13.4 N/R Crunkilton et al., 1996 WI Oil and Grease (mg/l) 1.7 R** 9 C 3 I 30 Baird et al., 1996 TX 3 N/R USEPA, 1983 U.S. 5.4*8 Menzie-Cura, 1995 MA 3.5 10 Menzie-Cura, 1995 MA 3.89 R 13.13 C 7.10 I N/R Silverman et al., 1988 CA 2.35 R 5.63 C 4.86 I 107 Barr, 1997 MD N/R = Not Reported; R = Residential, C = Commercial, I = Industrial; * = geometric mean, ** = median Table 35: Hydrocarbon EMCs in Urban Areas 76 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover Moring and Rose (1997) also showed that not all PAH compounds accumulate equally in urban streams. They detected 24 different PAH compounds in semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMDs), but only three PAH com- pounds were detected in freshwater clam tissue. In addition, PAH levels in the SPMDs were significantly higher than those reported in the clams. While acute PAH toxicity has been reported at extremely high concentrations (Ireland et al., 1996), delayed toxicity has also been found (Ellis, 1986). Crayfish from Lincoln Creek had a PAH concentration of 360 Fg/kg, much higher than the concentration thought to be carcinogenic (Masterson and Bannerman, 1994). By comparison, crayfish in a non-urban stream had undetectable PAH levels. Toxic effects from PAH compounds may be limited since many are attached to sediment and may be less available, with further reduction occurring through photodegradation (Ireland et al., 1996). The metabolic effect of PAH compounds on aquatic life is unclear. Crunkilton et al. (1996) found potential metabolic costs to organisms, but Masterson and Bannerman (1994) and MacCoy and Black (1998) did not. The long- term effect of PAH compounds in sediments of receiving waters remains a question for further study. 4.7.3 Sources and Source Areas of Hydrocarbons In most residential stormwater runoff, hydro- carbon concentrations are generally less than 5mg/l, but the concentrations can increase to five to 10 mg/l within some commercial, industrial and highway areas (See Table 35). Specific “hotspots” for hydrocarbons include gas stations, commuter parking lots, conve- nience stores, residential parking areas and streets (Schueler and Shepp, 1993). These authors evaluated hydrocarbon concentrations within oil and grease separators in the Wash- ington Metropolitan area and determined that gas stations had significantly higher concentra- tions of hydrocarbons and trace metals, as compared to other urban source areas. Source area research in an urban catchment in Michi- gan showed that commercial parking lots contributed 64% of the total hydrocarbon load (Steuer et al., 1997). In addition, highways were found to be a significant contributor of hydrocarbons by Lopes and Dionne (1998). Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 77 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.8 Bacteria and Pathogens Bacteria are single celled organisms that are too small to see with the naked eye. Of particu- lar interest are coliform bacteria, typically found within the digestive system of warm- blooded animals. The coliform family of bacteria includes fecal coliform, fecal strepto- cocci and Escherichia coli, which are consis- tently found in urban stormwater runoff. Their presence confirms the existence of sewage or animal wastes in the water and indicates that other harmful bacteria, viruses or protozoans may be present, as well. Coliform bacteria are indicators of potential public health risks and not actual causes of disease. A pathogen is a microbe that is actually known to cause disease under the right conditions. Two of the most common waterborne patho- gens in the U.S. are the protozoans Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lambia. Cryptosporidium is a waterborne intestinal parasite that infects cattle and domestic animals and can be transmitted to humans, causing life-threatening problems in people with impaired immune systems (Xiao et al., 2001). Giardia can cause intestinal problems in humans and animals when ingested (Bagley et al., 1998). To infect new hosts, protozoans create hard casings known as oocysts (Cryptosporidium) or cysts (Giardia) that are shed in feces and travel through surface waters in search of a new host. 4.8.1 Concentrations Concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria in urban stormwater typically exceed the 200 MPN/100 ml threshold set for human contact recreation (USGS, 2001b). Bacteria concentra- tions also tend to be highly variable from storm to storm. For example, a national summary of fecal coliform bacteria in stormwater runoff is shown in Figure 35 and Table 36. The variabil- ity in fecal coliform ranges from 10 to 500,000 MPN/100ml with a mean of 15,038 MPN/ 100ml (Schueler, 1999). Another national database of more than 1,600 stormwater events computed a mean concentration of 20,000 Figure 35: Fecal Coliform Levels in Urban Stormwater ( Schueler, 1999) Fecal Coliform Levels in Urban Stormwater: A National Review Stormwater runoff levels from 34 small catchments in 13 monitoring studies conducted: AL, AZ, ID, KY, MD, NC, NH, NY, SD, TN, TX, WA, WI 78 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover MPN/100ml for fecal coliform (Pitt, 1998). Fecal streptococci concentrations for 17 urban sites across the country had a mean of 35,351 MPN/100ml (Schueler, 1999). Young and Thackston (1999) showed that bacteria concentrations at four sites in metro Nashville were directly related to watershed IC. Increasing IC reflects the cumulative increase in potential bacteria sources in the urban landscape, such as failing septic systems, sewage overflows, dogs, and inappropriate discharges. Other studies show that concentra- tions of bacteria are typically higher in urban areas than rural areas (USGS, 1999a), but they are not always directly related to IC. For example, Hydroqual (1996) found that concen- trations of fecal coliform in seven subwatersheds of the Kensico watershed in New York were generally higher for more developed basins, but fecal coliform concentra- tions did not directly increase with IC in the developed basins (Figure 36). There is some evidence that higher concentra- tions of coliform are found in arid or semi-arid watersheds. Monitoring data from semi-arid regions in Austin, San Antonio, and Corpus Christi, Texas averaged 61,000, 37,500 and 40,500 MPN/100ml, respectively (Baird et al.,1996 and Chang et al. 1990). Schiff (1996), in a report of Southern California NPDES monitoring, found that median concentrations of fecal coliform in San Diego were 50,000 MPN/100ml and averaged 130,000 MPN/ 100ml in Los Angeles. In all of these arid and semi-arid regions, concentrations were signifi- cantly higher than the national average of 15,000 to 20,000 MPN/100ml. Bacteria Type EMCs (MPN/100ml)Number of Events Source Location Mean Fecal Coliform 15,038 34 Schueler, 1999 U.S. 20,000 1600 Pitt, 1998 U.S. 7,653 27 Thomas and McClelland, 1995 GA 20,000 R* 6900 C 9700 I 30*Baird et al., 1996 TX 77,970 21 watersheds Chang et al., 1990 TX 4,500 189 Varner, 1995 WA 23,500 3 Young and Thackston, 1999 TN Fecal Strep 35,351 17 Schueler, 1999 U.S. 28,864 R 27 Thomas and McClelland, 1995 GA 56,000 R * 18,000 C 6,100 I 30*Baird et al., 1996 TX N/R = Not Reported, R = Residential Area, C = Commercial Area, I = Industrial Area, * = Median Bacteria Type EMCs (MPN/100ml)Number of Events Source Location Mean Fecal Coliform 15,038 34 Schueler, 1999 U.S. 20,000 1600 Pitt, 1998 U.S. 7,653 27 Thomas and McClelland, 1995 GA 20,000 R* 6900 C 9700 I 30*Baird et al., 1996 TX 77,970 21 watersheds Chang et al., 1990 TX 4,500 189 Varner, 1995 WA 23,500 3 Young and Thackston, 1999 TN Fecal Strep 35,351 17 Schueler, 1999 U.S. 28,864 R 27 Thomas and McClelland, 1995 GA 56,000 R * 18,000 C 6,100 I 30*Baird et al., 1996 TX N/R = Not Reported, R = Residential Area, C = Commercial Area, I = Industrial Area, * = Median Table 36: Bacteria EMCs in Urban Areas Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 79 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover Concentrations of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in urban stormwater are shown in Table 37. States et al. (1997) found high concentrations of Cryptosporidium and Giar- dia in storm samples from a combined sewer in Pittsburgh (geometric mean 2,013 oocysts/ 100ml and 28,881 cysts/100ml). There is evidence that urban stormwater runoff may have higher concentrations of Cryptosporidium and Giardia than other surface waters, as reported in Table 38 (Stern, 1996). Both pathogens were detected in about 50% of urban stormwater samples, suggesting some concern for drinking water supplies. 4.8.2 Impacts of Bacteria and Pathogens on Streams Fecal coliform bacteria indicate the potential for harmful bacteria, viruses, or protozoans and are used by health authorities to determine public health risks. These standards were established to protect human health based on exposures to water during recreation and drinking. Bacteria standards for various water uses are presented in Table 39 and are all easily exceeded by typical urban stormwater concentrations. In fact, over 80,000 miles of streams and rivers are currently in non-attain- Pathogens Units EMCs Number of Events Source Mean Median Cryptosporidium oocysts 37.2 3.9 78 Stern, 1996 oocysts/100ml 2013 N/R N/R States et al., 1997 Giardia cysts 41.0 6.4 78 Stern, 1996 cysts/100ml 28,881 N/R N/R States et al., 1997 N/R= Not reported Pathogens Units EMCs Number of Events Source Mean Median Cryptosporidium oocysts 37.2 3.9 78 Stern, 1996 oocysts/100ml 2013 N/R N/R States et al., 1997 Giardia cysts 41.0 6.4 78 Stern, 1996 cysts/100ml 28,881 N/R N/R States et al., 1997 N/R= Not reported Table 37: Cryptosporidium and Giardia EMCs Figure 36: Relationship Between IC and Fecal Coliform Concentrations in New York Streams (Hydroqual, 1996) 80 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover ment status because of high fecal coliform levels (USEPA, 1998). 4.8.3 Sources and Source Areas of Bacteria and Pathogens Sources of coliform bacteria include waste from humans and wildlife, including livestock and pets. Essentially, any warm-blooded species that is present in significant numbers in a watershed is a potential culprit. Source identification studies, using methods such as DNA fingerprinting, have put the blame on species such as rats in urban areas, ducks and geese in stormwater ponds, livestock from hobby farms, dogs and even raccoons (Blankenship, 1996; Lim and Olivieri, 1982; Pitt, 1998; Samadpour and Checkowitz, 1998). Transport of bacteria takes place through direct surface runoff, direct inputs to receiving waters, or indirect secondary sources. Source areas in the urban environment for direct runoff include lawns and turf, driveways, parking lots and streets. For example, dogs have high concentrations of fecal coliform in their feces and have a tendency to defecate in close proximity to IC (Schueler, 1999). Weiskel et al. (1996) found that direct inputs of fecal coliform from waterfowl can be very Source Water Sampled Number of Sources/ Number of Samples Percent Detection Total Giardia Confirmed Giardia Total Cryptosporidium Confirmed Cryptosporidium Wastewater Effluent 8/147 41.5%12.9%15.7%5.4% Urban Subwatershed 5/78 41.0%6.4%37.2%3.9% Agricultural Subwatershed 5/56 30.4%3.6%32.1%3.6% Undisturbed Subwatershed 5/73 26.0%0.0%9.6%1.4% Source Water Sampled Number of Sources/ Number of Samples Percent Detection Total Giardia Confirmed Giardia Total Cryptosporidium Confirmed Cryptosporidium Wastewater Effluent 8/147 41.5%12.9%15.7%5.4% Urban Subwatershed 5/78 41.0%6.4%37.2%3.9% Agricultural Subwatershed 5/56 30.4%3.6%32.1%3.6% Undisturbed Subwatershed 5/73 26.0%0.0%9.6%1.4% Water Use Microbial Indicator Typical Water Standard Water Contact Recreation Fecal Coliform <200 MPN per 100ml Drinking Water Supply Fecal Coliform <20 MPN per 100ml Shellfish Harvesting Fecal Coliform <14 MPN/ 100ml Treated Drinking Water Total Coliform No more than 1% coliform positive samples per month Freshwater Swimming E.Coli <126 MPN per 100ml Important Note: Individual state standards may employ different sampling methods, indicators, averaging periods, averaging methods, instantaneous maximums and seasonal limits. MPN = most probable number. Higher or lower limits may be prescribed for different water use classes. Table 39: Typical Coliform Standards for Different Water Uses (USEPA, 1998) Table 38: Percent Detection of Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts in Subwatersheds and Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent in the New York City Water Supply Watersheds (Stern, 1996) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 81 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover important; these inputs accounted for as much as 67% of the annual coliform load to Butter- milk Bay, Massachusetts. Indirect sources of bacteria include leaking septic systems, illicit discharges, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). These sources have the potential to deliver high coliform concentra- tions to urban streams. In fact, extremely high bacteria concentrations are usually associated with wastewater discharges. CSOs and SSOs occur when the flow into the sewer exceeds the capacity of the sewer lines to drain them. CSOs result from stormwater flow in the lines, and SSOs are a result of infiltration problems or blockages in the lines. Illicit connections from businesses and homes to the storm drainage system can discharge sewage or washwater into receiving waters. Illicit discharges can often be identified by baseflow sampling of storm sewer systems. Leaking septic systems are estimated to comprise between 10 and 40% of the systems, and individual inspections are the best way to determine failing systems (Schueler, 1999). There is also evidence that coliform bacteria can survive and reproduce in stream sediments and storm sewers (Schueler, 1999). During a storm event, they often become resuspended and add to the in-stream bacteria load. Source area studies reported that end of pipe concen- trations were an order of magnitude higher than any source area on the land surface; therefore, it is likely that the storm sewer system itself acts as a source of fecal coliform (Bannerman et al., 1993 and Steuer et al., 1997). Resuspension of fecal coliform from fine stream sediments during storm events has been reported in New Mexico (NMSWQB, 1999). The sediments in-stream and in the storm sewer system may be significant contributors to the fecal coliform load. Sources of Cryptosporidium and Giardia include human sewage and animal feces. Cryptosporidium is commonly found in cattle, dogs and geese. Graczyk et al. (1998) found that migrating Canada geese were a vector for Cryptosporidium and Giardia, which has implications for water quality in urban ponds that support large populations of geese. 82 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.9 Organic Carbon Total organic carbon (TOC) is often used as an indicator of the amount of organic matter in a water sample. Typically, the more organic matter present in water, the more oxygen consumed, since oxygen is used by bacteria in the decomposition process. Adequate levels of dissolved oxygen in streams and receiving waters are important because they are critical to maintain aquatic life. Organic carbon is routinely found in urban stormwater, and high concentrations can result in an increase in Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). BOD and COD are measures of the oxygen demand caused by the decay of organic matter. 4.9.1 Concentrations Urban stormwater has a significant ability to exert a high oxygen demand on a stream or receiving water, even two to three weeks after an individual storm event (Field and Pitt, 1990). Average concentrations of TOC, BOD and COD in urban stormwater are presented in Table 40. Mean concentrations of TOC, BOD and COD during storm events in nationwide studies were 17 mg/l, 14.1 mg/l and 52.8 mg/l, respectively (Kitchell, 2001 and Smullen and Cave,1998). 4.9.2 Impacts of Organic Carbon on Streams TOC is primarily a concern for aquatic life because of its link to oxygen demand in streams, rivers, lakes and estuaries. The initial effect of increased concentrations of TOC, BOD or COD in stormwater runoff may be a depression in oxygen levels, which may persist for many days after a storm, as deposited organic matter gradually decomposes (Field and Pitt, 1990). TOC is also a concern for drinking water quality. Organic carbon reacts with chlorine during the drinking water disinfection process and forms trihalomethanes and other disinfec- tion by-products, which can be a serious drinking water quality problem (Water, 1999). TOC concentrations greater than 2 mg/l in treated water and 4 mg/l in source water can result in unacceptably high levels of disinfec- tion byproducts and must be treated to reduce TOC or remove the disinfection byproducts (USEPA, 1998). TOC can also be a carrier for other pollutants, such as trace metals, hydro- carbons and nutrients. 4.9.3 Sources and Source Areas of Total Organic Carbon The primary sources of TOC in urban areas appear to be decaying leaves and other organic matter, sediment and combustion by-products. Source areas include curbs, storm drains, streets and stream channels. Dartiguenave et al. (1997) determined that about half of the annual TOC load in urban watersheds of Austin, TX was derived from the eroding streambanks. Organic Carbon Source EMCs (mg/l)Number of Events Source Mean Median Total Organic Carbon (TOC)32.0 N/R 423 Barrett and Malina, 1998 17 15.2 19 studies Kitchell, 2001 Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)14.1 11.5 1035 Smullen and Cave, 1998 10.4 8.4 474 USEPA, 1983 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)52.8 44.7 2639 Smullen and Cave, 1998 66.1 55 1538 USEPA, 1983 N/R = Not Reported Organic Carbon Source EMCs (mg/l)Number of Events Source Mean Median Total Organic Carbon (TOC)32.0 N/R 423 Barrett and Malina, 1998 17 15.2 19 studies Kitchell, 2001 Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)14.1 11.5 1035 Smullen and Cave, 1998 10.4 8.4 474 USEPA, 1983 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)52.8 44.7 2639 Smullen and Cave, 1998 66.1 55 1538 USEPA, 1983 N/R = Not Reported Table 40: EMCs for Organic Carbon in Urban Areas Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 83 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.10 MTBE Methyl tertiary butyl-ether (MTBE) is a volatile organic compound (VOC) that is added to gasoline to increase oxygen levels, which helps gas burn cleaner (called an oxygenate). MTBE has been used as a perfor- mance fuel additive since the 1970s. In 1990, the use of oxygenates was mandated by federal law and concentrations of MTBE in gasoline increased. Today, MTBE is primarily used in large metropolitan areas that experience air pollution problems. Since 1990, MTBE has been detected at increasing levels in both surface water and groundwater and is one of the most frequently detected VOCs in urban watersheds (USGS, 2001a). EPA has declared MTBE to be a potential human carcinogen at high doses. In March 2000, a decision was made by EPA to follow California’s lead to significantly reduce or eliminate the use of MTBE in gasoline. 4.10.1 Concentrations MTBE is highly soluble in water and therefore not easily removed once it enters surface or ground water. Delzer (1999) detected the presence of MTBE in 27% of the shallow wells monitored in eight urban areas across the country (Figure 37). Detection frequency was significantly higher in New England and Denver, as shown in Table 41. In a second study conducted in 16 metropolitan areas, Delzer (1999) found that 83% of MTBE detections occurred between October and March, the time when MTBE is primarily used as a fuel additive. The median MTBE concen- tration was 1.5 ppb, well below EPA’s draft advisory level of 20 ppb (Delzer, 1996). 4.10.2 Impacts of MTBE on Streams The primary concerns regarding MTBE are that it is a known carcinogen to small mam- mals, a suspected human carcinogen at higher Figure 37: MTBE Concentrations in Surface Water from Eight Cities (Delzer, 1996) Location Detection Frequency Source Year 211 shallow wells in eight urban areas 27%Delzer 1999 Surface water samples in 16 metro areas 7%Delzer 1996 Table 41: MTBE Detection Frequency 84 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover doses and may possibly be toxic to aquatic life in small streams (Delzer, 1996). MTBE can also cause taste and odor problems in drinking water at fairly low concentrations. EPA issued a Drinking Water Advisory in 1997 that indicated that MTBE concentrations less than 20 ppb should not cause taste and odor prob- lems for drinking water. However, the Asso- ciation of California Water Agencies reports that some consumers can detect MTBE at levels as low as 2.5 ppb (ACWA, 2000). Because MTBE is frequently found in ground- water wells, it is thought to be a potential threat to drinking water (Delzer, 1999). For example, Santa Monica, California reportedly lost half of its groundwater drinking water supply due to MTBE contamination (Bay and Brown, 2000). MTBE has also been detected in human blood, especially in people frequently exposed to gasoline, such as gas station attendants (Squillace et al., 1995). 4.10.3 Sources and Source Areas of MTBE Since MTBE is a gasoline additive, its poten- tial sources include any area that produces, transports, stores, or dispenses gasoline, particularly areas that are vulnerable to leaks and spills. Leaking underground storage tanks are usually associated with the highest MTBE concentrations in groundwater wells (Delzer, 1999). Vehicle emissions are also an important source of MTBE. Elevated levels are fre- quently observed along road corridors and drainage ditches. Once emitted, MTBE can travel in stormwater runoff or groundwater. Main source areas include heavily used multi- lane highways. Gas stations may also be a hotspot source area for MTBE contamination. Another potential source of MTBE is water- craft, since two cycle engines can discharge as much as 20 to 30% of their fuel through the exhaust (Boughton and Lico, 1998). MTBE concentrations are clearly associated with increased use of gas engines, and there is concern that MTBE is an increasing compo- nent of atmospheric deposition (Boughton and Lico, 1998 and UC Davis, 1998). Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 85 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.11 Pesticides Pesticides are used in the urban environment to control weeds, insects and other organisms that are considered pests. EPA estimates that nearly 70 million pounds of active pesticide ingredi- ents are applied to urban lawns each year as herbicides or insecticides. Herbicides are used on urban lawns to target annual and perennial broadleaf weeds, while insecticides are used to control insects. Many types of pesticides are available for use in urban areas. Immerman and Drummond (1985) report that 338 differ- ent active ingredients are applied to lawns and gardens nationally. Each pesticide varies in mobility, persistence and potential aquatic impact. At high levels, many pesticides have been found to have adverse effects on ecologi- cal and human health. Several recent research studies by the USGS have shown that insecti- cides are detected with the greatest frequency in urban streams, and that pesticide detection frequency increases in proportion to the percentage of urban land in a watershed (Ferrari et al., 1997; USGS, 1998, 1999a-b, 2001b). A national assessment by the USGS Pollutant Detection Frequency Median Concentration (Fg/l) Number of Samples Source Insecticides Diazinon 75%0.025 326 USGS, 1998b 92%0.55 76 Brush et al., 1995 17%0.002 1795 Ferrari et al., 1997 Chlorpyrifos 41%Non Detect 327 USGS, 1998b 14%0.004 1218 Brush et al., 1995 Carbaryl 46%Non Detect 327 USGS, 1998b 22%0.003 1128 Ferrari et al., 1997 Herbicides Atrazine 86%0.023 327 USGS, 1998b 72%0.099 2076 Ferrari et al., 1997 Prometon 84%0.031 327 USGS, 1998b 56%0.029 1531 Ferrari et al., 1997 Simazine 88%0.039 327 USGS, 1998b 17%0.046 1995 Ferrari et al., 1997 2,4 -D 67%1.1 11 Dindorf, 1992 17%0.035 786 Ferrari et al., 1997 Dicamba 22% 1.8 4 Dindorf, 1992 MCPP 56% 1.8 10 Dindorf, 1992 MCPA 28% 1.0 5 Dindorf, 1992 Pollutant Detection Frequency Median Concentration (Fg/l) Number of Samples Source Insecticides Diazinon 75%0.025 326 USGS, 1998b 92%0.55 76 Brush et al., 1995 17%0.002 1795 Ferrari et al., 1997 Chlorpyrifos 41%Non Detect 327 USGS, 1998b 14%0.004 1218 Brush et al., 1995 Carbaryl 46%Non Detect 327 USGS, 1998b 22%0.003 1128 Ferrari et al., 1997 Herbicides Atrazine 86%0.023 327 USGS, 1998b 72%0.099 2076 Ferrari et al., 1997 Prometon 84%0.031 327 USGS, 1998b 56%0.029 1531 Ferrari et al., 1997 Simazine 88%0.039 327 USGS, 1998b 17%0.046 1995 Ferrari et al., 1997 2,4 -D 67%1.1 11 Dindorf, 1992 17%0.035 786 Ferrari et al., 1997 Dicamba 22% 1.8 4 Dindorf, 1992 MCPP 56% 1.8 10 Dindorf, 1992 MCPA 28% 1.0 5 Dindorf, 1992 Table 42: Median Concentrations and Detection Frequency of Herbicides and Insecticides in Urban Streams 86 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover (2001a) also indicates that insecticides are usually detected at higher concentrations in urban streams than in agricultural streams. 4.11.1 Concentrations Median concentrations and detection frequency for common pesticides are shown in Table 42. Herbicides that are frequently detected in urban streams include atrazine; simazine; prometon; 2,4-D; dicamba; MCPP; and MCPA. Insecticides are also frequently en- countered in urban streams, including diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion, and car- baryl. A USGS (1996) study monitored 16 sites in Gills Creek in Columbia, South Caro- lina over four days. This study reported that pesticide detection frequency increased as percent urban land increased. Wotzka et al. (1994) monitored herbicide levels in an urban stream in Minneapolis, Minnesota during more than 40 storms. They found herbicides, such as 2,4-D; dicamba; MCPP; and MCPA in 85% of storm runoff events sampled. Total herbicide EMCs ranged from less than one to 70 µg/l. Ferrari et al. (1997) analyzed 463 streams in the mid- Atlantic region for the presence of 127 pesti- cide compounds. At least one pesticide was detected at more than 90% of the streams sampled. Diazinon is one of the most commonly de- tected insecticides in urban stormwater runoff and dry weather flow. Diazinon was detected in 75% of National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) samples, 92% of stormflow samples from Texas, and 100% of urban stormflow samples in King County, Washing- ton (Brush et al., 1995 and USGS, 1999b). Diazinon is most frequently measured at concentrations greater than freshwater aquatic life criteria in urban stormwater (USGS, 1999a). USGS reports that diazinon concentra- tions were generally higher during urban stormflow (Ferrari et al., 1997). 4.11.2 Impacts of Pesticides on Streams Many pesticides are known or suspected carcinogens and can be toxic to humans and aquatic species. However, many of the known health effects require exposure to higher concentrations than typically found in the environment, while the health effects of chronic exposure to low levels are generally unknown (Ferrari et al., 1997). Studies that document the toxicity of insecti- cides and herbicides in urban stormwater have been focused largely on diazinon. Diazinon is responsible for the majority of acute toxicity in stormwater in Alameda County, California and King County, Washington (S.R. Hansen & Associates, 1995). Concentrations of diazinon in King County stormwater frequently exceed the freshwater aquatic life criteria (Figure 38). Similarly, research on Sacramento, California streams revealed acute toxicity for diazinon in 100% of stormwater samples using Ceriodaphnia as the test organism (Connor, 1995). Diazinon has a half-life of 42 days and is very soluble in water, which may explain its detection frequency and persistence in urban stormwater. Diazinon is also reported to attach fairly readily to organic carbon; consequently, it is likely re-suspended during storm events. Insecticide concentrations exceeding acute and chronic toxicity thresholds for test organisms such as Ceriodaphnia have frequently been found in urban stormwater in New York, Texas, California, and Washington (Scanlin and Feng, 1997; Brush et al., 1995; USGS, 1999b). The possibility exists that pesticides could have impacts on larger bodies of water, but there is a paucity of data on the subject at this time. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 87 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.11.3 Sources and Source Areas of Pesticides Sources for pesticides in urban areas include applications by homeowners, landscaping contractors and road maintenance crews. Source areas for pesticides in urban areas include lawns in residential areas; managed turf, such as golf courses, parks, and ball fields; and rights-of-way in nonresidential areas. Storage areas, which are subject to spills and leaks, can also be a source area. A study in San Francisco was able to trace high diazinon concentrations in some streams back to just a few households which had applied the pesticide at high levels (Scanlin and Feng, 1997). Two herbicides, simazine and atra- zine, were detected in over 60% of samples in King County, WA stormwater but were not identified as being sold in retail stores. It is likely these herbicides are applied to nonresidential areas such as rights-of-way, parks and recreational areas (USGS, 1999b). Because pesticides are typically applied to turf, IC is not a direct indicator for pesticide concentrations, although they can drift onto paved surfaces and end up in stormwater runoff. Figure 38: Concentrations of Pesticides in Stormwater in King County, WA (S.R. Hansen & Associates, 1995 and USGS, 1999b) 88 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.12 Deicers Deicers are substances used to melt snow and ice to keep roads and walking areas safe. The most commonly used deicer is sodium chlo- ride, although it may also be blended with calcium chloride or magnesium chloride. Other less frequently used deicers include urea and glycol, which are primarily used at airports to deice planes. Table 43 summarizes the compo- sition, use and water quality effects of common deicers. Chlorides are frequently found in snowmelt and stormwater runoff in most regions that experience snow and ice in the winter months (Oberts, 1994 and Sherman, 1998). Figure 39 shows that the application of deicer salts has increased since 1940 from 200,000 tons to 10 to 20 million tons per year in recent years (Salt Institute, 2001). Several U.S. and Canadian studies indicate severe inputs of road salts on water quality and aquatic life (Environment Canada, 2001 and Novotny et al., 1999). Figure 39: U.S. Highway Salt Usage Data (Salt Institute, 2001) Deicer Description Use Water Quality Effect Chlorides Chloride based deicer usually combined with Na, Ca or Mg Road Deicer and Residential Use Cl complexes can release heavy metals, affect soil permeability, impacts to drinking water, potential toxic effects to small streams Urea Nitrogen-based fertilizer product Used as alternative to glycol Increased nitrogen in water and potential toxicity to organisms Ethylene Glycol Petroleum based organic compounds, similar to antifreeze Used at airports for deicing planes Toxicity effects, high BOD and COD, hazardous air pollutant Ta Table 43: Use and Water Quality Effect of Snowmelt Deicers (Ohrel, 1995; Sills and Blakeslee, 1992) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 89 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover Form of Runoff EMCs (mg/l)Number of Events Sources Location Mean Snowmelt 116*49 Oberts, 1994 MN 2119 N/R Sherman, 1998 Ontario 1267 R 474 U N/R Novotny et al., 1999 NY 1612 N/R Masterson and Bannerman, 1994 WI 397 282 Environment Canada, 2001 Ontario, Canada Non- winter Storm Event 42 61 Brush et al., 1995 TX 45 N/R Sherman, 1998 Ontario 40.5 N/R Masterson and Bannerman, 1994 WI N/R = Not Reported, R = residential, U = urban, * = Median Form of Runoff EMCs (mg/l)Number of Events Sources Location Mean Snowmelt 116*49 Oberts, 1994 MN 2119 N/R Sherman, 1998 Ontario 1267 R 474 U N/R Novotny et al., 1999 NY 1612 N/R Masterson and Bannerman, 1994 WI 397 282 Environment Canada, 2001 Ontario, Canada Non- winter Storm Event 42 61 Brush et al., 1995 TX 45 N/R Sherman, 1998 Ontario 40.5 N/R Masterson and Bannerman, 1994 WI N/R = Not Reported, R = residential, U = urban, * = Median 4.12.1 Concentrations Chloride concentrations in snowmelt runoff depend on the amount applied and the dilution in the receiving waters. Data for snowmelt and stormwater runoff from several studies are presented in Table 44. For example, chloride concentrations in Lincoln Creek in Wisconsin were 1,612 mg/l in winter snowmelt runoff, as compared to 40 mg/l in non-winter runoff (Novotny et al., 1999 and Masterson and Bannerman, 1994). Chloride concentrations in the range of 2,000 to 5,000 mg/l have been reported for Canadian streams (Environment Canada, 2001). Novotny et al. (1999) moni- tored chloride concentrations in snowmelt near Syracuse, New York and found that residential watersheds had higher chloride concentrations than rural watersheds. Concentrations of glycol in stormwater runoff are also highly variable and depend on the amount of deicer used, the presence of a recovery system, and the nature of the precipi- tation event. Corsi et al. (2001) monitored streams receiving stormwater runoff from a Wisconsin airport. They found concentrations of propylene glycol as high as 39,000 mg/l at airport outfall sites during deicing operations and concentrations of up to 960 mg/l during low-flow sampling at an airport outfall site. 4.12.2 Impacts of Deicers on Streams Chloride levels can harm aquatic and terrestrial life and contaminate groundwater and drinking water supplies (Ohrel, 1995). Generally, chloride becomes toxic to many organisms when it reaches concentrations of 500 to1,000 mg/l (Environment Canada, 2001). These concentrations are common in small streams in snow regions, at least for short periods of time. Many plant species are relatively intolerant to high salt levels in wetland swales and roadside corridors. Fish are also negatively affected by high chloride concentrations, with sensitivity as low as 600 mg/l for some species (Scott and Wylie, 1980). Table 45 compares the maximum chloride concentrations for various water uses in eight states (USEPA, 1988). Snowmelt chloride concentrations typically exceed these levels. Table 44: EMCs for Chloride in Snowmelt and Stormwater Runoff in Urban Areas in 90 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover Chloride is a concern in surface drinking water systems because it can interfere with some of the treatment processes and can cause taste problems at concentrations as low as 250 mg/l. Chloride is also extremely difficult to remove once it enters the water. Glycol-based deicers have been shown to be highly toxic at relatively low concentrations in streams receiving airport runoff. These deicers contain many proprietary agents, which may increase their toxicity and also make it very difficult to set standards for their use (Hartwell et al., 1995). Corsi et al. (2001) observed acute toxicity of Ceriodaphnia dubia, Pimephelas promelax, Hyalela azteca, and Chironimus tentans in Wisconsin streams that experienced propylene glycol concentrations of 5,000 mg/l or more. Chronic toxicity was observed for Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephelas promelax at propylene glycol concentrations of 1,500 mg/l in the same study. In addition, glycol exerts an extremely high BOD on receiving waters, which can quickly reduce or eliminate dissolved oxygen. Glycol can also be toxic to small animals that are attracted by its sweet taste (Novotny et al., 1999). As with many urban pollutants, the effects of chloride can be diluted in larger waterbodies. In general, small streams are more likely to experience chloride effects, compared to rivers, which have a greater dilution ability. 4.12.3 Sources and Source Areas of Deicers The main sources for deicers in urban water- sheds include highway maintenance crews, airport deicing operations, and homeowner applications. Direct road application is the largest source of chloride, by far. Source areas include roads, parking lots, sidewalks, storm drains, airport runways, and snow collection areas. Because deicers are applied to paved surfaces, the primary means of transport to streams is through stormwater and meltwater runoff. Therefore, concentrations of deicer compounds are typically associated with factors such as road density or traffic patterns. State Limiting Concentration (mg/l)Beneficial Use CO 250*Drinking water IL 500 General water supply 250 Drinking water IN 500 Drinking water MA 250 Class A waters MN 250 Drinking water 500 Class A fishing and recreation OH 250 Drinking water SD 250 Drinking water 100 Fish propagation VA 250 Drinking water * Monthly average State Limiting Concentration (mg/l)Beneficial Use CO 250*Drinking water IL 500 General water supply 250 Drinking water IN 500 Drinking water MA 250 Class A waters MN 250 Drinking water 500 Class A fishing and recreation OH 250 Drinking water SD 250 Drinking water 100 Fish propagation VA 250 Drinking water * Monthly average Table 45: Summary of State Standards for Salinity of Receiving Waters (USEPA, 1988) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 91 Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover 4.13 Conclusion IC collects and accumulates pollutants depos- ited from the atmosphere, leaked from ve- hicles, or derived from other sources. The pollutants build up over time but are washed off quickly during storms and are often effi- ciently delivered to downstream waters. This can create water quality problems for down- stream rivers, lakes and estuaries. As a result of local and national monitoring efforts, we now have a much better under- standing of the nature and impacts of stormwa- ter pollution. The typical sample of urban stormwater is characterized by high levels of many common pollutants such as sediment, nutrients, metals, organic carbon, hydrocar- bons, pesticides, and fecal coliform bacteria. Other pollutants that have more recently become a concern in urban areas include MTBE, deicers, and the pathogens Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Concentrations of most stormwater pollutants can be charac- terized, over the long run, by event mean storm concentrations. Monitoring techniques have also allowed researchers to identify source areas for pollutants in the urban environment, including stormwater hotspots, which generate higher pollutant loads than normal develop- ment. In general, most monitoring data shows that mean pollutant storm concentrations are higher in urban watersheds than in non-urban ones. For many urban pollutants, EMCs can be used to predict stormwater pollutant loads for urban watersheds, using IC as the key predictive variable. While a direct relationship between IC and pollutant concentrations does not usually exist, IC directly influences the volume of stormwater and hence, the total load. A few exceptions are worth noting. MTBE, deicers, and PAH appear to be related more to traffic or road density than IC. Additionally, MTBE and PAH concentrations may be greater at hotspot source areas, which are not always widely or uniformly distributed across a watershed. Pesticides, bacteria and pathogens are often associated with turf areas rather than IC. Bacteria and pathogen sources also include direct inputs from wildlife and inappropriate sewage discharges that are not uniformly distributed across a watershed and are not directly related to IC. Further research into the relationship between stormwater pollutant loads and other watershed indicators may be helpful. For example, it would be interesting to see if turf cover is a good indicator of stream quality for impacted streams. Other important watershed indicators worth studying are the influence of watershed treatment practices, such as stormwater practices and stream buffers. The direct effects of stormwater pollutants on aquatic systems appears to be a function of the size of the receiving water and the initial health of the aquatic community. For example, a small urban stream receiving high stormwater pollutant concentrations would be more likely to experience impacts than a large river, which is diluted by other land uses. Likewise, organ- isms in sensitive streams should be more susceptible to stormwater pollutants than pollution-tolerant organisms found in non- supporting streams. Overall, the following conclusions can be made: •Sediment, nutrient and trace metal loads in stormwater runoff can be predicted as a function of IC, although concentrations are not tightly correlated with watershed IC. •Violations of bacteria standards are indirectly associated with watershed IC. •It is not clear whether loads of hydrocar- bons, pesticides or chlorides can be predicted on the basis of IC at the small watershed level. •More research needs to be conducted to evaluate the usefulness of other watershed indicators to predict stormwater pollutant loads. For example, traffic, road density or hotspots may be useful in predicting MTBE, deicer and hydrocarbon loads. Also, watershed turf cover may be useful in predicting pesticide and bacterial loads. 92 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 4: Water Quality Impacts of Impervious Cover •Most research on pollutants in stormwater runoff has been conducted at the small watershed level. Additional research is needed to evaluate the impact of watershed treatment, such as stormwater and buffer practices to determine the degree to which these may change stormwater concentra- tions or loads. •Regional differences are evident for many stormwater pollutants, and these appear to be caused by either differences in rainfall frequency or snowmelt. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 93 Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover This chapter reviews research on the impact of urbanization on the aquatic community, focusing on aquatic insects, fish, amphibians, freshwater mussels, and freshwater wetlands. Specifically, the relationship between the health of the aquatic community and the amount of watershed IC is analyzed within the context of the Impervious Cover Model (ICM). The chapter is organized as follows: 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Indicators and General Trends 5.3 Effects on Aquatic Insect1 Diversity 5.4 Effects on Fish Diversity 5.5 Effects on Amphibian Diversity 5.6 Effects on Wetland Diversity 5.7 Effects on Freshwater Mussel Diversity 5.8 Conclusion 5.1 Introduction A number of studies, crossing different ecoregions and utilizing various techniques, have examined the link between watershed urbanization and its impact on stream and wetland biodiversity. These studies reveal that a relatively small amount of urbanization has a negative effect on aquatic diversity, and that as watersheds become highly urban, aquatic diversity becomes extremely degraded. As documented in prior chapters, hydrologic, physical, and water quality changes caused by watershed urbanization all stress the aquatic community and collectively diminish the quality and quantity of available habitat. As a result, these stressors generally cause a decline in biological diversity, a change in trophic structure, and a shift towards more pollution- tolerant organisms. Many different habitat conditions are critical for supporting diverse aquatic ecosystems. For example, streambed substrates are vulnerable to deposition of fine sediments, which affects spawning, egg incubation and fry-rearing. Many aquatic insect species shelter in the large pore spaces among cobbles and boulders, particularly within riffles. When fine sediment fills these pore spaces, it reduces the quality and quantity of available habitat. The aquatic insect community is typically the base of the food chain in streams, helps break down organic matter and serves as a food source for juvenile fish. Large woody debris (LWD) plays a critical role in the habitat of many aquatic insects and fish. For example, Bisson et al. (1988) contend that no other structural component is more important to salmon habitat than LWD, especially in the case of juvenile coho salmon. Loss of LWD due to the removal of stream side vegetation can significantly hinder the survival of more sensitive aquatic species. Since LWD creates different habitat types, its quality and quantity have been linked to salmonid rearing habitat and the ability of multiple fish species to coexist in streams. The number of stream crossings (e.g., roads, sewers and pipelines) has been reported to increase directly in proportion to IC (May et al., 1997). Such crossings can become partial or total barriers to upstream fish migration, particularly if the stream bed downcuts below the fixed elevation of a culvert or pipeline. Fish barriers can prevent migration and recolonization of aquatic life in many urban streams. Urbanization can also increase pollutant levels and stream temperatures. In particular, trace metals and pesticides often bind to sediment particles and may enter the food chain, particu- larly by aquatic insects that collect and filter particles. While in-stream data is rare, some data are available for ponds. A study of trace 1Throughout this chapter, the term “aquatic insects” is used rather than the more cumbersome but technically correct “benthic macroinvertebrates.” 94 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover Stream Change Effects on Organisms Increased flow volumes/ Channel forming storms Alterations in habitat complexity Changes in availability of food organisms, related to timing of emergence and recovery after disturbance Reduced prey diversity Scour-related mortality Long-term depletion of LWD Accelerated streambank erosion Decreased base flows Crowding and increased competition for foraging sites Increased vulnerability to predation Increased fine sediment deposition Increase in sediment transport Reduced survival of eggs and alevins, loss of habitat due to deposition Siltation of pool areas, reduced macroinvertebrate reproduction Loss of pools and riffles Shift in the balance of species due to habitat change Loss of deep water cover and feeding areas Changes in substrate composition Reduced survival of eggs Loss of inter-gravel fry refugial spaces Reduced aquatic insect production Loss of LWD Loss of cover from predators and high flows Reduced sediment and organic matter storage Reduced pool formation and organic substrate for aquatic insects Increase in temperature Changes in migration patterns Increased metabolic activity, increased disease and parasite susceptibility Increased mortality of sensitive fish Creation of fish blockages Loss of spawning habitat for adults Inability to reach overwintering sites Loss of summer rearing habitat, Increased vulnerability to predation Loss of vegetative rooting systems Decreased channel stability Loss of undercut banks Reduced streambank integrity Channel straightening or hardening Increased stream scour Loss of habitat complexity Reduction in water quality Reduced survival of eggs and alevins Acute and chronic toxicity to juveniles and adult fish Increased physiological stress Increase in turbidity Reduced survival of eggs Reduced plant productivity Physiological stress on aquatic organisms Algae blooms Oxygen depletion due to algal blooms, increased eutrophication rate of standing waters metal bioaccumulation of three fish species found in central Florida stormwater ponds discovered that trace metal levels were signifi- cantly higher in urban ponds than in non-urban control ponds, often by a factor of five to 10 (Campbell, 1995; see also Karouna-Renier, 1995). Although typical stormwater pollutants are rarely acutely toxic to fish, the cumulative effects of sublethal pollutant exposure may influence the stream community (Chapter 4). Table 46 summarizes some of the numerous changes to streams caused by urbanization that have the potential to alter aquatic biodiversity. For a comprehensive review of the impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and biodiversity, the reader should consult Wood and Armitage (1997) and Hart and Finelli (1999). Table 46: Review of Stressors to Urban Streams and Effects on Aquatic Life Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 95 Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover 5.2 Indicators and General Trends Stream indicators are used to gauge aquatic health in particular watersheds. The two main categories of stream indicators are biotic and development indices. Biotic indices use stream diversity as the benchmark for aquatic health and use measures, such as species abundance, taxa richness, EPT Index, native species, presence of pollution-tolerant species, dominance, functional feeding group compari- sons, or proportion with disease or anomalies. Development indices evaluate the relationship between the degree of watershed urbanization and scores for the biotic indices. Common development indices include watershed IC, housing density, population density, and percent urban land use. 5.2.1 Biological Indicators Biotic indices are frequently used to measure the health of the aquatic insect or fish commu- nity in urban streams. Because many aquatic insects have limited migration patterns or a sessile mode of life, they are particularly well- suited to assess stream impacts over time. Aquatic insects integrate the effects of short- term environmental variations, as most species have a complex but short life cycle of a year or less. Sensitive life stages respond quickly to environmental stressors, but the overall community responds more slowly. Aquatic insect communities are comprised of a broad range of species, trophic levels and pollution tolerances, thus providing strong information for interpreting cumulative effects. Unlike fish, aquatic insects are abundant in most small, first and second order streams. Individuals are relatively easy to identify to family level, and many “intolerant” taxa can be identified to lower taxonomic levels with ease. Fish are good stream indicators over longer time periods and broad habitat conditions because they are relatively long-lived and mobile. Fish communities generally include a range of species that represents a variety of trophic levels (omnivores, herbivores, insecti- vores, planktivores, and piscivores). Fish tend to integrate the effects of lower trophic levels; thus, their community structure reflects the prevailing food sources and habitat conditions. Fish are relatively easy to collect and identify to the species level. Most specimens can be sorted and identified in the field by experi- enced fisheries scientists and subsequently released unharmed. A review of the literature indicates that a wide variety of metrics are used to measure the aquatic insect and fish community. Community indices, such as the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for fish and the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) for the aquatic insect commu- nity are a weighted combination of various metrics that typically characterize the commu- nity from “excellent” to “poor.” Common metrics of aquatic community are often based on a composite of measures, such as species richness, abundance, tolerance, trophic status, and native status. Combined indices (C-IBI) measure both fish and aquatic insect metrics and a variety of physical habitat conditions to classify streams. Table 47 lists several com- mon metrics used in stream assessments. It should be clearly noted that community and combined indices rely on different measure- ments and cannot be directly compared. For a comprehensive review of aquatic community indicators, see Barbour et al.(1999). 5.2.2 Watershed Development Indices Watershed IC, housing density, population density, and percent urban land have all been used as indices of the degree of watershed development. In addition, reverse indicators such as percent forest cover and riparian continuity have also been used. The majority of studies so far have used IC to explore the relationship between urbanization and aquatic diversity. Percent urban land has been the second most frequently used indicator to describe the impact of watershed development. Table 48 compares the four watershed devel- opment indices and the thresholds where significant impacts to aquatic life are typically observed. 96 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover Measurement Applied to:Definition of Measurement Abundance Fish, Aquatic Insects Total number of individuals in a sample; sometimes modified to exclude tolerant species. Taxa Richness Fish, Aquatic Insects Total number of unique taxa identified in a sample. Typically, an increase in taxa diversity indicates better water and habitat quality. EPT Index Aquatic Insects Taxa belonging to the following three groups: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), Trichoptera (caddisflies). Typically, species in these orders are considered to be pollution-intolerant taxa and are generally the first to disappear with stream quality degradation. Native Status Fish Native vs. non-native taxa in the community. Specific Habitat Fish Riffle benthic insectivorous individuals. Total number of benthic insectivores. Often these types of individuals, such as darters, sculpins, and dace are found in high velocity riffles and runs and are sensitive to physical habitat degradation. Minnow species Total number of minnow species present. Often used as an indicator of pool habitat quality. Includes all species present in the family Cyprinidae, such as daces, minnows, shiners, stonerollers, and chubs. Tolerant Species Fish, Aquatic Insects The total number of species sensitive to and the number tolerant of degraded conditions. Typically, intolerant species decline with decreasing water quality and stream habitat. A common high pollution- tolerant species that is frequently used is Chironomids. Dominance Fish, Aquatic Insects The proportion of individuals at each station from the single most abundant taxa at that particular station. Typically, a community dominated by a single taxa may be indicative of stream degradation. Functional Feeding Group Comparisons Fish Omnivores/ Generalists: The proportion of individuals characterized as omnivores or generalists to the total number of individuals. Typically, there is a shift away from specialized feeding towards more opportunistic feeders under degraded conditions as food sources become unreliable. Insectivores: The proportion of individuals characterized as insectivores to the total number of individuals. Typically, the abundance of insectivores decreases relative to increasing stream degradation. Aquatic Insects Others: The proportion of individuals characterized as shredders, scrapers, or filter feeders to the total number of individuals. Typically, changes in the proportion of functional feeders characterized as shredders can be reflective of contaminated leaf matter. In addition, an overabundance of scrapers over filterers can be indicative of increased benthic algae. Disease/ Anomalies Fish Proportion of individuals with signs of disease or abnormalities. This is ascertained through gross external examination for abnormalities during the field identification process. Typically, this metric assumes that incidence of disease and deformities increases with increasing stream degradation. * This table is not meant to provide a comprehensive listing of metrics used for diversity indices; it is intended to provide examples of types of measures used in biological stream assessments (see Barbour et al., 1999). Measurement Applied to:Definition of Measurement Abundance Fish, Aquatic Insects Total number of individuals in a sample; sometimes modified to exclude tolerant species. Taxa Richness Fish, Aquatic Insects Total number of unique taxa identified in a sample. Typically, an increase in taxa diversity indicates better water and habitat quality. EPT Index Aquatic Insects Taxa belonging to the following three groups: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), Trichoptera (caddisflies). Typically, species in these orders are considered to be pollution-intolerant taxa and are generally the first to disappear with stream quality degradation. Native Status Fish Native vs. non-native taxa in the community. Specific Habitat Fish Riffle benthic insectivorous individuals. Total number of benthic insectivores. Often these types of individuals, such as darters, sculpins, and dace are found in high velocity riffles and runs and are sensitive to physical habitat degradation. Minnow species Total number of minnow species present. Often used as an indicator of pool habitat quality. Includes all species present in the family Cyprinidae, such as daces, minnows, shiners, stonerollers, and chubs. Tolerant Species Fish, Aquatic Insects The total number of species sensitive to and the number tolerant of degraded conditions. Typically, intolerant species decline with decreasing water quality and stream habitat. A common high pollution- tolerant species that is frequently used is Chironomids. Dominance Fish, Aquatic Insects The proportion of individuals at each station from the single most abundant taxa at that particular station. Typically, a community dominated by a single taxa may be indicative of stream degradation. Functional Feeding Group Comparisons Fish Omnivores/ Generalists: The proportion of individuals characterized as omnivores or generalists to the total number of individuals. Typically, there is a shift away from specialized feeding towards more opportunistic feeders under degraded conditions as food sources become unreliable. Insectivores: The proportion of individuals characterized as insectivores to the total number of individuals. Typically, the abundance of insectivores decreases relative to increasing stream degradation. Aquatic Insects Others: The proportion of individuals characterized as shredders, scrapers, or filter feeders to the total number of individuals. Typically, changes in the proportion of functional feeders characterized as shredders can be reflective of contaminated leaf matter. In addition, an overabundance of scrapers over filterers can be indicative of increased benthic algae. Disease/ Anomalies Fish Proportion of individuals with signs of disease or abnormalities. This is ascertained through gross external examination for abnormalities during the field identification process. Typically, this metric assumes that incidence of disease and deformities increases with increasing stream degradation. * This table is not meant to provide a comprehensive listing of metrics used for diversity indices; it is intended to provide examples of types of measures used in biological stream assessments (see Barbour et al., 1999). Table 47: Examples of Biodiversity Metrics Used to Assess Aquatic Communities Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 97 Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover 5.2.3 General Trends Most research suggests that a decline in both species abundance and diversity begins at or around 10% watershed IC (Schueler, 1994a). However, considerable variations in aquatic diversity are frequently observed from five to 20% IC, due to historical alterations, the effectiveness of watershed management, prevailing riparian conditions, co-occurrence of stressors, and natural biological variation (see Chapter 1). Figures 40 through 42 display the negative relationship commonly seen between biotic indices and various measures of watershed development. For example, stream research in the Maryland Piedmont indicated that IC was the best predictor of stream condition, based on a combined fish and aquatic insect IBI (MNCPPC, 2000). In general, streams with less than 6% watershed IC were in “excellent” condition, whereas streams in “good” condi- tion had less than 12% IC, and streams in “fair” condition had less than 20%. Figure 40 shows the general boundaries and typical variation seen in MNCPPC stream research. Figure 41 illustrates that B-IBI scores and Coho Salmon/Cutthroat Trout Ratio are a function of IC for 31 streams in Puget Sound, Washington. The interesting finding was that “good” to “excellent” B-IBI scores (greater than 25) were reported in watersheds that had less than 10% IC, with eight notable outliers. These outliers had greater IC (25 to 35%) but similar B-IBI scores. These outliers are unique in that they had a large upstream wetland and/ or a large, intact riparian corridor upstream (i.e. >70% of stream corridor had buffer width >100 feet). Figure 42 depicts the same negative relation- ship between watershed urbanization and fish- IBI scores but uses population density as the primary metric of development (Dreher, 1997). The six-county study area included the Chi- cago metro area and outlying rural watersheds. Significant declines in fish-IBI scores were noted when population density exceeded 1.5 persons per acre. The actual level of watershed development at which an individual aquatic species begins to decline depends on several variables, but may be lower than that indicated by the ICM. Some researchers have detected impacts for indi- vidual aquatic species at watershed IC levels as low as 5%. Other research has suggested that the presence of certain stressors, such as sewage treatment plant discharges (Yoder and Miltner, 2000) or construction sites (Reice, 2000) may alter the ICM and lower the level of IC at which biodiversity impacts become evident. 98 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover Land Use Indicator Level at which Significant Impact Observed Typical Value for Low Density Residential Use Comments % IC 10-20%10%Most accurate; highest level of effort and cost Housing Density >1 unit/acre 1 unit/acre Low accuracy in areas of substantial commercial or industrial development; less accurate at small scales Population Density 1.5 to 8+ people/acre 2.5 people/acre Low accuracy in areas of substantial commercial or industrial development; less accurate at small scales % Urban Land Use 33% (variable)10-100% Does not measure intensity of development; moderately accurate at larger watershed scales Road Density 5 miles/square mile 2 miles/square mile Appears to be a potentially useful indicator Figure 40: Combined Fish and Benthic IBI vs. IC in Maryland Piedmont Streams (MNCPPC, 2000) Table 48: Alternate Land Use Indicators and Significant Impact Levels (Brown, 2000; Konrad and Booth, 2002) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 99 Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover Figure 41: Relationship Between B-IBI, Coho/Cutthroat Ratios, and Watershed IC in Puget Sound Streams (Horner et al., 1997) Figure 42: Index for Biological Integrity as a Function of Population Density in Illinois (Dreher, 1997) 100 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover 5.3 Effects on Aquatic Insect Diversity The diversity, richness and abundance of the aquatic insect community is frequently used to indicate urban stream quality. Aquatic insects are a useful indicator because they form the base of the stream food chain in most regions of the country. For this reason, declines or changes in aquatic insect diversity are often an early signal of biological impact due to water- shed development. The aquatic insect commu- nity typically responds to increasing develop- ment by losing species diversity and richness and shifting to more pollution-tolerant species. More than 30 studies illustrate how IC and urbanization affect the aquatic insect commu- nity. These are summarized in Tables 49 and 50. 5.3.1 Findings Based on IC Indicators Klein (1979) was one of the first researchers to note that aquatic insect diversity drops sharply in streams where watershed IC exceeded 10 to 15%. While “good” to “fair” diversity was noted in all headwater streams with less than 10% IC, nearly all streams with 12% or more watershed IC recorded “poor” diversity. Other studies have confirmed this general relation- ship between IC and the decline of aquatic insect species diversity. Their relationships have been an integral part in the development of the ICM. The sharp drop in aquatic insect diversity at or around 12 to 15% IC was also observed in streams in the coastal plain and Piedmont of Delaware (Maxted and Shaver, 1997). Impacts at development thresholds lower than 10% IC have also been observed by Booth (2000), Davis (2001), Horner et al. (1997) and Morse (2001). There seems to be a general recognition that the high levels of variability observed below 10% IC indicate that other factors, such as riparian condition, effluent discharges, and pollution legacy may be better indicators of aquatic insect diversity (Horner and May, 1999; Kennen, 1999; Steedman, 1988; Yoder et al., 1999). The exact point at which aquatic insect diver- sity shifts from fair to poor is not known with absolute precision, but it is clear that few, if any, urban streams can support diverse aquatic insect communities with more than 25% IC. Indeed, several researchers failed to find aquatic insect communities with good or excellent diversity in any highly urban stream (Table 52). Indeed, MNCPPC (2000) reported that all streams with more than 20% watershed IC were rated as “poor.” Several good examples of the relationship between IC and B-IBI scores are shown in Figures 43 through 45. Figure 43 depicts the general trend line in aquatic insect diversity as IC increased at 138 stream sites in Northern Virginia (Fairfax County, 2001). The survey study concluded that stream degradation occurred at low levels of IC, and that older developments lacking more efficient site design and stormwater controls tended to have particularly degraded streams. Figures 44 and 45 show similar trends in the relationship between IC and aquatic insect B-IBI scores in Maryland and Washington streams. In particu- lar, note the variability in B-IBI scores ob- served below 10% IC in both research studies. Often, shift in the aquatic insect community from pollution-sensitive species to pollution- tolerant species occurs at relatively low IC levels (<10%). This shift is often tracked using the EPT metric, which evaluates sensitive species found in the urban stream community in the orders of Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies). EPT species frequently disappear in urban streams and are replaced by more pollution-tolerant organisms, such as chirono- mids, tubificid worms, amphipods and snails. In undisturbed streams, aquatic insects employ specialized feeding strategies, such as shred- ding leaf litter, filtering or collecting organic matter that flows by, or preying on other insects. These feeding guilds are greatly reduced in urban streams and are replaced by grazers, collectors and deposit feeders. Maxted and Shaver (1997) found that 90% of sensitive Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 101 Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover Index Key Finding (s)Source Location Community Index Three years stream sampling across the state at 1000 sites found that when IC was >15%, stream health was never rated good based on a C-IBI. Boward et al., 1999 MD Community Index Insect community and habitat scores were all ranked as poor in five subwatersheds that were greater than 30% IC. Black and Veatch, 1994 MD Community Index Puget sound study finds that some degradation of aquatic invertebrate diversity can occur at any level of human disturbance (at least as measured by IC). 65% of watershed forest cover usually indicates a healthy aquatic insect community. Booth, 2000 WA Community Index In a Puget Sound study, the steepest decline of B-IBI was observed after 6% IC. There was a steady decline, with approximately 50% reduction in B-IBI at 45% IC. Horner et al., 1997 WA Community Index B-IBI decreases with increasing urbanization in study involving 209 sites, with a sharp decline at 10% IC. Riparian condition helps mitigate effects. Steedman, 1988 Ontario Community Index Wetlands, forest cover and riparian integrity act to mitigate the impact of IC on aquatic insect communities. Horner et al., 2001 WA, MD, TX Community Index B-IBI declines for aquatic insect with increasing IC at more than 200 streams.Fairfax Co., 2001 VA Community Index Two-year stream study of eight Piedmont watersheds reported B-IBI scores declined sharply at an IC threshold of 15-30%. Meyer and Couch,2000 GA Community Index Montgomery County study; subwatersheds with <12% IC generally had streams in good to excellent condition based on a combined fish and aquatic insect IBI. Watersheds with >20% IC had streams in poor condition. MNCPPC, 2000 MD Community Index Study of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order streams in the Patapsco River Basin showed negative relationship between B-IBI and IC. Dail et al., 1998 MD Community Index While no specific threshold was observed, impacts were seen at even low levels of IC. B-IBI values declined with increasing IC, with high scores observed only in reaches with <5% IC or intact riparian zones or upstream wetlands. Horner and May, 1999 WA Community Index The C-IBI also decreased by 50% at 10-15% IC. These trends were particularly strong at low-density urban sites (0-30% IC). Maxted and Shaver, 1997 DE Diversity In both coastal plain and Piedmont streams, a sharp decline in aquatic insect diversity was found around 10-15% IC. Shaver et al., 1995 DE Diversity In a comparison of Anacostia subwatersheds, there was significant decline in the diversity of aquatic insects at 10% IC. MWCOG, 1992 DC Diversity In several dozen Piedmont headwater streams, aquatic diversity declined significantly beyond 10-12% IC.Klein, 1979 MD EPT Value In a 10 stream study with watershed IC ranging from three to 30%, a significant decline in EPT values was reported as IC increased (r2 = 0.76). Davis, 2001 MO Sensitive Species In a study of 38 wadeable, non-tidal streams in the urban Piedmont, 90% of sensitive organisms were eliminated from the benthic community after watershed IC reaches 10-15%. Maxted and Shaver, 1997 DE Species Abundance EPT values For streams draining 20 catchments across the state, an abrupt decline in species abundance and EPT taxa was observed at approximately 6% IC.Morse, 2001 ME Table 49: Recent Research Examining the Relationship Between IC and Aquatic Insect Diversity in Streams 102 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover Biotic Key Finding (s)Source Location Percent Urban Land use Community Index Study of 700 streams in 5 major drainage basins found that the amount of urban land and total flow of municipal effluent were the most significant factors in predicting severe impairment of the aquatic insect community. Amount of forested land in drainage area was inversely related to impairment severity. Kennen, 1999 NJ Community Index All 40 urban sites sampled had fair to very poor B-IBI scores, compared to undeveloped reference sites.Yoder, 1991 OH Community Index A negative correlation between B-IBI and urban land use was noted. Community characteristics show similar patterns between agricultural and forested areas the most severe degradation being in urban and suburban areas. Meyer and Couch, 2000 GA EPT Value, Diversity, Community Index A comparison of three stream types found urban streams had lowest diversity and richness. Urban streams had substantially lower EPT scores (22% vs 5% as number of all taxa, 65% vs 10% as percent abundance) and IBI scores in the poor range. Crawford and Lenat, 1989 NC Sensitive Species Urbanization associated with decline in sensitive taxa, such as mayflies, caddisflies and amphipods while showing increases in oligochaetes. Pitt and Bozeman, 1982 CA Sensitive Species Dramatic changes in aquatic insect community were observed in most urbanizing stream sections. Changes include an abundance of pollution-tolerant aquatic insect species in urban streams. Kemp and Spotila, 1997 PA Diversity As watershed development levels increased, the aquatic insect diversity declined.Richards et al., 1993 MN Diversity Significant negative relationship between number of aquatic insect species and degree of urbanization in 21 Atlanta streams. Benke et al., 1981 GA Diversity Drop in insect taxa from 13 to 4 was noted in urban streams.Garie and McIntosh, 1986 NJ Diversity Aquatic insect taxa were found to be more abundant in non-urban reaches than in urban reaches of the watershed. Pitt and Bozeman, 1982 CA Diversity A study of five urban streams found that as watershed land use shifted from rural to urban, aquatic insect diversity decreased. Masterson and Bannerman, 1994 WI Other Land Use Indicators Community Index Most degraded streams were found in developed areas, particularly older developments lacking newer and more efficient stormwater controls. Fairfax Co., 2001 VA Diversity Urban streams had sharply lower aquatic insect diversity with human population above four persons/acre in northern VA. Jones and Clark, 1987 VA EPT Value Monitoring of four construction sites in three varying regulatory settings found that EPT richness was related to enforcement of erosion and sediment controls. The pattern demonstrated that EPT richness was negatively affected as one moved from upstream to at the site, except for one site. Reice, 2000 NC Sensitive Species In a Seattle study, aquatic insect community shifted to chironomid, oligochaetes and amphipod species that are pollution-tolerant and have simple feeding guild. Pedersen and Perkins,1986 WA Table 50: Recent Research Examining the Relationship of Other Indices of Watershed Development on Aquatic Insect Diversity in Streams Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 103 Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover species (based on EPT richness, % EPT abundance, and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index) were eliminated from the aquatic insect community when IC exceeded 10 to 15% in contributing watersheds of Delaware streams (Figure 46). In a recent study of 30 Maine watersheds, Morse (2001) found that reference streams with less than 5% watershed IC had significantly more EPT taxa than more urban streams. He also observed no significant differences in EPT Index values among streams with six to 27% watershed IC (Figure 47). Figure 45: IC and B-IBI at Stream Sites in the Patapsco River Basin, MD (Dail et al., 1998) Figure 43: Trend Line Indicating Decline in Benthic IBI as IC Increases in Northern VA Streams (Fairfax County, 2001) Figure 44: Relationship Between IC and B-IBI Scores in Aquatic Insects in Streams of the Puget Sound Lowlands (Booth, 2000) Figure 46: IC vs. Aquatic Insect Sensitivity - EPT Scores in Delaware Streams (Maxted and Shaver, 1997) 104 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover 5.3.2 Findings Based on Other Development Indicators Development indices, such as percent urban land use, population density, and forest and riparian cover have also been correlated with changes in aquatic insect communities in urban streams. Declines in benthic IBI scores have frequently been observed in proportion to the percent urban land use in small watersheds (Garie and McIntosh, 1986; Kemp and Spotila, 1997; Kennen, 1999; Masterson and Bannerman, 1994; Richards et al., 1993; USEPA, 1982). A study in Washington state compared a heavily urbanized stream to a stream with limited watershed development and found that the diversity of the aquatic insect community declined from 13 taxa in reference streams to five taxa in more urbanized streams (Pedersen and Perkins, 1986). The aquatic insect taxa that were lost were poorly suited to handle the variable erosional and depositional conditions found in urban streams. Similarly, a compari- son of three North Carolina streams with different watershed land uses concluded the urban watershed had the least taxa and lowest EPT scores and greatest proportion of pollu- tion-tolerant species (Crawford and Lenat, 1989). Jones and Clark (1987) monitored 22 streams in Northern Virginia and concluded that aquatic insect diversity diminished markedly once watershed population density exceeded four or more people per acre. The population density roughly translates to ½ - 1 acre lot residential use, or about 10 to 20 % IC. Kennen (1999) evaluated 700 New Jersey streams and concluded that the percentage of watershed forest was positively correlated with aquatic insect density. Meyer and Couch (2000) reported a similar cover relationship between aquatic insect diversity and watershed and riparian forest cover for streams in the Atlanta, GA region. A study in the Puget Sound region found that aquatic insect diversity declined in streams once forest cover fell below 65% (Booth, 2000). Figure 47: Average and Spring EPT Index Values vs.% IC in 20 Small Watersheds in Maine (Morse, 2001) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 105 Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover 5.4 Effects on Fish Diversity Fish communities are also excellent environ- mental indicators of stream health. In general, an increase in watershed IC produces the same kind of impact on fish diversity as it does for aquatic insects. The reduction in fish diversity is typified by a reduction in total species, loss of sensitive species, a shift toward more pollution-tolerant species, and decreased survival of eggs and larvae. More than 30 studies have examined the relationship be- tween watershed development and fish diver- sity; they are summarized in Tables 51 and 52. About half of the research studies used IC as the major index of watershed development, while the remainder used other indices, such as percent urban land use, population density, housing density, and forest cover. 5.4.1 Findings Based on IC Indicators Recent stream research shows a consistent, negative relationship between watershed development and various measures of fish diversity, such as diversity metrics, species loss and structural changes. Typically, a notable decline in fish diversity occurs around 10 to 15% watershed IC (Boward et al., 1999; Galli, 1994; Klein, 1979; Limburg and Schmidt, 1990; MNCPPC, 2000; MWCOG, 1992; Steward, 1983). A somewhat higher threshold was observed by Meyer and Couch (2000) for Atlanta streams with 15 to 30% IC; lower thresholds have also been observed (Horner et al., 1997 and May et al., 1997). A typical relationship between water- shed IC and fish diversity is portrayed in Figure 48, which shows data from streams in the Patapsco River Basin in Maryland (Dail et al., 1998). Once again, note the variability in fish-IBI scores observed below 10% IC. Wang et al. (1997) evaluated 47 Wisconsin streams and found an apparent threshold around 10% IC. Fish-IBI scores were “good” to “excellent” below this threshold, but were consistently rated as “fair” to “poor.” Addi- tionally, Wang documented that the total number of fish species drops sharply when IC increases (Figure 49). Often, researchers also reported that increases in IC were strongly correlated with several fish metrics, such as increases in non-native and pollution-tolerant species in streams in Santa Clara, California (EOA, Inc., 2001). Figure 48: Fish-IBI vs. Watershed IC for Streams in the Patapsco River Basin, MD (Dail et al., 1998) 106 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover Biotic Key Finding (s)Source Location Abundance Brown trout abundance and recruitment declined sharply at 10-15% IC.Galli, 1994 MD Salmonids Seattle study showed marked reduction in coho salmon populations noted at 10-15% IC at nine streams. Steward, 1983 WA Anadromous Fish Eggs Resident and anadromous fish eggs and larvae declined in 16 subwatersheds draining to the Hudson River with >10% IC area. Limburg and Schmidt, 1990 NY Community Index 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order streams in the Patapsco River Basin showed negative relationship between IBI and IC. Dail et al., 1998 MD Community Index Fish IBI and habitat scores were all ranked as poor in five subwatersheds that were greater than 30% IC. Black and Veatch,1994 MD Community Index In the Potomac subregion, subwatersheds with < 12% IC generally had streams in good to excellent condition based on a combined fish and aquatic insect IBI. Watersheds with >20% IC had streams in poor condition. MNCPPC, 2000 MD Community Index In a two-year study of Piedmont streams draining eight watersheds representing various land uses in Chattahochee River Basin, fish community quality dropped sharply at an IC threshold of 15-30%. Meyer and Couch, 2000 GA Diversity Of 23 headwater stream stations, all draining <10% IC areas, rated as good to fair; all with >12% were rated as poor. Fish diversity declined sharply with increasing IC between 10-12%. Schueler and Galli, 1992 MD Diversity, Sensitive Species Comparison of 4 similar subwatersheds in Piedmont streams, there was significant decline in the diversity of fish at 10% IC. Sensitive species (trout and sculpin) were lost at 10-12%. MWCOG, 1992 MD Diversity, Community Index In a comparison of watershed land use and fish community data for 47 streams between the 1970s and 1990s, a strong negative correlation was found between number species and IBI scores with effective connected IC. A threshold of 10% IC was observed with community quality highly variable below 10% but consistently low above 10% IC. Wang et al ., 1997 WI Diversity In several dozen Piedmont headwater streams fish diversity declined significantly in areas beyond 10-12% IC.Klein, 1979 MD Diversity , Abundance, Non-native Species IC strongly associated with several fisheries species and individual-level metrics, including number of pollution-tolerant species, diseased individuals, native and non- native species and total species present EOA, Inc., 2001 CA Juvenile Salmon Ratios In Puget Sound study, the steepest decline of biological functioning was observed after six percent IC. There was a steady decline, with approximately 50% reduction in initial biotic integrity at 45% IC area. Horner et al., 1997 WA Juvenile Salmon Ratio Physical and biological stream indicators declined most rapidly during the initial phase of the urbanization process as total IC area exceeded the five to 10% range. May et al., 1997 WA Salmonoid Negative effects of urbanization (IC) with the defacto loss of non-structural BMPs (wetland forest cover and riparian integrity) on salmon ratios Horner et al., 2001 WA, MD, TX Salmonoid, Sensitive Species While no specific threshold was observed (impacts seen at even low levels of IC), Coho/cutthroat salmon ratios >2:1 were found when IC was < 5%. Ratios fell below one at IC levels below 20 %. Horner and May, 1999 WA Sensitive species, Salmonid Three years stream sampling across the state (approximately 1000 sites), MBSS found that when IC was >15%, stream health was never rated good based on CBI, and pollution sensitive brook trout were never found in streams with >2% IC. Boward et al., 1999 MD Sensitive Species, Salmonids Seattle study observed shift from less tolerant coho salmon to more tolerant cutthroat trout population between 10 and 15% IC at nine sites. Luchetti and Feurstenburg 1993 WA Table 51: Recent Research Examining the Relationship Between Watershed IC and the Fish Community Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 107 Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover Sensitive fish are defined as species that strongly depend on clean and stable bottom substrates for feeding and/or spawning. Sensi- tive fish often show a precipitous decline in urban streams. The loss of sensitive fish species and a shift in community structure towards more pollution-tolerant species is confirmed by multiple studies. Figure 50 shows the results of a comparison of four similar subwatersheds in the Maryland Pied- mont that were sampled for the number of fish species present (MWCOG, 1992). As the level of watershed IC increased, the number of fish species collected dropped. Two sensitive species, including sculpin, were lost when IC increased from 10 to 12%, and four more species were lost when IC reached 25%. Significantly, only two species remained in the fish community at 55% watershed IC. Salmonid fish species (trout and salmon) and anadromous fish species appear to be particu- larly impacted by watershed IC. In a study in the Pacific Northwest, sensitive coho salmon were seldom found in watersheds above 10 or 15% IC (Luchetti and Feurstenburg, 1993 and Steward, 1983). Key stressors in urban streams, such as higher peak flows, lower dry weather flows, and reduction in habitat com- plexity (e.g. fewer pools, LWD, and hiding places) are believed to change salmon species composition, favoring cutthroat trout popula- tions over the natural coho populations (WDFW, 1997). A series of studies from the Puget Sound reported changes in the coho/cutthroat ratios of juvenile salmon as watershed IC increased (Figure 51). Horner et al. (1999) found Coho/ Cutthroat ratios greater than 2:1 in watersheds with less than 5 % IC. Ratios fell below 1:1 when IC exceeded 20%. Similar results were reported by May et al. (1997). In the mid- Atlantic region, native trout have stringent temperature and habitat requirements and are seldom present in watersheds where IC ex- ceeds 15% (Schueler, 1994a). Declines in trout spawning success are evident above 10% IC. In a study of over 1,000 Maryland streams, Boward et al. (1999) found that sensitive brook trout were never found in streams that had more than 4% IC in their contributing watersheds. Figure 49: Fish-IBI and Number of Species vs. % IC in Wisconsin Streams (Wang et al., 1997) Figure 50: IC and Effects on Fish Species Diversity in Four Maryland Subwatersheds (MWCOG, 1992) Imperviousness (%) Fish Diversity Anacostia River Basin 108 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover Biotic Key Finding (s)Source Location Urbanization Community Index All 40 urban sites sampled had fair to very poor IBI scores, compared to undeveloped reference sites.Yoder, 1991 OH Community Index Negative correlations between biotic community and riparian conditions and forested areas were found. Similar levels of fish degradation were found between suburban and agricultural; urban areas were the most severe. Meyer and Couch, 2000 GA Community Index Residential urban land use caused significant decrease in fish-IBI scores at 33%. In more urbanized Cuyahoga, a significant drop in IBI scores occurred around 8% urban land use in the watershed. When watersheds smaller than 100mi2 were analyzed separately, the level of urban land associated with a significant drop in IBI scores occurred at around 15%. Above one du/ac, most sites failed to attain biocriteria regardless of degree of urbanization. Yoder et al., 1999 OH Community Index, Abundance As watershed development increased to about 10%, fish communities simplified to more habitat and trophic generalists and fish abundance and species richness declined. IBI scores for the urbanized stream fell from the good to fair category. Weaver, 1991 VA Diversity A study of five urban streams found that as land use shifted from rural to urban, fish diversity decreased. Masterson and Bannerman, 1994 WI Diversity, Community Index A comparison of three stream types found urban streams had lowest diversity and richness. Urban streams had IBI scores in the poor range. Crawford and Lenat, 1989 NC Salmon Spawning, Flooding Frequency In comparing three streams over a 25-year period (two urbanizing and one remaining forested), increases in flooding frequencies and decreased trends in salmon spawning were observed in the two urbanizing streams, while no changes in flooding or spawning were seen in the forested system. Moscript and Montgomery, 1997 WA Sensitive Species Observed dramatic changes in fish communities in most urbanizing stream sections, such as absence of brown trout and abundance of pollution-tolerant species in urban reaches. Kemp and Spotila,1997 PA Sensitive Species, Diversity Decline in sensitive species diversity and composition and changes in trophic structure from specialized feeders to generalists was seen in an urbanizing watershed from 1958 to 1990. Low intensity development was found to affect warm water stream fish communities similarly as more intense development. Weaver and Garman, 1994 VA Warm Water Habitat Biocriteria 25-30% urban land use defined as the upper threshold where attainment of warm water habitat biocriterion is effectively lost. Non-attainment also may occur at lower thresholds given the co-occurrence of stressors, such as pollution legacy, WTPs and CSOs. Yoder and Miltner, 2000 OH Community Index, Habitat The amount of urban land use upstream of sample sites had a strong negative relationship with biotic integrity, and there appeared to be a threshold between 10 and 20% urban land use where IBI scores declined dramatically. Watersheds above 20% urban land invariably had scores less than 30 ( poor to very poor ). Habitat scores were not tightly correlated with degraded fish community attributes. Wang et al., 1997 WI Community Index A study in the Patapsco Basin found significant correlation of fish IBI scores with percent urbanized land over all scales (catchment, riparian area, and local area). Roth et al., 1998 MD Table 52: Recent Research Examining Urbanization and Freshwater Fish Community Indicators Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 109 Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover Biotic Key Finding (s)Source Location Urbanization Sensitive Species Evaluated effects of runoff in both urban and non-urban streams; found that native species dominated the non-urban portion of the watershed but accounted for only seven percent of species found in the urban portions of the watershed. Pitt, 1982 CA Other Land Use Indicators Community Index, Habitat Atlanta study found that as watershed population density increased, there was a negative impact on urban fish and habitat. Urban stream IBI scores were inversely related to watershed population density, and once density exceeded four persons/acre, urban streams were consistently rated as very poor. Couch et al., 1997 GA Community Index In an Atlanta stream study, modified IBI scores declined once watershed population density exceeds four persons/acre in 21 urban watersheds DeVivo et al., 1997 GA Community Index In a six-county study (including Chicago, its suburbs and outlying rural/agricultural areas), streams showed a strong correlation between population density and fish community assessments such that as population density increased, community assessment scores went from the better - good range to fair - poor. Significant impacts seen at 1.5 people/acre. Dreher, 1997 IL Community Index Similarly, negative correlations between biotic community and riparian conditions and forested areas were also found. Similar levels of fish degradation were found between suburban and agricultural; urban areas were the most severe. Meyer and Couch, 2000 GA Community Index Amount of forested land in basin directly related to IBI scores for fish community condition. Roth et al., 1996 MD Salmonid, Sensitive Species Species community changes from natural coho salmon to cutthroat trout population with increases in peak flow, lower low flow, and reductions in stream complexity. WDFW, 1997 WA Table 52 (continued): Recent Research Examining Urbanization and Freshwater Fish Community Indicators Figure 51: Coho Salmon/Cutthroat Trout Ratio for Puget Sound Streams (Horner et al., 1997) 110 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover Many fish species have poor spawning success in urban streams and poor survival of fish eggs and fry. Fish barriers, low intragravel dissolved oxygen, sediment deposition and scour are all factors that can diminish the ability of fish species to successfully reproduce. For ex- ample, Limburg and Schmidt (1990) discov- ered that the density of anadromous fish eggs and larvae declined sharply in subwatersheds with more than 10% IC. 5.4.2 Findings Based on Other Development Indicators Urban land use has frequently been used as a development indicator to evaluate the impact on fish diversity. Streams in urban watersheds typically had lower fish species diversity and richness than streams located in less developed watersheds. Declines in fish diversity as a function of urban land cover have been docu- mented in numerous studies (Crawford and Lenat, 1989; Masterson and Bannerman, 1994; Roth et al., 1998; Yoder, 1991, and Yoder et al., 1999). USEPA (1982) found that native fish species dominated the fish community of non-urban streams, but accounted for only 7% of the fish community found in urban streams. Kemp and Spotila (1997) evaluated streams in Pennsylvania and noted the loss of sensitive species (e.g. brown trout) and the increase of pollution-tolerant species, such as sunfish and creek chub (Figure 52). Wang et al. (1997) cited percentage of urban land in Wisconsin watersheds as a strong negative factor influencing fish-IBI scores in streams and observed strong declines in IBI scores with 10 to 20% urban land use. Weaver and Garman (1994) compared the historical changes in the warm-water fish community of a Virginia stream that had undergone signifi- cant urbanization and found that many of the sensitive species present in 1958 were either absent or had dropped sharply in abundance when the watershed was sampled in 1990. Overall abundance had dropped from 2,056 fish collected in 1958 to 417 in 1990. In addition, the 1990 study showed that 67% of the catch was bluegill and common shiner, two species that are habitat and trophic “general- ists.” This shift in community to more habitat and trophic generalists was observed at 10% urban land use (Weaver, 1991). Yoder et al. (1999) evaluated a series of streams in Ohio and reported a strong decrease in warm-water fish community scores around 33% residential urban land use. In the more urbanized Cuyahoga streams, sharp drops in Figure 52: Mean Proportion of Fish Taxa in Urban and Non-Urban Streams, Valley Forge Watershed, PA (Kemp and Spotila, 1997) Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 111 Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover fish-IBI scores occurred around 8% urban land use, primarily due to certain stressors which functioned to lower the non-attainment thresh- old. When watersheds smaller than 100mi2 were analyzed separately, the percentage of urban land use associated with a sharp drop in fish-IBI scores was around 15%. In a later study, Yoder and Miltner (2000) described an upper threshold for quality warm-water fish habitat at 25 to 30% urban land use. Watershed population and housing density have also been used as indicators of the health of the fish community. In a study of 21 urban watersheds in Atlanta, DeVivo et al. (1997) observed a shift in mean fish-IBI scores from “good to fair” to “very poor” when watershed population density exceeded four people/acre (Figure 53). A study of Midwest streams in metropolitan Illinois also found a negative relationship between increase in population density and fish communities, with significant impacts detected at population densities of 1.5 people or greater per acre (Dreher, 1997). In the Columbus and Cuyahoga watersheds in Ohio, Yoder et al. (1999) concluded that most streams failed to attain fish biocriteria above one dwelling unit/acre. Figure 53: Relationship Between Watershed Population Density and Stream IBI Scores in Georgia Streams (DeVivo et al., 1997) 112 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover 5.5 Effects on Amphibian Diversity Amphibians spend portions of their life cycle in aquatic systems and are frequently found within riparian, wetland or littoral areas. Relatively little research has been conducted to directly quantify the effects of watershed development on amphibian diversity. Intu- itively, it would appear that the same stressors that affect fish and aquatic insects would also affect amphibian species, along with riparian wetland alteration. We located four research studies on the impacts of watershed urbaniza- tion on amphibian populations; only one was related to streams (Boward et al., 1999), while others were related to wetlands (Table 53). A primary factor influencing amphibian diversity appears to be water level fluctuations (WLF) in urban wetlands that occur as a result of increased stormwater discharges. Chin (1996) hypothesized that increased WLF and other hydrologic factors affected the abun- dance of egg clutches and available amphibian breeding habitat, thereby ultimately influenc- ing amphibian richness. Increased WLF can limit reproductive success by eliminating mating habitat and the emergent vegetation to which amphibians attach their eggs. Taylor (1993) examined the effect of water- shed development on 19 freshwater wetlands in King County, WA and concluded that the additional stormwater contributed to greater annual WLF. When annual WLF exceeded about eight inches, the richness of both the wetland plant and amphibian communities dropped sharply. Large increases in WLF were consistently observed in freshwater wetlands when IC in upstream watersheds exceeded 10 to 15%. Further research on streams and wetlands in the Pacific northwest by Horner et al. (1997) demonstrated the correlation be- tween watershed IC and diversity of amphibian species. Figure 54 illustrates the relationship between amphibian species abundance and watershed IC, as documented in the study. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 113 Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover Indicator Key Finding(s)Reference Year Location % IC Reptile and Amphibian Abundance In a three-year stream sampling across the state (approximately 1000 sites), MBSS found only hardy pollution-tolerant reptiles and amphibians in stream corridors with >25% IC drainage area. Boward et al., 1999 MD Amphibian Density Mean annual water fluctuation inversely correlated to amphibian density in urban wetlands. Declines noted beyond 10% IC. Taylor, 1993 WA Other Studies Species Richness In 30 wetlands, species richness of reptiles and amphibians was significantly related to density of paved roads on lands within a two kilometer radius. Findlay and Houlahan,1997 Ontario Species Richness Decline in amphibian species richness as wetland WLF increased. While more of a continuous decline rather than a threshold, WLF = 22 centimeters may represent a tolerance boundary for amphibian community. Horner et al., 1997 WA Amphibian Density Mean annual water fluctuation inversely correlated to amphibian density in urban wetlands. Taylor, 1993 WA Table 53: Recent Research on the Relationship Between Percent Watershed Urbanization and the Amphibian Community Figure 54: Amphibian Species Richness as a Function of Watershed IC in Puget Sound Lowland Wetlands (Horner et al., 1997) 114 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover 5.6 Effects on Wetland Diversity We found a limited number of studies that evaluated the impact of watershed urbanization on wetland plant diversity (Table 54). Two studies used IC as an index of watershed development and observed reduced wetland plant diversity around or below 10% IC (Hicks and Larson, 1997 and Taylor, 1993). WLF and road density were also used as indicators (Findlay and Houlahan, 1997; Horner et al., 1997; Taylor, 1993). Horner et al. (1997) reported a decline in plant species richness in emergent and scrub-shrub wetland zones of the Puget Sound region as WLF increased. They cautioned that species numbers showed a continuous decline rather than a threshold value; however, it was indi- cated that WLF as small as 10 inches can represent a tolerance boundary for wetland plant communities. Horner further stated that in 90% of the cases where WLF exceeded 10 inches, watershed IC exceeded 21%. Watershed Indicator Key Finding(s)Reference Location Biotic % IC Insect Community Significant declines in various indicators of wetland aquatic macro-invertebrate community health were observed as IC increased to 8-9%. Hicks and Larson, 1997 CT WLF, Water Quality There is a significant increase in WLF, conductivity, fecal coliform bacteria, and total phosphorus in urban wetland as IC exceeds 3.5%. Taylor et al., 1995 WA Plant Density Declines in urban wetland plant density noted in areas beyond 10% IC.Taylor, 1993 WA Other Watershed Indicators Plant Density Mean annual water fluctuation inversely correlated to plant density in urban wetlands. Taylor, 1993 WA Plant Species Richness Decline in plant species richness in emergent and scrub-shrub wetland zones as WLF increased. While more of a continuous decline, rather than a threshold, WLF=22 centimeters may represent a tolerance boundary for the community Horner et al., 1997 WA Plant Species Richness In 30 wetlands, species richness was significantly related to density of paved roads within a two kilometer radius of the wetland. Model predicted that a road density of 2kilometers per hectare in paved road within 1000 meters of wetland will lead to a 13% decrease in wetland plant species richness. Findlay and Houlahan,1997 Ontario Watershed Indicator Key Finding(s)Reference Location Biotic % IC Insect Community Significant declines in various indicators of wetland aquatic macro-invertebrate community health were observed as IC increased to 8-9%. Hicks and Larson, 1997 CT WLF, Water Quality There is a significant increase in WLF, conductivity, fecal coliform bacteria, and total phosphorus in urban wetland as IC exceeds 3.5%. Taylor et al., 1995 WA Plant Density Declines in urban wetland plant density noted in areas beyond 10% IC.Taylor, 1993 WA Other Watershed Indicators Plant Density Mean annual water fluctuation inversely correlated to plant density in urban wetlands. Taylor, 1993 WA Plant Species Richness Decline in plant species richness in emergent and scrub-shrub wetland zones as WLF increased. While more of a continuous decline, rather than a threshold, WLF=22 centimeters may represent a tolerance boundary for the community Horner et al., 1997 WA Plant Species Richness In 30 wetlands, species richness was significantly related to density of paved roads within a two kilometer radius of the wetland. Model predicted that a road density of 2kilometers per hectare in paved road within 1000 meters of wetland will lead to a 13% decrease in wetland plant species richness. Findlay and Houlahan,1997 Ontario Table 54: Recent Research Examining the Relationship Between Watershed Development and Urban Wetlands Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 115 Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover 5.7 Effects on Freshwater Mussel Diversity Freshwater mussels are excellent indicators of stream quality since they are filter-feeders and essentially immobile. The percentage of imperiled mussel species in freshwater ecoregions is high (Williams et al., 1993). Of the 297 native mussel species in the United States, 72% are considered endangered, threatened, or of special concern, including 21 mussel species that are presumed to be extinct. Seventy mussel species (24%) are considered to have stable populations, although many of these have declined in abundance and distribu- tion. Modification of aquatic habitats and sedimentation are the primary reasons cited for the decline of freshwater mussels (Williams et al., 1993). Freshwater mussels are very susceptible to smothering by sediment deposition. Conse- quently, increases in watershed development and sediment loading are suspected to be a factor leading to reduced mussel diversity. At sublethal levels, silt interferes with feeding and metabolism of mussels in general (Aldridge et al., 1987). Major sources of mortality and loss of diversity in mussels include impoundment of rivers and streams, and eutrophication (Bauer, 1988). Changes in fish diversity and abundance due to dams and impoundments can also influence the availability of mussel hosts (Williams et al., 1992). Freshwater mussels are particularly sensitive to heavy metals and pesticides (Keller and Zam, 1991). Although the effects of metals and pesticides vary from one species to another, sub-lethal levels of PCBs, DDT, Malathion, Rotenone and other compounds are generally known to inhibit respiratory efficiency and accumulate in tissues (Watters, 1996). Mussels are more sensitive to pesticides than many other animals tested and often act as “first- alerts” to toxicity long before they are seen in other organisms. We were unable to find any empirical studies relating impacts of IC on the freshwater mussel communities of streams. 116 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Chapter 5: Biological Impacts of Impervious Cover 5.8 Conclusion The scientific record is quite strong with respect to the impact of watershed urbanization on the integrity and diversity of aquatic communities. We reviewed 35 studies that indicated that increased watershed develop- ment led to declines in aquatic insect diversity and about 30 studies showing a similar impact on fish diversity. The scientific literature generally shows that aquatic insect and fresh- water fish diversity declines at fairly low levels of IC (10 to 15%), urban land use (33%), population density (1.5 to eight people/acre) and housing density (>1 du/ac). Many studies also suggest that sensitive elements of the aquatic community are affected at even lower levels of IC. Other impacts include loss of sensitive species and reduced abundance and spawning success. Research supports the ICM, although additional research is needed to establish the upper threshold at which water- shed development aquatic biodiversity can be restored. One area where more research is needed involves determining how regional and cli- matic variations affect aquatic diversity in the ICM. Generally, it appears that the 10% IC threshold applies to streams in the East Coast and Midwest, with Pacific Northwest streams showing impacts at a slightly higher level. For streams in the arid and semi-arid Southwest, it is unclear what, if any, IC threshold exists given the naturally stressful conditions for these intermittent and ephemeral streams (Maxted, 1999). Southwestern streams are characterized by seasonal bursts of short but intense rainfall and tend to have aquatic communities that are trophically simple and relatively low in species richness (Poff and Ward, 1989). Overall, the following conclusions can be drawn: •IC is the most commonly used index to assess the impacts of watershed urbaniza- tion on aquatic insect and fish diversity. Percent urban land use is also a common index. •The ICM may not be sensitive enough to predict biological diversity in watersheds with low IC. For example, below 10% watershed IC, other watershed variables such as riparian continuity, natural forest cover, cropland, ditching and acid rain may be better for predicting stream health. •More research needs to be done to deter- mine the maximum level of watershed development at which stream diversity can be restored or maintained. Additionally, the capacity of stormwater treatment practices and stream buffers to mitigate high levels of watershed IC warrants more systematic research. •More research is needed to test the ICM on amphibian and freshwater mussel diver- sity. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 117 References References Aldridge, D., B. Payne and A. Miller. 1987. “The Effects of Intermittent Exposure to Suspended Solids and Turbulence on Three Species of Freshwater Mussels.” Environmental Pollution 45:17-28. Allen, P. and R. Narramore. 1985. “Bedrock Controls on Stream Channel Enlarement with Urbanization, North Central Texas.” American Water Resource Association 21(6). Allmendinger, N.L., J.E. Pizzuto, T.E. Johnson and W.C. Hession. 1999. “Why Channels with ‘Grassy’ Riparian Vegetation Are Narrower than Channels with Forested Riparian Vegetation.” Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 80, Fall Meeting Supplement, Abstract H32D-10. Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA). 2000. Website. http:// www.acwanet.com/news_info/testimony/ tsca5-00.doc Ayers, M., R. Brown and G. Oberts. 1985. Runoff and Chemical Loading in Small Watersheds in the Twin Cities Metropoli- tan Area, Minnesota. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4122. Bagley, S., M. Aver, D. Stern and M. Babiera. 1998. “Sources and Fate of Giardia Cysts and Cryptosporidium Oocysts in Surface Waters.” Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management 14(2-3): 379-392. Baird, C., T. Dybala, M. Jennings and D.Ockerman. 1996. Characterization of Nonpoint Sources and Loadings to Corpus Christi National Estuary Program Study Area. Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program. City of Corpus Christi, TX. Bannerman, R., A. Legg and S. Greb. 1996. Quality of Wisconsin Stormwater 1989- 1994. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA.Open File Report 96-458. Bannerman, R., D. Owens, R. Dodds and N. Hornewer. 1993. “Sources of Pollutants in Wisconsin Stormwater.” Water Science and Technology 28(3-5): 241-259. Barbour, M., J. Gerritsen, B. Snyder and J. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wade- able Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. 2nd Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. EPA Office of Water. Washington, D.C. Barfield, B. and M. Clar. 1985. Development of New Design Criteria for Sediment Traps and Basins. Prepared for the Maryland Resource Administration. Annapolis, MD. Barr, R. 1997. Maryland NPDES Phase I Monitoring Data. Maryland Department of the Environment. Baltimore, MD. Barrett, M. and J. Malina. 1998. Comparison of Filtration Systems and Vegetated Controls for Stormwater Treatment. 3rd International Conference on Diffuse Pollution. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Edinburg Scotland. Barrett, M., R. Zuber, E. Collins and J. Malina. 1995. A Review and Evaluation of Litera- ture Pertaining to the Quantity and Con- trol of Pollution from Highway Runoff and Construction. CRWR Online Report 95-5. Bauer, G. 1988. “Threats to the Freshwater Pearl Mussel Margaritifera margaritifera L. in Central Europe.” Biological Conser- vation 45: 239-253. 118 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems References Bay, S. and J. Brown. 2000. Assessment of MTBE Discharge Impacts on California Marine Water Quality. State Water Re- sources Control Board. Southern Califor- nia Coastal Water Research Project. Westminster, California. Beeson, C. and P. Doyle. 1995. “Comparison of Bank Erosion at Vegetated and Non- vegetated Bends.” Water Resources Bulletin 31(6). Benke, A., E. Willeke, F. Parrish and D. Stites. 1981. Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems. Office of Water Research and Technology. US Department of the Inte- rior. Completion Report Project No. A- 055-GA. Bicknell, B., J. Imhoff, J. Kittle, A. Donigian and R. Johanson. 1993. Hydrologic Simu- lation Program-Fortran-HSPF. Users Manual for Release 10.0. EPA 600/3-84- 066. Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Athens, GA. Bisson, P., K. Sullivan, and J. Nielsen. 1988. “Channel Hydraulics, Habitat Use, and Body Form of Juvenile Coho Salmon, Steelhead, and Cutthroat Trout in Streams.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:262-273. Black and Veatch. 1994. Longwell Branch Restoration-Feasibility Study Vol. 1. Carroll County, MD Office of Environ- mental Services. Blankenship, K. 1996. “Masked Bandit Uncov- ered in Water Quality Theft.” Bay Journal 6(6). Bledsoe, B. 2001. “Relationships of Stream Response to Hydrologic Changes.” Linking Stormwater BMP Designs and Perfor- mance to Receiving Water Impacts Mitiga- tion Proceedings. Snowmass, CO. Blood, E. and P. Smith. 1996. “Water Quality in Two High-Salinity Estuaries: Effects of Watershed Alteration.” Sustainable Development in the Southeastern Coastal Zone. F.J. Vernberg, W.B. Vernberg and T. Siewicki (eds.). Belle W. Baruch Library in Marine Science, No. 20. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. Boom, A. and J. Marsalek. 1988. “Accumula- tion of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. (PAHs) in an Urban Snowpack.” Science of the Total Environment 74:148. Booth, D. 2000. “Forest Cover, Impervious Surface Area, and the Mitigation of Urbanization Impacts in King County, WA.” Prepared for King County Water and Land Resource Division. University of Washington. Booth, D. 1991. “Urbanization and the Natural Drainage System-Impacts, Solutions and Prognoses.” Northwest Environmental Journal 7(1): 93-118. Booth, D. 1990. “Stream Channel Incision Following Drainage Basin Urbanization.” Water Resources Bulletin 26(3): 407-417. Booth, D. and P. Henshaw. 2001. “Rates of Channel Erosion in Small Urban Streams.” Water Science and Application 2:17-38. Booth, D. and C. Jackson. 1997. “Urbaniza- tion of Aquatic Systems: Degradation Thresholds, Stormwater Detection and the Limits of Mitigation.” Journal AWRA 33(5): 1077- 1089. Booth, D. and L. Reinelt. 1993. Consequences of Urbanization on Aquatic Systems - Measured Effects, Degradation Thresh- olds, and Corrective Strategies. Watershed ‘93 Proceedings. Alexandria, Virginia. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 119 References Booth, D., D. Montgomery and J. Bethel. 1997. “Large Woody Debris in the Urban Streams of the Pacific Northwest.” Effects of Watershed Development and Manage- ment on Aquatic Ecosystems. Roesner, L.A. Editor. Proceedings of the ASCE Conference. Snowbird, Utah. Boughton, C. and M. Lico. 1998. Volatile Organic Compounds in Lake Tahoe, Nevada and California. United States Geological Survey. Fact Sheet FS-055-98. Boward, D., P. Kazyak, S. Stranko, M. Hurd and T. Prochaska. 1999. From the Moun- tains to the Sea: The State of Maryland’s Freshwater Streams. EPA 903-R-99-023. Maryland Deparment of Natural Re- sources. Annapolis, MD. Bowen, J. and I. Valiela. 2001. “ The Ecologi- cal Effects of Urbanization of Coastal Watersheds: Historical Increases in Nitrogen Loads and Eutrophication of Waquiot Bay Estuaries.” Canadian Jour- nal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58(8):1489-1500. Brown, K. 2000. “Housing Density and Urban Land Use as Stream Quality Indicators.” Watershed Protection Techniques 3(3): 735-739. Brown, W. 2000. “A Study of Paired Catchments Within Peavine Creek, Geor- gia.” Watershed Protection Techniques 3(2):681-684. Brush, S., M. Jennings, J. Young and H. McCreath. 1995. NPDES Monitoring – Dallas – Ft. Worth, Texas Area. In Storm- water NPDES Related Monitoring Needs. Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference. Edited by Harry Torno. New York, NY. Campbell, K.R. 1995. “Concentrations of Heavy Metals associated with Urban Runoff in Fish Living in Stormwater Ponds.” Archives of Environmental Con- tamination and Toxicology 27:352-356. Cappiella, K. and K. Brown. 2001. Impervious Cover and Land Use in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. Caraco, D. 2000a. “Stormwater Strategies for Arid and Semi-arid Watersheds.” Water- shed Protection Techniques 3(3):695-706. Caraco, D. 2000b. “The Dynamics of Urban Stream Channel Enlargement.” Watershed Protection Techniques 3(3):729-734. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). In press. Smart Watersheds: Integrating Local Programs to Achieve Measurable Progress in Urban Watershed Restoration. Ellicott City, MD. CWP. 2001a. “Managing Phosphorus Inputs Into Lakes.” Watershed Protection Tech- niques 3(4): 769-796. CWP. 2001b. Watts Branch Watershed Study and Management Plan. Prepared for City of Rockville, Maryland. Ellicott City, MD. CWP. 1998. Rapid Watershed Planning Manual. Ellicott City, MD. Chang G., J. Parrish and C. Souer. 1990. The First Flush of Runoff and its Effect on Control Structure Design. Environmental Resource Management Division - Depart- ment of Environmental and Conservation Services. Austin, TX. Chessman, B., P. Hutton and J. Burch. 1992. “Limiting Nutrients for Periphyton Growth in Sub-alpine Forest, Agricultural and Urban Streams.” Freshwater Biology 28: 349-361. Chin, N. 1996. Watershed Urbanization Effects on Palustrine Wetlands: A Study of the Hydrologic, Vegetative, and Amphibian Community Response Over Eight Years. M.S. Thesis. Department of Civil Engi- neering. University of Washington. 120 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems References Collins, A, D. Walling and G. Leeks. 1997. “Source Type Ascription for Fluvial Suspended Sediment Based on a Quantita- tive Composite Fingerprinting Technique.” Catena 29:1-27. Connor, V. 1995. Pesticide Toxicity in Storm- water Runoff. Technical Memorandum. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. Sacramento, California. Corsi, S., D. Hall and S. Geis. 2001. “Aircraft and Runway Deicers at General Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, Wiscon- sin, USA. 2. Toxicity of Aircraft and Runway Deicers.” Environmental Toxicol- ogy and Chemistry 20(7):1483-1490. Couch, C. et al. 1997. “Fish Dynamics in Urban Streams Near Atlanta, Georgia.” Technical Note 94. Watershed Protection Techniques. 2(4): 511-514. Crawford, J. and D. Lenat. 1989. Effects of Land Use on Water Quality and the Biota of Three Streams in the Piedmont Province of North Carolina. United States Geologi- cal Service.Raleigh, NC. Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4007. Crippen and Waananen. 1969. Hydrologic Effects of Suburban Development Near Palo Alto, California. Open file report. U.S. Geologic Survey, Menlo Park, Califronia. Crunkilton, R., J. Kleist, J. Ramcheck, W. DeVita and D. Villeneuve. 1996. “Assess- ment of the Response of Aquatic Organ- isms to Long-term In Situ Exposures of Urban Runoff.” Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems. Roesner, L.A. Editor. Pro- ceedings of the ASCE Conference. Snow- bird, Utah. Dail, H., P. Kazyak, D. Boward and S. Stranko. 1998. Patapsco River Basin: Environmen- tal Assessment of Stream Conditions. Maryland Department of Natural Re- sources. Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Programs CBP-MANTA-EA-98-4. Dartiguenave, C., I. ECLille and D. Maidment. 1997. Water Quality Master Planning for Austin, TX. CRWR Online Report 97-6. Davis, J. 2001. Personal communication. Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. Delzer, G.C. 1999. National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Quality of Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Data for Ground-water Samples Collected During 1993-95. United States Geological Survey Fact Sheet. FS-101-99. Delzer, G.C. 1996. Occurrence of the Gasoline Oxygenate MTBE and BTEX Compounds in Urban Stormwater in the United States, 1991-95. Untied States Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report. WRIR 96-4145. Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). 1983. Urban Runoff Quality in the Denver Region. Denver, CO. DeVivo, J., C. Couch and B. Freeman. 1997. Use of Preliminary Index of Biotic Integ- rity in Urban Streams Around Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia Water Resources Con- ference. Atlanta, Georgia. Dindorf, C. 1992. Toxic and Hazardous Substances in Urban Runoff. Hennepin Conservation District. Minnetonka, MN. Doerfer, J. and B. Urbonas. 1993. Stormwater Quality Characterization in the Denver Metropolitan Area. Denver NPDES. Denver, CO. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 121 References Doll, B., D. Wise-Frederick, C. Buckner, S. Wilkerson, W. Harman and R. Smith. 2000. “Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams Throughout the Pied- mont of North Carolina.” Source unknown. Donigian, A and W. Huber. 1991. Modeling of Nonpoint Source Water Quality in Urban and Non-urban Areas. EPA/600/3-91/-39. U.S. EPA. Washington, D.C. Dreher, D. 1997. “Watershed Urbanization Impacts on Stream Quality Indicators in Northeastern Illinois.” Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Watershed Devel- opment on Aquatic Ecosystems and Water Quality. D. Murray and R. Kirshner (ed.). Northeastern Illinois Planning Commis- sion. Chicago, IL. Driscoll, E. 1983. Rainfall/ Runoff Relation- ships from the NURP Runoff Database. Stormwater and Quality Models Users Group Meeting. Montreal, Quebec.1983. Driver, N. 1988. National Summary and Regression Models of Storm-Runoff Loads and Volumes in Urban Watersheds in the United States. Thesis. Colorado School of Mines. Golden, Colorado. Duda, A.M. and K.D. Cromartie. 1982. “Coastal Pollution from Septic Tank Drainfields.” Journal of the Environmen- tal Engineering Division ASCE. 108:1265- 1279. Dunne, T. and L. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W. Freeman and Company, New York, NY. Ellis, J. 1986. “Pollutional Aspects of Urban Runoff.” In Urban Runoff Pollution. (eds.) H. Torno, J. Marsalek and M. Desbordes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Environment Canada. 2001. Priority Sub- stances List Assessment Reports. Road Salt. Ministry of Environment. Toronto, Canada. EOA, Inc. 2001. Stormwater Environmental Indicators. Pilot Demonstration Project. Final Report. Water Environment Research Foundation. Santa Clara Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Project. Santa Clara, CA. Evaldi, R., R. Burns and B. Moore. 1992. Stormwater Data for Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1991-1992. U.S. Geological Survey. Open File Report 92-638. Evett, J., M. Love and J. Gordon. 1994. Effects of Urbanization and Land Use Changes on Low Stream Flow. North Carolina Water Resources Research Institute. Report No. 284. Evgenidou, A., A. Konkle, A. D’Ambrosio, A. Corcoran, J. Bowen, E. Brown, D. Corcoran, C. Dearholt, S. Fern, A. Lamb, J. Michalowski, I. Ruegg and J. Cebrian. 1997. “Effects of Increased Nitrogen Loading on the Abundance of Diatoms and Dinoflagellates in Estuarine Phytoplank- tonic Communities.” The Biological Bulletin 197(2):292. Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (Fairfax Co). 2001. Fairfax County Stream Protection Strategy Baseline Study. Stormwater Management Branch, Stormwater Planning Division, Fairfax County, VA. Ferrari, M., S. Altor, J. Blomquist and J. Dysart. 1997. Pesticides in the Surface Water of the Mid-Atlantic Region. United States Geological Survey. Water-Re- sources Investigations Report 97-4280. Field, R. and R. Pitt. 1990. “Urban Storm- induced Discharge Impacts: US Environ- mental Protection Agency Research Program Review.” Water Science Technol- ogy (22): 10-11. Findlay, C. and J. Houlahan. 1997. “Anthropo- genic Correlates of Species Richness in Southeastern Ontario Wetlands.” Conser- vation Biology 11(4):1000-1009. 122 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems References Finkenbine, J., J. Atwater and D. Mavinic. 2000. “Stream Health After Urbanization.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(5): 1149-1160. Fongers, D.and J. Fulcher. 2001. Hydrologic Impacts Due to Development: The Need for Adequate Runoff Detention and Stream Protection. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Fortner, A.R., M. Sanders and S.W. Lemire. 1996. “Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon and Trace Metal Burdens in Sediment and the Oyster, Crassostrea virginica Gmelin, from Two High-Salinity Estuaries in South Carolina.” In Sustainable Development in the Southeastern Coastal Zone. F.J. Vernberg, W.B. Vernberg and T. Siewicki (eds.). Belle W. Baruch Library in Marine Science, No. 20. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. Fulton, M., G. Chandler and G. Scott. 1996. “Urbanization Effects on the Fauna of a Southeastern U.S.A. Bar-Built Estuary.” In Sustainable Development in the Southeast- ern Coastal Zone. F.J. Vernberg, W.B. Vernberg and T. Siewicki (eds.). Belle W. Baruch Library in Marine Science, No. 20. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. Galli, F. 1988. A Limnological Study of an Urban Stormwater Management Pond and Stream Ecosystem. M.S. Thesis. George Mason University. Galli, J. 1994. Personal communication. Department of Environmental Programs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, DC. Galli, J. 1990. Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Stormwater Man- agement Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Maryland Department of Environment. Washington, D.C. Garie, H. and A. McIntosh. 1986. “Distribution of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Streams Exposed to Urban Runoff.” Water Re- sources Bulletin 22:447-458. Garn, H. 2002. Effects of Lawn Fertilizer on Nutrient Concentrations in Runoff from Lakeshore Lawns, Lauderdale Lakes, Wisconsin. USGS Water-Resources Investigation Report 02-4130. Gavin, D. V. and R.K. Moore. 1982. Toxicants in Urban Runoff. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Seattle, WA. Good, J. 1993. “Roof Runoff as a Diffuse Source of Metals and Aquatic Toxicology in Stormwater.” Waterscience Technology 28(3-5):317-322. Graczyk, T. K., R. Fayer, J. M Trout, E. J. Lewis, C. A. Farley, I. Sulaiman and A.A. Lal. 1998. “Giardia sp. Cysts and Infec- tious Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts in the Feces of Migratory Canada geese (Branta canadensis).” Applied and Envi- ronmental Microbiology 64(7):2736-2738. Haith, D., R. Mandel and R. Wu. 1992. GWLF-Generalized Watershed Loading Functions. Version 2.0 Users Manual. Cornell University. Agricultural Engineer- ing Department. Hall, K. and B. Anderson. 1988. “The Toxicity and Chemical Composition of Urban Stormwater Runoff.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 15:98-106. Hammer, T. 1972. “Stream Channel Enlarge- ment Due to Urbanization.” Water Re- sources Research 8(6): 1530-1540. Hart, D. and C. Finelli. 1999. “Physical- Biological Coupling in Streams: the Pervasive Effects of Flow on Benthic Organisms.” Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30:363-95. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 123 References Hartwell S., D. Jordahl, J. Evans and E. May. 1995. “Toxicity of Aircraft De-icer and Anti-icer Solutions to Aquatic Organisms.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14:1375-1386. Heaney, J. and W. Huber. 1978. Nationwide Assessment of Receiving Water Impacts from Urban Storm Water Pollution. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, OH. Herlihy, A, J. Stoddard and C. Johnson. 1998. “The Relationship Between Stream Chem- istry and Watershed Land Cover in the Mid-Atlantic Region, U.S.” Water, Air and Soil Pollution 105: 377-386. Henshaw, P. and D. Booth, 2000. “Natural Restabilization of Stream Channels in Urban Watersheds.” Journal of the Ameri- can Water Resources Association 36(6):1219-1236. Hession, W., J. Pizzuto, T. Johnson and R. Horowitz. In press. Influence of Bank Vegetation on Channel Morphology in Rural and Urban Watersheds. Hicks, A. and J. Larson. 1997. The Impact of Urban Stormwater Runoff on Freshwater Wetlands and the Role of Aquatic Inverte- brate Bioassessment. The Environment Institute, University of Massachusetts. Amherst, MA. Hirsch, R., J. Walker, J. Day and R. Kallio. 1990. “The Influence of Man on Hydro- logic Systems.” Surface Water Hydrology O-1:329-347. Hollis, F. 1975. “The Effects of Urbanization on Floods of Different Recurrence Inter- vals.” Water Resources Research 11:431- 435. Holland, F., G. Riekerk, S. Lerberg, L. Zimmerman, D. Sanger, G. Scott, M. Fulton, B. Thompson, J. Daugomah, J. DeVane, K. Beck and A. Diaz. 1997. The Tidal Creek Project Summary Report. Marine Resources Research Institute, SC Department of Natural Resources. Horkeby, B. and P. Malmqvist. 1977. Microsubstances in Urban Snow Water. IAHS-AISH. Publication 123:252-264. Horner, R. and C. May. 1999. “Regional Study Supports Natural Land Cover Protection as Leading Best Management Practice for Maintaining Stream Ecologi- cal Integrity.” In: Comprehensive Storm- water & Aquatic Ecosystem Management Conference Papers. First South Pacific Conference, February 22-26, New Zealand. Vol 1. p. 233-247. Horner, R., D. Booth, A. Azous and C. May. 1997. “Watershed Determinants of Ecosys- tem Functioning.” In Roesner, L.A. Editor. Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems. Proceedings of the ASCE Conference. Snowbird, Utah. 1996. Horner, R., J. Guerdy and M. Kortenhoff. 1990. Improving the Cost Effectiveness of Highway Construction Site Erosion and Pollution Control. Washington State Transportation Center and the Federal Highway Administration. Seattle, WA. Horner, R., C. May, E. Livingston and J. Maxted. 1999. “Impervious Cover, Aquatic Community Health, and Stormwa- ter BMPs: Is There a Relationship?” In Proceedings of The Sixth Biennial Storm- water Research and Watershed Manage- ment Conference. Sept 14-17. 1999. Tampa Florida. Soutwest Florida Water Management District. Available on-line: http://www.stormwater-resources.com/ proceedings_of_the_sixth_biennia.htm 124 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems References Horner, R., C. May, E. Livingston, D. Blaha, M. Scoggins, J. Tims and J. Maxted. 2001. “Structural and Non-structural BMPs for Protecting Streams.” in Linking Stormwa- ter BMP Designs and Performance to Receiving Water Impact Mitigation. B. Urbonas (editor). Proceedings of an Engineering Research Foundation Confer- ence. Smowmass, CO. American Society of Civil Engineers (TRS). pp. 60-77. Huber, W. and R. Dickinson. 1988. Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). Version 4. Users Manaul. EPA/600/3-88/ 001a). US EPA. Athens, GA. Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC). 1977. Storage, Treatment, Overflow and Runoff Model (STORM). Users Manual. General- ized Computer Program. 7233-S8-L7520. Hydroqual, Inc. 1996. Design Criteria Report: Kensico Watershed Stormwater Best Management Facilities: Appendix C. Report prepared for City of New York. Department of Environmental Protection. Immerman, F. and D. Drummon. 1985. Na- tional Urban Pesticide Applications Survey. Research Triangle Institute. Publication No. 2764/08-01F. Ireland, D., G. Burton, Jr. and G. Hess. 1996. “In Situ Toxicity Evaluations of Turbidity and Photoinduction of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15(4): 574-581. Islam, M., D. Tuphron and H. Urata-Halcomb. 1988. Current Performance of Sediment Basins and Sediment Yield Measurement in Unincorporated Hamilton County, OH. Hamilton County Soil and Water Conser- vation District. Jarrett, A. 1996. Sediment Basin Evaluation and Design Improvements. Pennsylvania State University. Prepared for Orange County Board of Commissioners. Johnson, K. 1995. Urban Storm Water Impacts on a Coldwater Resource. Presentation to the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Second World Congress. Vancouver, B.C., Canada.. Jones, R., A. Via-Norton and D. Morgan. 1996. “Bioassessment of the BMP Effectiveness in Mitigating Stormwater Impacts on Aquatic Biota.” In Roesner, L.A. Editor. Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems. Proceedings of the ASCE Conference. Snowbird, Utah. Jones, R. and C. Clark. 1987. “Impact of Watershed Urbanization on Stream Insect Communities.” Water Resources Bulletin 15(4). Karouna-Renier, N. 1995. An Assessment of Contaminant Toxicity to Aquatic Macro- Invertebrates in Urban Stormwater Treat- ment Ponds. M.S. Thesis. University of Maryland. College Park, MD. Keller, A. and S. Zam. 1991. “The Acute Toxicity of Selected Metals to the Fresh- water Mussel, Anodonta imbecillis.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 10: 539-546. Kemp, S. and J. Spotila. 1997. “Effects of Urbanization on Brown Trout Salmo trutta, Other Fishes and Macroinvertebrates in Valley Creek, Valley Forge, PA.” Ameri- can Midl. Nat. 138:55-68. Kennen, J. 1999. “Relation of Macroinvertebrate Community Impairment to Catchment Characteristics in New Jersey Streams.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(4):939- 955. Kibler, D., D. Froelich and G. Aron. 1981. “Analyzing Urbanization Impacts on Pennsylvania Flood Peaks.” Water Re- sources Bulletin 17(2):270-274. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 125 References Kitchell, A. 2001. “Managing for a Pure Water Supply.” Watershed Protection Techniques 3(4): 797-812. Kjelstrom, L. 1995. Data for Adjusted Re- gional Regression Models of Volume and Quality of Urban Stormwater Runoff in Boise and Garden City, Idaho, 1993-94. United States Geological Survey. Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4228. Klein, R. 1979. “Urbanization and Stream Quality Impairment.” Water Resources Bulletin 15(4):948-963. Konrad, C. and D. Booth. 2002. Hydrologic Trends Associated with Urban Develop- ment for Selected Streams in the Puget Sound Basin - Western Washington. USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 02- 4040. Kucklick, J.K., S. Silversten, M. Sanders and G.I. Scott. 1997. “Factors Influencing Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Distri- butions in South Carolina Estuarine Sediments.” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 213:13-30. Kundell, J. and T. Rasmussen. 1995. Recom- mendations of the Georgia Board of Regent’s Scientific Panel on Evaluating the Erosion Measurement Standard Defined by the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act. Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water Resources Confer- ence. Athens, Georgia. La Barre, N., J. Milne and B. Oliver. 1973. “Lead Contamination of Snow.” Water Research 7:1,215-1,218. LeBlanc, R., R. Brown and J. FitzGibbon. 1997. “Modeling the Effects of Land Use Change on the Water Temperature in Unregulated Urban Streams.” Journal of Environmental Management 49: 445-469. Leopold, L. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Leopold, L. 1973. “River Change with Time: An Example.” Geological Society of America Bulletin 84: 1845-1860. Leopold, L. 1968. Hydrology for Urban land Use Planning - A Guidebook on the Hydrologic Effects of Urban Land Use. Washington, D.C. Geological Survey Circular 554. Lerberg, S., F. Holland and D. Sanger. 2000. “Responses of Tidal Creek Macrobenthic Communities to the Effects of Watershed Development.” Estuaries 23(6):838-853. Lim, S. and V. Olivieri. 1982. Sources of Microorganisms in Urban Runoff. Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and Hygiene. Jones Falls Urban Runoff Project. Baltimore, MD. Limburg, K. and R. Schmidt. 1990. “Patterns of Fish Spawning in Hudson River Tribu- taries-Response to an Urban Gradient?” Ecology 71(4): 1231-1245. Liu, Z., D. Weller, D. Correll and T. Jordan. 2000. “Effects of Land Cover and Geology on Stream Chemistry in Watersheds of Chesapeake Bay.” Journal of American Water Resources Association 36(6): 1349- 1365. Livingston, R. 1996. “Eutrophication in Estuaries and Coastal Systems: Relation- ship of Physical Alterations, Salinity Stratification, and Hypoxia.” In Sustain- able Development in the Southeastern Coastal Zone. F.J. Vernberg, W.B. Vernberg and T. Siewicki (eds.). Belle W. Baruch Library in Marine Science, No. 20. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. Lopes, T. and S. Dionne. 1998. A Review of Semi-Volatile and Volatile Organic Compounds in Highway Runoff and Urban Stormwater. USGS Open file report 98- 409. 126 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems References Lopes, T., K. Fossum, J. Phillips and J. Marical. 1995. Statistical Summary of Selected Physical, Chemical, and Micro- bial Contaminants and Estimates of Constituent Loads in Urban Stormwater in Maricopa County, Arizona. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4240. Luchetti, G. and R. Feurstenburg. 1993. Relative Fish Use in Urban and Non-urban Streams Proceedings. Conference on Wild Salmon. Vancouver, British Columbia. MacCoy, D. and R. Black. 1998. Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in Fresh- water Streambed Sediment and Fish from the Puget Sound Basin. USGS Fact Sheet 105-98. MacRae, C. 1996. “Experience From Morpho- logical Research on Canadian Streams: Is Control of the Two-year Frequency Runoff Event the Best Basis for Stream Channel Protection?” In Roesner, L.A. Editor. Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems. Proceedings of the ASCE Conference. Snowbird, Utah. MacRae, C. and M. DeAndrea. 1999. Assess- ing the Impact of Urbanization on Channel Morphology. 2nd International Conference on Natural Channel Systems. Niagra Falls, OT. MacRae, C. and A. Rowney. 1992. The Role of Moderate Flow Events and Bank Structure in the Determination of Channel Response to Urbanization. 45th Annual Conference. Resolving Conflicts and Uncertainty in Water Management. Proceeding of the Canadian Water Resources Association, Kingston, Ontario. Maiolo, J. and P. Tschetter. 1981. “Relating Population Growth to Shellfish Bed Closures: a Case Study from North Caro- lina.” Coastal Zone Management Journal 9(1). Mallin, M., E. Esham, K. Williams and J. Nearhoof. 1999. “Tidal Stage Variability of Fecal Coliform and Chlorophyll a Concentrations in Coastal Creeks.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 38 (5):414-422. Mallin, M., K. Williams, E. Esham and R. Lowe. 2000. “Effect of Human Develop- ment on Bacteriological Water Quality in Coastal Watersheds.” Ecological Applica- tions 10(4) 1047-1056. Mallin, M., S. Ensign, M. McIver, G. Swank and P. Fowler. 2001. “Demographic, Landscape and Metrologic Factors Con- trolling the Microbial Pollution of Coastal Waters.” Hydrobiologia 460:185-193. Malmqvist, P. 1978. “Atmospheric Fallout and Street Cleaning- Effects on Urban Snow Water and Snow.” Progress in Water Technology 10(5/6):495-505. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC). 2000. Stream Condition Cumulative Impact Models For the Potomac Subregion. Prepared for the Maryland- National Park and Planning Commission, Silver Spring, MD. Masterson, J. and R. Bannerman. 1994. Impact of Stormwater Runoff on Urban Streams in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madi- son, WI. Maxted, J. 1999. “The Effectiveness of Reten- tion Basins to Protect Downstream Aquatic Life in Three Regions of the United States.” In Conference Proceedings. Volume one. Comprehensive Stormwater and Aquatic Ecosystem Management. First South Pacific Conference. 22-26 February, 1999. Auckland Regional Council. Auckland, New Zealand pp. 215- 222. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 127 References Maxted, J. and E. Shaver. 1997. “The Use of Retention Basins to Mitigate Stormwater Impacts on Aquatic Life.” In Roesner, L.A. Editor. Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems. Proceedings of the ASCE Conference. Snowbird, Utah. May, C., R. Horner, J. Karr, B. Mar and E. Welch. 1997. “Effects of Urbanization on Small Streams in the Puget Sound Low- land Ecoregion.” Watershed Protection Techniques 2(4): 483-494. McCuen R. and G. Moglen. 1988. “Multicriterion Stormwater Management Methods.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 4 (114). Menzie-Cura & Associates. 1995. Measure- ments and Loadings of Polycyclic Aro- matic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in Stormwater, Combined Sewer Overflows, Rivers, and Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) Discharging to Massachusetts Bays. Report to the Massachusetts Bay Program, August 1995, MBP-95-06. Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern- ments (MWCOG). 1992. Watershed Restoration Sourcebook. Department of Environmental Programs. MWCOG, Washington, DC. MWCOG. 1983. Urban runoff in Washington Metropolitan Area- Final Report. Wash- ington. D.C Area Urban Runoff Program. Prepared for USEPA. WRPB. Meyer, J. and C. Couch. 2000. Influences of Watershed Land Use on Stream Ecosystem Structure and Function. NCERQA Grant Final Report. Montgomery County Department of Environ- mental Protection (MCDEP). 2000. Special Protection Area Report. Morisawa, M. and E. LaFlure. 1979. Hydraulic Geometry, Stream Equalization and Urbanization. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Geomorphology Symposia Series: Adjustments of the Fluvial System. Binghamton, New York. Moring, J. and D. Rose. 1997. “Occurrence and Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon in Semipermeable Membrane Devices and Clams in Three Urban Streams of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metro- politan Area, Texas.” Chemosphere 34(3): 551-566. Morse, C. 2001. The Response of First and Second Order Streams to Urban Land-use in Maine, USA. Masters Thesis, The University of Maine, Orono, ME. Moscript, A. and D. Montgomery. 1997. “Urbanization, Flood Frequency, and Salmon Abundance in Puget Lowland Streams.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 33:1289-1297. Neller, R. 1989. “Induced Channel Enlarge- ment in Small Urban Catchments, Armidale, New South Wales.” Environ- mental Geology and Water Sciences 14(3): 167-171. Neller, R. 1988. “A Comparison of Channel Erosion in Small Urban and Rural Catchments, Armidale, New South Wales.” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 13:1-7. New Mexico Surface Water Quality Bureau (NMSWQB). 1999. Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform on Canadian River Basin Six Mile, Cieneguilla and Moreno Creeks (Cimarron). Northern Virginia Planning District Commis- sion (NVPDC). 1987. BMP Handbook for the Occoquan Watershed. Annandale, VA. NVPDC. 1979. Guidebook for Evaluating Urban Nonpoint Source Strategies. Pre- pared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 128 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems References Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC). 2001. The Effect of Urbanization on the Natural Drainage Network in the Four Mile Run Watershed. Novotny, V. and G. Chester. 1989. “Delivery of Sediment and Pollutants from Nonpoint Sources: a Water Quality Perspective.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 44:568-576. Novotny, V. and G. Chester. 1981. Handbook of Nonpoint Pollution: Sources and Management. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. NY. Novotny, V., D. W. Smith, D. A. Kuemmel, J. Mastriano and A. Bartosova. 1999. Urban and Highway Snowmelt: Minimizing the Impact on Receiving Water. Water Envi- ronment Research Foundation. Alexandria, VA. Obert, G. 1999. “Return to Lake McCarrons: Does the Performance of Wetlands Hold up Over Time?” Watershed Protection Techniques 3(1):597-600. Oberts, G. 1994. “Influence of Snowmelt Dynamics on Stormwater Runoff Quality.” Watershed Protection Techniques 1(2):55- 61. Oberts, G., P. Wotzka and J. Hartsoe.1989. The Water Quality Performance of Select Urban Runoff Treatment Systems. Metro- politan Council, St. Paul, MN. Publ. No. 590-89-062a. Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Lab (OWML). 1983. Washington Area NURP Report VPISU: Final Report. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Manassas, VA. Ohrel, R. 1995. “Rating Deicer Agents – Road Salts Stand Firm.” Watershed Protection Techniques 1(4):217-220. Oliver, G., P. Milene and N. La Barre. 1974. “Chloride and Lead in Urban Snow.” Journal Water Pollution Control Federa- tion 46(4):766-771. Overton, D. and M. Meadows. 1976. Storm Water Modeling. Academic Press. New York, NY. Paul, M., D. Leigh and C. Lo. 2001. Urbaniza- tion in the Etowwah River Basin: Effects on Stream Temperature and Chemistry. Proceedings of the 2001 Georgia Water Resources Conference. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Pedersen, E. and M. Perkins. 1986. “The Use of Benthic Invertebrate Data for Evaluat- ing Impacts of Urban Runoff.” Hydrobiologia 139: 13-22. Pierstorff, B. and P. Bishop. 1980. “ Water Pollution From Snow Removal Opera- tion.” Journal of Environmental Engineer- ing Division 106 (EE2):377-388. Pitt, R. 1998. “Epidemiology and Stormwater Managment.” In Stormwater Quality Management. CRC/Lewis publishers. New York, NY. Pitt, R. and M. Bozeman. 1982. “Sources of Urban Runoff Pollution and Its Effects on an Urban Creek.” EPA-600/52-82-090. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, OH. Pitt, R. and J. Voorhees. 1989. Source Load and Management Model (SLAMM) – An Urban Nonpoint Source Water Quality Model. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, v. I-III, PUBL-WR-218-89. Pizzuto, J., W. Hession and M. McBride. 2000. “Comparing Gravel-Bed Rivers in Paired Urban and Rural Catchments of Southeast- ern Pennsylvannia.” Geology 28(1):79-82. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 129 References Poff, N. and J. Ward. 1989. “Implications of Stream Flow Variability and Predictability for Lotic Community Structure: A Re- gional Analysis of Streamflow Patterns.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 46:1805-1818. Porter, D.E., D. Edwards, G. Scott, B. Jones and S. Street. 1997. “Assessing the Im- pacts of Anthropogenic and Physiographic Influences on Grass Shrimp in Localized Salt Marsh Estuaries: a Multi-Disciplinary Approach.” Aquatic Botany 58:289-306. Rabanal, F. and T. Grizzard. 1995.“Concentra- tions of Selected Constituents in Runoff from Impervious Surfaces in Urban Catchments of Different Land Use.” In Proceedings of the 4th Biennial Conference on Stormwater Research. Oct 18- 20.Clearwater, Florida. Southwest Florida Water Management District. pp. 42-52. Reice, S. 2000. “Regulating Sedimentation and Erosion Control into Streams: What Really Works and Why?” In Proceedings of the National Conference on Tools for Urban Water Resource Management & Protec- tion. Published by the US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. Richards, C., L. Johnson and G. Host. 1993. Landscape Influence on Habitat, Water Chemistry, and Macroinvertebrate Assem- blages in Midwestern Stream Ecosystems. Center for Water and the Environment. Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI) Technical Report TR-93-109. Richey, J. 1982. Effects of Urbanization on a Lowland Stream in Urban Washington. PhD Dissertation. University of Washing- ton. Roth, N., M. Southerland, D. Stebel and A. Brindley. 1998. Landscape Model of Cumulative Impacts: Phase I Report. Maryland Department of Natural Re- sources. Roth, N., J. David and D. Erickson. 1996. “Landscape Influences on Stream Biotic Integrity Assessed at Multiple Spatial Scales.” Landscape Ecology 11(3):141- 156. Rutkowski, C., W. Burnett, R. Iverson and J. Chanton. 1999. “The Effect of Groundwa- ter Seepage on Nutrient Delivery and Seagrass Distribution in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico.” Estuaries 22(4):1033- 1040. S.R. Hanson and Associates. 1995. Final Report: Identification and Control of Toxicity in Stormwater Discharges to Urban Creeks. Prepared for Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Pro- gram. Samadpour, M. and N. Checkowitz. 1998. “Little Soos Creek Microbial Source Tracking.” Washington Water Resource. (Spring) University of Washington Urban Water Resources Center. Salt Institute. 2001. Data on U.S. Salt Sales. Available on-line: www.saltinstitute.org Sanger, D., F. Holland and G. Scott. 1999. “Tidal Creek and Salt Marsh Sediment in South Carolina Coastal Estuaries: I. Distribution of Trace Metals.” Archive of Environmental Contamination and Toxi- cology (37):445-457. Saravanapavan, T. 2002. Personal communica- tion. Sauer, V., T. Stricker and K. Wilson. 1983. Flood Characteristics of Urban Water- sheds in the United States. US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2207. Scanlin, J. and A. Feng. 1997. Characteriza- tion of the Presence and Sources of Diazinon in the Castro Valley Creek Watershed. Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Oakland, CA. 130 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems References Schiff, K. 1996. Review of Existing Stormwater Monitoring Programs for Estimating Bight-Wide Mass Emissions from Urban Runoff. Schrimpff, E. and R. Herrman. 1979. “Re- gional Patterns of Contaminants (PAH, Pesticides and Trace metals) in Snow of Northeast Bavaria and their Relationship to Human Influence and Orogeographic Effects.” Water, Air and Soil Pollution 11:481-497. Schueler, T. 2001. “The Environmental Impact of Stormwater Ponds.” The Practice of Watershed Protection. T. Schueler and H. Holland (Eds). Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. Schueler, T. 2000. “The Compaction of Urban Soils.” Watershed Protection Techniques 3(3):661-665. Schueler, T. 1999. “Microbes and Urban Watersheds.” Watershed Protection Techniques 3(1): 551-596. Schueler, T. 1994a. “The Importance of Imperviousness.” Watershed Protection Techniques 2(4): 100-111. Schueler, T. 1994b. “Pollutant Dynamics of Pond Muck.” Watershed Protection Techniques 1(2). Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: a Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. Schueler, T. and D. Caraco. 2001. “The Prospects for Low Impact Land Develop- ment at the Watershed Level.” In Linking Stormwater BMP Designs and Perfor- mance to Receiving Water Impacts Mitiga- tion. United Engineering Foundation. Snowmass, CO. Schueler, T. and J. Galli. 1992. “Environmen- tal Impacts of Stormwater Ponds.” Water- shed Restoration Sourcebook. Anacostia Restoration Team Metropolitan Washing- ton Council Government. Washington D.C. Schueler, T. and H. Holland. 2000. The Prac- tice of Watershed Protection- Techniques for Protecting Our Nations, Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Estuaries. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. Schueler, T. and J. Lugbill. 1990. Performance of Current Sediment Control Measures at Maryland Construction Sites. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). Schueler, T. and D. Shepp. 1993. The Quantity of Trapped Sediments in Pool Water Within Oil Grit Separators in Suburban MD. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). Scott, J., C. Steward and Q. Stober. 1986. “Effects of Urban Development on Fish Population Dynamics in Kelsey Creek, Washington.” Transactions of the Ameri- can Fisheries Society. 115:555-567. Scott, W. and N. Wylie. 1980. “The Environ- mental Effects of Snow Dumping: A Literature Review.” Journal of Environ- mental Management 10:219-240. Shaver, E., J. Maxted, G. Curtis and D. Carter. 1995. “Watershed Protection Using an Integrated Approach.” In B. Urbonas and L. Roesner Editors. Stormwater NPDES- related Monitoring Needs. Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference. Crested Butte, CO. Sherman, K. 1998. Severn Sound Urban Stormwater Pollution Control Planning Report. Ontario, Canada. Short, F. and S. Wyllie-Echeverria. 1996. “Natural and Human-Induced Disturbance of Seagrasses.” Environmental Conserva- tion 23(1): 17-27. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 131 References Sills, R. and P. Blakeslee. 1992. “Chapter 11: The Environmental Impact of Deicers in Airport Stormwater Runoff.” Chemical Deicers and the Environment. Lewis Publishers. Ann Arbor, MI. Silverman, G., M. Stenstrom and S. Fam. 1988. “Land Use Considerations in Reduc- ing Oil and Grease in Urban Stormwater Runoff.” Journal of Environmental Sys- tems 18(1): 31-46. Simmons, D and R. Reynolds. 1982. “Effects of Urbanization on Baseflow of Selected South-Shore Streams, Long Island, NY.” Water Resources Bulletin 18(5): 797-805. Smullen, J. and K. Cave. 1998. Updating the U.S. Nationwide Urban Runoff Quality Database. 3rd International Conference on Diffuse Pollution. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Edinburg Scotland. 1998. Spence, B., G. Lomnicky, R. Hughes and R. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. TR-401-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Ser- vices Corporation, Corvallis, OR. (Avail- able on the NMFS-NWR website: Spinello, A.G. and D.L. Simmons. 1992. Baseflow of 10 South Shore Streams, Long Island, New York 1976-85 and the Effects of Urbanization on Baseflow and Flow Duration. USGS. Water Resources Investi- gation Report 90-4205. Squillace, P., D. Pope and C.V. Price. 1995. Occurrence of the Gasoline Additive MTBE in Shallow Groundwater in Urban and Agricultural Areas. USGS Fact Sheet 114-95. States, S., K. Stadterman, L. Ammon, P. Vogel, J. Baldizar, D. Wright, L. Conley and J. Sykora. 1997. “Protozoa in River Water: Sources, Occurrence and Treat- ment” Journal of the American Water Works Association 89(9):74-83. Steedman, R. J. 1988. “Modification and Assessment of an Index of Biotic Integrity to Quantify Stream Quality in Southern Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:492-501. Stern, D. 1996. “Initial Investigation of the Sources and Sinks of Cryptosporidium and Giardia Within the Watersheds of the New York City Water Supply System.” In McDonnel et al. Editors. New York City Water Supply Studies. Proceedings of an American Water Resources Association Symposium. Herndon, VA. Steuer, J., W. Selbig, N. Hornewer and Jeffrey Prey. 1997. Sources of Contamination in an Urban Basin in Marquette, Michigan and an Analysis of Concentrations, Loads, and Data Quality. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 97- 4242. Steward, C. 1983. Salmonoid Populations in an Urban Environment—Kelsey Creek., Washington. Masters Thesis. University of Washington. Stormwater Assessment Monitoring Perfor- mance (SWAMP). 2000a. Performance Assessment of a Highway Stormwater Quality Retention Pond - Rouge River, Toronto, Ontario. SWAMP Program. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Toronto and Region Conservation Author- ity. Toronto, Canada. SWAMP. 2000b. Performance Assessment of a Stormwater Retrofit Pond - Harding Park, Richmond Hill, Ontario. SWAMP Pro- gram. Ontario Ministry of the Environ- ment. Town of Richmond Hill. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Toronto, Canada. Stranko, S. and W. Rodney. 2001. Habitat Quality and Biological Integrity Assess- ment of Freshwater Streams in the Saint Mary’s River Watershed. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. CBWP- MANTA-EA-01-2. 132 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems References Stribling, J., E. Leppo, J. Cummins, J. Galli, S. Meigs, L. Coffman and M.Cheng. 2001. “Relating Instream Biological Conditions to BMP Activities in Streams and Water- sheds.” In Linking Stormwater BMP Designs and Performance to Receiving Water Impacts Mitigation. United Engi- neering Foundation. Snowmass, CO. Sturm, T. and R. Kirby. 1991. Sediment Reduction in Urban Stormwater Runoff from Construction Sites. Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, GA. Swann, C. 2001. “The Influence of Septic Systems at the Watershed Level.” Water- shed Protection Techniques 3(4):821-834. Swietlik, W. 2001. “Urban Aquatic Life Uses - a Regulatory Perspective.” In Linking Stormwater BMP Designs and Perfor- mance to Receiving Water Impacts Mitiga- tion. United Engineering Foundation. Snowmass, CO. Taylor, B.L. 1993. The Influences of Wetland and Watershed Morphological Character- istics and Relationships to Wetland Veg- etation Communities. Master’s Thesis. Dept. of Civil Engineering. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Taylor, B., K. Ludwa and R. Horner. 1995. Third Puget Sound Research Meeting Urbanization Effects on Wetland Hydrol- ogy and Water Quality. Proceedings of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Meeting. Olympia, WA. Thomas, P. and S. McClelland. 1995. “NPDES Monitoring - Atlanta, Georgia Region.” In Stormwater NPDES Related Monitoring Needs. Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference. Edited by Harry Torno. New York, NY. Trimble, S. 1997. “Contribution of Stream Channel Erosion to Sediment Yield from an Urbanizing Watershed.” Science 278: 1442-1444. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Computer Program for Project Formulation-Hydrology (TR-20). Hydrol- ogy Unit. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. USDA. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55. (TR- 55). Soil Conservation Service Engineer- ing Division. Washington, D.C. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Project Summary: Birds Indicate Ecological Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. U.S.EPA, Office of Research and Develop- ment, Washington, DC. USEPA. 1998. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters: 1996. U.S.EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-841-S-97-001. USEPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Manage- ment Measures for Sources of Non-point Pollution in Coastal Waters. U.S.EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 840-B- 92-002. USEPA. 1988. Dissolved Solids. Water Quality Standards Criteria Summaries: A Compi- lation of State/Federal Criteria. Office of Water, Regulations, and Standards, Wash- ington, DC. USEPA. 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Project: Final Report. U.S.EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC. USEPA. 1982. Sources of Urban Runoff Pollution and Its Effects on an Urban Creek. U.S.EPA, Washington, DC. -600/ S2-82-090. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2001a. Selected Findings and Current Perspectives on Urban and Agricultural Water Quality. National Water-Quality Assessment Program. USGS Fact Sheet. FS-047-01. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 133 References USGS. 2001b. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters: Nutrients and Pesticides. USGS. FS-047-01. USGS. 1999a. Pesticides and Bacteria in an Urban Stream - Gills Creek, Columbia, South Carolina. USGS. Fact Sheet FS-131- 98. USGS. 1999b. Pesticides Detected in Urban Streams During Rainstorms and Relations to Retail Sales of Pesticides in King County, Washington. USGS. Fact Sheet 097-99. USGS. 1998. Pesticides in Surface Waters of the Santee River Basin and Coastal Drainages, North and South Carolina. USGS Fact Sheet. FS-007-98. USGS. 1996. Effects of Increased Urbanizaton from 1970s to 1990s on Storm Runoff Characteristics in Perris Valley, Califor- nia. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4273. University of California at Davis (UC Davis). 1998. UC Report: MTBE Fact Sheet. Available online: http://tsrtp.ucdavis.edu/ mtberpt Valiela, I., J. McClelland, J. Hauxwell, P. Behr, D. Hersh and K. Foreman. 1997. “Macroalgal Blooms in Shallow Estuaries: Controls and Ecophysiological and Eco- system Consequences.” Limonology and Oceanography 42(5, part 2): 1105-1118. Valiela, I. and J. Costa. 1988. “Eutrophication of Buttermilk Bay, a Cape Cod Embaymnet: Concentrations of Nutrients and Watershed Nutrient Budgets.” Envi- ronmental Management 12(4):539-553. Van Loon, J. 1972. “The Snow Removal Controversy.” Water Pollution Control 110:16-20. Varner, 1995. Characterization and Source Control of Urban Stormwater Quality. City of Bellevue Utilities Department. City of Bellevue, Washington. Velinsky, D. and J.Cummins. 1994. Distribu- tion of Chemical Contaminants in Wild Fish Species in the Washington, D.C. Area. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB., Rockville, MD. Report No. 94-1. Vernberg, W., G. Scott, S. Stroizer, J. Bemiss and J. Daugomah. 1996a. “The Effects of Coastal Development on Watershed Hydrography and Transport of Organic Carbon.” In Sustainable Development in the Southeastern Coastal Zone. F.J. Vernberg, W.B. Vernberg and T. Siewicki (eds.). Belle W. Baruch Library in Marine Science, No. 20. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. Vernberg, F., W. Vernberg and T. Siewicki. 1996b. Sustainable Development in the Southeastern Coastal Zone. Editors. Belle W. Baruch Library in Marine Science. No. 20. University of South Carolina Press. Columbia, SC. Vernberg, F.J., W.B. Vernberg, E. Blood, A. Fortner, M. Fulton, H. McKellar, W. Michener, G. Scott, T. Siewicki and K. El- Figi. 1992. “Impact of Urbanization on High-Salinity Estuaries in the Southeastern United States.” Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 30:239-248. Walling, D. and J.Woodward. 1995. “Tracing Sources of Suspended Sediment in River Basins: A Case Study of the River Culm, Devon, UK.” Marine and Freshwater Research 46: 324-336. Wahl, M., H. McKellar and T. Williams. 1997. “Patterns of Nutirent Loading in Forested and Urbanized Coastal Streams.” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 213:111-131. Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl and R. Bannerman. 2001. “Impacts of Urbaniza- tion on Stream Habitat and Fish Across Multiple Spatial Scales.” Environmental Management. 28(2):255-266. 134 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems References Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl and R. Gatti. 1997. “Influences of Watershed Land Use on Habitat Quality and Biotic Integrity in Wisconsin Streams.” Fisheries 22(6): 6-11. Ward, J. and J. Stanford. 1979. The Ecology of Regulated Streams. Plenum Press. New York, NY. Waschbusch R., W. Selbig and R. Bannerman. 2000. “Sources of Phosphorus in Stormwa- ter and Street Dirt from Two Urban Residential Basins in Madison, Wisconsin, 1994-1995.” In: National Conference on Tools for Urban Water Resource Manage- ment and Protection. US EPA February 2000: pp. 15-55. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1997. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Wild Salmonid Policy. Olympia, Washington. Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). 1999. Chapter 4: Accumulation of Pollutants in Snowpack. Urban and Highway Snowmelt: Minimizing the Impact on Receiving Water. Alexandria, VA. Water, B. 1999. Ambient Water Quality Guidelines for Organic Carbon. Water Mangement Branch Environment and Resource Management. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Watters, G. 1996. Reasons for Mussel Decline and Threats to Continued Existence. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadel- phia. Available at http://coa.acnatsci.org/ conchnet/uniowhat.html Weaver, L. 1991. Low-Intensity Watershed Alteration Effects on Fish Assemblage Structure and Function in a Virginia Piedmont Stream. Masters Thesis. Virginia Commonwealth University. VA. Weaver, L. and G. Garman. 1994. “Urbaniza- tion of a Watershed and Historical Changes in Stream Fish Assemblage.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123: 162-172. Weiskel, P., B. Howes and G.. Heufelder. 1996. “Coliform Contamination of a Coastal Embayment: Sources and Trans- port Pathways.” Environmental Science and Technology 30:1871-1881. Wernick, B.G., K.E. Cook, and H. Schreier. 1998. “Land Use and Streamwater Nitrate- N Dynamics in an Urban-rural Fringe Watershed.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34(3): 639- 650. Williams, J., S. Fuller and R. Grace. 1992. “Effects of Impoundment on Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Main Channel of the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers in Western Ala- bama.” Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 13: 1-10. Williams, J., M. Warren, Jr., K. Cummings, J.Harris and R. Neves. 1993. “Conserva- tion Status of Freshwater Mussels of the United States and Canada.” Fisheries 18(9): 6-22. Winer, R. 2000. National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for Stormwater Treatment Practices, 2nd Edition. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. Wotzka, P., J. Lee, P. Capel and M. Lin.1994. Pesticide Concentrations and Fluxes in an Urban Watershed. Proceedings AWRA 1994 National Symposium on Water Quality. Wood, P. and P. Armitage. 1997. “Biological Effects of Fine Sediment in the Lotic Environment.” Environmental Manage- ment 21(2):203-217. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1992. Source Identification and Control Report. Pre- pared for the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control Program. Oakland, Califor- nia. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 135 References Xiao, L., A. Singh, J. Limor, T. Graczyk, S. Gradus and A. Lal. 2001. “Molecular Characterization of Cryptosporidium Oocysts in Samples of Raw Surface Water and Wastewater.” Applied and Environ- mental Microbiology 67(3):1097-1101. Yoder, C. 1991. “The Integrated Biosurvey As a Tool for Evaluation of Aquatic Life Use Attainment and Impairment in Ohio Surface Waters.” In Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation, Proceedings of a Symposium, 12-13 December 1990, Arlington, VA, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC, EPA-440/5-91-005:110. Yoder, C. and R. Miltner. 2000. “Using Biological Criteria to Assess and Classify Urban Streams and Develop Improved Landscape Indicators.” In Proceedings of the National Conference on Tools for Urban Water Resource Management & Protection: Published by the US Environ- mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Yoder, C., R. Miltner and D.White. 1999. “Assessing the Status of Aquatic Life Dsignated Uses in urban and Suburban Watersheds.” In Everson et al. Editors. National Conference on Retrofit Opportu- nities for Water Resource Protection in Urban Environments, Chicago, IL. EPA/ 625/R-99/002. York, T. H. and W. J. Herb. 1978. ”Effects of Urbanization and Streamflow on Sediment Transport in the Rock Creek and Anacostia River Basins. Montgomery County, MD 1972-1974.” USGS Professional Paper 1003. Young, K. and E. Thackston. 1999. “Housing Density and Bacterial Loading in Urban Streams.” Journal of Environmental Engineering December:1177-1180. Zapf-Gilje, R., S. Russell and D. Mavinic. 1986. “Concentration of Impurities During Melting Snow Made From Secondary Sewage Effluent.” Waterscience Technol- ogy 18:151-156. Zielinski, J. 2001. Watershed Vulnerability Analysis. Prepared for Wake County (NC). Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. Zielinski, J. 2000. “The Benefits of Better Site Design in Residential Subdivision and Commercial Development.” Watershed Protection Techniques 3(2): 633-656. 136 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems References Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 137 Glossary Glossary 1st order stream: The smallest perennial stream. A stream that carries water throughout the year and does not have permanently flowing tributaries. 2nd order stream: Stream formed by the confluence of two 1st order streams. 3rd order stream: Stream formed by the confluence of two 2nd order streams. Acute toxicity: Designates exposure to a dangerous substance or chemical with sufficient dosage to precipitate a severe reaction, such as death. Alluvial: Pertaining to processes or materials associated with transportation or deposition by running water. Anadromous: Organisms that spawn in freshwater streams but live most of their lives in the ocean. Annual Pollutant Load: The total mass of a pollutant delivered to a receiving water body in a year. Bankfull: The condition where streamflow just fills a stream channel up to the top of the bank and at a point where the water begins to overflow onto a floodplain. Baseflow: Stream discharge derived from ground water that supports flow in dry weather. Bedload: Material that moves along the stream bottom surface, as opposed to suspended particles. Benthic Community: Community of organisms living in or on bottom substrates in aquatic habitats, such as streams. Biological Indicators: A living organism that denotes the presence of a specific environmen- tal condition. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD): An indirect measure of the concentration of biologi- cally degradable material present in organic wastes. It usually reflects the amount of oxygen consumed in five days by bacterial processes breaking down organic waste. Carcinogen: A cancer-causing substance or agent. Catchment: The smallest watershed management unit. Defined as the area of a development site to its first intersection with a stream, usually as a pipe or open channel outfall. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): A chemical measure of the amount of organic sub- stances in water or wastewater. Non-biodegradable and slowly degrading compounds that are not detected by BOD are included. Chronic Toxicity: Showing effects only over a long period of time. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO): Excess flow (combined wastewater and stormwater runoff) discharged to a receiving water body from a combined sewer network when the capacity of the sewer network and/or treatment plant is exceeded, typically during storm events. 138 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Glossary Combined Indices (C-IBI or CSPS): Combined indices that use both fish and aquatic insect metrics and a variety of specific habitat scores to classify streams. Cryptosporidium parvum: A parasite often found in the intestines of livestock which con- taminates water when animal feces interacts with a water source. Deicer: A compound, such as ethylene glycol, used to melt or prevent the formation of ice. Dissolved Metals: The amount of trace metals dissolved in water. Dissolved Phosphorus: The amount of phosphorus dissolved in water. Diversity: A numerical expression of the evenness and distribution of organisms. Ecoregion: A continuous geographic area over which the climate is uniform to permit the development of similar ecosystems on sites with similar geophysical properties. Embeddedness: Packing of pebbles or cobbles with fine-grained silts and clays. EPT Index: A count of the number of families of each of the three generally pollution-sensitive orders: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies). Escherichia coli (E. coli): A bacteria that inhabits the intestinal tract of humans and other warm-blooded animals. Although it poses no threat to human health, its presence in drinking water does indicate the presence of other, more dangerous bacteria. Eutrophication: The process of over-enrichment of water bodies by nutrients, often typified by the presence of algal blooms. Fecal coliform: Applied to E. coli and similar bacteria that are found in the intestinal tract of humans and animals. Coliform bacteria are commonly used as indicators of the presence of pathogenic organisms. Their presence in water indicates fecal pollution and potential contamination by pathogens. Fecal streptococci: Bacteria found in the intestine of warm-blooded animals. Their presence in water is considered to verify fecal pollution. Fish Blockages: Infrastructures associated with urbanization, such as bridges, dams, and culverts, that affect the ability of fish to move freely upstream and downstream in watersheds. Can prevent re-colonization of resident fish and block the migration of anadromous fish. Flashiness: Percent of flows exceeding the mean flow for the year. A flashy hydrograph would have larger, shorter-duration hydrograph peaks. Geomorphic: The general characteristic of a land surface and the changes that take place in the evolution of land forms. Giardia lamblia: A flagellate protozoan that causes severe gastrointestinal illness when it contaminates drinking water. Herbicide: Chemicals developed to control or eradicate plants. Hotspot: Area where land use or activities generate highly contaminated runoff, with concentra- tions of pollutants in excess of those typically found in stormwater. Hydrograph: A graph showing variation in stage (depth) or discharge of a stream of water over a period of time. Illicit discharge: Any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer system that is not com- posed entirely of storm water, except for discharges allowed under an NPDES permit. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 139 Glossary Impervious Cover: Any surface in the urban landscape that cannot effectively absorb or infiltrate rainfall. Impervious Cover Model (ICM): A general watershed planning model that uses percent watershed impervious cover to predict various stream quality indicators. It predicts expected stream quality declines when watershed IC exceeds 10% and severe degrada- tion beyond 25% IC. Incision: Stream down-cuts and the channel expands in the vertical direction. Index of Biological Integrity (IBI): Tool for assessing the effects of runoff on the quality of the aquatic ecosystem by comparing the condition of multiple groups of organisms or taxa against the levels expected in a healthy stream. Infiltration: The downward movement of water from the surface to the subsoil. The infiltration capacity is expressed in terms of inches per hour. Insecticide: Chemicals developed to control or eradicate insects. Large Woody Debris (LWD): Fundamental to stream habitat structure. Can form dams and pools; trap sediment and detritus; provide stabilization to stream channels; dissipate flow energy and promote habitat complexity. Mannings N: A commonly used roughness coefficient; actor in velocity and discharge formulas representing the effect of channel roughness on energy losses in flowing water. Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether: An oxygenate and gasoline additive used to improve the effi- ciency of combustion engines in order to enhance air quality and meet air pollution standards. MTBE has been found to mix and move more easily in water than many other fuel components, thereby making it harder to control, particularly once it has entered surface or ground waters. Microbe: Short for microorganism. Small organisms that can be seen only with the aid of a microscope. Most frequently used to refer to bacteria. Microbes are important in the degradation and decomposition of organic materials. Nitrate: A chemical compound having the formula NO3. Excess nitrate in surface waters can lead to excessive growth of aquatic plants. Organic Matter: Plant and animal residues, or substances made by living organisms. All are based upon carbon compounds. Organic Nitrogen: Nitrogen that is bound to carbon-containing compounds. This form of nitrogen must be subjected to mineralization or decomposition before it can be used by the plant community. Overbank Flow: Water flow over the top of the bankfull channel and onto the floodplain. Oxygenate: To treat, combine, or infuse with oxygen. Peak Discharge: The maximum instantaneous rate of flow during a storm, usually in reference to a specific design storm event. Pesticides: Any chemical agent used to control specific organisms, for example, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and rodenticides. Piedmont: Any plain, zone or feature located at the foot of a mountain. In the United States, the Piedmont (region) is a plateau extending from New Jersey to Alabama and lying east of the Appalachian Mountains. 140 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Glossary Pool: A stream feature where there is a region of deeper, slow-moving water with fine bottom materials. Pools are the slowest and least turbulent of the riffle/run/pool category. Protozoan: Any of a group of single-celled organisms. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP): An integrated assessment, comparing habitat, water quality and biological measures with empirically defined reference conditions. Receiving Waters: Rivers, lakes, oceans, or other bodies of water that receive water from another source. Riffle: Shallow rocky banks in streams where water flows over and around rocks disturbing the water surface; often associated with whitewater. Riffles often support diverse biological communities due to their habitat niches and increased oxygen levels created by the water disturbance. Riffles are the most swift and turbulent in the riffle/run/pool category. Roughness: A measurement of the resistance that streambed materials, vegetation, and other physical components contribute to the flow of water in the stream channel and flood- plain. It is commonly measured as the Manning’s roughness coefficient (Manning’s N). Run: Stream feature characterized by water flow that is moderately swift flow, yet not particu- larly turbulent. Runs are considered intermediate in the riffle/run/pool category. Runoff Coefficient: A value derived from a site impervious cover value that is applied to a given rainfall volume to yield a corresponding runoff volume. Salmonid: Belonging to the family Salmonidae, which includes trout and salmon. Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO): Excess flow of wastewater (sewage) discharged to a receiving water body when the capacity of the sewer network and/or treatment plant is exceeded, typically during storm events. Semi-arid: Characterized by a small amount of annual precipitation, generally between 10 and 20 inches. Simple Method: Technique used to estimate pollutant loads based on the amount of IC found in a catchment or subwatershed. Sinuosity: A measure of channel curvature, usually quantified as the ratio of the length of the channel to the length of a straight line along the valley axis. It is, in essence, a ratio of the stream’s actual running length to its down-gradient length. Soluble Phosphorus: The amount of phosphorus available for uptake by plants and animals. Stormwater: The water produced as a result of a storm. Subwatershed: A smaller geographic section of a larger watershed unit with a drainage area of between two to 15 square miles and whose boundaries include all the land area draining to a point where two 2nd order streams combine to form a 3rd order stream. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): A measure of the amount of material dissolved in water (mostly inorganic salts). Total Kjeldhal Nitrogen (TKN): The total concentration of nitrogen in a sample present as ammonia or bound in organic compounds. Total Recoverable Metals: The amount of a metal that is in solution after a representative suspended sediment sample has been digested by a method (usually using a dilute acid solution) that results in dissolution of only readily soluble substances). Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems 141 Glossary Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): The maximum quantity of a particular water pollutant that can be discharged into a body of water without violating a water quality standard. Total Nitrogen (Total N): A measure of the total amount of nitrate, nitrite and ammonia concentrations in a body of water. Total Organic Carbon (TOC): A measure of the amount of organic material suspended or dissolved in water. Total Phosphorous (Total P): A measure of the concentration of phosphorus contained in a body of water. Total Suspended Solids (TSS): The total amount of particulate matter suspended in the water column. Trophic Level: The position of an organism in a food chain or food pyramid. Turbidity: A measure of the reduced transparency of water due to suspended material which carries water quality and aesthetic implications. Applied to waters containing suspended matter that interferes with the passage of light through the water or in which visual depth is restricted. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): Chemical compounds which are easily transported into air and water. Most are industrial chemicals and solvents. Due to their low water solubility they are commonly found in soil and water. 142 Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems Glossary Landslides and Mudslides FACT SHEET : https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/landslides.html Landslides occur when masses of rock, earth, or debris move down a slope. Debris flows, also known as mudslides, are a common type of fast- moving landslide that tends to flow in channels. What causes landslides and debris flows Landslides are caused by disturbances in the natural stability of a slope. They can accompany heavy rains or follow droughts, earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions. Mudslides develop when water rapidly accumulates in the ground and results in a surge of water-saturated rock, earth, and debris. Mudslides usually start on steep slopes and can be activated by natural disasters. Areas where wildfires or human modification of the land have destroyed vegetation on slopes are particularly vulnerable to landslides during and after heavy rains. alth threats from landslides and debris flows In the United States, landslides and debris flows result in 25 to 50 deaths each year. The health hazards associated with landslides and mudflows include: Rapidly moving water and debris that can lead to trauma; Broken electrical, water, gas, and sewage lines that can result in injury or illness; and Disrupted roadways and railways that can endanger motorists and disrupt transport and access to health care. What areas are at risk Some areas are more likely to experience landslides or mudflows, including: Areas where wildfires or human modification of the land have destroyed vegetation; Areas where landslides have occurred before; Steep slopes and areas at the bottom of slopes or canyons; Slopes that have been altered for construction of buildings and roads; Channels along a stream or river; and Areas where surface runoff is directed. Landslides are downslope movements of masses of soil and/or rock. They can cause some of the most spectacular damage attributable to earth movement or ground movement. Landslides include mudflows ("mudslides"), earth slumps, rockfalls, and other types of slope failures. Landslides can be fast or slow, wet or dry, small or large, shallow or deep, and reactivated or brand new. Triggering mechanisms can include rainstorms, landscape irrigation, broken pipelines, grading, inadequate surface drainage, erosion, earthquakes, and other natural phenomena and human activities. Fast-moving mudflows and debris flows are of particular concern in wildfire burn areas. Slope instability is a complex phenomenon that includes not only landslides but more subtle processes such as soil creep. Buildings and infrastructure such as transportation facilities and pipelines located within the boundaries of a landslide or in the path of a landslide can be damaged or destroyed. Slope movements do not need to be large to be destructive. Slope creep or small, early-stage landslide movements can cause substantial structural damage to critical facilities such as dams and pipelines, potentially resulting in major economic damage and loss of life. Conversely, earth movements initially suspected to be caused by landslides might be determined to be the result of other processes such as fill settlement, heave of expansive soil or bedrock, or hydrocompaction of collapsible soil upon wetting. Erosion is movement of individual grains, rather than masses, of soil by water or wind. Cumulatively, this persistent grain-by-grain movement can also cause significant damage. Rapid coastal erosion during a period of high surf or a hurricane storm surge can undermine buildings, roads, and other coastal facilities. River scour is riverbed erosion that typically occurs during periods of high flow, deepening river channels. This can uncover bridge pier foundations and buried pipelines, or undermine levee slopes, risking potential failure. Erosion can also occur underground, creating linear cavities by a process known as “piping” in which soil particles are carried away by seeping ground water. This hidden threat is a particular concern in the siting, design, construction, and failure analysis of dams. How We Can Help Exponent geologists and engineers use many tools to investigate pertinent aspects of landslides, slope failures, and erosion. Key elements in an investigation depend on site characteristics and the needs of the client and may include: Emergency response and evaluation of imminent hazards to persons and structures Assessment of damage to structures and infrastructure Evaluation of the boundaries of an unstable area Assessment of landslide, slope failure, or erosion causation Establishment of a history of previous ground movement Modeling of movement initiation and travel paths Determination of the relative contributions of multiple factors, including but not limited to, leaking utility lines, past grading, nearby construction, and rainfall Installation and monitoring of instrumentation for measuring ground movement and groundwater conditions Geotechnical laboratory testing for measuring rock and soil engineering properties Analysis of the stability and safety of existing natural or artificial slopes Assessment of various slope stabilization options Development of conceptual repair recommendations Third-party review of geologic and geotechnical investigations (“soil investigations”) as well as repair recommendations prepared by others. I Important Bird Areas https://www.audubon.org/important-bird-areas/lower-minnesota-river-valley-iba Lower Minnesota River Valley IBA Minnesota The Lower Minnesota River Valley Important Bird Area (MRVIBA) includes, but is not limited to; Fort Snelling State Park, Minnesota River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Black Dog Lake and the Minnesota Valley State Recreation Area. The IBA incorporates the riparian corridor and adjacent river valley and upland communities along the Minnesota River from the Scott/Le Seuer county line to the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers at the eastern most part of Fort Snelling State Park. MRVIBA has numerous shallow flood plain lakes including Gun Club, Snelling, Long Meadow, Black Dog, Blue, Fisher, and Rice Lakes. There are also a number of streams, including Black Dog, Eagle, and Kennealey and Sand Creeks, Credit River, and numerous small streams. Ornithological Summary The site supports an exceptional diversity of birds including over 260 species being documented within Minnesota Valley NWR and the State Park area. Over 100 of the species nest in the area. There are eight species of nesting warblers including species of concern such as the Prothonotary Warbler which is found in the extensive floodplain habitats of the Refuge and State Park. In addition, Cerulean Warblers have been noted in high-quality floodplain forest surrounding Kelly Lake in the Park and Acadian Flycatchers have also been found in widely-scattered locations in the Minnesota River Valley. Nesting Bell?s Vireos and Willow Flycatchers have been observed nesting near Black Dog Lake. Oak savanna habitat in both the Park and Refuge attracts Red-headed Woodpeckers and Lark Sparrows. Conservation Issues Power lines are found throughout the river corridor. Many woodlands and savannas are being altered and eliminated as land use changes from agricultural to urban land uses such as housing, commercial and industrial development. Drainage and storm water impacts are significant in the both the developed and rapidly developing parts of this site. Comprehensive storm water management and working with local communities is the most effective tool for addressing this issue. Sand and gravel mining in common in this site and in adjacent natural areas. Ground water extraction from municipal wells, and on going increases in water usage threaten a wide range of ground water dependant plant and animal communities. Especially sensitive are calcareous fens and associated cold water streams which are important habitats for numerous avian species. Feral and introduced species animals, as well as free roaming pets, have a major impact on ground nesting birds, small mammals, and larger wildlife including white tailed deer. Invasive and non native plants are changing the quality and structure in all community types found in the area. The species which are currently having the greatest impact include Phalaris arundinacea (Reed Canary Grass), Pragmites australis (Giant Reed Grass), Potamogeton crispus (Curly Leaved Pondweed), (Eurasian Water Milfoil), Allaria petiolata Garlic Mustard, Rhamnus cathartica and R. frangula (European and Glossy Buckthorn), Ulmus pumila (Siberian Elm), Robinia pseudoacacia (Black Locust), Lonicera sp. (honeysuckle), Centaurea maculosa (Spotted Knappweed), Coornilla varia (Crown Vetch), Euphorbia esula (Leafy Spurge), Lythrum salicaria (Purple Lossestrife). Control of exotic and problematic species is done using prescribed fire, mechanical methods, herbicide applications, and release of biological control agents. West Nile Virus has the potential to impact avian populations, especially corvids. February 2020 Lower Minnesota River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Part II—Northern Watersheds: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek and Nine Mile Creek Watersheds Watershed wq-iw7-50e Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency i Authors and contributors: Barr Engineering Company—Greg Wilson, Jay Hawley, and Michael McKinney Minnesota Pollution Control Agency—Chris Zadak, John Erdmann, and Rachel Olmanson Cover Photo Credit: Nine Mile Creek, Barr Engineering Company photo Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ii Contents Contents ................................................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ vii Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................ x Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... xi 1. Project Overview............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Identification of Waterbodies .............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Priority Ranking .................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Applicable Water Quality Standards and Numeric Water Quality Targets ...................................... 7 3. Watershed and Waterbody Characterization .................................................................................. 8 3.1 RPBCWD Watershed and Waterbody Characterization ....................................................................... 8 3.2 NMCWD Watershed and Waterbody Characterization ....................................................................... 8 3.3 Lakes ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Streams .............................................................................................................................................. 10 3.5 Subwatersheds ................................................................................................................................... 10 3.6 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................. 25 3.7 Current/Historical Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 28 3.7.1 Lake Water Quality Data ........................................................................................ 28 3.7.2 Stream Water Quality Data .................................................................................... 29 3.7.2.1 Total Suspended Solids .......................................................................................... 29 3.7.2.2 Bacteria (E. coli) ..................................................................................................... 30 3.8 Pollutant Source Summary ................................................................................................................. 31 3.8.1 Total Phosphorus ................................................................................................... 31 3.8.1.1 Permitted .............................................................................................................. 31 3.8.1.2 Non-permitted ....................................................................................................... 31 3.8.2 Total Suspended Solids Source Summary ............................................................... 40 3.8.2.1 Permitted .............................................................................................................. 40 3.8.2.2 Non-permitted ....................................................................................................... 40 3.8.3 Bacteria (E. coli) Source Summary .......................................................................... 41 3.8.3.1 Permitted .............................................................................................................. 41 3.8.3.2 Non-permitted ....................................................................................................... 41 4. TMDL Development ...................................................................................................................... 42 4.1 Loading Allocation Methodology/Natural Background ..................................................................... 42 4.1.1 Natural Background Consideration ......................................................................... 42 4.2 Lakes, Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................................................... 43 4.2.1 TP Loading Capacity ............................................................................................... 43 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency iii 4.2.2 TP Load Allocation Methodology ............................................................................ 44 4.2.2.1 Atmospheric Deposition......................................................................................... 45 4.2.2.2 Erosion .................................................................................................................. 45 4.2.2.3 Internal Loading ..................................................................................................... 45 4.2.2.4 Groundwater ......................................................................................................... 45 4.2.2.5 Upstream Lakes ..................................................................................................... 45 4.2.3 TP Wasteload Allocation Methodology .................................................................. 46 4.2.3.1 Permitted Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Facilities ...................................... 46 4.2.3.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems: Individual WLAs ................................... 46 4.2.3.3 Construction/Industrial Stormwater: Categorical WLAs .......................................... 47 4.2.4 Margin of Safety .................................................................................................... 50 4.2.5 Seasonal Variation ................................................................................................. 50 4.2.6 TP TMDL Summary ................................................................................................. 50 4.2.6.1 Silver Lake .............................................................................................................. 50 4.2.6.2 Lotus Lake .............................................................................................................. 51 4.2.6.3 Staring Lake ........................................................................................................... 52 4.2.6.4 Lake Lucy ............................................................................................................... 53 4.2.6.5 Lake Susan ............................................................................................................. 53 4.2.6.6 Rice Marsh Lake ..................................................................................................... 54 4.2.6.7 Lake Riley ............................................................................................................... 55 4.2.6.8 Hyland Lake ........................................................................................................... 56 4.2.6.9 Wing Lake .............................................................................................................. 56 4.2.6.10 Lake Rose ............................................................................................................... 57 4.2.6.11 North Cornelia Lake ............................................................................................... 58 4.2.6.12 South Cornelia Lake ............................................................................................... 58 4.2.6.13 Lake Edina.............................................................................................................. 59 4.2.6.14 Penn Lake .............................................................................................................. 59 4.3 Streams, Total Suspended Solids ....................................................................................................... 60 4.3.1 TSS Loading Capacity Methodology ........................................................................ 60 4.3.2 TSS Load Allocation Methodology .......................................................................... 61 4.3.2.1 Upstream Lakes ..................................................................................................... 61 4.3.2.2 Non-regulated surface runoff and near-channel erosion ........................................ 62 4.3.2.3 Unallocated load .................................................................................................... 62 4.3.3 TSS Wasteload Allocation Methodology ................................................................. 62 4.3.3.1 Permitted Wastewater Sources .............................................................................. 62 4.3.3.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems: Individual WLAs ................................... 62 4.3.3.3 Construction/Industrial Stormwater: Categorical WLAs .......................................... 63 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency iv 4.3.4 Margin of Safety .................................................................................................... 63 4.3.5 Seasonal Variation ................................................................................................. 63 4.3.6 TSS TMDL Summary ............................................................................................... 63 4.4 Streams, E. coli ................................................................................................................................... 64 4.4.1 E. coli Loading Capacity Methodology .................................................................... 64 4.4.2 E. coli Load Allocation Methodology....................................................................... 68 4.4.2.1 Upstream Lakes ..................................................................................................... 68 4.4.2.2 Non-regulated surface runoff ................................................................................. 68 4.4.2.3 Unallocated load .................................................................................................... 68 4.4.3 E. coli Wasteload Allocation Methodology ............................................................. 68 4.4.3.1 Permitted Wastewater Sources .............................................................................. 68 4.4.3.2 Confined Animal Feeding Operations ..................................................................... 69 4.4.3.3 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems .............................................................. 69 4.4.3.4 Construction/Industrial Stormwater: Categorical WLAs .......................................... 69 4.4.4 Margin of Safety .................................................................................................... 70 4.4.5 Seasonal Variation ................................................................................................. 70 4.4.6 E. coli TMDL Summary ........................................................................................... 70 5. Future Growth Considerations ...................................................................................................... 73 5.1 New or Expanding Permitted MS4 WLA Transfer Process ................................................................. 73 5.2 New or Expanding Wastewater (TSS and E. coli TMDLs only) ............................................................ 73 6. Reasonable Assurance .................................................................................................................. 74 6.1 Regulatory approaches ...................................................................................................................... 74 6.2 Nonregulatory approaches ................................................................................................................ 75 7. Monitoring Overview .................................................................................................................... 78 8. Implementation Strategy Summary .............................................................................................. 79 8.1 Permitted Sources .............................................................................................................................. 79 8.1.1 Construction Stormwater ....................................................................................... 79 8.1.2 Industrial Stormwater ............................................................................................ 79 8.1.3 MS4 ....................................................................................................................... 79 8.2 Watershed District-Led Efforts ........................................................................................................... 80 8.3 Cost..................................................................................................................................................... 81 8.4 Adaptive Management ....................................................................................................................... 81 9. Public Participation ....................................................................................................................... 83 10. Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 84 Appendix A: Watershed and Lake Modeling Methodology ....................................................... 86 A.1 P8 Watershed Modeling..................................................................................................................... 86 A.1.1 Watershed boundaries........................................................................................... 86 A.1.1.1 Staring Lake Watersheds ........................................................................................ 86 A.1.2 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 87 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v A.1.3 Curve Numbers ...................................................................................................... 88 A.1.4 Drainage Patterns .................................................................................................. 89 A.1.5 Pollutant Removal Device Information ................................................................... 89 A.1.6 Other Model Parameters ....................................................................................... 89 A.2 In-Lake Water Quality Mass Balance Modeling ................................................................................. 90 A.2.1 Lake Model Water Balance .................................................................................... 91 A.2.2 Lake Model Total Phosphorus Balance ................................................................. 102 A.2.3 Lake Surface Model Concentration....................................................................... 104 A.2.4 Silver Model Calibration ....................................................................................... 104 A.2.5 Lotus Lake Model Calibration ............................................................................... 106 A.2.6 Staring Lake Model Calibration ............................................................................ 107 A.2.7 Lake Lucy Model Calibration ................................................................................ 109 A.2.8 Lake Susan Model Calibration .............................................................................. 110 A.2.9 Rice Marsh Lake Model Calibration ...................................................................... 112 A.2.10 Riley Lake Model Calibration ................................................................................ 114 A.2.11 Hyland Lake Model Calibration............................................................................. 115 A.2.12 Wing Lake Model Calibration ............................................................................... 119 A.2.13 Lake Rose Model Calibration ................................................................................ 120 A.2.14 North Cornelia Lake Model Calibration................................................................. 121 A.2.15 South Cornelia Lake Model Calibration................................................................. 123 A.2.16 Lake Edina Model Calibration ............................................................................... 124 A.2.17 Penn Lake Model Calibration ............................................................................... 126 List of Tables Table 1.1 List of 303(d) impaired lakes and streams in the RPBCWD ........................................................................................ 2 Table 1.2 List of 303(d) impaired lakes and streams in the NMCWD ........................................................................................ 3 Table 2.1 MPCA lake water quality standards for NCHF Ecoregion............................................................................................ 7 Table 2.2 MPCA water quality standards for TMDL parameters in streams for RPBCWD and NMCWD watersheds ... 7 Table 3.1 RPBCWD Lake morphology ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Table 3.2 NMCWD Lake morphology ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Table 3.3 Impaired RPBCWD and NMCWD streams, areas and impaired reach lengths. .................................................. 10 Table 3.4 Land use areas within the RPBCWD lake and stream watersheds including percent of total watershed area......................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Table 3.5 Land use areas within the NMCWD lake and stream watersheds including percent of total watershed area ................................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Table 3.6 Average Summer (June through September) water quality data comparison with applicable standards for analyzed lakes in the RPBCWD ........................................................................................................................ 28 Table 3.7 Average Summer (June through September) water quality data comparison with applicable standards for analyzed lakes in the NMCWD ........................................................................................................................ 29 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency vi Table 3.8 Stream bacteria (E. coli) monitoring summary ........................................................................................................... 30 Table 3.9 Chronic E. coli impairment summary ............................................................................................................................ 31 Table 3.10 Acute E. coli impairment summary ............................................................................................................................. 31 Table 4.1 Total phosphorus load under existing condition and proposed condition to meet water quality goals in the RPBCWD lakes ............................................................................................................................... 44 Table 4.2 Total phosphorus load under existing condition and proposed condition to meet water quality goals in the NMCWD lakes ............................................................................................................................... 44 Table 4.3 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Silver Lake (27- 0136-00) during 2015 water year. .................................................................................................................. 51 Table 4.4 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lotus Lake (10- 0006-00) during 2015 water year. .................................................................................................................. 51 Table 4.5 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Staring Lake (27-0078-00) during 2015 water year. ................................................................................................. 52 Table 4.6 Nutrient Budgets and Recommended Reductions for Lake Lucy (10-0007-00) during 2015 water year. ... 53 Table 4.7 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lake Susan (10- 0013-00) during 2015 water year. .................................................................................................................. 54 Table 4.8 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Rice Marsh Lake (10-0001-00) during 2014 water year. .......................................................................................................... 55 Table 4.9 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lake Riley (10- 0002-00) during 2014 water year. .................................................................................................................. 56 Table 4.10 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Hyland Lake (27- 0048-00) during 2015 water year. .................................................................................................................. 56 Table 4.11 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Wing Lake (27- 0091-00) during 2016 growing season. ......................................................................................................... 57 Table 4.12 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lake Rose (27- 0092-00) during 2016 growing season. ......................................................................................................... 57 Table 4.13 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for North Cornelia Lake (27-0028-01) during 2015 growing season. ........................................................................................ 58 Table 4.14 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for South Cornelia Lake (27-0028-02) during 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................ 59 Table 4.15 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Edina Lake (27- 0029-00) during 2015 growing season. ......................................................................................................... 59 Table 4.16 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Penn Lake (27- 0004-00) during 2016 growing season. ......................................................................................................... 60 Table 4.17 Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) TSS TMDL and Allocations ........................................................................... 64 Table 4.18 Stream flow rate data for E. coli TMDLs .................................................................................................................... 65 Table 4.19 MS4 Area Summary for E. coli TMDLs ........................................................................................................................ 69 Table 4.20 Nine Mile Creek (AUID# 07020012-809) E. coli TMDL and Allocations.............................................................. 71 Table 4.21 Purgatory Creek (AUID# 07020012-828) E. coli TMDL and Allocations ............................................................. 71 Table 4.22 Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) E. coli TMDL and Allocations ....................................................................... 72 Table A.1 Comparison between measured and modeled TP EMC values at Purgatory Creek Valley View Station .... 87 Table A.2 Impervious Assumption by 2010 Land Use Category ............................................................................................... 88 Table A.3: Pervious area curve number classification by HSG soil type ................................................................................. 88 Table A.4 Silver Lake Bathymetry and Outflow ............................................................................................................................ 92 Table A.5 Lotus Lake Bathymetry and Outflow ............................................................................................................................ 93 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency vii Table A.6 Staring Lake Bathymetry and Outflow ......................................................................................................................... 93 Table A.7 Lake Lucy Bathymetry and Outflow .............................................................................................................................. 94 Table A.8 Lake Susan Bathymetry and Outflow ........................................................................................................................... 95 Table A.9 Rice Marsh Bathymetry and Outflow ........................................................................................................................... 96 Table A.10 Lake Riley Bathymetry and Outflow ........................................................................................................................... 97 Table A.11 Hyland Lake Bathymetry and Outflow ....................................................................................................................... 98 Table A.12 Wing Lake Bathymetry and Outflow .......................................................................................................................... 99 Table A.13 Lake Rose Bathymetry and Outflow ......................................................................................................................... 100 Table A.14 North Cornelia Lake Bathymetry and Outflow ...................................................................................................... 101 Table A.15 South Cornelia Lake Bathymetry and Outflow....................................................................................................... 101 Table A.16 Lake Edina Bathymetry and Outflow ........................................................................................................................ 102 Table A.17 Penn Lake Bathymetry and Outflow......................................................................................................................... 102 Table A.18 Hyland Lake contributing and non-contributing areas, total phosphorus watershed loads and total phosphorus loads to the lake based on P8 modeled results for the 2015 water year. .................. 117 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Location of Riley Creek, Purgatory Creek, and RPBCWD Lake Watersheds .......................................................... 5 Figure 1.2 Location of Nine Mile Creek and NMCWD Lake Watersheds ................................................................................... 6 Figure 3.1 Silver Lake Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 3.2 Lotus Lake Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3.3 Staring Lake Subwatersheds .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3.4 Lake Lucy Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3.5 Lake Susan Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 3.6 Rice March Lake Subwatersheds .................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 3.7 Lake Riley Subwatersheds .............................................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 3.8 Hyland Lake Subwatersheds .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3.9 Wing Lake Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 3.10 Lake Rose Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 3.11 North Cornelia Lake Subwatersheds ......................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3.12 South Cornelia Lake Subwatersheds ......................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3.13 Lake Edina Subwatersheds .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 3.14 Penn Lake Subwatersheds ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3.15 Riley Creek TSS concentration cumulative frequency curve, 2006-2015......................................................... 29 Figure 3.16 Purgatory Creek TSS concentration cumulative frequency curve, 2006-2015 ............................................... 30 Figure 3.17 Silver Lake existing conditions loading breakdown for 2015 water year ......................................................... 33 Figure 3.18 Lotus Lake existing conditions loading breakdown for 2015 water year ......................................................... 34 Figure 3.19 Staring Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year ........................................................ 34 Figure 3.20 Lake Lucy existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year ............................................................ 35 Figure 3.21 Lake Susan existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year .......................................................... 35 Figure 3.22 Rice Marsh Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2014 water year ................................................ 36 Figure 3.23 Lake Riley existing condition loading breakdown for 2014 water year ............................................................ 36 Figure 3.24 Hyland Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year ........................................................ 37 Figure 3.25 Wing Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season .................................................. 37 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency viii Figure 3.26 Lake Rose existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season ................................................... 38 Figure 3.27 North Cornelia Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 growing season ................................ 38 Figure 3.28 South Cornelia Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season ................................ 39 Figure 3.29 Edina Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 growing season ................................................. 39 Figure 3.30 Penn Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season .................................................. 40 Figure 4.1 RPBCWD MS4 Boundaries .............................................................................................................................................. 48 Figure 4.2 NMCWD MS4 Boundaries .............................................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 4.3 Riley Creek TSS concentration cumulative frequency curve, 2006-2015 ........................................................... 61 Figure 4.4 Flow Duration Curve for Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek................................................... 65 Figure 4.5 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Nine Mile Creek (AUID# 07020012-809) .......................................................... 66 Figure 4.6 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Purgatory Creek (AUID# 07020012-828) .......................................................... 67 Figure 4.7 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) ................................................................... 67 Figure 8.1. Adaptive Management .................................................................................................................................................. 82 Figure A.1 Silver Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. .................................................................................................... 105 Figure A.2 Silver Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured whole lake TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. ........................................................................................................................................ 106 Figure A.3 Lotus Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. .................................................................................................... 107 Figure A.4 Lotus Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. ........................................................................................................................................ 107 Figure A.5 Staring Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. .................................................................................................... 108 Figure A.6 Staring Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. ................................................................................................................................. 109 Figure A.7 Lake Lucy comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. .................................................................................................... 110 Figure A.8 Lake Lucy time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. ........................................................................................................................................ 110 Figure A.9 Lake Susan comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year ..................................................................................................... 111 Figure A.10 Lake Susan time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure A.11 Rice Marsh Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2014 water year. .................................................................................................... 113 Figure A.12 Rice Marsh Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2014 water year. .................................................................................................... 113 Figure A.13 Lake Riley comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2014 water year. .................................................................................................... 114 Figure A.14 Lake Riley time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2014 water year. ................................................................................................................................. 115 Figure A.15 Hyland Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. .................................................................................................... 116 Figure A.16 Hyland Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. ................................................................................................................................. 116 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ix Figure A.17 Hyland Lake subwatersheds, flowpath directions, contributing areas and total phosphorus loads to the lake for the 2015 water year.......................................................................................................................... 118 Figure A.18 Wing Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................... 119 Figure A.19 Wing Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................................................ 120 Figure A.20 Lake Rose comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................... 121 Figure A.21 Lake Rose time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................................................ 121 Figure A.22 North Cornelia Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 growing season. ........................................................................................... 122 Figure A.23 North Cornelia Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 growing season. ........................................................................................... 123 Figure A.24 South Cornelia Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................... 124 Figure A.25 South Cornelia Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................... 124 Figure A.26 Lake Edina comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 growing season. ........................................................................................... 125 Figure A.27 Lake Edina time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 growing season. ........................................................................................................................ 126 Figure A.28 Penn Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................... 127 Figure A.29 Penn Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................................................ 127 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency x Acronyms AGREETT Agriculture Research, Education and Extension Technology Transfer Program AUID Assessment Unit ID BMP best management practice Chl-a Chlorophyll-a DNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EQuIS Environmental Quality Information System LA load allocation lb pound lb/day pounds per day lb/yr pounds per year m meter mg/L milligrams per liter mL milliliter MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation MOS Margin of Safety MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems NCHF North Central Hardwood Forest NMCWD Nine Mile Creek Watershed District NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System RPBCWD Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District SSTS Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TP Total phosphorus UAA Use Attainability Analysis WLA wasteload allocation WOMP Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program WRAPS Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency xi Executive Summary This Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report is a part of a larger effort addressing impaired waters in the Lower Minnesota River Watershed. The focus of this report is on waters in the northern urban portion of the watershed in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area covering portions of Carver and Hennepin Counties, specifically the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD). Overall, this report provides TMDLs for 13 lakes impaired by excess nutrients (phosphorus), two streams impaired by bacteria (Escherichia coli (E. coli)) and one stream impaired by both total suspended solids (TSS) and having impaired biota (fish and macroinvertebrates). Nutrients and E. coli are parameters related to aquatic recreational use, and TSS is related to aquatic life use. RPBCWD Waterbodies There are seven phosphorus-impaired lakes in the RPBCWD: Rice Marsh, Susan, Riley, Hyland, Silver, Lotus, and Staring. The lower portion of Riley Creek is impaired by E. coli and TSS, and the lower portion of Purgatory Creek is impaired by E. coli. The lakes and streams are popular for various recreational uses and are the focus of considerable efforts by RPBCWD, cities and others for monitoring, evaluation and restoration. In addition to the impaired waterbodies, two waterbodies that are not impaired but that are close to water quality standards (Lake Lucy for phosphorus and Purgatory Creek for TSS are included in this report for the purpose of data analysis for protection purposes). For the lakes, the relative abundance of sources of phosphorus vary by lake, but they are predominantly urban stormwater runoff and internal loading from lake sediments. For some lakes, erosion from streambanks from inlet channels also is a source. The primary source of TSS in Riley Creek is likely streambank and near-channel erosion of sediment. Loading from urban stormwater is believed to be a much smaller source. A separate biological stressor identification process identified TSS as the primary stressor for the fish and macroinvertebrates impairments in Riley Creek. Thus, the TSS TMDL will address those biota impairments as well. The primary sources of E. coli are likely improperly managed pet waste and wildlife inputs (e.g., waterfowl, geese, etc.) directly to impervious surfaces and water features. As with runoff-derived phosphorus and TSS, bacteria are transported via overland flow paths or storm sewer systems to the impaired waterbodies. The overall phosphorus loading reduction needed for the lakes range from 17% to 50%. For TSS and E. coli in Riley Creek estimated reductions of 88% and 81%, respectively, are needed. For E. coli in Purgatory Creek an estimated reduction of 68% is needed. The primary implementation strategies that will be needed to restore these waters will be improved stormwater management to both capture/treat pollutants and reduce runoff volume. This reduced runoff volume will decrease peak flow levels in Riley Creek and thereby reduce streambank erosion. Also, for lakes, management of internal loading will be needed through continued invasive species management, as well as alum treatment to bind phosphorus. NMCWD Waterbodies There are six phosphorus-impaired lakes in the NMCWD: Wing, Rose, North Cornelia, South Cornelia, Edina, and Penn. In addition, the lower portion of Nine Mile Creek is impaired by E. coli. The lakes and Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency xii creek are popular for various recreational uses and are the focus of considerable efforts by NMCWD, cities, and others for monitoring, evaluation and restoration. For the lakes, the relative abundance of sources of phosphorus vary by lake, but they are predominantly urban stormwater runoff and internal loading from lake sediments. The primary sources of E. coli are likely improperly managed pet waste and wildlife inputs (e.g., waterfowl, geese, etc.) directly to impervious surfaces and water features. As with runoff-derived phosphorus, bacteria are transported via overland flow paths or storm sewer systems to the impaired waterbodies. The overall phosphorus loading reduction needed for the lakes range from 31% to 59%. For E. coli in Nine Mile Creek an estimated reduction of 41% is needed. The primary implementation strategies that will be needed to restore these waters will be improved stormwater management to capture/treat pollutants, plus control of internal loading through invasive species management as well as alum treatment to bind phosphorus. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1 1. Project Overview 1.1 Purpose The Clean Water Act Section 303(d) requires that states publish a list of surface waters that do not meet water quality standards and therefore, do not support their designated use(s). These waters are then classified as impaired, which dictates that a TMDL report be completed for them. The goal of this TMDL report is to calculate the maximum amount of a pollutant that certain impaired waterbodies can receive and still meet the state water quality standards. The passage of Minnesota’s Clean Water Legacy Act (CWLA) in 2006 provided a policy framework and resources to state and local governments to accelerate efforts to monitor, assess and restore impaired waters, and to protect unimpaired waters. The result has been a comprehensive “watershed approach” that integrates water resource management efforts by the state, local governments, and stakeholders to develop watershed-scale TMDLs, restoration and protection strategies, and plans for each of Minnesota’s 80 major watersheds. The waterbodies in the RPBCWD and NMCWD have been monitored for many years and studies locally referred to as “Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) reports” have been prepared for many of them to address known water quality issues, and present possible restoration and protection strategies. (Note: these are not intended as UAAs as defined in federal law.) The historical water quality data was also used to assess the whether any of these waterbodies were considered impaired for one or more water quality parameters and should be assigned TMDLs. Completed studies in these two watershed districts that were referenced and used during this TMDL analysis include: Lake Ann and Lake Lucy UAA Update (Barr 2013a) Lake Susan Use Attainability Assessment Update (Wenck 2013) Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley UAA Update (Barr 2016) Lotus, Silver, Duck, Round Mitchell, Red Rock UAA Update; Lake Idlewild, and Staring Lake UAA; and Lower Purgatory Creek Stabilization Study (Barr 2017c) Creek Restoration Action Strategy (Barr 2015) RPBCWD Watershed Management Plan-Draft (Barr 2017b) Lake Cornelia UAA Revised Draft (Barr 2010) NMCWD Water Management Plan (Barr 2017a) This document address RPBCWD and NMCWD waterbodies that have been identified as impaired by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that have not been addressed in prior TMDLs, have an approved water quality standard and have sufficient data for assessment. The findings of this study can be used in combination with the UAA reports, water management plans and other studies to develop watershed-wide restoration and protection strategies to aid in the planning of water quality improvement projects. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2 While not directly connected to any of the waterbodies discussed in this report, the previously completed TMDL implementation plan for Bluff Creek (Barr 2013b) should also be considered as part of the comprehensive plan to address water quality impairments in the RPBCWD. 1.2 Identification of Waterbodies This TMDL report applies to 10 separate impairment listings for 2 stream reaches and 7 lakes in the RPBCWD (Table 1.1). Locations of Riley and Purgatory Creeks are shown in Figure 1.1. Figure 1.1 also shows watersheds for the eight lakes (Lucy, Rice Marsh, Susan, Riley, Hyland, Silver, Lotus, and Staring) within the RPBCWD included in this TMDL report. Table 1.1 List of 303(d) impaired lakes and streams in the RPBCWD AUID Stream or Lake Name Affected Designated Use Impairment (Pollutant) Designated Use Class Listing Year Target Completion 07020012- 511 Riley Creek, Lake Riley to the Minnesota River Aquatic Life Turbidity (TSS) 2B, 3C 2002 2019 Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments a 2018 2019 Fishes bioassessments a 2018 2019 Aquatic Recreation Bacteria (E. coli) 2018 2019 07020012- 828 Purgatory Creek, Staring Lake to the Minnesota River Aquatic Life Turbidity (TSS)b NA NA Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments c 2018 2019 Aquatic Recreation Bacteria (E. coli) 2018 2019 10-0007-00 Lake Lucyd NA NA NA NA 10-0013-00 Lake Susan Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/ Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) 2010 2019 10-0001-00 Rice Marsh Lake 2018 2019 10-0002-00 Riley Lake 2002 2019 Aquatic Life Fishes bioassessments e 2018 2029 27-0136-00 Silver Lake Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/ Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) 2016 2019 10-0006-00 Lotus Lake 2002 2019 Aquatic Life Fishes bioassessments e 2018 2029 27-0078-00 Staring Lake Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/ Eutrophication 2002 2019 27-0048-00 Hyland Lake 2008 2019 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 3 AUID Stream or Lake Name Affected Designated Use Impairment (Pollutant) Designated Use Class Listing Year Target Completion Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) a: This impairment is addressed via completion of the TSS impairment. See Section 4.3. b: Analysis of the recent Purgatory Creek TSS data does not show impairment and it will be assigned protection status rather than a TMDL. See Section 3.7.2.1. c: This impairment is not due to a pollutant and is expected to be recategorized to EPA category 4C in the 2020 303(d) list. d: Lake Lucy was assigned protection status rather than inclusion on the impaired waters list. e: This listing is not addressed in this TMDL report. Any TMDL, if needed, will be deferred until a later date. This TMDL report also applies to seven separate impairment listings for one stream reach and six lakes in the NMCWD (Table 1.2). The location of Nine Mile Creek is shown in Figure 1.2. Figure 1.2 also highlights the watersheds for the six lakes (Wing, Rose, North Cornelia, South Cornelia, Edina, and Penn) within the NMCWD included in this TMDL Report. Table 1.2 List of 303(d) impaired lakes and streams in the NMCWD AUID Stream or Lake Name Affected Designated Use Impairment (Pollutant) Designated Use Class Listing Year Target Completion 07020012- 807 Nine Mile Creek, Headwaters to Metro Blvd Aquatic Life Fishes bioassessments a 2B, 3C 2004 2029 07020012- 808 Nine Mile Creek, Metro Blvd to end of unnamed wetland (Marsh Lake) Aquatic Life Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments b 2018 2029 Fishes bioassessments b 2018 2029 07020012- 809 Nine Mile Creek, Unnamed wetland (Marsh Lake) to the Minnesota River Aquatic Life Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments b 2018 2029 Fishes bioassessments b 2018 2029 Aquatic Recreation Bacteria (E. coli) 2018 2019 07020012- 723 South Fork Nine Mile Creek, Smetana Lk to Ninemile Cr Aquatic Life Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments b 2018 2029 Fishes bioassessments b 2018 2029 27-0091-00 Wing Lake Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/ Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) 2010 2019 27-0092-00 Lake Rose 2010 2019 27-0028-01 North Cornelia Lake 2008 2019 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 4 AUID Stream or Lake Name Affected Designated Use Impairment (Pollutant) Designated Use Class Listing Year Target Completion 27-0028-02 South Cornelia Lake 2018 2019 27-0029-00 Lake Edina 2008 2019 27-0004-00 Penn Lake 2018 2019 27-0067-00 Bryant Lake Aquatic Life Fishes bioassessments b 2018 2029 a: This impairment is not due to a pollutant and is expected to be recategorized to EPA category 4C in the 2020 303(d) list. b: This listing is not addressed in this TMDL report. Any TMDL, if needed, will be deferred until a later date. 1.3 Priority Ranking The MPCA’s schedule for TMDL completions, as indicated on Minnesota’s Section 303(d) impaired waters list, reflects Minnesota’s priority ranking of this TMDL. The MPCA has aligned its TMDL priorities with the watershed approach and its Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) cycle. The schedule for TMDL completion corresponds to the WRAPS report completion on the 10-year cycle. The MPCA developed a state plan Minnesota’s TMDL Priority Framework Report to meet the needs of United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA’s) national measure (WQ-27) under EPA’s Long- Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration and Protection under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Program. As part of these efforts, the MPCA identified water quality impaired segments that will be addressed by TMDLs by 2022. The RPBCWD and NMCWD waters addressed by this TMDL are part of that MPCA prioritization plan to meet EPA’s national measure. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 5 Figure 1.1 Location of Riley Creek, Purgatory Creek, and RPBCWD Lake Watersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 6 Figure 1.2 Location of Nine Mile Creek and NMCWD Lake Watersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 7 2. Applicable Water Quality Standards and Numeric Water Quality Targets For aquatic recreation uses, water quality in Minnesota lakes is evaluated using three parameters: total phosphorus (TP), chlorophyll-a (Chl-a,) and Secchi depth. Phosphorus is typically the limiting nutrient in Minnesota lakes, meaning that algal growth will increase with increased phosphorus. Chl-a is the primary pigment in aquatic algae and has been shown to have a direct correlation with algal biomass. Secchi depth is a physical measurement of water clarity taken by lowering a white or black-and-white disk until it can no longer be seen from the surface, then noting the depth where this occurs. Greater Secchi depths indicate less light-refracting particulates in the water column and better water quality; conversely, high TP, and Chl-a concentrations point to poor water quality. The protected beneficial use for all lakes is aquatic recreation, including body-contact activities such as swimming. Minnesota’s lake water quality standards vary primarily by ecoregion, and secondarily by lake depth. The lakes of this report are entirely within the North Central Hardwood Forest (NCHF) ecoregion. The standards define a “shallow” lake as one that has either a maximum depth less than 15 feet or a littoral area greater than 80% of the lake’s total area. The “littoral” area is defined in practice as the portion of the lake that is shallower than 15 feet. In addition to meeting phosphorus limits, Chl-a and Secchi transparency standards must be met. In developing the lake nutrient standards for Minnesota lakes (Minn. R. ch. 7050), the MPCA evaluated data from a large cross-section of lakes within each of the state’s ecoregions (MPCA 2005). Clear relationships were established between the causal factor TP and the response variables Chl-a and Secchi transparency. Based on these relationships it is expected that by meeting the phosphorus target in each lake, the Chl-a and Secchi standards will likewise be met. Table 2.1 MPCA lake water quality standards for NCHF Ecoregion Lake depth category TP concentration (µg/L) Chlorophyll-a conc. (µg/L) Minimum Secchi depth (meters) Deep 40 14 1.4 Shallow 60 20 1.0 Note: Values are summer averages (June 1 through September 30). For aquatic recreation uses of streams in Minnesota, E. coli is used as an indicator species of potential waterborne pathogens. The aquatic life use water quality standards for streams include TSS. These standards are described in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 MPCA water quality standards for TMDL parameters in streams for RPBCWD and NMCWD watersheds Parameter Water quality standard Applicable period E. coli Not to exceed 126 organisms per 100 milliliters (org/100 mL) as a geometric mean of not less than five samples representative of conditions within any calendar month, nor shall more than 10% of all samples taken during any calendar month individually exceed 1,260 org/100 mL. April 1 to October 31 TSS South region: 65 mg/L (milligrams per liter); TSS standards for class 2B may be exceeded for no more than 10% of the time. April 1 to September 30 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 8 3. Watershed and Waterbody Characterization 3.1 RPBCWD Watershed and Waterbody Characterization The Riley Creek Watershed encompasses an 11 square mile area. The headwaters of Riley Creek originate in Lake Lucy, then flow through a chain of lakes including Lake Ann, Lake Susan, Rice Marsh Lake, and finally Lake Riley. This portion of the watershed is characterized by mild topography. Upon exiting Lake Riley, Riley Creek flows down the steep north valley wall of the Minnesota River Valley Bluffs before entering the Minnesota River. Riley Creek is located entirely within the boundaries of two municipalities, the City of Chanhassen and the City of Eden Prairie. The Purgatory Creek Watershed encompasses a 30 square mile area. The headwaters of Purgatory Creek originate in Lotus and Silver Lakes. Purgatory Creek then flows through a series of wetland complexes before entering the Purgatory Creek Recreational Area, which was constructed in 2003. From the Recreational Area, Purgatory Creek continues into Staring Lake and then through the bluffs of the Minnesota River Valley on its way to its confluence with the Minnesota River. The Purgatory Creek watershed ranges in character from marshy with a number of wetlands that have poor drainage north of Highway 7, to a mix of marsh and forested upland areas in the middle of the watershed, to finally the steep valley walls of the Minnesota River Valley. In addition to the direct watershed of Purgatory Creek, a chain of lakes known as the Eden Prairie Chain of Lakes discharges into Staring Lake during high flow periods. This chain of lakes includes Duck Lake, Round Lake, Mitchell Lake, and Red Rock Lake. The four lakes were connected to each other, and then Staring Lake, through a series of pipes installed in 1998 to control lake water levels. Hyland Lake is located in the far eastern portion of the Purgatory Creek watershed. Under high water conditions, Hyland Lake will outflow to the west through the storm sewer systems of the cities of Bloomington and Eden Prairie before ultimately discharging into Purgatory Creek just upstream of River View Road. 3.2 NMCWD Watershed and Waterbody Characterization The Nine Mile Creek Watershed encompasses a 46.5 square mile area. The headwaters of Nine Mile Creek originate in Minnetoga Lake (South Fork) and the city of Hopkins (North Fork). The South Fork also flows through Bryant Lake before merging with the North Fork just upstream of Normandale Lake. From Normandale Lake, Nine Mile Creek flows into Marsh Lake and then through the bluffs of the Minnesota River Valley on its way to its confluence with the Minnesota River. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed is generally highly developed, with many small lakes and ponds. The watershed topography is generally mild except for the steep ravine between County Road 1 and the Minnesota River. 3.3 Lakes Lake morphology of the impaired RPBCWD lakes is listed in Table 3.1 and the impaired NMCWD lakes are listed in Table 3.2. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 9 Table 3.1 RPBCWD Lake morphology AUID Lake Surface Area (acres) Average Depth (ft) Maximum Depth (ft) Lake Volume (acre-ft) Littoral Area (acre) Lake Depth Class Direct Watershed Areaa (acre) 10-0007-00 Lake Lucy 88b 6.5 20 560 86 shallow 900 10-0013-00 Lake Susan 88b 10 17 890 83 shallow 1,137 10-0001-00 Rice Marsh Lake 83d 5 11 375 81 shallow 877e 10-0002-00 Lake Riley 297b 23 49 6,230 113 deep 1,491 27-0136-00 Silver Lake 71 5 14 190 71 shallow 350 10-0006-00 Lotus Lake 240 16 31 2,500 177 deep 1,168 27-0078-00 Staring Lake 164 7 16 1,200 155 shallow 10,038c 27-0048-00 Hyland Lake 84f 8f 12f 780f 84f shallow 838g a: Direct watershed area excludes lake surface area b: Surface area from DNR NWI lake data c: Excludes watershed areas from Red Rock, Mitchell, Round, Duck, Lotus, and Silver Lakes d: Open water area varies seasonally due to lake’s aquatic vegetative fringe area e: Excludes watershed areas from lakes Susan, Ann and Lucy. Includes approximately 101 acres of wetland surrounding the lake. f: According to data from the DNR LakeFinder website and 2011 LiDAR. Surface area, depth and volume can vary widely depending on climatic conditions. g: Includes the Colorado Pond watershed area. Table 3.2 NMCWD Lake morphology AUID Lake Surface Area (acres)b Average Depth (ft)b Maximum Depth (ft)b Lake Volume (acre-ft)b Littoral Area (acre)c Lake Depth Class Direct Watershed Areaa (acre) 27-0091-00 Wing Lake 14 4 8 49 14 shallow 113 27-0092-00 Rose Lake 30 4 14 120 30 shallow 227 27-0028-01 North Cornelia Lake 19 4 7 73 19 shallow 855 27-0028-02 South Cornelia Lake 33 5 8 163 33 shallow 80 27-0029-00 Lake Edina 25 3 5 68 25 shallow 368 27-0004-00 Penn Lake 32 4 6 105 32 shallow 1,284 a: Direct watershed area excludes lake surface area and the watershed area of any upstream lakes. b: Surface area, depth and volume at lake outlet control elevation, can change depending on climatic conditions. c: Littoral area assumed to be the same as surface area in these shallow lakes Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 10 3.4 Streams The total length of Riley Creek is eight miles, with the impaired reach of Riley Creek stretching from Riley Lake to the Minnesota River. The total length of Purgatory Creek starting at Silver Lake is 12 miles, with the impaired reach stretching from Staring Lake to the Minnesota River. The North Fork of Nine Mile Creek is 7.6 miles long, the South Fork is 8.6 miles long, and the lower portion of Nine Mile Creek is 7.4 miles long. The impaired reach of Nine Mile Creek stretches from Marsh Lake to the Minnesota River. The approximate impaired reach lengths and total watershed areas of the three impaired creeks are listed in Table 3.3. Table 3.3 Impaired RPBCWD and NMCWD streams, areas and impaired reach lengths. Impaired Reach AUID HUC08 Subwatershed Impaired Reach Location Impaired Reach Length (miles) Total Watershed Area (acres) 07020012-511 Riley Creek Lake Riley to the Minnesota River 4.98 8,180 07020012-828 Purgatory Creek Staring Lake to the Minnesota River 5.64 19,400 07020012-809 Nine Mile Creek Marsh Lake to the Minnesota River 4.82 29,740 3.5 Subwatersheds The RPBCWD Subwatershed delineations and conveyance networks are based on the subwatershed divides updated from topographic data (DNR 2011), storm sewer data, and other information from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and cities, as well as development plans submitted as part of the RPBCWD permit review process. Subwatersheds for all eight RPBCWD lakes are shown in Figure 3.1 to Figure 3.8. The NMCWD Subwatershed delineations and conveyance networks are based on the subwatershed divides updated from topographic data (DNR 2011), storm sewer data, and other information from MnDOT and cities. Subwatersheds for all six NMCWD lakes are shown in Figure 3.9 to Figure 3.14. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 11 Figure 3.1 Silver Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 12 Figure 3.2 Lotus Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 13 Figure 3.3 Staring Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 14 Figure 3.4 Lake Lucy Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 15 Figure 3.5 Lake Susan Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 16 Figure 3.6 Rice March Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 17 Figure 3.7 Lake Riley Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 18 Figure 3.8 Hyland Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 19 Figure 3.9 Wing Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 20 Figure 3.10 Lake Rose Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 21 Figure 3.11 North Cornelia Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 22 Figure 3.12 South Cornelia Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 23 Figure 3.13 Lake Edina Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 24 Figure 3.14 Penn Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 25 3.6 Land Use This TMDL analysis used the Metropolitan Council’s 2010 historical land use spatial data set (Metropolitan Council 2010) for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Land use data for all eight RPBCWD lakes, as well as Purgatory and Riley Creek, are displayed in Table 3.4. Land use data for all six NMCWD lakes, as well as Nine Mile Creek, are displayed in Table 3.5. There are no tribal lands within the project area. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 26 Table 3.4 Land use areas within the RPBCWD lake and stream watersheds including percent of total watershed area Land Use Land Use Area [Acres (Percent of Watershed)] Silver Lake Lotus Lake Staring Lakea Lake Lucy Lake Susanb Rice Marsh Lake Lake Riley Hyland Lakec Riley Creek Purgatory Creek Agricultural/ Farmstead 5.2, (0%) 2.1, (0.2%) 60.3, (4.1%) 0.6, (0.1%) 28.9, (1.6%) 218.8, (2.7%) 17.9, (0.1%) Airport 44.8, (0.3%) 383, (4.7%) 103.7, (0.5%) Retail and Other Commercial 447.3, (3.3%) 52.1, (3.5%) 117.7, (12.3%) 4.8, (0.3%) 2, (0.2%) 177.9, (2.2%) 683.1, (3.5%) Golf course 109.1, (0.8%) 189.6, (10.6%) 66.2, (7.2%) 189.7, (2.3%) 288.3, (1.5%) Major Highway 465.3, (3.5%) 75.2, (5.1%) 71, (7.4%) 78.8, (4.4%) 231.4, (2.8%) 612.8, (3.2%) Office 107.8, (0.8%) 12.8, (0.9%) 7.5, (0.8%) 7, (0.8%) 44.6, (0.5%) 162.4, (0.8%) Industrial and Utility 0.8, (0.1%) 436, (3.2%) 1.6, (0.2%) 171.6, (11.6%) 21.3, (2.2%) 4.8, (0.3%) 0.1, (0%) 206.2, (2.5%) 467.2, (2.4%) Mixed Use 10.9, (0.1%) 5.4, (0.4%) 5.4, (0.1%) 17.4, (0.1%) Institutional 8.2, (1.9%) 16.7, (1.2%) 530.7, (3.9%) 13.2, (1.3%) 21.7, (1.5%) 48.1, (5%) 1.8, (0.1%) 14.1, (1.5%) 127.6, (1.6%) 712.8, (3.7%) Single Family Detached 303.1, (71.9%) 852, (60.5%) 6,454.7, (48%) 443.9, (44.9%) 259.5, (17.5%) 262.5, (27.4%) 585.1, (32.7%) 314.0, (34.0%) 2,064.6, (25.2%) 9,298.7, (47.9%) Multifamily 4.2, (0.3%) 325.1, (2.4%) 2, (0.2%) 13.5, (0.9%) 27.3, (2.8%) 7, (0.4%) 16.4, (1.8%) 49.8, (0.6%) 506.6, (2.6%) Single Family Attached 64.9, (4.6%) 702, (5.2%) 41, (2.8%) 34, (3.5%) 64.8, (3.6%) 49.5, (5.4%) 254, (3.1%) 1,189.7, (6.1%) Seasonal/ Vacation 0.1, (0.1%) 0.1, (0%) 0.2, (0%) 1.7, (0.1%) 1.9, (0%) 0.1, (0%) Park/Preserve /Recreational 10 (2.4%) 112.2, (8%) 1,911.4, (14.2%) 59.7, (6%) 246.6, (16.6%) 139.5, (14.5%) 112.3, (6.3%) 352.9, (38.3%) 1,484.7, (18.2%) 2,632.7, (13.5%) Undeveloped 5.1 (1.2%) 97.5, (6.9%) 1,130.2, (8.4%) 327.9, (33.2%) 313, (21.1%) 121.2, (12.6%) 335.7, (18.8%) 1.7, (0.2%) 1,619, (19.8%) 1,623.6, (8.4%) Open Water 94.8 (22.5%) 259.3, (18.4%) 765.8, (5.7%) 137.5, (13.9%) 208.6, (14.1%) 109.5, (11.4%) 373, (20.8%) 97.8, (10.6%) 1,119.5, (13.7%) 1,109.4, (5.7%) a: Watershed area includes all areas upstream of Staring Lake except Lotus Lake watershed b: Watershed area includes Lake Ann watershed c: Only 483 acres of the 839 acre Hyland Lake watershed actually contributed loading to the lake during the 2015 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 27 Table 3.5 Land use areas within the NMCWD lake and stream watersheds including percent of total watershed area Land Use Land Use Area [Acres (Percent of Watershed)] Wing Lake Lake Rose North Cornelia Lake South Cornelia Lake Lake Edina Penn Lake Nine Mile Creek Agricultural/ Farmstead 57.9, (0.2%) Airport Retail and Other Commercial 6.1, (2.4%) 126.4, (14.5%) 5.2, (1.3%) 157.7, (12%) 1,075.3, (3.6%) Golf course 547.5, (1.8%) Manufactured Housing Parks 3.1, (0%) Major Highway 102.2, (11.7%) 13.8, (3.5%) 129.3, (9.8%) 1,466.4, (4.9%) Railway 31.3, (0.1%) Office 78.7, (9%) 7.5, (1.9%) 108.9, (8.3%) 1,342, (4.5%) Industrial and Utility 0.5, (0.2%) 0.3, (0%) 0.2, (0%) 31.5, (2.4%) 1,738.1, (5.8%) Mixed Use 8.5, (1%) 732.9, (2.5%) Institutional 11.3, (4.4%) 23.9, (2.7%) 22.2, (5.6%) 105.2, (8%) 1,210, (4.1%) Single Family Detached 107.9, (85.2%) 183.7, (71.4%) 342.9, (39.2%) 76.5, (67.9%) 280.3, (71.3%) 582.4, (44.3%) 11,594.4, (39%) Multifamily 0.8, (0.3%) 52.2, (6%) 7.6, (1.9%) 85.7, (6.5%) 1,247.9, (4.2%) Single Family Attached 0.9, (0.7%) 3.9, (1.5%) 23.5, (2.7%) 4.7, (1.2%) 9.8, (0.7%) 861.4, (2.9%) Seasonal/ Vacation Park/Preserve/ Recreational 9.2, (3.6%) 64.4, (7.4%) 2.9, (2.6%) 20.4, (5.2%) 30.5, (2.3%) 4,663.2, (15.7%) Undeveloped 3.1, (2.5%) 7, (2.7%) 6, (0.7%) 7.5, (1.9%) 22.4, (1.7%) 1,447.4, (4.9%) Open Water 14.7, (11.6%) 34.8, (13.5%) 44.5, (5.1%) 33.2, (29.5%) 23.9, (6.1%) 52.3, (4%) 1,718.1, (5.8%) Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 28 3.7 Current/Historical Water Quality Water quality data was compiled for each of the waterbodies from various sources, including the RPBCWD Environmental Quality Information System (EQuIS) database, the NMCWD EQuIS database, the MPCA environmental data access web site, the Metropolitan Council environmental database, electronic data obtained from CH2MHill, and data that was not available electronically but highlighted in various water quality reports. 3.7.1 Lake Water Quality Data Average summer (June through September) TP and Chl-a concentrations, as well as Secchi depths, were calculated for years available since 2006 for the RPBCWD lakes (Table 3.6). With the exception of Lake Lucy, all of the RPBCWD lakes had TP and Chl-a concentrations above the water quality standards. Average Secchi depths met the standards in all RPBCWD lakes except for Staring and Silver Lakes. Since Lake Lucy met the standards for average TP and Secchi depth, it is being considered in this study for lake water quality protection and will not be subject to TMDL development. Average summer (June through September) TP and Chl-a concentrations, as well as Secchi depths, were calculated for years available since 2007 for the NMCWD lakes included in this study (Table 3.7). All of the NMCWD lakes had TP and Chl-a concentrations above the water quality standards. All of the NMCWD lakes also had Secchi depths less than the standard, except for Lake Rose, which just met the standard of 1.0 meter. The sources of phosphorus entering the lakes—watershed runoff, internal loading, erosion sources, upstream lakes, and atmospheric deposition—are described in detail in Section 4.2.2, with specific breakdowns of loads to each lake by source shown in Figure 3.17 through Figure 3.30 in Section 3.8.1. Table 3.6 Average Summer (June through September) water quality data comparison with applicable standards for analyzed lakes in the RPBCWD AUID Lake TP (µg/L) Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) Secchi Depth (meters) Years Monitored Deep Lake Standards < 40 < 14 > 1.4 10-0006-00 Lotus Lake 55 39 1.5 2010-2015 10-0002-00 Lake Riley 48 26 1.5 2010, 2013-2015 Shallow Lake Standards < 60 < 20 > 1.0 27-0078-00 Staring Lake 94 41 0.8 2010-2015 10-0007-00 Lake Lucy 60 30 1.0 2006-2015 10-0013-00 Lake Susan 78 43 1.2 2010, 2013-2015 10-0001-00 Rice Marsh Lake 110 24 1.7 2010-2015 27-0048-00 Hyland Lake 95 72 1.3 2011-2015 27-0136-00 Silver Lake 93 48 0.7 2011-2015 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 29 Table 3.7 Average Summer (June through September) water quality data comparison with applicable standards for analyzed lakes in the NMCWD AUID Lake TP (µg/L) Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) Secchi Depth (meters) Years Monitored Shallow Lake Standards < 60 < 20 > 1.0 27-0091-00 Wing Lake 97 36 0.8 2007-2016 27-0092-00 Lake Rose 105 48 1.0 2007-2008, 2011,2016 27-0028-01 North Cornelia Lake 148 57 0.4 2008,2013, 2015-2016 27-0028-02 South Cornelia Lake 132 48 0.4 2007-2009, 2013-2016 27-0029-00 Lake Edina 117 39 0.4 2008,2012, 2015 27-0004-00 Penn Lake 148 66 0.4 2009-2016 3.7.2 Stream Water Quality Data 3.7.2.1 Total Suspended Solids According to the TSS standard for Class 2B waters, a stream reach is considered impaired if more than 10% of TSS samples collected April through September exceed 65 mg/L, based on the last 10 years of monitoring data. Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16 show the magnitude and frequency with which the TSS sample results have exceeded 65 mg/L for Riley and Purgatory Creeks, respectively. Figure 3.15 shows that 59% of the samples results exceeded the 65 mg/L TSS standard for Riley Creek and 10% or more of the samples exceeded a TSS concentration of 530 mg/L since 2006. Figure 3.15 Riley Creek TSS concentration cumulative frequency curve, 2006-2015 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 30 Figure 3.16 shows that the Purgatory Creek TSS sample results only exceeded a concentration of 51 mg/L 10% of the time. Since just 4% of the Purgatory Creek TSS samples exceeded the 65 mg/L, the standard is being met and Purgatory Creek will be considered for water quality protection in this study and will not be subject to TMDL development. While the available TSS data for Purgatory Creek meets the standard, the results are limited in that most of the historic sampling has occurred upstream of significant near-channel sources of erosion and mass wasting, including landslides. Figure 3.16 Purgatory Creek TSS concentration cumulative frequency curve, 2006-2015 3.7.2.2 Bacteria (E. coli) The E. coli standard for Class 2B waters states that a stream reach is impaired if the geometric mean of no less than five samples within a calendar month exceeds 126 organisms per 100 milliliters ([mL] chronic impairment standard), or 10% of samples taken within any calendar month individually exceed 1,260 organisms per 100 mLs (acute impairment standard). Based on data collected by the NMCWD, Metropolitan Council Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (WOMP), Scott County Stream and Lake Monitoring program, and the National Park Service (summarized in Table 3.8), the reach of Nine Mile Creek downstream of Marsh Lake, the reach of Purgatory Creek downstream of Staring Lake, and the reach of Riley Creek downstream of Riley Lake are impaired based on the Class 2B chronic impairment standard (Table 3.9) None of the stream reaches evaluated are impaired based on the Class 2B acute impairment standard (Table 3.10). Table 3.8 Stream bacteria (E. coli) monitoring summary Stream Station ID Years Collected Nine Mile Creek S007-901 2006-2017 ECU7A/N1 2010-2014 Purgatory Creek P1.6 2006 S007-907 2014-2017 Riley Creek S005-380 2006-2017 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 31 Table 3.9 Chronic E. coli impairment summary Month Stream Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nine Mile Creek Samples Per Month (#) 7 7 14 12 14 5 5 E. coli Geometric Mean (org/100 mL)a 67 151 149 127 181 212 164 Purgatory Creek Samples Per Month (#) 3 7 11 12 14 3 3 E. coli Geometric Mean (org/100 mL)a 73 26 126 104 166 392 32 Riley Creek Samples Per Month (#) 8 8 8 9 9 10 8 E. coli Geometric Mean (org/100 mL)a 51 62 308 654 351 296 113 a: Values highlighted in red indicate the geometric mean of samples collected exceeded the monthly geometric mean criterion (126 org/100 mL). Table 3.10 Acute E. coli impairment summary Stream Total Number of Samples Percent > 1,260 org/100 mL Nine Mile Creek 64 1.6% Purgatory Creek 53 1.9% Riley Creek 60 6.7% 3.8 Pollutant Source Summary 3.8.1 Total Phosphorus Loading of TP to the lakes is estimated for multiple sources, including watershed load from surface runoff into the lake, internal loading from the lake sediments, loading from upstream lakes, atmospheric deposition directly onto the lake’s water surface, groundwater seepage into the lake, and erosion of channel banks. Each of these sources were assessed for all lake studies in the calibration of the in-lake model. The detailed breakdown of loads to the lake by source is shown in Figure 3.17 through Figure 3.30, and detailed in Section 4.2. 3.8.1.1 Permitted The regulated sources of TP within the RPBCWD impaired waterbodies include National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) effluent, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) stormwater, construction site stormwater and industrial stormwater. The regulated sources of TP within the NMCWD impaired waterbodies include MS4 stormwater, construction sites and industrial sites. Runoff from urban areas contains phosphorus in the form of organic remains (primarily leaves, seeds, grass clippings, and other organic debris), lawn and garden fertilizer (where not phosphorus-restricted), and soil particles. 3.8.1.2 Non-permitted Non-permitted sources of TP loading within the RPBCWD and NMCWD include atmospheric deposition, streambank and hillside erosion, internal loading, groundwater inflows and upstream lake outflows. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 32 Atmospheric Deposition Atmospheric deposition of phosphorus represents the amount of phosphorus bound to particulates in the atmosphere that deposits directly onto the lake water surface. Erosion TP loads from streambank erosion were calculated for tributaries to Lake Susan, Staring Lake, and Lotus Lake based on estimates resulting from the CRAS report (Barr 2015) and associated documentation for the surveys of the stream reaches within the respective watersheds. Erosion TP loads from the steep slopes west of Silver Lake were also estimated based on slope instabilities detected through site surveys and aerial imagery. These TP loads associated with erosion are transported to downstream lakes via the creeks and overland flow paths. Internal Loading Internal loading represents the release of phosphorus in the water column from sources within the lake sediments or through decay of macrophytes. The internal release of phosphorus into the water column can occur through three methods: chemical release from the sediments, physical release from the sediments, and release through decaying plant matter. Chemical release of phosphorus from the bottom sediments occurs when anoxic conditions are present due to thermal stratification. When lakes are stratified oxygen is prevented from mixing into the lake hypolimnion. Anoxic conditions in the hypolimnion then occur resulting in the release of phosphorus bound to the sediment. Elevated sediment phosphorus release rates from in-situ sediment core experiments, and/or concentrations of mobile and organic bound fractions of sediment phosphorus, can be used as a surrogate or indicator of how much chemical release can potentially account for internal loading in each lake. Physical release of phosphorus can occur through the disturbance of sediment by bottom feeding fish such as carp or other rough fish (e.g., bullheads) causing sediment bound phosphorus to suspend in the water column. Wind can also suspend phosphorus by causing internal waves that mix the sediments into suspension releasing phosphorus back into the water column. Decaying plant matter, especially the invasive curly-leaf pondweed, is another potential source of internal phosphorus loading. Curly-leaf pondweed grows over the winter and tenaciously during early spring, crowding out native species. It releases a small reproductive pod (turion) that resembles a small pinecone during late June. After curly-leaf pondweed dies out, often in late-June and early-July, it may sink to the lake bottom and decay, releasing phosphorus and causing oxygen depletion and exacerbating internal sediment release of phosphorus. This potential increase in phosphorus concentration during early July can result in algal blooms during the peak of the recreational season. Hyland Lake in particular has had nuisance growth conditions of curly-leaf pondweed in the past that has inhibited recreational use and likely contributed to the lake’s impaired water quality. Three Rivers Park District conducted lake-wide endothall herbicide treatments in Hyland Lake to control curly-leaf pondweed from 2013 through 2016, followed by a spot treatment in 2017. These treatments have significantly reduced curly- leaf pondweed densities and Three Rivers Park District plans to continue spot treatments to maintain control of curly-leaf pondweed. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 33 The presence of an internal loading phosphorus release can be observed by examining the hypolimnetic phosphorus concentrations during the summer months when thermal stratification is strong. The presence of elevated concentrations in the hypolimnion compared to the epilimnion indicates internal loading is present. Groundwater Groundwater intrusions into the lakes can be a source of phosphorus. Groundwater flow into and out of each lake was determined through the lake water balance in the daily in-lake model. Upstream Lakes Upstream lakes contribute TP loading to Staring Lake, Lake Riley, Rice Marsh Lake, and Lake Susan in the RPBCWD. Staring Lake has multiple upstream lakes contributing to the overall TP load. The outfalls of Lotus Lake, Duck Lake, and Silver Lake flow into Purgatory Creek, which flows through the Purgatory Creek Recreational Area and into Staring Lake. The Eden Prairie Chain of Lakes (Round, Mitchell, and Red Rock Lake) flow from Red Rock Lake through a series of ponds into Lake McCoy, and finally into Staring Lake. Lake Riley, Rice Marsh Lake, and Lake Susan are located in series along Riley Creek, which carries flows from Lake Ann to Lake Susan, then Rice Marsh Lake, and finally Lake Riley. In the NMCWD, upstream lakes also contribute TP loading to Wing Lake (from Lake Holiday), Lake Rose (from Wing Lake), South Cornelia Lake (from North Cornelia Lake) and Lake Edina (from South Cornelia Lake). Figure 3.17 Silver Lake existing conditions loading breakdown for 2015 water year Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 34 Figure 3.18 Lotus Lake existing conditions loading breakdown for 2015 water year Figure 3.19 Staring Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 35 Figure 3.20 Lake Lucy existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year Figure 3.21 Lake Susan existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 36 Figure 3.22 Rice Marsh Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2014 water year Figure 3.23 Lake Riley existing condition loading breakdown for 2014 water year Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 37 Figure 3.24 Hyland Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year Figure 3.25 Wing Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 38 Figure 3.26 Lake Rose existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season Figure 3.27 North Cornelia Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 growing season Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 39 Figure 3.28 South Cornelia Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season Figure 3.29 Edina Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 growing season Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 40 Figure 3.30 Penn Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season 3.8.2 Total Suspended Solids Source Summary The following sections pertain to the TSS sources within the Riley Creek Watershed. The Purgatory and Nine Mile creeks are not currently impaired by TSS based on the analysis done for this TMDL. 3.8.2.1 Permitted The regulated sources of TSS within the Riley Creek Watershed include MS4 stormwater, construction sites, and industrial sites. There are no permitted WWTFs within the Riley Creek Watershed. 3.8.2.2 Non-permitted The non-permitted TSS sources are sources that are not subject to NPDES permit requirements, as well as “natural background” loads. “Natural background” includes the unknown portion of runoff/erosion that would occur in the absence of human influence (such as runoff from forested land). For Riley Creek these include erosional and background sources of TSS, as well as outflow from Lake Riley. Other non- permitted sources include runoff from agricultural land and non-regulated MS4 residential areas (such as direct runoff from parkland and backyard areas). Since the TSS concentration of flow discharging from Riley Lake is not normally expected to exceed 4 mg/L (as discussed in Section 4.3.2), it follows that the primary sources of TSS are likely entrained in the main flow of Riley Creek from streambank and near- channel sources of sediment. In addition, the RPBCWD Creek Restoration Action Strategy (CRAS) Report (Barr 2015), and associated documentation for the surveys of Riley Creek, indicated that seven of the nine reaches downstream of Lake Riley were rated as having high to severe levels of erosion and channel instability. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 41 3.8.3 Bacteria (E. coli) Source Summary The following paragraphs discuss sources of E. coli bacteria. Also, research in the last 15 years has found the persistence of E. coli in soil, beach sand, and sediments throughout the year in the north central United States, without the continuous presence of sewage or mammalian sources. An Alaskan study [Adhikari et al. 2007] found that total coliform bacteria in soil were able to survive for six months in subfreezing conditions. A study of cold water streams in southeastern Minnesota completed by the MPCA staff found the resuspension of E. coli in the stream water column due to stream sediment disturbance. A study near Duluth, Minnesota [Ishii et al. 2010] found that E. coli were able to grow in agricultural field soil. A study by Chandrasekaran et al. [2015] of ditch sediment in the Seven Mile Creek Watershed in southern Minnesota found that strains of E. coli had become naturalized to the water−sediment ecosystem. Survival and growth of fecal coliform has been documented in stormsewer sediment in Michigan [Marino and Gannon 1991]. 3.8.3.1 Permitted The primary source of bacteria loading within MS4s likely derives from typical urban sources - improperly managed pet waste and wildlife inputs (e.g., waterfowl, geese, etc.) directly to land and transported via stormwater conveyances to the impaired waterbodies. Construction and industrial stormwater sources of E. coli were not evaluated for the RPBCWD and NMCWD impaired waterbodies. E. coli is not a typical pollutant from construction sites, and there are no bacteria or E. coli benchmarks associated with any of the industrial stormwater permits in these watersheds. There are no permitted wastewater sources of E. coli in the Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, or Riley Creek watersheds. 3.8.3.2 Non-permitted Non-permitted sources of bacteria within the watersheds of Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek downstream of Marsh Lake, Staring Lake, and Riley Lake, respectively include runoff from shoreland or near-shoreland areas that are not tied into an MS4 conveyance. Loading from the upstream lakes (Marsh Lake, Staring Lake, and Riley Lake) is considered a boundary condition for the purposes of the TMDL, and is placed (as an aggregated value) into the load allocation (LA) or non- permitted portion (see Section 4.4.2.1 for further explanation). There are no known subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTSs) and no known livestock feedlots within the impaired reach watershed of the three streams. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 42 4. TMDL Development The TMDL process determines that maximum allowable amount of a pollutant a waterbody can receive and still meet the required water quality standards and designated uses. It is the sum of all the contributing point and nonpoint sources of a single pollutant to a waterbody. The TMDL process can be described by the following equation. TMDL = LC = ∑WLA + ∑LA + MOS + RC Where: LC = loading capacity: maximum pollutant loading amount a waterbody can receive and still meet the required water quality standards. WLA = wasteload allocations: portion of the TMDL loading capacity allocated to existing or future point (permitted) sources of the analyzed pollutant LA = load allocation: portion of the TMDL loading capacity allocated to existing or future nonpoint (non-permitted) and/or “natural background” sources of the analyzed pollutant. MOS = margin of safety: accounting of uncertainty in the relationship between pollutant loading and the water quality of the receiving waterbody. RC = reserve capacity: an allocation of future growth. This is an MPCA-required element if applicable. Not applicable in this TMDL. 4.1 Loading Allocation Methodology/Natural Background 4.1.1 Natural Background Consideration Natural background conditions refer to inputs that would be expected under natural, undisturbed conditions. Natural background sources can include inputs from natural geologic processes such as soil loss from upland erosion and stream development, atmospheric deposition, and loading from forested land, wildlife, etc. For each impairment, natural background levels are implicitly incorporated in the water quality standards used by the MPCA to determine/assess impairment, and therefore natural background is accounted for and addressed through the MPCA’s waterbody assessment process. Natural background conditions were also evaluated, where possible, within the modeling and source assessment portion of this study. These source assessment exercises indicate natural background inputs are generally low compared to the primary source in these watersheds, namely urban stormwater runoff. Based on the MPCA’s waterbody assessment process and the TMDL source assessment exercises, there is no evidence at this time to suggest that natural background sources are a major driver of any of the impairments and/or affect the waterbodies’ ability to meet state water quality standards. For all impairments addressed in this TMDL study, natural background sources are implicitly included in the LA portion of the TMDL allocation tables. Recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decisions have affirmed the MPCA is within its rights to not provide a separate allocation for natural background sources when not feasible (In re Little Rock Creek TMDL, No. A16-0123 (Minn. App. Nov. 28, 2016), review denied (Minn. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 43 Feb. 14, 2017; In re Crystal Lake TMDL, No. A18-0581 (Minn. App. April. 24, 2019)), review denied. TMDL reductions should focus on the major human sources identified in the source assessment. 4.2 Lakes, Total Phosphorus 4.2.1 TP Loading Capacity A daily time step, in-lake, TP mass balance model was developed for each lake, to quantify the existing load and the loading capacity of phosphorus to the lakes. The in-lake model tracks both water volume and phosphorus concentrations in the lake on a daily time step. The model was calibrated to both lake level data (to balance the water budget) and in-lake average TP concentrations for the TP budget. Methods used in the development of the in-lake model are found in Appendix A. The in-lake models were calibrated to the most recent year with observed lake level and water quality data that best represented the conditions that contributed to their impairment. Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley were calibrated to the 2014 water year (October 2013 through September 2014). Lakes Lucy, Susan, Lotus, Silver, and Staring were calibrated to the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). Lakes South Cornelia, Penn, Wing, and Rose were calibrated to the 2016 growing season (June 2016 through September 2016). Lake Edina and North Cornelia Lake were calibrated to the 2015 growing season (June 2015 through September 2015). The NMCWD lakes have short residence times (one to four months) and are located off the main creek channels (which could provide a significant phosphorus load year-round). For these reasons, the NMCWD lake allocations were evaluated based on the growing season time period when most of the loading (both internal and external) occurs. The loading capacities of the lakes, as well as the lake protection phosphorus loading goal for Lake Lucy, were determined using the existing conditions in-lake models. Phosphorus loads to the lake were adjusted until the average TP concentrations in the lake during the growing season (June through September) were equivalent to the water quality goal. The resulting total load received by the lake during the modeled year (2014, 2015, or 2016 depending on the lake) and time period (either water year or growing season) was defined as the lake’s loading capacity. Table 4.1 compares the modeled load to the lake under existing conditions to the modeled phosphorus loading required to meet the water quality goals for the RPBCWD lakes, while Table 4.2 does the same for the NMCWD lakes. Each of the lake models for this analysis simulated elevated loads above the required loading capacity (in the case of the impaired lakes) and the lake protection phosphorus loading goal (in the case of Lake Lucy). Reductions are needed to meet the water quality goals for all 14 lakes, based on the lakes baseline condition/year. These baseline years mean that, unless noted in this report, only wasteload reductions that occur during or after these years are creditable toward the overall needed reductions. Once the loading capacity was determined, the general approach for assigning reductions (and thereby arriving at the allocations for reducible sources) was to first reduce any upstream lakes to equal the loading of those lakes discharging at their respective water quality standard. Then streambank erosion sources, which are a high priority in the watershed and contribute to existing or potential TSS impairments, were reduced as described in Section 3.8.1.2. Next, the P8-modeled phosphorus removal efficiencies by MS4s were considered. In general, a moderate to high level of stormwater management is needed in order to prevent additional lake sediment enrichment, and otherwise achieve and maintain long-term lake water quality. Internal load, generally considered high for many of the watershed’s lakes, is also evaluated in this final step for appropriate reductions. In some cases, it is apparent that Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 44 reductions in external sources alone will not meet the TMDL, requiring reduction in internal loading. In these instances, where alum treatment is the most feasible internal load reduction method, it makes sense to apply an expected alum reduction percentage of 80% (Welch & Cooke 1999) first, and then determine the needed external source decrease for the remaining load reduction. The 80% load reduction assumes that the proper alum dosing has been calculated. Table 4.1 Total phosphorus load under existing condition and proposed condition to meet water quality goals in the RPBCWD lakes Lakes Baseline year Existing growing season average TP concentration (µg/L) TP loading rate under existing conditions (lbs/yr) Water quality goal TP concentration (µg/L) Loading Capacity to meet WQ goals/ standards (lbs/yr) Percent reduction need to meet goal (%) Silver Lake 2015 97 224 60 185 17% Lotus Lake 2015 69b 1,140 40 631 45% Staring Lake 2015 86a 2,339 60 1,624 31% Lake Lucy 2015 84b 697 60 488 30% Lake Susan 2015 82b 1,261 60 995 21% Rice Marsh Lake 2014 107a 1,642 60 961 41% Lake Riley 2014 52b 2,701 40 1,986 26% Hyland Lake 2015 115a,c 604 60 299 50% a. Volumetric average concentration for entire water column b. Volumetric average concentration for epilimnion only c. RPBCWD believes TP measurement on 9/9/15 of 304 µg/L to be an outlier, but lacking definitive evidence that it is inaccurate it is included in the summer average for now. Table 4.2 Total phosphorus load under existing condition and proposed condition to meet water quality goals in the NMCWD lakes Lakes Baseline year Existing growing season average TP concentration (µg/L) TP loading rate under existing conditions (lbs/gs) Water quality goal TP concentration (µg/L) Loading Capacity to meet WQ goals/ standards (lbs/gs) Percent reduction need to meet goal (%) Wing Lake 2016 92a 105 60 68 35 Lake Rose 2016 105a 75 60 46 39 North Cornelia Lake 2015 146a 360 60 154 57 South Cornelia Lake 2016 153a 410 60 169 59 Lake Edina 2015 87a 261 60 180 31 Penn Lake 2016 109a 446 60 247 45 a: Volumetric average concentration for entire water column 4.2.2 TP Load Allocation Methodology The LA includes nonpoint pollution sources that are not subject to NPDES permit requirements, as well as “natural background” loads. For the lake studies, LAs include atmospheric deposition, internal loading, tributary streambank and lakeshore erosion, upstream lakes and groundwater intrusions. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 45 4.2.2.1 Atmospheric Deposition Atmospheric deposition of phosphorus onto the lakes water surface was calculated by using the estimated statewide phosphorus atmospheric deposition rate of 0.42 kg/ha/year (Barr 2007) multiplied by the lakes surface area. Atmospheric deposition TP sources are minimal (less than 6% of existing load) in all lakes. 4.2.2.2 Erosion TP loads from streambank erosion were calculated for tributaries to Lake Susan, Staring Lake and Lotus Lake based on estimates resulting from the CRAS report (Barr 2015) and associated documentation for the surveys of the stream reaches within the respective watersheds. Since the CRAS methodology quantifies a range in the amount of material that is at-risk of eroding during a 20-year period, the streambank erosion estimates used for the TMDL analysis were based on the average of the highest and lowest annual sediment and phosphorus loading rate estimates, which were further reduced to account for a 20% delivery ratio to the respective lakes. Where applicable, the potential TP load reduction was estimated for the TMDL LAs by assuming that the respective stream reaches could be restored to the ‘slight’ CRAS erosion category, which is a condition in which little active erosion is apparent. Erosion TP loads from the steep slopes west of Silver Lake were also estimated based on slope instabilities detected through site surveys and aerial imagery. 4.2.2.3 Internal Loading The release of phosphorus was estimated using the daily time step phosphorus balance model. Internal loading rates were calibrated with measured water quality data for the entire lake water column, as well as concentration measured in the hypolimnion only. Sediment phosphorus had previously been evaluated for most of the study lakes. As a result, published estimates of sediment phosphorus release rates were compared to the values used in the lake water quality modeling to ensure that the calibrated values did not exceed the potential for chemical release, after accounting for the potential load from physical release and plant senescence. In addition, sediment phosphorus release rates were also compared with representative literature values (Pilgrim et al. 2007 and Huser et al. 2011) to evaluate how much the internal load would differ from other areas lakes before and after a chemical treatment (such as alum) to immobilize sediment phosphorus. 4.2.2.4 Groundwater Groundwater flow into and out of each lake was determined through the lake water balance in the daily in-lake model. A TP concentration of 0.035 was applied to any groundwater that entered the lake to determine the TP load. Groundwater sources of TP were minimal (less than 3% of existing load) and were applicable in Lakes Lucy, Susan, Silver, Lotus, Wing, South Cornelia, and Penn. 4.2.2.5 Upstream Lakes Upstream lakes contribute TP loading to Staring Lake, Lake Riley, Rice Marsh Lake, and Lake Susan in the RPBCWD. Staring Lake has multiple upstream lakes contributing to the overall TP load. The outfalls of Lotus Lake, Duck Lake, and Silver Lake flow into Purgatory Creek, which flows through the Recreational Area and into Staring Lake. The Eden Prairie Chain of Lakes (Round, Mitchell, and Red Rock Lake) flow from Red Rock Lake through a series of ponds into Lake McCoy and finally into Staring Lake. Lake Riley, Rice Marsh Lake, and Lake Susan are located in series along Riley Creek, which carries flows from Lake Ann to Lake Susan, then Rice Marsh Lake and finally Lake Riley. The in-lake TP model accounts for the Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 46 water and phosphorus loads from upstream waterbodies (that have not been modeled as part of the watershed model). For Staring Lake, all upstream lakes have a daily time step in-lake TP model that was created for year 2015. Flows and TP concentration from those lakes were added to Staring Lake model to determine the load. Rice Marsh Lake also has an existing daily time step lake water quality model that was used to determine the upstream lake loads into Lake Riley. For Rice Marsh Lake, lake level data, an outflow rating curve, and grab sample TP concentrations from Lake Susan were used to estimate loads. Likewise, Lake Ann lake level data, outflow rating curve, and grab sample TP concentrations were used to estimate the upstream lake loads to Lake Susan. The results of the Lake Susan in-lake model were not used as inputs to the Rice Marsh in-lake model because they were not modeled for the same water year. Upstream lakes also contribute TP loading to Wing Lake, Lake Rose, South Cornelia Lake, and Lake Edina in the NMCWD. A daily time step lake water quality model was created for Lake Holiday (a seven acre lake which falls below MPCA guidance criteria for assessment) and used to determine the upstream lake loads into Wing Lake. The modeled output from Wing Lake was then used as the upstream lake loads to Lake Rose. The output from the North Cornelia Lake in-lake model was used as the upstream lake inputs to South Cornelia Lake, which in turn was used as the upstream lake inputs to Lake Edina. TMDL allocations were determined based on the assumption that upstream lake concentrations meet the respective water quality goals. TP load reductions highlight the required load reduction from the upstream lakes that is needed to meet this assumption. 4.2.3 TP Wasteload Allocation Methodology WLA represent the portion of the TP load associated with permitted sources. WLAs include three sub- categories: permitted wastewater facilities, the MS4s permitted stormwater source category, and a construction plus industrial permitted stormwater category. 4.2.3.1 Permitted Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Facilities Staring Lake is the only lake with industrial or municipal WWTFs within the watershed. The discharge comes from two well houses (Eden Prairie Well houses 6 and 7; MNG250084) located along Purgatory Creek. This is an emergency back-up system that has never actually been used for its intended purpose. If it were needed, the city estimates that it would be used once per year and would run for one day before the primary system is back on line. The well houses are pumped into Purgatory Creek on a monthly basis to test equipment functionality. TP loads were estimated by summing the estimated daily maximum flow and the annual flow due to monthly testing (i.e., monthly average flow multiplied by 12 months). This total flow value was then multiplied by the average TP concentration from the well houses to determine annual load to the creek, which then enters Staring Lake. The resulting load was calculated as 0.7 lbs per year rounded to 1 lb/yr. 4.2.3.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems: Individual WLAs MS4 boundaries were defined for each lake watershed. Overall, 10 MS4s cover the watershed area for the eight RPBCWD lakes analyzed, and six MS4s cover the watershed area for the six NMCWD lakes analyzed. These MS4s include the cities of Bloomington, Chanhassen, Deephaven, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Richfield, and Shorewood, Hennepin and Carver Counties, MnDOT, and in the Staring Lake watershed, it included the Hennepin Technical College as an additional MS4. MS4 boundaries were also determined for the Riley, Purgatory, and Nine Mile Creek watersheds. Right of way boundaries were obtained from MnDOT. County MS4 boundaries were determined using parcel data and county road Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 47 locations. The parcel road boundaries were used as the cross section for the Hennepin and Carver County roads in the watershed. After MnDOT and county MS4 boundaries were accounted for, the remaining areas were assigned to cities based on municipal boundaries. Finally, in the Staring Lake Watershed the areas assigned to the Hennepin Technical College were separated from the city of Eden Prairie as an individual MS4. Figure 4.1 shows the RPBCWD MS4 boundaries and Figure 4.2 shows the NMCWD MS4 boundaries. The modeling results (Appendix A) were used to determine TP loads to the lakes for each MS4 for the TMDL time periods. First, the lake subwatersheds were further subdivided by MS4 boundaries. The total watershed TP loads from each MS4 subwatershed were extracted from the P8 modeling. From those loads, the mass of TP to reach the lake was calculated by applying the annual average removal efficiencies from each BMP in succession along the watershed flow path until the cumulative flow reached the lake. This calculation resulted in the amount of TP load from each MS4 that reached the lake without being removed by an existing BMP. Typically, P8 modeling indicates that watersheds with extensive implementation of structural BMPs with good pollutant settling will attain about 60% TP removal. Depending on when past development and BMP implementation has occurred and other constraints (such as the effect of natural wetlands, shoreland development and development density), moderate to high levels of stormwater management within a watershed would be expected to remove approximately 50% to 60% of the untreated TP in runoff on an annual basis. 4.2.3.3 Construction/Industrial Stormwater: Categorical WLAs Construction stormwater is regulated by NPDES permits for construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil, less than one acre of soil if the activity is part of a “larger common plan of development or sale” that is greater than one acre, or less than one acre of soil where the MPCA has determined that the activity poses a risk to water resources. If industrial activity has the potential to be exposed to stormwater discharges, it is required to be regulated by NPDES permits. The WLA for each lake includes an allocation for construction and industrial stormwater that is equal to 1% of the total WLA. This is a conservative value, as estimates of areas under construction at any one time in the metro area are typically less than half this value. This value includes room for any future industrial stormwater sources. There are no permitted industrial stormwater facilities currently within the Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, or Riley Creek watersheds that require a WLA. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 48 Figure 4.1 RPBCWD MS4 Boundaries Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 49 Figure 4.2 NMCWD MS4 Boundaries Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 50 4.2.4 Margin of Safety The purpose of the MOS in the TMDL is to provide capacity to allow for uncertainty. The federal guidance for TMDLs states that the MOS may be implicit, that is incorporated into the calculations by using conservative assumptions, or explicit by being expressed as loadings set aside for the MOS in the TMDL (MPCA 2007b). The MOS for all lakes was an explicit 5% of the total TP loading capacity. This MOS is considered sufficient, given each lake’s reasonably robust data set and the generally very solid lake response model performance. (Appendix A includes results of statistical comparisons between the modeled and measured volumetric averaged epilimnetic TP concentrations, as well as comparisons between the modeled and monitored epilimnetic volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the subject water years.) 4.2.5 Seasonal Variation The EPA states that the critical condition “…can be thought of as the “worst case” scenario of environmental conditions in the waterbody in which the loading expressed in the TMDL for the pollutant of concern will continue to meet water quality standards. Critical conditions are the combination of environmental factors (e.g., flow, temperature, etc.) that results in attaining and maintaining the water quality criterion and has an acceptably low frequency of occurrence” (EPA 1999). Algal growth in lakes peaks during the summer months. By applying the water quality standard to the average TP concentration during the algae growing season (June through September), this analysis becomes protective for the entire year. 4.2.6 TP TMDL Summary TP loads were allocated for each lake among the WLA, LA, and the MOS, or the lake protection reduction goals, as described in the previous sections and summarized in Table 4.3 through Table 4.10 for the RPBCWD lakes and Table 4.11 through Table 4.16 for the NMCWD lakes. Loads have been rounded to the nearest whole number. TMDL allocation tables include existing annual loading rate, the allocated annual and daily loading rates, as well as the percent reductions required to meet the allocations for the impaired lakes. For Lake Lucy, Table 4.6 shows existing and target TP loadings, as well as the load reduction goals for each phosphorus source. 4.2.6.1 Silver Lake Phosphorus load reductions in Silver Lake were divided among watershed and erosion sources. MS4 allocations were divided proportionally between the cities of Chanhassen and Shorewood. Erosion reduction estimates were based on stabilizing the steep slopes along the west bank of Silver Lake. A number of the erosion locations are on private property, therefore it is assumed that minimal erosion mitigation will be possible. Internal loading was applied to cover the final required reductions to meet the TMDL requirement. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 51 Table 4.3 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Silver Lake (27-0136-00) during 2015 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 224 0.614 185 0.507 48 21 Wasteload Total WLA 115 0.315 92 0.252 23 20 Chanhassen (MS400079) 27 0.074 21 0.058 6 22 Shorewood (MS400122) 87 0.238 70 0.192 17 20 Construction/Industrial SW 1 0.003 1 0.003 0 0 Load Total LA 109 0.299 84 0.230 25 23 Atmospheric deposition 26 0.071 26 0.071 0 0 Internal load 58 0.159 37 0.101 21 36 Erosion sources 20 0.055 16 0.044 4 20 Groundwater 5 0.014 5 0.014 0 0 MOS (5%) 9 0.025 4.2.6.2 Lotus Lake The Lotus Lake load reductions were divided among watershed, internal load, and erosion. Reduction percentages were based on balancing the removal between outside sources of phosphorus to the lake (erosion and watershed loads) and internal loading. Internal loading warrants a more substantial reduction given that it is a significant source in this lake. MS4 load reductions were allocated to Chanhassen as the only major contributor to the existing TP load. For this watershed, existing loads from the other MS4s are very small (each are about 1% or less of the overall existing loading) with limited opportunity for load reduction and are not assigned a reduction. Table 4.4 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lotus Lake (10-0006-00) during 2015 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 1,140 3.123 631 1.729 541 47 Wasteload Total WLA 306 0.838 256 0.701 50 16 MnDOT (MS400170) 3 0.008 3 0.008 0 0 Carver County (MS400070) 2 0.005 2 0.005 0 0 Chanhassen (MS400079) 291 0.797 241 0.660 50 17 Eden Prairie (MS400015) 7 0.019 7 0.019 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 3 0.008 3 0.008 0 0 Load Total LA 834 2.285 343 0.940 491 59 Atmospheric deposition 88 0.241 88 0.241 0 0 Internal load 732 2.005 247 0.677 485 66 Erosion sources 7 0.019 1 0.003 6 86 Groundwater 7 0.019 7 0.019 0 0 MOS (5%) 32 0.088 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 52 4.2.6.3 Staring Lake The Staring Lake load reductions were divided between watershed, internal load, upstream lakes and erosion. Reduction percentages were based on balancing the removal between outside sources of phosphorus to the lake (erosion and watershed loads) and internal loading. TP reduction percentages applied to upstream lakes are the reductions achieved if those lakes were to meet the water quality standards. As previously discussed, moderate to high levels of stormwater management within a watershed would be expected to remove approximately 50% to 60% of the untreated TP in runoff on an annual basis. As a result, MS4 allocations were applied based on current BMP removal efficiencies as an equitable method for distributing allocated TP load to the major contributors. For this watershed, existing loads from Hennepin County, Chanhassen, and Hennepin Technical College are very small (each are less than 1% of the overall existing loading) with limited opportunity for load reduction and are not assigned a reduction. MnDOT and Eden Prairie were found to have a current combined 41% and 44% removal efficiency, respectively, based on the P8 watershed modeling. BMPs in Minnetonka, Deephaven and Shorewood were found to have a combined removal efficiency of 57%. Therefore, WLAs applied to MnDOT and Eden Prairie were based on achieving TP load reductions that would increase overall BMP treatment efficiency above 50% for both MS4s. Finally, the allocations also included an internal load reduction, as the monitoring/modeling data indicated that carp and sediment phosphorus release/resuspension play a significant role in the observed summer water quality. Table 4.5 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Staring Lake (27-0078-00) during 2015 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 2,339 6.408 1,624 4.449 796 34 Wasteload Total WLA 972 2.663 769 2.107 203 21 MnDOT (MS400170) 88 0.241 63 0.173 25 28 Hennepin County (MS400138) 19 0.052 19 0.052 0 0 Chanhassen (MS400079) 1 0.003 1 0.003 0 0 Eden Prairie (MS400015) 627 1.718 449 1.230 178 28 Deephaven (MS400013) 21 0.058 21 0.058 0 0 Minnetonka (MS400035) 185 0.507 185 0.507 0 0 Shorewood (MS400122) 8 0.022 8 0.022 0 0 Hennepin Technical College (MS400199) 14 0.038 14 0.038 0 0 Eden Prairie well houses (MNG250084) 1 0.003 1 0.003 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 8 0.022 8 0.022 0 0 Load Total LA 1,367 3.745 774 2.121 593 43 Atmospheric deposition 61 0.167 61 0.167 0 0 Internal load 920 2.521 447 1.225 473 51 Upstream lakes 284 0.778 253 0.693 31 11a Erosion sources 102 0.279 13 0.036 89 87 MOS (5%) 81 0.222 a: percent reduction for upstream lakes represent reducing upstream lake concentrations to meet water quality standards. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 53 4.2.6.4 Lake Lucy Due to Lake Lucy's good water quality in the past 10 years (both TP and Secchi depth just meet state water quality standards), the lake was assigned protection status rather than including it on the impaired waters list. Understanding Lake Lucy's nutrient budget is still critical to developing a protection plan for the lake. The recommended reductions shown below were developed to help maintain or improve water quality in Lake Lucy. The TP load reduction goals were developed based on lake water quality monitoring and modeling of the 2015 water year, a year in which the average summer TP concentration exceeded the standard (as indicated in Table 2.1). Because this is not a TMDL, the reductions in this table are considered voluntary. The Lake Lucy total watershed load reduction was based on the estimated watershed load reductions from recommended BMPs identified in the Lake Lucy/Lake Ann UAA update (Barr 2013). The remainder of the load reduction was assigned to the internal load reduction. Table 4.6 Nutrient Budgets and Recommended Reductions for Lake Lucy (10-0007-00) during 2015 water year. LOAD SOURCEa Existing TP Load Target TP Load Load Reduction Goal lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 697 1.910 488 1.337 209 30 Chanhassen (MS400079) 225 0.616 191 0.523 34 15 Carver County (MS400070) 0.4 0.001 0.4 0.001 0 0 Atmospheric deposition 36 0.099 36 0.099 0 0 Internal load 427 1.170 252 0.690 175 41 Groundwater 9 0.025 9 0.025 0 0 a: Runoff from the MnDOT MS4 does not reach the lake under most conditions so it was not assigned a load reduction. 4.2.6.5 Lake Susan The load to Lake Susan is significantly impacted by phosphorus associated with streambank erosion, and thus needed reductions for this source are large. In addition, a major stormwater treatment system—a spent lime treatment system installed in the southwest portion of the watershed—was installed in 2016 (which is, of course, after the 2015 water year used for calculating the existing load). This treatment system reduces phosphorus loading from runoff by 52 pounds (lbs) per year, according to modeling estimates. Between the needed streambank erosion reduction and the recent stormwater reduction, the TMDL will be met. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 54 Table 4.7 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lake Susan (10-0013-00) during 2015 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 1,261 3.455 995 2.726 316 25 Wasteload Total WLA 279 0.764 229 0.627 50 18 MnDOT (MS400170) 27 0.074 27 0.074 0 0 Carver County (MS400070) 9 0.025 9 0.025 0 0 Chanhassen (MS400079) 241 0.660 191 0.523 50a 21 Construction/Industrial SW 2 0.005 2 0.005 0 0 Load Total LA 982 2.690 716 1.962 266 27 Atmospheric deposition 33 0.090 33 0.090 0 0 Internal load 496 1.359 496 1.359 0 0 Upstream lakes 20 0.055 20 0.055 0 0 Erosion sources 400 1.096 134 0.367 266 67 Groundwater 33 0.090 33 0.090 0 0 MOS (5%) 50 0.137 a: this load reduction is already being met as a result of project to implement spent lime treatment system in 2016. 4.2.6.6 Rice Marsh Lake The Rice Marsh Lake MS4 allocations were determined through an analysis of the P8 model results to determine the current, overall TP removal percentages from the MnDOT, Carver County, Chanhassen, and Eden Prairie areas. The Chanhassen, Carver County, and MnDOT areas are very interconnected, with Chanhassen BMPs treating a large portion of the MnDOT and Carver County areas. For this reason, Chanhassen, Carver County, and MnDOT were assigned the same load reduction based on their existing, combined BMP’s removal of 45% of the existing conditions watershed load from their combined watershed areas. Eden Prairie was assigned a lower load reduction than Chanhassen and MnDOT based on its existing BMP’s removal of 52% of the existing conditions watershed load from its watershed area. The upstream lakes LA was calculated based on the load reduction needed to bring Lake Susan’s average growing season TP concentration down to the shallow lake standard. The remainder of the load reduction needed for Rice Marsh Lake to meet the shallow lake water quality standard was assigned to the internal load, which is generally considered high. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 55 Table 4.8 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Rice Marsh Lake (10-0001- 00) during 2014 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 1,642 4.499 961 2.633 729 44 Wasteload Total WLA 711 1.948 506 1.386 205 29 MnDOT (MS400170) 97 0.266 68 0.186 29 30 Carver County (MS400070) 21 0.058 15 0.041 6 29 Chanhassen (MS400079) 504 1.381 353 0.967 151 30 Eden Prairie (MS400015) 83 0.227 64 0.175 19 23 Construction/Industrial SW 6 0.016 6 0.016 0 0 Load Total LA 931 2.551 407 1.115 524 56 Atmospheric deposition 69 0.189 69 0.189 0 0 Internal load 539 1.477 108 0.296 431 80 Upstream lakes 323 0.885 230 0.630 93 29 MOS (5%) 48 0.132 4.2.6.7 Lake Riley As previously discussed, moderate to high levels of stormwater management within this watershed would be expected to remove approximately 50% to 60% of the untreated TP in runoff on an annual basis. MS4 allocations were applied based on current BMP removal efficiencies as an equitable method for distributing allocated TP load to the major contributors. For this watershed, existing loads from Carver and Hennepin Counties are very small (combined they are less than 0.5% of the overall existing loading) with limited opportunity for load reduction, and are not assigned a reduction. As a result, the Lake Riley MS4 allocations were determined through an analysis of the P8 model results to determine the overall TP removal efficiency of the MnDOT, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie BMPs. The MnDOT BMPs had the greatest removal efficiency, approximately 54%. The Chanhassen and Eden Prairie WLAs were calculated based on the TP load reductions they would each need to match MnDOT’s treatment efficiency. This resulted in 69 lbs. of TP load reduction from stormwater sources, which is consistent with what was expected from BMP implementation within the direct watershed, as described in the Lake Riley UAA update (Barr 2016). The upstream lakes’ LA was calculated based on the load reduction need to bring Rice Marsh Lake’s average growing season TP concentration down to the shallow lake standard. The remainder of the load reduction needed for Lake Riley to meet the deep lake water quality standard was assigned to the internal load, which is generally considered high. The necessary load reduction to meet (or exceed) the allocation for internal sources is expected to be achieved through an in-lake alum treatment that was done in 2016; however, the effectiveness of the treatment will need to be evaluated over time. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 56 Table 4.9 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lake Riley (10-0002-00) during 2014 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 2,701 7.400 1,986 5.441 814 30 Wasteload Total WLA 843 2.310 774 2.121 69 8 MnDOT (MS400170) 75 0.205 75 0.205 0 0 Chanhassen (MS400079) 384 1.052 328 0.899 56 15 Eden Prairie (MS400015) 363 0.995 350 0.959 13 4 Carver County (MS400070) 8 0.022 8 0.022 0 0 Hennepin County (MS400138) 5 0.014 5 0.014 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 8 0.022 8 0.022 0 0 Load Total LA 1,858 5.090 1,113 3.049 745 40 Atmospheric deposition 110 0.301 110 0.301 0 0 Internal load 1,083 2.967 637 1.745 446a 41a Upstream lakes 665 1.822 366 1.003 299 45 MOS (5%) 99 0.271 a: this load reduction may be met as a result of an in-lake alum treatment in 2016 pending further evaluation. 4.2.6.8 Hyland Lake The Hyland Lake TMDL allocations considered the disproportionately high level of internal loading and relatively high level of stormwater treatment in the watershed. No watershed reductions were assigned based on the large number of stormwater ponds in the developed portions of the watershed, and the assumption that these ponds are performing as designed (including being maintained). The lake is also surrounded by mostly undeveloped parkland. Table 4.10 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Hyland Lake (27-0048-00) during 2015 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 604 1.655 299 0.819 305 50 Wasteload Total WLA 90 0.247 90 0.247 0 0 Bloomington (MS400005) 90 0.247 90 0.247 0 0 Hennepin County (MS400138) 0.05 0.0001 0.05 0.0001 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 0.4 0.001 0.4 0.001 0 0 Load Total LA 514 1.408 194 0.532 320 62 Atmospheric deposition 30 0.082 30 0.082 0 0 Internal load 484 1.326 164 0.449 320 66 MOS (5%) 15 0.041 4.2.6.9 Wing Lake The Wing Lake load reductions were divided between upstream lake and internal load. The upstream lakes LA was calculated based on the load reduction needed to bring Lake Holiday’s average growing Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 57 season TP concentration down to the shallow lake standard. The remaining needed load reduction was assigned to the internal load reduction. No watershed reductions were assigned based on the large number of stormwater ponds in the developed portions of the watershed and the assumption that these ponds are performing as designed. Table 4.11 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Wing Lake (27-0091-00) during 2016 growing season. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs % TOTAL LOAD 105 0.861 68 0.557 40 38 Wasteload Total WLA 21 0.172 21 0.172 0 0 Minnetonka (MS400035) 20 0.164 20 0.164 0 0 Hennepin County (MS400138) 0.4 0.004 0.5 0.004 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 0.2 0.002 0.2 0.002 0 0 Load Total LA 84 0.689 44 0.361 40 48 Atmospheric deposition 2 0.016 2 0.016 0 0 Internal load 56 0.459 28 0.230 28 50 Upstream lakes 25 0.205 13 0.107 12 48 Groundwater 1 0.008 1 0.008 0 0 MOS (5%) 3 0.025 a: TMDL (lb/day) value calculated based on 122 day growing season. 4.2.6.10 Lake Rose The Lake Rose load reductions were divided among watershed, upstream lake and internal load. The upstream lakes LA was calculated based on the load reduction needed to bring Wing Lake’s average growing season TP concentration down to the shallow lake standard. The maximum internal load reduction of approximately 80% was assigned and the remaining needed load reduction allocated to the Minnetonka MS4. The Hennepin County MS4 was not assigned a reduction since its load contribution is very small and it has limited opportunity for load reduction. Table 4.12 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lake Rose (27-0092-00) during 2016 growing season. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs % TOTAL LOAD 75 0.615 46 0.377 31 41 Wasteload Total WLA 28 0.230 21 0.172 7 25 Minnetonka (MS400035) 27 0.221 20 0.164 7 26 Hennepin County (MS400138) 1 0.008 1 0.008 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 0.2 0.002 0.2 0.002 0 0 Load Total LA 47 0.385 23 0.189 24 51 Atmospheric deposition 2 0.016 2 0.016 0 0 Internal load 19 0.156 4 0.033 15 79 Upstream lakes 26 0.213 17 0.139 9 35 MOS (5%) 2 0.016 a: TMDL (lb/day) value calculated based on 122 day growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 58 4.2.6.11 North Cornelia Lake The North Cornelia Lake load reductions were divided between watershed and internal load. Reduction percentages were based on balancing the removal between watershed sources of phosphorus to the lake and internal loading. The maximum internal load reduction of 80% was assigned first and the remaining needed reduction allocated evenly between the MS4s with the exception of Richfield, which was not assigned a reduction since its load contribution is very small and it has limited opportunity for load reduction. Table 4.13 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for North Cornelia Lake (27- 0028-01) during 2015 growing season. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs % TOTAL LOAD 360 2.951 154 1.262 214 59 Wasteload Total WLA 227 1.861 117 0.959 110 48 Edina (MS400016) 182 1.492 93 0.762 89 49 Richfield (MS400045)) 2 0.016 2 0.016 0 0 MnDOT (MS400170) 34 0.279 17 0.139 17 50 Hennepin County (MS400138) 8 0.066 4 0.033 4 50 Construction/Industrial SW 1 0.008 1 0.008 0 0 Load Total LA 133 1.090 29 0.238 104 78 Atmospheric deposition 3 0.025 3 0.025 0 0 Internal load 130 1.066 26 0.213 104 80 MOS (5%) 8 0.066 a: TMDL (lb/day) value calculated based on 122 day growing season. 4.2.6.12 South Cornelia Lake The South Cornelia Lake load reductions were divided between upstream lake and internal load. The upstream lakes LA was calculated based on the load reduction needed to bring North Cornelia Lake’s average growing season TP concentration down to the shallow lake standard. The remaining needed load reduction was assigned to the internal load reduction. No watershed reductions were assigned based on the relatively small contribution of the watershed loads and the assumption that the existing watershed BMPs are functioning as designed. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 59 Table 4.14 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for South Cornelia Lake (27- 0028-02) during 2016 growing season. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs % TOTAL LOAD 410 3.361 168 1.377 250 61 Wasteload Total WLA 26 0.213 26 0.213 0 0 Edina (MS400016) 26 0.213 26 0.213 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 0.3 0.002 0.3 0.002 0 0 Load Total LA 384 3.148 134 1.098 250 65 Atmospheric deposition 4 0.033 4 0.033 0 0 Upstream lakes 181 1.484 81 0.664 100 55 Internal load 199 1.631 49 0.402 150 75 MOS (5%) 8 0.066 a: TMDL (lb/day) value calculated based on 122 day growing season. 4.2.6.13 Lake Edina The Lake Edina load reductions were divided among watershed and upstream lake loads. The upstream lakes LA was calculated based on the load reduction needed to bring South Cornelia Lake’s average growing season TP concentration down to the shallow lake standard. The remaining needed load reduction was assigned to the Edina City MS4 watershed reduction. The MnDOT Metro MS4 was not assigned a reduction since its load contribution is very small and it has limited opportunity for load reduction. No internal load reductions were assigned due to its relatively small contribution to the total load. Table 4.15 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Edina Lake (27-0029-00) during 2015 growing season. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs % TOTAL LOAD 261 2.139 180 1.475 90 34 Wasteload Total WLA 117 0.959 79 0.648 38 32 Edina (MS400016) 112 0.918 74 0.607 38 34 MnDOT (MS400170) 4 0.033 4 0.033 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 1 0.008 1 0.008 0 0 Load Total LA 144 1.180 92 0.754 52 36 Atmospheric deposition 3 0.025 3 0.025 0 0 Upstream lakes 116 0.951 64 0.525 52 45 Internal load 25 0.205 25 0.205 0 0 MOS (5%) 9 0.074 a: TMDL (lb/day) value calculated based on 122 day growing season. 4.2.6.14 Penn Lake The Penn Lake load reductions were divided between watershed and internal load. Reduction percentages were based on balancing the removal between watershed sources of phosphorus to the lake and internal loading. The maximum internal load reduction of 80% was assigned first, and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 60 remaining needed reduction allocated as evenly as possible between the MS4s with the exception of Hennepin County, which was not assigned a reduction since its load contribution is very small and it has limited opportunity for load reduction. Table 4.16 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Penn Lake (27-0004-00) during 2016 growing season. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs % TOTAL LOAD 446 3.656 247 2.025 211 47 Wasteload Total WLA 371 3.041 217 1.779 154 42 Bloomington (MS400005) 260 2.131 150 1.230 110 42 Richfield (MS400045)) 47 0.385 27 0.221 20 43 MnDOT (MS400170) 56 0.459 32 0.262 24 43 Hennepin County (MS400138) 6 0.049 6 0.049 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 2 0.016 2 0.016 0 0 Load Total LA 75 0.615 18 0.148 57 76 Atmospheric deposition 4 0.033 4 0.033 0 0 Internal load 71 0.582 14 0.115 57 80 MOS (5%) 12 0.098 a: TMDL (lb/day) value calculated based on 122 day growing season. 4.3 Streams, Total Suspended Solids The data used for the development of the Riley Creek TSS TMDL (Assessment Unit ID [AUID] # 07020012-511) are based on continuous flow monitoring and TSS sample results (both grab and storm composite samples) collected by the Metropolitan Council at the Riley Creek WOMP station site, which is 1.3 miles from the confluence with the Minnesota River. The WOMP station location corresponds with MPCA Station ID S005-380. The monitoring station was out of commission from early 2005 through late 2006 due to equipment failure, but has otherwise operated continuously since 1999. This TSS TMDL also addresses the fishes and macroinvertebrates impairment listings for this reach. A separate report titled Lower Minnesota Watershed Stressor Identification Report (MPCA 2018) evaluated all of the biota impairments in this major watershed. Stressors evaluated for each reach included dissolved oxygen, eutrophication, nitrate, suspended sediment, chloride, habitat, and flow alteration/connectivity. The only pollutant among these candidate stressors to be conclusively contributing to the biota impairments for Riley Creek was suspended sediment (TSS). This was based on both the TSS levels observed to date and the assemblage of biota species present relative to their tolerance/sensitivity to TSS. The non-pollutant stressor flow alteration/connectivity was also identified as impacting aquatic life, but TMDLs are not done for flow alteration/connectivity. 4.3.1 TSS Loading Capacity Methodology The TSS loading capacity for the Riley Creek impaired reach was developed using a load duration curve approach (EPA 2007). Load duration curves incorporate flow and the TSS data across five stream flow zones, and provide a means to determine loading capacities and estimated load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards. Average daily flows from the Riley Creek WOMP station during the 2006 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 61 to 2015 time period were extrapolated for differences between the total and monitored watershed areas, and used in conjunction with the 65 mg/L TSS standard to develop a load duration curve that shows the daily loading capacity associated with the continuous flow duration data. The 10-year TSS load duration curve for the impaired reach of Riley Creek is shown in Figure 4.3. The curve represents the loading capacity of the stream for each daily flow and is divided into five flow zones including very high (0% to 10%), high (10% to 40%), mid (40% to 60%), low (60% to 90%) and very low (90% to 100%) flow conditions. For simplicity, only the median (or midpoint) load of each flow zone is used to show the TMDL equation components in the TMDL table. However, it should be understood that the entire curve represents the TMDL for Riley Creek. Also plotted in Figure 4.3 are the 90th percentile monitored TSS concentrations for each flow zone (solid green square). Figure 4.3 Riley Creek TSS concentration cumulative frequency curve, 2006-2015 4.3.2 TSS Load Allocation Methodology The LAs include nonpoint pollution sources that are not subject to NPDES permit requirements, as well as natural background loads. For Riley Creek, LAs include non-regulated surface runoff, near channel erosion and natural background sources of TSS, as well as outflow from Lake Riley. The LA is the remaining load after the MOS and WLAs are subtracted from the total load capacity of each flow zone. 4.3.2.1 Upstream Lakes For the purposes of this study, outflow from Lake Riley (referred to as the Lake Riley Boundary Condition) was included as a separate line item in the LA. Lake Riley is a natural sink for the TSS, and therefore contributes minimal TSS levels to Riley Creek. Allocations for the Lake Riley Boundary Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 62 Condition were based on an estimated TSS discharge for this lake in an unimpaired state. A discharge concentration of 4 mg/L is used, which is the midpoint of the range of TSS concentrations for lakes of the NCHF ecoregion, as reported by MPCA (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/quick-links/eda-guide-typical- minnesota-water-quality-conditions). 4.3.2.2 Non-regulated surface runoff and near-channel erosion The watershed LA includes all non-permitted sources such as runoff from agricultural land, forested land, and non-regulated MS4 residential areas (such as direct runoff from backyard areas). There are no available data or studies to partition natural background loads from the rest of the LA. 4.3.2.3 Unallocated load For some flow zones, the existing pollutant load (as denoted by 90th percentile monitored load) fell below the allowable pollutant load (see Figure 4.3). To adhere to antidegradation requirements, the difference between the existing load and allocated load for these flow zones was classified as “unallocated” load. (The remaining allowable load (i.e., what falls below the 90th percentile is what is divided up among WLA and other LA sources.) 4.3.3 TSS Wasteload Allocation Methodology WLAs represent the portion of the TSS load associated with permitted sources. WLAs include three sub- categories: permitted wastewater facilities, the MS4s permitted stormwater source category, and a construction plus industrial permitted stormwater category. 4.3.3.1 Permitted Wastewater Sources There are no permitted wastewater facilities in the Riley Creek Watershed. 4.3.3.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems: Individual WLAs MS4 boundaries were defined for the Riley Creek Watershed consistent with the discussion in Section 2.1.2. Figure 2.15 shows the Riley Creek MS4 boundaries. Overall, five MS4s cover the watershed area, including the cities of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Hennepin, and Carver Counties, and MnDOT. However, only Eden Prairie and Hennepin County manage developed land or MS4s downstream of Lake Riley, and as described in the following section, the watershed area tributary to Lake Riley was included as a boundary condition in the LA component. The WLAs for each MS4 were calculated based on their proportional drainage area applied to the loading capacity derived for each flow zone (as explained in the previous section). This assumes that stormwater runoff from each MS4 will not exceed the 65 mg/L TSS standard, which is reasonable because researchers report median event mean TSS concentrations for urban land uses that range from 52 to 101 mg/L for untreated stormwater runoff (EPA 1983; Lin 2004; Maestre and Pitt 2005). Since there are no stormwater monitoring data or modeling estimates specific to the urban runoff contributions in this watershed, a specific TSS load reduction could not be quantified for this component of the TMDL. However, Figure 1.17 shows that approximately half of the TSS sample results were between 65 and 530 mg/L, it is expected that a greater proportion of the required load reduction will necessitate BMPs that will stabilize near-channel sources of sediment and/or control the stormwater discharge rates/volumes to consistently meet the standard. Since many of the MS4 discharges to Riley Creek have varying levels of treatment and/or controls on discharge rate and volume, it is expected that MS4s will have a significant role in minimizing near-channel sources of sediment. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 63 4.3.3.3 Construction/Industrial Stormwater: Categorical WLAs The approach for allocating the construction plus industrial permitted stormwater category for the Riley Creek Watershed was based on the previous assumptions about these activities as a percentage of the watershed area. As a result, this component was assigned a WLA that is equal to 1% of the total WLA for each flow zone. 4.3.4 Margin of Safety The MOS accounts for uncertainties in both characterizing current conditions and the relationship between the load, wasteload, monitored flows, and in-stream water quality to ensure the TMDL allocations result in attainment of water quality standards. An explicit MOS equal to 5% of the total load was applied whereby 5% of the loading capacity for each flow regime was subtracted before allocations were made among the wasteload and watershed load. Five percent was considered an appropriate MOS since the load duration curve approach minimizes a great deal of uncertainty associated with the development of TMDLs, because the calculation of the loading capacity is the product of monitored flow and the TSS target concentration. Most of the uncertainty with this calculation is therefore associated with the flows in the impaired reach that were calculated based on monitored flows at the WOMP station, which is a well-established continuous flow monitoring station with a long flow record. 4.3.5 Seasonal Variation The EPA states that the critical condition “…can be thought of as the “worst case” scenario of environmental conditions in the waterbody in which the loading expressed in the TMDL for the pollutant of concern will continue to meet water quality standards. Critical conditions are the combination of environmental factors (e.g., flow, temperature, etc.) that results in attaining and maintaining the water quality criterion and has an acceptably low frequency of occurrence” (EPA 1999). As indicated in the load duration curve analysis, TSS loads vary significantly from high flow to low flow conditions. Most exceedances of the water quality standard for TSS occur at the very high- and high-range flow conditions during the seasons with highest precipitation. High-flow regimes are the critical condition for TMDL implementation. By using a duration curve approach in this TMDL the full range of flow conditions occurring over the year are fully captured and accounted for. 4.3.6 TSS TMDL Summary The LA components and individual MS4 allocations were calculated by multiplying the respective LA areas and each MS4’s percent watershed coverage area by the total watershed loading capacity (determined from the load duration curve), after the MOS and construction/industrial stormwater activities components were subtracted from the loading capacity for each flow zone. The TSS TMDL for Riley Creek was developed for a baseline year of 2011, which is the midpoint year for the date range of TSS data used for development of this TMDL (2006 through 2015). TSS load reductions that occur during or after the baseline year of 2011 are creditable toward the overall required load reduction. Table 4.17 presents the total loading capacity, the MOS, the WLAs and the remaining watershed LAs for the impaired reach of Riley Creek. Allocations for this TMDL were established using the 65 mg/L TSS standard for class 2B waters in the Minnesota River Basin. The 530 mg/L TSS concentration at the tenth percentile shown in Figure 3.15 provides an indication of the overall magnitude of the required load reduction to meet the 65 mg/L standard. This equates to a Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 64 (530 – 65)/530 = 88% overall reduction. This reduction percentage is only intended as a rough approximation, as it does not account for flow, and is not a required element of a TMDL. It serves to provide a starting point based on available water quality data for assessing the magnitude of the effort needed in the watershed to achieve the standard. This reduction percentage does not supersede the allocations provided in Table 4.17. In addition, because there is limited information or data available to estimate or quantitatively calculate the existing (current conditions) load contribution from each of the WLA and LA sources presented in Table 4.17, this reduction percentage is not intended to be applied uniformly across these sources. In fact, per the qualitative discussion of sources in Section 3.7.2.1, much of the reduction will need to come from near-channel sources (e.g., streambank erosion). However, these near-channel sources are often largely affected or driven by stormwater discharge rates/volume. Improvements in stormwater management should help to reduce sediment contributions from the near- channel sources. Table 4.17 Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) TSS TMDL and Allocations Flow Zones Very High High Mid Low Very Low (lbs/day) TOTAL LOAD (Baseline Year: 2011) 6,600 1,772 662 486 360 Wasteload Total WLA 2,227 598 223 32 23 Eden Prairie (MS400015) 2,059 553 206 29 21 Hennepin County (MS400138) 146 39 15 2 1 Construction/Industrial SW 22 6 2 1 1 Load Total LA 4,043 1,085 406 430 319 Lake Riley Boundary Condition 246 66 25 18 13 Watershed LA 3,797 1,019 381 54 40 Unallocated Load 358 266 MOS (5%) 330 89 33 24 18 Estimated existing load reduction (%) 88% 4.4 Streams, E. coli Bacteria (E. coli) TMDLs for Nine Mile Creek (AUID# 07020012-809), Purgatory Creek (AUID# 07020012- 828), and Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) were developed using the load duration curve approach (EPA 2007) as described in Section 4.3.1. Development of the three stream E. coli TMDLs is described in the following subsections. 4.4.1 E. coli Loading Capacity Methodology As described in Section 4.3.1, load duration curves describe the pollutant loading capacity of a stream over a variety of flow conditions. To develop a load duration curve, flow data must first be aggregated to create a flow duration curve for each reach. The flow duration curve describes how often a given flow rate is exceeded in a given stream reach (e.g., a flow rate of 10 cfs is exceeded 50% of the time within the Nine Mile Creek reach, see Figure 2.18). Flow duration curves for Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek were aggregated from the sources described in Table 4.18 and are shown together in Figure 4.4. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 65 Table 4.18 Stream flow rate data for E. coli TMDLs Stream Station ID Years Flow Collected Nine Mile Creek 05330900 1963-1973 S007-901 1989-2016 ECU7A/N1 1997-2014 ECU7B 1997-2010 ECU7C 1997-2010 S005-377 2007-2014 Station8 1987-2001 Purgatory Creek 5330800 1975-1980 445002093265701 1980 S007-907 2004-2016 NA 2004-2015 P1.6 2004-2006 Riley Creek 445023093305201 1981-1982 S005-380 1999-2016 Figure 4.4 Flow Duration Curve for Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek Using the flow duration curves shown in Figure 4.4, the load duration curve for each stream is calculated by multiplying the flow rate at each point along the flow duration curve by the chronic E. coli standard of 126 organisms per 100 mL. Load duration curves and observed E. coli loads for each stream reach are shown in Figure 4.5 through Figure 4.7. The load duration curve represents the loading capacity of the stream for each daily flow and is divided into five flow zones: very high (0% to 10%), high (10% to 40%), Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 66 mid (40% to 60%), low (60% to 90%) and very low (90% to 100%) flow conditions. For simplicity, the median value (or midpoint) of the load duration curve within each flow condition defines the TMDL for each flow condition. Because the chronic bacteria standard is developed based on the geometric mean of observed E. coli concentrations, the geometric mean of observed data within each flow condition defines the existing load for each flow condition. E. coli load reduction is required for stream reaches and flow zones for which the geometric mean load of observed data exceeds the median TMDL value. It is important to note that this depiction may not fully show all needed reductions. Specifically, in some cases the impairment was based on exceedances occurring during individual months (aggregated across years). For those cases, a separate reduction estimate is needed. Figure 4.5 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Nine Mile Creek (AUID# 07020012-809) Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 67 Figure 4.6 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Purgatory Creek (AUID# 07020012-828) Figure 4.7 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 68 4.4.2 E. coli Load Allocation Methodology Non-permitted sources of bacteria within the watersheds of Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek downstream of Marsh Lake, Staring Lake, and Riley Lake, respectively, include runoff from areas that have the potential to transport bacterial from wildlife and loading from the upstream lakes (Marsh Lake, Starting Lake, and Riley Lake). There are no known SSTSs or livestock feedlots within the impaired reach watershed of the three streams. 4.4.2.1 Upstream Lakes The LA applied to upstream lakes (Marsh Lake, Staring Lake, and Riley Lake) was determined by estimating the percentage of stream flow contributed by the upstream lakes and applying an estimated E. coli loading concentration to the lake outflow. A flow duration curve for each upstream lake was calculated by multiplying the stream flow duration curves shown in Figure 4.4 by the ratio of the drainage area of the impaired reach to the total drainage area of the entire stream. Because E. coli monitoring data at the lake outlets was not collected from the Riley-Purgatory Creek or Nine Mile Creek watersheds, a load duration curve was developed by multiplying the flow duration curve by an E. coli concentration of 11 organisms per 100 mLs. This value represents the average outflow concentration of Gray’s Bay Dam from the Minnehaha Creek E. coli TMDL (MPCA 2013). Because lakes often act as a sink for fecal bacteria and are not believed to contribute to elevated E. coli concentration in impaired streams, this value is considered a reasonable estimate of the lake outflow concentration. 4.4.2.2 Non-regulated surface runoff The remaining watershed LA applied to non-permitted sources, such as runoff from agricultural land, forested land, and non-regulated MS4 residential areas (such as direct runoff from backyard areas), was calculated as the remaining load after the MOS, WLAs and LA from upstream lakes was subtracted from the total load capacity of each flow zone. There are no available data or studies to partition natural background loads from the rest of the LA. 4.4.2.3 Unallocated load For some flow zones, the existing pollutant load (as denoted by the geomean of observed data) fell below the allowable pollutant load (see Figure 4.3). To adhere to antidegradation requirements, the difference between the existing load and allocated load for these flow zones was classified as “unallocated” load. (The remaining allowable load (i.e., what falls below the geomean of observed data) is what is divided up among WLA and other LA sources.) 4.4.3 E. coli Wasteload Allocation Methodology WLAs represent the portion of the E. coli load associated with permitted sources. WLAs are typically divided into three sub-categories: permitted wastewater sources, confined animal feeding operations, and MS4s. 4.4.3.1 Permitted Wastewater Sources There are no permitted wastewater sources of E. coli in the Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, or Riley Creek watersheds. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 69 4.4.3.2 Confined Animal Feeding Operations There are no confined animal feeding operations in the Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, or Riley Creek watersheds. 4.4.3.3 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems The primary source of bacteria loading within MS4s comes from improperly managed pet waste and wildlife inputs (e.g., waterfowl, geese, etc.) directly to impervious surfaces and water features. Permitted MS4s within the Nine Mile Creek downstream of Marsh Lake, Purgatory Creek downstream of Staring Lake and Riley Creek downstream of Riley Lake are summarized in Table 2.21. Individual MS4 allocations were calculated by multiplying the percent watershed coverage of each MS4 by the E. coli loading capacity (determined from the load duration curves) after the MOS and estimated loading from upstream waterbodies (see Section 4.4.2) was subtracted. As shown in Table 4.19, the Chanhassen area is completely pervious and is a very small percentage of the total drainage area to the impaired portion of Riley Creek. For this reason, Chanhassen will not be assigned a WLA for the Riley Creek E. coli TMDL. Table 4.19 MS4 Area Summary for E. coli TMDLs Stream MS4 Area (ac) Area (%) Nine Mile Creek Bloomington 2837 85% Hennepin County 62 2% MnDOT 53 2% Non-Permitteda 381 11% Purgatory Creek Bloomington 783 17% Eden Prairie 2303 51% Hennepin County 80 2% Hennepin Technical College 51 1% MnDOT 140 3% Non-Permitteda 1183 26% Riley Creek Chanhassenb 0.04 0.001% Eden Prairie 1264 43% Hennepin County 37 1% Non-Permitteda 1658 56% a: Non-permitted sources and non-regulated MS4 residential areas (e.g., direct runoff from backyard areas). See Section 4.4.2.2 b: Chanhassen area is completely pervious and is a very small percentage of the Riley Creek impairment reach drainage area. For this reason, it should not be assigned a WLA. 4.4.3.4 Construction/Industrial Stormwater: Categorical WLAs E. coli WLAs for regulated construction stormwater (permit # MNR100001) were not developed, since E. coli is not a typical pollutant from construction sites. WLAs for regulated industrial stormwater were also not developed. Industrial stormwater must receive a WLA only if the pollutant is part of benchmark monitoring for an industrial site in the watershed of an impaired waterbody. There are no bacteria or E. coli benchmarks associated with any of the industrial stormwater permit (Permit #MNR050000). Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 70 4.4.4 Margin of Safety MOS accounts for uncertainties in both characterizing current conditions and the relationship between the load, wasteload, monitored flows, and in-stream water quality to ensure the TMDL allocations result in attainment of water quality standards. An explicit MOS equal to 5% of the total load was applied, whereby 5% of the loading capacity for each flow regime was subtracted before allocations were made among the wasteload and watershed load. Five percent was considered an appropriate MOS since the load duration curve approach minimizes a great deal of uncertainty associated with the development of TMDLs, because the calculation of the loading capacity is the product of monitored flow and the E. coli target concentration (126 organism per 100 mLs). Most of the uncertainty with this calculation is associated with the flows in the impaired reaches. Because the majority of available flow data was collected from WOMP stations with well-established, continuous flow monitoring records, it is assumed that the level of uncertainty in the flow monitoring data and resulting TMDL load duration curves is low. 4.4.5 Seasonal Variation The EPA states that the critical condition “…can be thought of as the “worst case” scenario of environmental conditions in the waterbody in which the loading expressed in the TMDL for the pollutant of concern will continue to meet water quality standards. Critical conditions are the combination of environmental factors (e.g., flow, temperature, etc.) that results in attaining and maintaining the water quality criterion and has an acceptably low frequency of occurrence” (EPA 1999). As indicated in the load duration curve analysis, E. coli loads vary significantly from high flow to low flow conditions. Because the load duration curve approach covers a complete range of seasonal flow conditions, seasonal variation is inherently incorporated into the E. coli TMDLs. 4.4.6 E. coli TMDL Summary Bacteria (E. coli) TMDL allocations for the impaired reaches of Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek are shown in Table 4.20, Table 4.21, and Table 4.22, respectively. Allocations for these TMDLs were established using the 126 organisms/100 mL E. coli standard for class 2B waters in the Minnesota River Basin. As described in Section 4.4.2 and Section 4.4.3, allocations for each flow zone were calculated by first removing the MOS and the estimate of upstream lake loading from the total allocation, and then assigning the remaining allocation to MS4 WLA and watershed LA sources based on the percent contributing area in each impaired reach watershed (see Table 4.19). The E. coli TMDLs for Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek were developed for a baseline year of 2012, which is the midpoint year for the date range of E. coli data used for development of this TMDL (2006 through 2017). E. coli load reductions that occur during or after the baseline year of 2012 are creditable toward the overall required load reduction. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 71 Table 4.20 Nine Mile Creek (AUID# 07020012-809) E. coli TMDL and Allocations Load Category Load Source Flow Zone Very High High Mid Low Very Low billion organisms per day (b-org/day) TOTAL LOAD (TMDL), Baseline Year: 2012 324.8 82.9 33.1 16.2 5.9 Waste- Load Total Wasteload Sources 251.0 31.6 24.7 8.1 2.9 Bloomington City MS4 (MS400005) 241.2 30.4 23.7 7.8 2.8 Hennepin County MS4 (MS400138) 5.2 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 MnDOT Metro District (MS400170) 4.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.05 Load Total Load Sources 57.6 47.1 6.8 7.3 2.7 Marsh Lake Boundary Condition 25.2 6.4 2.6 1.3 0.5 Watershed LA 32.4 4.1 3.2 1.0 0.4 Unallocated Load 0 36.6 1.1 5.0 1.8 Margin of Safety, 5% 16.2 4.1 1.7 0.8 0.3 Existing Concentration, Apr–Oct (org/100 mL) 116 Maximum Monthly Geometric Mean (org/100 mL) 212 Estimated Existing Load Reduction (%) 41% Table 4.21 Purgatory Creek (AUID# 07020012-828) E. coli TMDL and Allocations Load Category Load Source Flow Zone Very High High Mid Low Very Low billion organisms per day (b-org/day) TOTAL LOAD (TMDL) , Baseline Year: 2012 155.0 53.4 15.4 6.5 2.1 Waste- Load Total Wasteload Sources 40.4 34.1 9.8 3.8 1.4 Bloomington City MS4 (MS400005) 9.4 8.0 2.3 0.9 0.3 Eden Prairie City MS4 (MS400015) 27.7 23.4 6.7 2.6 0.9 Hennepin County MS4 (MS400138) 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.03 Hennepin Technical College MS4 (MS400199) 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.02 MnDOT Metro District (MS400170) 1.7 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 Load Total Load Sources 106.9 16.7 4.8 2.4 0.7 Staring Lake Boundary Condition 13.5 4.7 1.3 0.6 0.2 Watershed LA 14.2 12.0 3.5 1.3 0.5 Unallocated Load 79.1 0 0 0.5 0 Margin of Safety, 5% 7.8 2.7 0.8 0.3 0.1 Existing Concentration, Apr–Oct (org/100 mL) 55 Maximum Monthly Geometric Mean (org/100 mL) 392 Estimated Existing Load Reduction (%) 68% Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 72 Table 4.22 Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) E. coli TMDL and Allocations Load Category Load Source Flow Zone Very High High Mid Low Very Low billion organisms per day (b-org/day) TOTAL LOAD (TMDL) , Baseline Year: 2012 50.6 13.3 4.9 3.6 2.6 Waste- Load1 Total Wasteload Sourcesa 6.1 5.1 1.9 1.4 1.0 Eden Prairie City MS4 (MS400015) 6.0 4.9 1.8 1.3 1.0 Hennepin County MS4 (MS400138) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.04 0.03 Load Total Load Sources 41.9 7.6 2.8 2.1 1.5 Riley Lake Boundary Condition 4.4 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 Watershed LA 7.8 6.4 2.4 1.7 1.3 Unallocated Load 29.7 0 0 0 0 Margin of Safety, 5% 2.5 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 Existing Concentration, Apr–Oct (org/100 mL) 123 Maximum Monthly Geometric Mean (org/100 mL) 654 Estimated Existing Load Reduction (%) 81% a: Chanhassen was not assigned a WLA for the Riley Creek E. coli TMDL as it represents less than 0.001% of the drainage area to the impaired portion of Riley Creek (Table 4.19). Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 73 5. Future Growth Considerations The increase in impervious areas in the form of roads, parking lots, buildings, and landscape changes due to development has the potential to contribute additional runoff and TP, TSS and E. coli loading to the system. The WLAs for this TMDL are for communities subject to MS4 NPDES requirements. 5.1 New or Expanding Permitted MS4 WLA Transfer Process Future transfer of watershed runoff loads in this TMDL may be necessary if any of the following scenarios occur within the project watershed boundaries. 1. New development occurs within a regulated MS4. Newly developed areas that are not already included in the WLA must be transferred from the LA to the WLA to account for the growth. 2. One regulated MS4 acquires land from another regulated MS4. Examples include annexation or highway expansions. In these cases, the transfer is WLA to WLA. 3. One or more non-regulated MS4s become regulated. If this has not been accounted for in the WLA, then a transfer must occur from the LA. 4. Expansion of a U.S. Census Bureau Urban Area encompasses new regulated areas for existing permittees. An example is existing state highways that were outside an Urban Area at the time the TMDL was completed, but are now inside a newly expanded Urban Area. This will require either a WLA to WLA transfer or a LA to WLA transfer. 5. A new MS4 or other stormwater-related point source is identified and is covered under a NPDES Permit. In this situation, a transfer must occur from the LA. Load transfers will be based on methods consistent with those used in setting the allocations in this TMDL. In cases where WLA is transferred from or to a regulated MS4, the permittees will be notified of the transfer and have an opportunity to comment. 5.2 New or Expanding Wastewater (TSS and E. coli TMDLs only) The MPCA, in coordination with the EPA Region 5, has developed a streamlined process for setting or revising WLAs for new or expanding wastewater discharges to waterbodies with an EPA approved TMDL (MPCA 2012). This procedure will be used to update WLAs in approved TMDLs for new or expanding wastewater dischargers whose permitted effluent limits are at or below the instream target, and will ensure that the effluent concentrations will not exceed applicable water quality standards or surrogate measures. The process for modifying any and all WLAs will be handled by the MPCA, with input and involvement by the EPA, once a permit request or reissuance is submitted. The overall process will use the permitting public notice process to allow for the public and EPA to comment on the permit changes based on the proposed WLA modification(s). Once any comments or concerns are addressed, and the MPCA determines that the new or expanded wastewater discharge is consistent with the applicable water quality standards, the permit will be issued and any updates to the TMDL WLA(s) will be made. For more information on the overall process, visit the MPCA’s TMDL Policy and Guidance webpage. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 74 6. Reasonable Assurance Needed elements are in place for both point sources and nonpoint sources to make progress toward needed pollutant reductions in this TMDL. A range of local partners are involved in water resource management and implementation, including the NMCWD, RPBCWD, Carver County Land, and Water Services Division, the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District, the Hennepin Conservation District, and cities. For these watersheds, the watershed districts are the primary drivers of action towards water quality improvement. The RPBCWD website and NMCWD website each contain much information on their roles and ongoing efforts. 6.1 Regulatory approaches MS4 permitted sources The MPCA is responsible for applying federal and state regulations to protect and enhance water quality in the state of Minnesota. The MPCA oversees stormwater management accounting activities for all MS4 entities previously listed in this TMDL study. The Small MS4 General Permit requires regulated municipalities to implement BMPs that reduce pollutants in stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). A critical component of permit compliance is the requirement for the owners or operators of a regulated MS4 conveyance to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). The SWPPP program addresses all permit requirements, including the following six measures: Public education and outreach Public participation Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Program Construction site runoff controls Post-construction runoff controls Pollution prevention and municipal good housekeeping measures A SWPPP is a management plan that describes the MS4 permittee’s activities for managing stormwater within their regulated area. In the event of a completed TMDL study, MS4 permittees must document the WLA in their future NPDES/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit application and provide an outline of the BMPs to be implemented that address any needed reductions. The MPCA requires MS4 owners or operators to submit their application and corresponding SWPPP document to the MPCA for their review. Once the application and SWPPP are deemed adequate by the MPCA, all application materials are placed on 30-day public notice, allowing the public an opportunity to review and comment on the prospective program. Once NPDES/SDS Permit coverage is granted, permittees must implement the activities described within their SWPPP, and submit an annual report to the MPCA documenting the implementation activities completed within the previous year, along with an estimate of the cumulative pollutant reduction achieved by those activities. For information on all requirements for annual reporting, please see the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 75 This TMDL assigns TSS, TP, and E. coli WLAs to all regulated MS4s in the study, and as previously discussed in Section 5. The Small MS4 General Permit requires permittees to develop compliance schedules for EPA approved TMDL WLAs not already being met at the time of permit application. A compliance schedule includes BMPs that will be implemented over the permit term, a timeline for their implementation, and a long term strategy for continuing progress towards assigned WLAs. For WLAs being met at the time of permit application, the same level of treatment must be maintained in the future. Regardless of WLA attainment, all permitted MS4s are still required to reduce pollutant loadings to the MEP. The MPCA’s stormwater program and its NPDES Permit program are regulatory activities providing reasonable assurance that implementation activities are initiated, maintained, and consistent with WLAs assigned in this study. Regulated Construction Stormwater Regulated stormwater was given a categorical TMDL in this study and includes construction discharges. However, construction activities disturbing one acre or more in size are still required to obtain NPDES Permit coverage through the MPCA. Compliance with TMDL requirements are assumed when a construction site owner/operator meets the conditions of the Construction General Permit, and properly selects, installs, and maintains all BMPs required under the permit, including any applicable additional BMPs required in Appendix A of the Construction General Permit for discharges to impaired waters, or compliance with local construction stormwater requirements if they are more restrictive than those in the State General Permit. Regulated Industrial Stormwater As with regulated construction stormwater, ISW was lumped into a categorical stormwater WLA in this study. Industrial activities still require permit coverage under the State's NPDES/SDS ISW Multi- Sector General Permit (MNR050000), or NPDES/SDS General Permit for Construction Sand & Gravel, Rock Quarrying and Hot Mix Asphalt Production facilities (MNG490000). If a facility owner/operator obtains stormwater coverage under the appropriate NPDES/SDS Permit and properly selects, installs and maintains all BMPs required under the permit, their discharges are considered compliant with WLAs set in this study. Watershed District rules Both NMCWD and RPBCWD have comprehensive and similar rules that address water quantity and quality. For example, RPBCWD’s rule components include: procedural requirements, floodplain management and drainage alterations, erosion and sediment control, wetland and creek buffers, dredging and sediment removal, shoreline and streambank stabilization, waterbody crossings and structures, appropriation of public surface waters, appropriation of groundwater, stormwater management, variances and exceptions, permit fees and financial assurances. 6.2 Nonregulatory approaches Local planning Minn. Stat. chs. 103B and 103D require watershed districts to prepare water management plans. Both NMCWD and RPBCWD have recently revised their plans and they include goals for several “major issues/program areas” including surface water management, impaired waters and TMDLs, urban Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 76 stormwater management, wetland management, agricultural practices (where applicable) and education. A major part of the plans is for implementation, which provides a range of activities and strategies for all of the major issues/program areas above. The plan further outlines specific planned projects to be done over the 10-year timeframe of the plan, detailing the project type, partners, timeframe and costs. Examples projects include stormwater treatment practices or upgrades, streambank stabilization, wetland restorations and in-lake management. Other components of the plan include efforts for additional study, monitoring, education and outreach, technical assistance and permitting inspection and enforcement. Successes by both watershed districts are outlined in their plans and websites. These efforts have included in-lake management (alum, invasive species management, lake drawdown), streambank stabilization and restoration, and various stormwater runoff improvement projects. Waterbodies in both districts have been delisted from the 303d list of impaired waters directly due to their efforts. Funding availability Both NMCWD and RPBCWD have established a stable source of funding through a watershed levies. These levies provide funding for significant water quality/quantity improvement projects, local grants, staff, monitoring, and engineering costs. In addition to local funding, potential state and federal funds available to the various watershed entities include grants from Clean Water, Land & Legacy funds, state Clean Water Partnership loans, EPA Clean Water Act Section 319 grants, and various NRCS programs. Education and outreach Both NMCWD and RPBCWD have active education and outreach efforts. These include education programs, volunteer opportunities, and useful web-based information and resources. Groundwater Protection Rule In June of 2019, the final Groundwater Protection Rule was finalized and published in the Minnesota State Register. This new rule will regulate nitrogen application in vulnerable groundwater areas. The rule will become effective January 1, 2020. The rule contains two parts and farmers may be subject to one part of the rule, both, or none at all depending on geographic location. Part one restricts fall application of nitrogen fertilizer if a farm is located in a vulnerable groundwater area where at least 50% or more of a quarter section is designated as vulnerable or a public water drinking supply management area (DWSMA) with nitrate-nitrogen testing at least 5.4 mg/L in the previous 10 years. Once the rule is effective, fall application restrictions will being in the fall of 2020. Part two will apply to farming operations in a DWSMA with elevated nitrate levels and farms will be subject to a sliding scale of voluntary and regulatory actions based on the concentration of nitrate in the well and the use of BMPs. In part two, no regulatory action will occur until after at least three growing seasons once a DWSMA is determined to meet the criteria for level two. Agriculture Research, Education and Extension Technology Transfer Program (AGREETT) The purpose of AGREETT is to support agricultural productivity growth through research, education and extension services. Since 2015, when the AGREETT program was established by the state legislature, significant progress has been made toward restoring and expanding capacity and research capabilities at the University of Minnesota in the College of Food, Agriculture and Natural Sciences, Extension and the College of Veterinary Medicine. As of February 2019, 21 faculty and extension educators have been Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 77 hired along with needed infrastructure upgrades in the areas of crop and livestock productivity, soil fertility, water quality and pest resistance. Researchers who have been hired are pursuing work in the areas of manure management including strip till of liquid manure and precision application of manure based on nutrient content rather than volume, precision agriculture, agricultural practices to ensure good water quality under irrigation and promotion of BMPs for nitrogen and phosphorus management in row crop production. This addition of capacity at the University of Minnesota for public research covering several areas related to restoration and protection strategies will benefit water quality in the Minnesota River Basin long-term. Drainage System Repair Cost Apportionment Option Minnesota drainage law, Minn. R. ch. 103E, was updated in 2019 to add a voluntary, alternative method for cost apportionment that better utilizes technology to more equitably apportion drainage system repair costs, based on relative runoff and sediment contributions to the system, thus providing an incentive to reduce runoff and sediment contributions to the drainage system. This voluntary option is available for drainage authorities to use and is limited to repair costs only. The option also includes applicable due process hearings, findings, orders and appeal provisions consistent with other aspects of drainage law. Tracking and monitoring progress Monitoring components outlined in Section 7 constitute a sufficient means for tracking progress and supporting adaptive management. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 78 7. Monitoring Overview The goals of follow-up monitoring are generally to both evaluate progress toward the water quality targets provided in the TMDL and to inform and guide implementation activities. The impaired waterbodies will remain listed until water quality standards are met. Monitoring will primarily be conducted by local and regional staff. Progress towards the achievement of TMDL goals will be tracked through regular monitoring of lake and stream water quality as well as BMP completion tracking. Continued monitoring of the lakes would include collection of water quality data, lake level data and biological data (such as macrophytes, zooplankton, and phytoplankton). Lake water quality monitoring should include depth profiles of TP, dissolved oxygen and temperature, surface concentration of Chl-a, and Secchi depth. Monitoring will occur during the open water with samples taken on a monthly basis at minimum. In addition to monitoring the lakes themselves, ponds and wetlands throughout the watershed should be examined to determine contributions of phosphorus to the lake. This monitoring has been conducted in the past by the cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Bloomington, and the RPBCWD. Stream monitoring for turbidity and flow is expected to continue at the WOMP sites on the Riley, Purgatory, and Nine Mile Creeks. This monitoring will occur during open water season and at a frequency and timing (15 minutes). These sites are currently being monitored by the Metropolitan Council, RPBCWD, and NMCWD through their respective WOMP programs. In addition to turbidity and flow, samples measuring TSS, total suspended volatile solids, E. coli, and Chl-a will continue to be analyzed at the monitoring stations to better target implementation efforts and conduct on-going assessment. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 79 8. Implementation Strategy Summary 8.1 Permitted Sources 8.1.1 Construction Stormwater The WLA for stormwater discharges from sites where there is construction activity reflects the number of construction sites greater than one acre expected to be active in the watershed at any one time, and the best management practices (BMPs) and other stormwater control measures that should be implemented at the sites to limit the discharge of pollutants of concern. The BMPs and other stormwater control measures that should be implemented at construction sites are defined in Minnesota’s NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (MNR100001). If a construction site owner/operator obtains coverage under the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit and properly selects, installs, and maintains all BMPs required under the permit, including those related to impaired waters discharges and any applicable additional requirements found in Appendix A of the Construction General Permit, the stormwater discharges would be expected to be consistent with the WLA in this TMDL. Construction activity must also meet all local government construction stormwater requirements. 8.1.2 Industrial Stormwater The WLA for stormwater discharges from sites where there is industrial activity reflects the number of sites in the watershed for which NPDES Industrial Stormwater Permit coverage is required, and the BMPs and other stormwater control measures that should be implemented at the sites to limit the discharge of pollutants of concern. The BMPs and other stormwater control measures that should be implemented at the industrial sites are defined in Minnesota’s NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Multi- Sector General Permit (MNR050000) or NPDES/SDS General Permit for Construction Sand & Gravel, Rock Quarrying and Hot Mix Asphalt Production facilities (MNG490000). If a facility owner/operator obtains stormwater coverage under the appropriate NPDES/SDS Permit and properly selects, installs, and maintains all BMPs required under the permit, the stormwater discharges would be expected to be consistent with the WLA in this TMDL. Industrial activity must also meet all local government construction stormwater requirements. 8.1.3 MS4 All regulated MS4s are required to reduce their pollutant loads to meet the WLAs presented in this TMDL report. MS4 permittees are required to make progress towards meeting their WLA(s) over time as part of their MS4 SWPPP. MS4s must determine if they are currently meeting their WLA(s), and if not must provide a narrative strategy and compliance schedule to meet the WLA(s). BMPs are provided that will be implemented over the current five-year permit term. Implementation strategies to improve urban stormwater management are detailed in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual and include filtration, infiltration, and sedimentation. Practices can be construction- related, post-construction, pre-treatment, non-structural, and structural. Implementation in the more urban areas will likely require retrofits, while practices in the more rural residential areas can target open areas and runoff from lawns and impervious surfaces associated with development. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 80 It is important to note that while some water quality improvement efforts will be done independently by MS4s, much will be done in partnership with the watershed districts as described in Section 8.2. 8.2 Watershed District-Led Efforts Locally produced lake studies (referred to as Lake Use Attainability Analyses or UAAs) for Lake Lucy, Lake Susan, and Lake Riley, as well as an updated management plan for all of Purgatory Creek, including Lotus and Staring Lakes, have been developed or are under development. UAA studies have also been conducted for Wing Lake, Lake Rose, Penn Lake, North and South Cornelia Lake, and Nine Mile Creek. These plans identify specific structural and nonstructural BMPs for the watershed of each of the lakes through the result of past studies, water quality monitoring, and the watershed and in-lake modeling performed. Similarly, the CRAS Report (Barr 2015) identified relative sources of erosion and prioritized areas for improvements along Riley and Purgatory Creeks, and will be used along with engineering feasibility studies to implement future projects. The NMCWD and RPBCWD have also developed water management plans (Barr 2017a and Barr 2017b) that describe water quality goals and potential BMP implementation strategies for improving the water quality in these lakes. Note: Pollutant reductions achieved for some implementation actions are creditable to the LAs in some cases and to WLAs in other cases. Examples of non-WLA-creditable projects include reductions in in-lake loading. For clarification on a particular project, the MPCA Stormwater Program staff should be contacted. A summary of the recommended BMPs are listed below. Structural BMPs o Implement BMPs at target locations to reduce flow, TP and TSS loading from the watershed to the lake, including iron-enhanced sand filters, stormwater ponds, and/or infiltration practices. o Prioritize and complete stormwater control and streambank stabilization projects at sites that are contributing inordinate sediment loads to the study lakes and stream reaches, including subreaches that are at high-risk of bank instability and excessive bedload. o Work with cities to identify potential redevelopment and road reconstruction projects that might provide the opportunity to retrofit additional BMPs into the watershed. Additionally, retrofit existing ponds as opportunities arise. In-Lake BMPs o Conduct alum treatment of the internal sediment phosphorus loading where internal reductions are required. o Continue or implement herbicidal treatments to control curly-leaf pondweed when applicable. o Continue carp management, including Staring Lake and the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area wetland. Lake Susan may also require more assessment of the carp population and control options. Nonstructural Measures and Programs Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 81 o Implement RPBCWD stormwater management rules to help minimize phosphorus load increase and degradation of water quality as future development occurs within the watersheds. o Evaluate opportunities to work with landowners in the direct untreated watersheds in the riparian zones of the lakes. These efforts should focus on implementing stormwater BMPs on private parcels and educating about shoreline/vegetation management (if applicable). The RPBCWD could target the promotion of the cost-share program to residents in the watersheds directly contributing to Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley. Additionally, this could also include preservation of the currently undeveloped shorelines surrounding the lakes. o Continue routine monitoring of the lakes. This would include the collection of water quality data, lake level data, and biological data (such as macrophytes, zooplankton, and phytoplankton). Based on the recommendations from the University of Minnesota aquatic plant study, conduct macrophyte surveys one to two times per year where applicable, in early June to capture the curly-leaf pondweed and again in late summer. Continue to monitor cyanobacteria levels within the lake. Conduct water quality monitoring in select ponds and wetlands throughout the watershed to determine if they are potential sources of phosphorus to the lakes and to help refine future watershed models. 8.3 Cost A TMDL is required to provide “a range of estimates” for implementation costs by the CWLA [Minn. Stat. 2007, § 114D.25]. Detailed analyses of costs were not completed for this TMDL study. A rough estimation of cost can be developed based on BMP cost studies. An EPA cost summary of BMPs developed in urban landscapes found a median cost of $2,200 per lb of phosphorus removed per year. Using that value with a total required reduction of 2,407 lbs of phosphorus would result in a cost of approximately $5.3 million. Based on the CRAS inventory, a rough estimate of costs associated with stabilizing the erosional areas of the lower valleys of Riley and Purgatory Creeks results in a cost of approximately $30 million. The costs to implement the activities to address E. coli impairments are approximately $4 million to $8 million dollars. This range reflects the level of uncertainty inherent in any fecal bacteria source assessment, and addresses the high priority sources identified in Section 3.8.3. 8.4 Adaptive Management The implementation elements described above will require an adaptive management approach (Figure 8.1). Continued monitoring and “course corrections” responding to monitoring results are the most appropriate strategy for attaining the water quality goals established in this TMDL. Management activities will be changed or refined to efficiently meet the TMDL and lay the groundwork for de-listing the impaired waterbodies. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 82 Figure 8.1. Adaptive Management Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 83 9. Public Participation Multiple meetings were held with MS4 representatives, watershed district staff and other stakeholders at various points during the project. Opportunities were given to provide feedback on the TMDL methodology (including allocation setting) and review draft versions of the TMDL report. The original Northern Watersheds: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek and Nine Mile Creek Watersheds TMDL subsequently was made a part of the Lower Minnesota River (HUC-8) TMDL/WRAPS project, which addresses dozens of additional impaired lakes and stream reaches. The MPCA conducted stakeholder meetings for the Lower Minnesota River project including coverage of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek and Nine Mile Creek Watersheds TMDL with local stakeholders including MS4s (the cities of Bloomington, Chanhassen, Deephaven, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Richfield, and Shorewood, Hennepin and Carver Counties, MnDOT, Hennepin Technical College) on August 27, 2017 and December 12, 2018. An opportunity for public comment on the draft TMDL report was provided via a public notice in the State Register from July 22, 2019, through September 20, 2019. There were 12 comment letters received and responded to as a result of the public comment period. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 84 10. Literature Cited Adhikari, Hrishikesh, David L. Barnes, Silke Schiewer, and Daniel M. White. “Total Coliform Survival Characteristics in Frozen Soils.” Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 12, pp: 1098– 1105, December 2007. Barr Engineering Company. 2007. Detailed Assessment of Phosphorus Sources to Minnesota Watersheds – Atmospheric Deposition: 2007 Update. Prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Barr Engineering Company. 2010. Lake Cornelia Use Attainability Analysis: Revised Draft. Prepared for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Barr Engineering Company. 2013a. Lake Lucy and Lake Ann Use Attainability Analysis Update. Prepared for Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Barr Engineering Company. 2013b. Bluff Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan: Turbidity and Fish Bioassessment Impairments. Prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Barr Engineering Company. 2015. Creek Restoration Action Strategy. Prepared for the Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Creek Watershed District. Barr Engineering Company. 2016. Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley: Use Attainability Analysis Update. Prepared for Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Barr Engineering Company. 2017a. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Water Management Plan. Prepared for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, October 2017. Barr Engineering Company. 2017b. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan-Draft. Prepared for Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Barr Engineering Company. 2017c. Lotus, Silver, Duck, Round Mitchell, Red Rock Use Attainability Analysis Update; Lake Idlewild and Staring Lake Use Attainability Analysis; and Lower Purgatory Creek Stabilization Study. Prepared for Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Chandrasekaran, Ramyavardhanee, Matthew J. Hamilton, Ping Wanga, Christopher Staley, Scott Matteson, Adam Birr, and Michael J. Sadowsky. “Geographic Isolation of Escherichia coli Genotypes in Sediments and Water of the Seven Mile Creek — A Constructed Riverine Watershed.” Science of the Total Environment 538:78–85, 2015. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program: Volume 1 - Final Report. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Protocol for Developing Nutrient TMDLs. First Edition. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. An Approach for Using Load Duration Curves in the Development of TMDLs. EPA 841-B-07-006. Washington, D.C. Huser, B.J., P.L. Brezonik and R.M. Newman. 2011. Effects of alum treatment on water quality and sediment in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes, Minnesota, U.S.A. Lake and Reservoir Management 27(3): 220-228. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 85 In re Little Rock Creek TMDL, No. A16-0123 (Minn. App. Nov. 28, 2016), review denied (Minn. Feb. 14, 2017; In re Crystal Lake TMDL, No. A18-0581 review denied (Minn. App. April. 24, 2019) Ishii, Satoshi, Tao Yan, Hung Vu, Dennis L. Hansen, Randall E. Hicks, and Michael J. Sadowsky. “Factors Controlling Long-Term Survival and Growth of Naturalized Escherichia coli Populations in Temperate Field Soils.” Microbes and Environments, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 8−14, 2010. Lin, J.P. 2004. Review of Published Export Coefficient and Event Mean Concentration (EMC) Data. WRAP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-WRAP-04-3), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Maestre, A. and R. Pitt. 2005. The National Stormwater Quality Database, Version 1.1, A Compilation and Analysis of NPDES Stormwater Monitoring Information. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water. Marino, Robert P, and John J. Gannon. “Survival of Fecal Coliforms and Fecal Streptococci in Storm Drain Sediments.” Water Research, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 1089–1098, 1991. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2011. LiDAR Data. Metropolitan Council. 2010. Generalized Land Use - Historical 2010 for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. MPCA. 2005. Minnesota Lake Water Quality Assessment Report: Developing Nutrient Criteria, 3rd Edition. September 2005. MPCA. 2013. Minnehaha Creek E. coli Bacteria / Lake Hiawatha Nutrients Total Maximum Daily Load. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. MPCA. 2018. Lower Minnesota Watershed Stressor Identification Report. Pilgrim, K.M., B.J. Huser and P. Brezonik. 2007. “A Method for Comparative Evaluation of Whole-Lake and Inflow Alum Treatment.” Water Research 41:1215-1224. Welch, E. B. & Cooke, G. D., 1999. Effectiveness and Longevity of Phosphorus Inactivation with Alum. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management, pp. 5-27. Wenck Associates, Inc. 2013. Lake Susan Use Attainability Assessment Update. Prepared for Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 86 Appendix A: Watershed and Lake Modeling Methodology A.1 P8 Watershed Modeling Water quality modeling was conducted using the P8 Urban Catchment Model (Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage thru Pits, Puddles, and Ponds). P8 is a model used for predicting the generation and transport of stormwater runoff and pollutants in urban watersheds. The model tracks the movement of particulate matter (fine sand, dust, soil particles, etc.) as it is carried along by stormwater runoff traveling over land and pavement. Particle deposition in ponds/infiltration practices are tracked in order to estimate the amount of pollutants that eventually reach a water body. P8 is a diagnostic tool used for evaluating and designing watershed improvements and BMPs. P8 version 3.4 or 3.5 was used for all model development and updates, except Wing Lake and Lake Rose, which did not need to be updated and used version 2.4. When evaluating the results of the modeling, it is important to consider that the results provided are more accurate in terms of relative differences than in absolute results. The model will predict the percent difference in phosphorus reduction between various BMP options in the watershed fairly accurately. It also provides a realistic estimate of the relative differences in phosphorus and water loadings from the various subwatersheds and major inflow points to the lake. However, since runoff quality is highly variable with time and location, the phosphorus loadings estimated by the model for a specific watershed may not necessarily reflect the actual loadings, in absolute terms. Various site-specific factors, such as lawn care practices, illicit point discharges, and erosion due to construction, are not accounted for in the model. The model provides values that are considered typical of the region, given the watershed’s respective land uses. A.1.1 Watershed boundaries Watershed boundaries were delineated for each lake. Watersheds were delineated to existing BMPs, wetlands, other waterbodies, or large section of stormsewer. Each BMP was delineated with its own subwatershed. Existing subwatersheds from the city of Eden Prairie and previous P8 models were reviewed and updated when appropriate based on 2011 DNR LiDAR topographic data, storm sewer data, record drawings, and other information provided by the RPBCWD and NMCWD as well as the cities. A.1.1.1 Staring Lake Watersheds The total watershed area of Staring Lake is over 10,000 acres. P8 has a limit of 76 devices that can be placed into one model. Therefore, the P8 model for Staring Lake was divided into two models. The first model covered areas contributing to the Purgatory Creek Recreational Wetland (PCR model). The second model covered areas directly contributing to Staring Lake. All upstream lakes (Duck Lake, Silver Lake, Lotus Lake, Round Lake, Mitchell Lake, and Red Rock Lake) were modeled independently from Staring Lake. The PCR model was divided into two sections above and below the intersection of Purgatory Creek and Valley View Road. A single watershed represents the contributing areas to Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 87 Purgatory Creek north of the Purgatory Creek Valley View Road intersection (Valley View Watershed). South of this intersection watershed are drawn to individual BMPs. Flow and TP from the Valley View Watershed were calibrated to flow and TP concentrations measured at the Valley View WOMP station. A single infiltration device was created to collect flow from the Valley View watershed. Parameters of the infiltration basin were calibrated to match the flows and TP loads leaving this watershed. Water infiltration through percolation from the watershed and the infiltration basin were accumulated in an aquifer device and rerouted back as an outflow to account for baseflow conditions of Purgatory Creek. Modeled flow and TP loads exiting the device were compared with flow measurement recorded and composite storm TP concentrations recorded at the Purgatory Creek Valley View station. The calibration was conducted between June 3, 2015 and September 30, 2015. Over the calibration period, the total measured flow was recorded as 1763 acre-ft. The modeled flows were calculated as 1773 acre-ft. Event mean TP concentrations (EMC) were also compared for six events. Table A.1 shows the comparison between the measured and modeled EMC values. Table A.1 Comparison between measured and modeled TP EMC values at Purgatory Creek Valley View Station date Measured TP EMC (mg/l) P8 modeled TP EMC (mg/l) 6/22/2015 0.244 0.228 6/30/2015 0.173 0.186 7/6/2015 0.233 0.203 7/13/2015 0.195 0.201 8/18/2015 0.254 0.178 9/17/2015 0.246 0.255 A.1.2 Land Use Land use data was obtained to estimate both the percentage of directly and indirectly connected imperviousness within each watershed. The directly connected impervious fraction consists of the impervious surfaces that are “connected” directly to stormwater conveyance systems, meaning that flows do not cross over pervious areas. The indirectly connected impervious fraction represents impervious areas that flow over pervious areas before reaching the stormwater conveyance system. Percent imperviousness was calculated 2010 land use data from the Metropolitan Council. Table A.2 shows the 2010 land use categories with the assigned percent impervious and percent directly connected impervious areas. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 88 Table A.2 Impervious Assumption by 2010 Land Use Category 2010 Land Use Categories Total Percent Impervious Percent Directly Connected Impervious Agricultural 5 1 Airport 5 1 Retail and Other Commercial 86 85 Mixed use commercial 86 85 Golf course 6 5 Manufactured Housing Parks 68 50 Major highway 50 50 Railway 65 65 Office 73 72 Industrial and Utility 73 72 Mixed use industrial 73 72 Mixed use residential 59 37 Institutional 49 40 Single family detached 35 20 Multifamily 59 37 Single family attached 50 30 Seasonal/Vacation 30 20 Park, Recreational, or Preserve 6 5 Undeveloped 3 0 Open Water 100 100 Extractive 60 50 Farmstead 25 12 A.1.3 Curve Numbers The pervious curve number (a measure of how easily water can percolate into the soil) was determined for each P8 drainage basin. Data from the 2015 gridded soil survey geographic (gSSURGO) database (Soil Survey Staff 2015) were used to determine the hydrologic soils group (HSG) in each watershed. The HSG serves as an indicatory of a soils infiltration capacity. HSG s range from type A soils that are well drained with high infiltration capacities to HSG type D soils that are poorly drained with the lowest infiltration capacities. Some areas in the county soil surveys are not defined. For these areas, a HSG of type B was assumed. Using the curve number classifications, a composite pervious area curve number was calculated for each of the subwatersheds. Curve numbers were assigned based on soil type (Table A.3) and an area weighted average curve number for each subwatershed was calculated. Table A.3: Pervious area curve number classification by HSG soil type HSG Soil Type Curve Number A 39 B 61 C 74 A/D 80 B/D 80 C/D 80 D 80 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 89 A.1.4 Drainage Patterns Drainage patterns were reviewed and updated from previous P8 models where appropriate or determined based on 2011 DNR LiDAR topographic data, storm sewer data, record drawings, and other information provided by the RPBCWD, the NMCWD and the cities. Development plans submitted as part of the RPBCWD permit review process for projects implemented after the original UAA was completed were also used as a data source. A.1.5 Pollutant Removal Device Information The P8 water quality model can predict pollutant removal efficiency for a variety of treatment practices such as detention ponds and infiltration basins. The model can also be used to simulate pollutant removal from alternative BMPs such as underground treatment devices. The modeled treatment practices are referred to in the P8 model as pollutant removal ‘devices’. Inputs for the ponds and wetlands included in the previously developed models were reviewed and adjusted if more current data were available. Pond outlets were checked against the GIS storm-sewer and as-built data from the cities of Bloomington, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Edina, and Richfield. The water volumes below the pond outlet (i.e., dead storage) were checked against field survey data and as- built plans when available. Pond live storage was adjusted using volumes calculated from the DNR’s 2011 LiDAR data. In some cases, there were existing ponds that were not included in the original P8 modeling without readily available data to develop the pond inputs. In these cases, the pond removal efficiencies were calculated using the ratio of the contributing watershed impervious area to the pond surface area and an assumed pond depth following the method described in the document Phosphorus Removal by Urban Runoff Detention Basins (Walker 1987). The watershed impervious-surface-to-pond- surface ratio curves are available in Appendix A. The new ponds and wetland areas included in the updated P8 model were developed using the same data sources listed above. In cases where no data was available, the new ponds, without available as-built or survey data, were assumed to be built to NURP specifications. A.1.6 Other Model Parameters Time Steps Per Hour (Integer) = 10 to 20. Modified as needed to eliminate continuity errors greater than 2%. Minimum Inter-Event Time (Hours) = 10. Use of this parameter resulted in a good fit between the observed and modeled lake volumes and has been used in a number of previous studies of these lakes. It should be noted that the average minimum inter-event time in the Minneapolis area is six hours. Snowmelt Melt Coef (Inches/Day-Deg-F) = 0.06. This selection was based on the snowmelt rate that provided the best match between observed and predicted snowmelt in previous studies. Snowmelt Scale Factor for Max Abstraction = 1. This factor controls the quantity of snowmelt runoff (i.e., controls losses due to infiltration). Selection was based upon the factor that resulted in the closest fit between modeled and observed runoff volumes, based on the original Lake Riley P8 model calibration from the 2004 Lake Riley UAA. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 90 Growing Season Antecedent Moisture Conditions AMC-II: 0, 0.50, or 1.4 and AMC-III 0, 1.10, or 2.10. This factor was adjusted to more accurately predicted runoff water volumes based on the runoff volumes needed to complete the water balance in the in-lake model spreadsheets. The P8 default values worked for many of the lakes; however, some of the lakes experienced more runoff and these values were then adjusted to extend AMC-III conditions. Particle Scale Factor for TP = 1. The particle scale factor determines the TP load generated by the particles predicted by the model in watershed runoff. Modified from the original UAA P8 model (1.42) in order to reduce the loading to the lakes and produce a better fit to observed lake data. Particle File = NURP50.PAR. The NURP 50 particle file was found to most accurately predict phosphorus loading to Round Lake. Preserved from the original UAA P8 model. Precipitation File Selection = MSP_FC4915_Corr.pcp and Msp4916.pcp. The RPBCWD lakes used the MSP_FC4915_Corr.pcp continuous hourly precipitation file that was developed based on data from the Flying Cloud Airport weather station. For any gaps in the airport record, the hourly data from the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport NWS station (MSP) was used and adjusted based on comparison of the daily precipitation amounts at MSP to the daily data collected at the Chanhassen NWS station. The NMCWD lakes used the Msp4916.pcp file developed from the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport NWS station (MSP). Air Temperature File Selection MSP_FC4915.tmp and Msp4916.tem. The RPBCWD lakes used the MSP_FC4915.tmp continuous daily average temperature file that was developed based on data from the Flying Cloud Airport weather station. The NMCWD lakes used the Msp4916.tem continuous daily average temperature file that was developed based on data from the MSP. Particle Removal Scale Factor. 0.3 for ponds less than 2 feet deep and 1 for all ponds 3 feet deep or greater. The particle removal factor for watershed devices determines particle removal by devices. The factor was selected to match observed phosphorus loads and modeled loads. Insufficient information was available to say with certainty the particle removal scale factor for ponds 2 to 3 feet deep. A factor of 0.6 was used for all ponds of this depth. Swept/Not Swept. = An “Unswept” assumption was made for the entire impervious watershed area. A Sweeping Frequency of 0 was selected. Selected parameters were placed in the “Swept” column since a sweeping frequency of 0 was selected. Impervious Depression Storage = 0.0065. Value used in previous models of these lakes. Impervious Runoff Coefficient = 1. Default P8 value and was used in previous models of these lakes. The Wing Lake and Lake Rose P8 models were developed for the 2010 Holiday-Wing-Rose Lake UAA report (Barr 2010) and the input parameters were not modified for this study. A.2 In-Lake Water Quality Mass Balance Modeling For the majority of Minnesota lakes, phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for algae, and an increase in phosphorus results in an increase in Chl-a concentrations and a decrease in water clarity. Eutrophic lakes can be restored by reducing phosphorus concentrations. An in-lake mass balance model for Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 91 phosphorus was developed for each lake in order to quantify phosphorus source loads to the lake. In- lake modeling for each lake was accomplished through the creation of a daily time-step mass balance model that tracked the flow of water and phosphorus through the lake over the range of observed climatic conditions. The following sections discuss the methodology used for the in-lake water quality mass balance modeling that first includes the development of a water balance model followed by the development of a phosphorus mass balance model. A.2.1 Lake Model Water Balance The first step of the in-lake water quality mass balance modeling is to develop and calibrate the water balance portion of the model. The water balance is a daily time-step model that tracks the inflows to and outflow from the lake system. Typical inflows of water to a lake include direct precipitation and watershed runoff (as generated by the watershed model), and can also include inflows from upstream lakes and/or inflows from groundwater (depending on the lake system). Losses from a lake include evaporation from the lake surface and discharge through the outlet (if applicable), and can also include losses to the groundwater (depending on the lake system). By estimating the change in storage in the lake on a daily time step, the model can be used to predict lake levels, which can then be compared to observed lake levels, which can then be used to estimate groundwater exchange and verify the estimated watershed model runoff volumes. The lake water balance calculated the total lake water volume through the simulated daily gains and losses into the lake. The water balance is represented by the following equation: 𝑉𝑖=𝑉𝑖−1 +(𝐼𝑊+𝐼𝐿𝐶)+𝑂∗𝐴𝑆−𝐸∗𝐴𝑆,(𝑖−1)−𝑂+𝐺 Where: V = Lake volume (acre-ft) i = Daily time step IW = Inflow from modeled lake’s direct watershed (acre-ft/day) ILC = Total daily inflow from upstream lake (acre-ft/day) P = Daily precipitation depth (ft/day) E = Daily evaporation depth (ft/day) AS = Lake surface area (acres) O = Outflow (acre-ft/day) G = Groundwater flow (acre-ft/day) Key input parameters into the lake models include lake depth recorded every 15 minutes while the level sensor is in place during ice free period, lake volume estimated using a relationship between lake elevation and lake cumulative volume (Table A.4 through Table A.17), daily inflow rate from the direct watershed calculated using the P8 watershed model, daily inflow rate from upstream lakes, daily outflow rates estimated using lake water elevation data with the creation of outflow rating curves (Table A.4 through Table A.17), daily precipitation data recorded at the Flying Cloud airport weather station over the lakes surface area, and evaporation calculated using the Lake Hefner equation (Marciano and Harbeck 1954) described below: Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 92 𝐸=0.00177𝑢(𝑒𝑛−𝑒𝑎) 𝑒0 =6.11 ∗10 7.5∗𝑆𝑊237.7+𝑆𝑊 𝑒𝑎=6.11 ∗10 7.5∗𝑆𝐴237.7+𝑆𝐴 Where: E = evaporation (inches) U = wind speed (mph) eo = vapor pressure of the saturates area at the temperature of the water surface ea = vapor pressure of the air TW = surface water temperature in (oC) TA = air temperature in (oC) Climate data (wind speed, air temperature, and relative humidity) were obtained from the Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport. Surface water temperatures (TW) were obtained from lake monitoring data. Groundwater flows were not available for the study lakes. Net groundwater flows were estimated for the study lakes such that model predicted changes in lake volume agreed with observed changes in lake volume. Table A.4 Silver Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 885.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 886.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 887.00 0.12 0.07 0.00 888.00 0.37 0.31 0.00 889.00 0.74 0.87 0.00 890.00 1.18 1.83 0.00 891.00 1.78 3.31 0.00 892.00 3.17 5.78 0.00 893.00 6.84 10.79 0.00 894.00 19.45 23.93 0.00 895.00 29.83 48.57 0.00 896.00 41.08 84.02 0.00 897.00 58.39 133.76 0.00 898.00 67.93 196.92 0.00 898.50 69.11 232.06 0.00 898.60 69.34 239.09 0.12 899.00 70.28 267.20 3.04 899.50 71.46 302.34 8.52 900.00 72.64 337.48 9.59 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 93 Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 900.50 74.11 375.28 10.10 901.00 75.58 413.07 10.53 902.00 78.52 488.65 11.35 Table A.5 Lotus Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 864.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 870.60 2.80 8.42 0.00 875.60 16.59 56.89 0.00 880.60 63.25 256.48 0.00 885.60 127.89 734.31 0.00 890.60 176.72 1,495.84 0.00 895.00 233.76 2,427.43 0.00 895.40 238.95 2,512.12 0.00 895.50 240.24 2,533.29 1.15 896.00 246.73 2,639.15 14.77 897.00 262.96 2,902.12 18.55 898.00 279.20 3,165.08 21.05 Table A.6 Staring Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 798.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 799.60 9.03 4.52 0.00 804.60 42.35 132.97 0.00 809.60 106.10 504.08 0.00 813.90 159.26 1,077.27 0.03 814.00 160.50 1,090.60 0.27 814.50 164.06 1,174.41 9.25 815.00 167.62 1,258.22 20.40 816.00 174.74 1,425.84 62.13 817.00 190.55 1,616.39 140.36 818.00 206.37 1,806.95 263.25 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 94 Table A.7 Lake Lucy Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow1, Lake Anne W.S.E. <955.45 (cfs) Outflow2, Lake Anne W.S.E. >956.1 (cfs) Outflow3, Lake Anne W.S.E. Between 955.45 & 956.1 (cfs) 935.30 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 941.60 6.80 21.42 0 0 0 946.60 24.80 100.42 0 0 0 951.60 50.80 289.42 0 0 0 955.20 86.20 536.02 0 0 0 955.45 87.98 558.01 0 0 0 955.50 88.33 562.41 0.006 0 0.003 955.60 89.04 571.21 0.04 0 0.02 955.70 89.75 580.01 0.11 0 0.05 955.80 90.86 589.09 0.19 0 0.09 955.90 91.97 598.18 0.31 0 0.16 956.00 93.31 607.45 0.43 0 0.22 956.10 94.50 617.06 0.62 0 0.31 956.20 95.69 626.68 0.96 0.02 0.49 957.00 105.72 706.76 8.04 1.41 4.72 957.11 107.15 718.79 9.76 4.46 7.11 957.50 112.34 761.94 17.86 13.15 15.51 957.80 116.31 794.97 25.44 25.07 25.25 958.00 118.96 816.98 33.01 33.01 33.01 Note: Lake Lucy outflows are dependent on the water surface elevations in Lake Ann. To account for this dependency, three rating curves were developed to model the Lake Lucy outflows based on a range of observed water surface elevations in Lake Ann. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 95 Table A.8 Lake Susan Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 865.00 0.00 0 0 867.00 16.52 16.52 0 872.00 51.87 187.51 0 877.00 67.91 486.95 0 880.73 86.46 774.85 0 880.90 87.31 789.62 0.25 881.00 87.81 798.37 0.62 881.20 88.07 815.96 1.86 881.50 88.46 842.44 4.61 881.70 88.72 860.16 6.95 882.00 89.11 886.83 11.09 882.50 90.38 931.70 19.50 883.00 91.65 977.21 30.77 883.50 93.62 1,023.53 43.62 884.00 95.58 1,070.82 56.44 884.50 97.35 1,119.06 68.10 885.00 99.11 1,168.17 78.73 885.50 100.37 1,218.04 86.92 886.00 101.63 1,268.54 94.76 887.00 103.60 1,371.15 107.87 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 96 Table A.9 Rice Marsh Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 865.00 0.62 0 0 866.00 1.24 0.93 0 867.00 3.09 3.09 0 868.00 7.41 8.34 0 869.00 11.74 17.91 0 870.00 25.33 36.45 0 871.00 48.18 73.20 0 872.00 67.95 131.27 0 873.00 80.92 205.71 0 874.00 87.10 289.72 0 875.00 87.45 376.99 0 875.20 88.10 394.55 0.09 875.40 90.97 412.46 0.17 875.60 95.58 431.11 0.26 875.79 101.30 450.11 0.38 875.80 101.53 450.82 0.39 875.90 104.89 461.14 0.66 876.00 108.44 471.81 1.32 876.10 112.16 482.84 2.04 876.20 116.00 494.24 2.82 876.30 119.94 506.04 3.49 876.40 123.93 518.23 4.34 876.50 127.96 530.83 5.56 876.60 132.00 543.83 6.75 876.80 140.02 571.03 9.46 877.00 147.82 599.81 14.61 877.20 155.28 630.12 19.94 877.40 162.32 661.88 25.93 877.60 168.86 695.00 32.62 878.00 180.29 764.83 54.51 878.50 191.49 857.78 88.77 879.00 199.63 955.56 125.79 879.50 205.46 1056.83 165.71 880.00 209.84 1160.65 208.33 880.50 213.43 1266.47 255.01 881.00 216.45 1373.94 304.86 881.50 218.37 1482.65 356.43 882.00 217.68 1591.66 410.23 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 97 Table A.10 Lake Riley Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 815.00 0.00 0.00 0 820.00 6.52 17.02 0 825.00 21.50 87.80 0 830.00 50.18 280.98 0 835.00 81.36 621.86 0 840.00 120.78 1144.68 0 845.00 162.20 1877.80 0 850.00 191.86 2781.46 0 855.00 216.34 3809.84 0 860.00 253.40 4995.00 0 864.50 296.57 6232.42 0 864.62 289.85 6258.45 0.82 864.70 290.30 6281.32 1.48 864.80 290.84 6309.60 2.40 864.90 291.39 6337.95 3.49 865.00 291.93 6366.35 4.97 865.10 292.47 6394.82 6.99 865.20 293.00 6423.34 9.35 865.30 293.54 6451.93 12.00 865.40 294.07 6480.57 15.20 865.50 294.60 6509.28 19.22 866.00 297.21 6653.74 45.86 866.50 299.76 6799.75 84.03 867.00 302.24 6947.32 126.13 867.50 304.65 7096.48 160.46 868.00 306.95 7244.23 183.08 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 98 Table A.11 Hyland Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 804.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 805.00 25.93 12.97 0.00 810.00 74.06 262.93 0.00 815.00 82.02 653.12 0.00 816.00 84.52 736.39 0.00 816.50 85.39 778.87 0.00 816.70 85.73 795.98 0.19 816.80 85.90 804.56 0.49 816.90 86.08 813.16 0.79 817.00 86.25 821.77 1.09 817.50 87.06 865.10 3.17 818.00 87.86 908.83 5.43 818.20 88.32 926.45 7.19 818.40 88.77 944.16 9.72 818.50 89.00 953.05 12.20 818.80 89.67 979.85 23.54 819.00 90.13 997.83 38.11 819.50 91.17 1,043.15 81.45 820.00 92.20 1,088.99 134.67 821.00 94.26 1,182.22 265.36 821.50 95.37 1,229.63 342.44 821.60 95.59 1,239.18 358.59 822.00 96.48 1,277.59 426.50 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 99 Table A.12 Wing Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 931.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 933.00 0.55 0.41 0.00 934.00 3.28 2.32 0.00 935.00 6.15 7.03 0.00 936.00 9.27 14.74 0.00 937.00 12.04 25.40 0.00 938.00 13.15 37.99 0.00 938.80 13.60 48.69 0.00 938.90 13.68 50.06 0.00 939.00 13.74 51.43 0.02 939.10 13.81 52.80 0.05 939.20 13.89 54.19 0.10 939.30 13.96 55.58 0.14 939.40 14.03 56.98 0.16 939.50 14.10 58.39 0.19 939.60 14.18 59.80 0.21 939.70 14.25 61.22 0.23 939.80 14.32 62.65 0.24 939.90 14.39 64.09 0.40 940.00 14.46 65.53 0.88 940.10 14.52 66.98 1.41 940.20 14.57 68.43 2.09 940.30 14.63 69.89 2.71 940.40 14.68 71.36 3.32 940.50 14.73 72.83 3.95 941.00 14.97 80.26 7.54 941.50 15.36 87.84 10.85 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 100 Table A.13 Lake Rose Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 912.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 912.60 0.06 0.01 0.00 913.60 0.19 0.13 0.00 914.60 0.34 0.40 0.00 915.60 0.55 0.84 0.00 916.60 0.83 1.53 0.00 917.60 1.18 2.53 0.00 918.60 1.89 4.07 0.00 919.60 3.39 6.71 0.00 920.60 4.91 10.86 0.00 921.60 9.23 17.93 0.00 922.60 16.42 30.76 0.00 923.60 19.69 48.81 0.00 924.60 22.16 69.74 0.00 925.60 25.98 93.80 0.00 926.50 29.54 118.79 0.00 926.60 29.72 121.75 0.40 926.70 29.87 124.73 1.37 926.80 30.01 127.72 2.61 926.90 30.16 130.73 4.01 927.00 30.30 133.75 5.35 927.10 30.44 136.79 6.56 927.20 30.59 139.84 7.98 927.30 30.73 142.91 9.21 927.40 30.88 145.99 10.44 928.00 31.90 164.82 17.81 928.60 33.02 184.30 21.40 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 101 Table A.14 North Cornelia Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 852.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 853.00 0.65 0.42 0.00 854.00 2.26 1.88 0.00 855.00 10.51 8.27 0.00 856.00 15.62 21.33 0.00 857.00 16.73 37.50 0.00 858.00 17.60 54.67 0.00 859.00 18.70 72.82 0.00 859.25 19.30 77.57 0.10 859.50 19.80 82.46 0.45 860.00 20.90 92.63 1.53 860.50 31.10 105.63 2.54 862.00 32.70 153.48 4.31 863.00 36.34 188.00 15.00 Table A.15 South Cornelia Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 851.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 852.00 4.22 2.29 0.00 853.00 11.45 10.13 0.00 854.00 17.92 24.81 0.00 855.00 23.36 45.45 0.00 856.00 27.72 70.99 0.00 857.00 29.92 99.81 0.00 858.00 31.31 130.43 0.00 859.00 33.15 162.74 0.00 859.10 33.21 166.05 0.30 859.25 33.31 171.04 2.20 859.50 33.46 179.39 6.50 859.75 33.62 187.77 10.00 860.00 33.78 196.20 10.77 861.00 34.67 230.42 23.53 861.10 35.01 233.91 23.92 862.10 36.73 269.78 27.82 863.10 39.03 307.66 31.73 864.00 40.15 343.29 35.24 865.80 41.23 416.53 60.37 868.00 49.46 516.28 92.09 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 102 Table A.16 Lake Edina Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 817.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 818.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 819.00 11.51 5.86 0.00 820.00 20.55 21.89 0.00 821.00 23.59 43.96 0.00 822.00 24.63 68.07 0.00 822.20 24.81 73.01 1.60 822.50 25.09 80.50 4.33 823.00 25.55 93.16 9.30 824.00 27.14 119.51 21.80 826.00 34.61 181.26 57.00 827.00 37.31 217.22 100.00 828.50 410.26 552.90 115.00 Table A.17 Penn Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 801.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 802.00 2.74 1.37 0.00 803.00 9.27 7.38 0.00 804.00 19.54 21.79 0.00 805.00 26.23 44.67 0.00 806.00 30.57 73.07 0.00 806.62 31.69 92.38 0.00 806.65 31.74 93.33 0.00 807.00 32.38 104.55 0.00 807.10 32.47 107.79 0.40 807.30 32.65 114.30 1.40 807.50 32.84 120.85 2.92 807.80 33.12 130.75 6.07 808.00 33.30 137.39 8.35 809.00 34.58 171.33 19.99 810.00 36.70 206.97 29.00 811.00 38.66 244.65 33.00 812.00 40.59 284.28 35.00 A.2.2 Lake Model Total Phosphorus Balance While the watershed model is a useful tool for evaluating runoff volumes and pollutant concentrations from a watershed, another method is needed to predict the in-lake phosphorus concentrations that are likely to result from the various phosphorus loads. In-lake phosphorus modeling was accomplished through the creation of a daily time-step mass balance model that tracked the flow of water and Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 103 phosphorus through the lake over a range of climatic conditions. A daily time-step model was chosen because of the high variability in the nutrient-related water quality parameters. Using a daily time-step model (instead of an annual model, e.g., BATHTUB), allowed for the determination of the critical components (i.e., internal vs. external phosphorus sources), causing water quality standard exceedance as well as allowing for lake response modeling of management methods during the periods of standard exceedance. Once calibrated, the models could be used predictively to evaluate the lake phosphorus concentrations under a variety of scenarios, including future land use conditions, and following the implementation of remedial watershed BMPs and in-lake management strategies. The lake phosphorus budgets are based on the Vollenweider (1969) mass balance equation: 𝑇𝑂= (𝐿+𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑡)/(𝑍̅∗(𝜎+𝜌)) Where: 𝑍̅ = average lake depth in meters ρ = flushing rate in yr-1 σ = sedimentation rate in yr-1 L = areal loading rate in mg/(m2*yr) Lint = internal loading rate in mg/(m2*yr) A difference between Vollenweider’s equation and the model used for this study is that the parameters in the above equation were used on a daily timestep as opposed to an annual basis. Also, the magnitude of the net internal phosphorus load to the lake surface was determined by comparing the observed water quality in the lake to the water quality predicted by the in-lake model under existing conditions. The in-lake phosphorus mass balance model assumed a fully mixed lake volume, i.e. the phosphorus concentration is uniform throughout the lake volume. The change in the TP mass within the lake was calculated with the following mass balance equation: Δ Phosphorus Mass = Watershed Inputs + Direct Deposition to Lake Surface + Internal Loading – Surface Outflow – Groundwater Outflow – Settling of In-Lake Phosphorus Key input parameters in the lake phosphorus budget include phosphorus loads from upstream lakes, atmospheric deposition and from the direct watershed; internal loading from the lake sediments; loading or losses from groundwater depending if the groundwater is flowing into or out of the lake; and loses through settling and outflow. The loading from upstream lakes was calculated using existing daily in-lake models for the lake upstream if available. This method was used for Staring Lake, Lake Riley, Wing Lake, Lake Rose, South Cornelia Lake, and Lake Edina. If an existing model was not available upstream loads were calculated using inflow rates estimated from the upstream lake’s water surface elevation and rating curve combined with the surface phosphorus concentration recorded in the lake. This method was used for Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake (Lake Susan was calibrated to a different year than Rice Marsh Lake so the Susan output could not be used for the Rice Marsh upstream lake input). The phosphorus load from the lakes direct watersheds was calculated using the P8 modeling results. Atmospheric deposition of phosphorus onto the lakes water surfaces was calculated by using the estimated statewide phosphorus atmospheric deposition rate of 0.42 kg/ha/year (Barr 2007) combined with the lakes water surface areas based on the current water elevation. Groundwater loads were either a source or a sink for phosphorus depending on if water was flowing into or out of the lake respectively. If the net daily groundwater flow Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 104 was into the lake, the load of phosphorus was calculated using the groundwater flow rate and an estimate for groundwater phosphorus concentration of 0.035 mg/l. If the net flow was out of the lake then the loss of phosphorus was estimated using the flow rate and the average lake phosphorus concentration. The loss of phosphorus through outflow from the lakes was calculated using the measured surface concentrations of TP and the outflow rate calculated in the water balance. The final two parameters, settling and internal loading, were used to calibrate the model to the recorded lake concentrations. Lake mixing and anoxic conditions can create an environment in the lake that is conducive to internal loads at times. At other times, the lake does not experience a significant internal load (generally spring and fall). Monitoring data (phosphorus, temperature, and dissolved oxygen profiles) provided useful information in determining when the lake is susceptible to internal loading from the sediment. Dissolved oxygen data was used to determine when anoxic conditions were present what area was under anoxic conditions. When the dissolved oxygen concentration was below 1 mg/l the sediments at that depth were considered to be anoxic resulting in internal loading of iron- bound phosphorus. The rate of phosphorus loading was calibrated for each year to match the measured data. The sedimentation rates for the lakes were calibrated using in-lake TP monitoring data from well mixed periods without the conditions necessary for internal phosphorus loading. At these times (generally in spring and fall after turnover), phosphorus concentration in the surface waters of the lake is only affected by sedimentation, flushing, and incoming external loads of phosphorus from the watershed and atmosphere. This was accomplished by setting the internal loading rate (Lint) in the above equation by Vollenweider to zero and adjusting the settling rate so that the calculated, in-lake phosphorus concentration matched the monitored phosphorus during the spring period. A.2.3 Lake Surface Model Concentration Surface water phosphorus concentration are required to determine if a lake is meeting or exceeding the phosphorus standard. Therefore, the volumetric average lake models were further divided into two completely mixed models representing the lake epilimnion and hypolimnion for lakes that displayed persistent stratification throughout the summer (Lotus, Riley, Lucy, Susan). All parameters in the volumetric model remained the same in the lake surface models. The main change between the two approaches was the internal loading and groundwater sources were only applied to the hypolimnion and all other phosphorus sources (atmospheric, direct watershed, and Lake Calhoun inflow) were applied to the epilimnion. Mixing between the hypolimnion and the epilimnion were determined based on temperature profiles. The point of the maximum temperature gradient was used as the dividing depth between the two layers. Temperature profiles taken during open water periods were used to calculate the thermocline depth. As this depth moved up or down in the lake water was mixed between the two layers appropriately. The parameters were then applied to the whole lake volumetric model to check that they produced a reasonable result in this analysis as well. A.2.4 Silver Model Calibration The Silver Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). The Silver Lake daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater inflows were used to match the observed spring water surface elevation. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Silver Lake does Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 105 not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Silver Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Figure A.1 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged epilimnetic TP concentrations. Figure A.2 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored epilimnetic volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 water year. Figure A.1 Silver Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 106 Figure A.2 Silver Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured whole lake TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. A.2.5 Lotus Lake Model Calibration The Lotus Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). The Lotus Lake daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater inflows were used to match the observed spring water surface elevation. Both the epilimnion and hypolimnion TP concentrations were modeled in Lotus Lake due to its thermally stratifying during the growing season. Dividing the lake model into these separate layers enabled a more accurate estimate of internal loading. The Lotus Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Figure A.3 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged epilimnetic TP concentrations. Figure A.4 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored epilimnetic volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 107 Figure A.3 Lotus Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. Figure A.4 Lotus Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. A.2.6 Staring Lake Model Calibration The Staring Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). The Staring Lake daily water balance was adjusted using Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 108 the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the observed water surface elevation throughout the year. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Staring Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Staring Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Inflows from upstream lakes were entered based on in-lake models constructed for Red Rock Lake, Duck Lake, Lotus Lake, and Silver Lake as part of the ongoing Purgatory Creek Watershed Assessment. Inflows from Red Rock Lake were adjusted based on modeled removal efficiencies of downstream ponds including Lake McCoy before it enters Staring Lake. Figure A.5 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.6 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 water year. Figure A.5 Staring Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 109 Figure A.6 Staring Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. A.2.7 Lake Lucy Model Calibration The Lake Lucy water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). The Lake Lucy daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Daily groundwater adjustments were very small, less than ±1.0 cfs. Lake Lucy outflows are dependent on the water surface elevations in Lake Ann. To account for this dependency, three rating curves were developed to model the Lake Lucy outflows based on a range of observed water surface elevations in Lake Ann. Both the epilimnion and hypolimnion TP concentrations were modeled in Lake Lucy due to its thermally stratifying during the growing season. Dividing the lake model into these separate layers enabled a more accurate estimate of internal loading. The Lake Lucy model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Separate settling velocities were used in the hypolimnion and epilimnion and during the summer and winter periods to more accurately match the observed TP concentrations in these layers and during these time periods. Figure A.7 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged epilimnetic TP concentrations. Figure A.8 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored epilimnetic volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 110 Figure A.7 Lake Lucy comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. Figure A.8 Lake Lucy time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. A.2.8 Lake Susan Model Calibration The Lake Susan water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). The Lake Susan daily water balance was adjusted using Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 111 the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater inflows were used to match the observed spring water surface elevation. Both the epilimnion and hypolimnion TP concentrations were modeled in Lake Susan due to its thermally stratifying during the growing season. Dividing the lake model into these separate layers enabled a more accurate estimate of internal loading. The Lake Susan model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Separate settling velocities were used in the hypolimnion and epilimnion and during the summer and winter periods to more accurately match the observed TP concentrations in these layers and during these time periods. Inflow loads from Lake Ann were estimated using the Lake Ann outflow rating curve, observed water surface elevations and surface TP concentrations. The loading from Riley Creek stream bank erosion was estimated to be 400 lbs/year. This annual load was distributed on a daily basis based on the percentage of the annual creek inflow volume occurring on that day. Figure A.9 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged epilimnetic TP concentrations. Figure A.10 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored epilimnetic volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 water year. Figure A.9 Lake Susan comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 112 Figure A.10 Lake Susan time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations. A.2.9 Rice Marsh Lake Model Calibration The Rice Marsh Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2014 water year (October 2013 through September 2014). The Rice Marsh Lake daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the observed spring through fall water surface elevations. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Rice Marsh Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Rice Marsh Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Separate settling velocities were used during the summer and winter periods to more accurately match the observed TP concentrations in these layers and during these time periods. The inflow loads from Lake Susan were estimated using the Lake Susan outflow rating curve, observed water surface elevations and surface TP concentrations. Figure A.11 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2014 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.12 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2014 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 113 Figure A.11 Rice Marsh Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2014 water year. Figure A.12 Rice Marsh Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2014 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 114 A.2.10 Riley Lake Model Calibration The Lake Riley water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2014 water year (October 2013 through September 2014). The Lake Riley daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the observed fall water surface elevations. Both the epilimnion and hypolimnion TP concentrations were modeled in Lake Riley due to its thermally stratifying during the growing season. Dividing the lake model into these separate layers enabled a more accurate estimate of internal loading. The Lake Riley model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Separate settling velocities were used in the hypolimnion and epilimnion and during the summer and winter periods to more accurately match the observed TP concentrations in these layers and during these time periods. The inflow loads from Rice Marsh Lake were estimated from the Rice Marsh Lake in-lake model. Figure A.13 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2014 modeled and measured volumetric averaged epilimnetic TP concentrations. Figure A.14 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored epilimnetic volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2014 water year. Figure A.13 Lake Riley comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2014 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 115 Figure A.14 Lake Riley time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2014 water year. A.2.11 Hyland Lake Model Calibration The Hyland Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). The Hyland Lake daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the observed water surface elevation throughout the year. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Hyland Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Hyland Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Separate settling velocities were used during the summer and winter periods to more accurately match the observed TP concentrations during these time periods. Figure A.15 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.16 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 116 Figure A.15 Hyland Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. Figure A.16 Hyland Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. Large portions of the Hyland Lake Watershed did not contribute loading to the lake during the 2015 water year based on the P8 model results. These areas include the areas draining to Colorado Pond as well as large portions of the parkland around the lake. The Hyland lake Subwatershed boundaries, flow Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 117 path directions, 2015 water year contributing areas and TP loadings to the lake from the various potential inflow points are shown in Figure A.17 and summarized in Table A.18. Table A.18 Hyland Lake contributing and non-contributing areas, total phosphorus watershed loads and total phosphorus loads to the lake based on P8 modeled results for the 2015 water year. Contributing Areas Inflow Point Upstream Area (ac) Watershed TP Load (lbs) Watershed TP Load (lbs/ac) TP Load to the Lake (lbs) TP Load to the Lake (lbs/ac) Direct Watershed 95.1 31.0 0.33 31.0 0.33 68D32_O 121.0 18.7 0.15 5.5 0.05 68-04 269.1 132.4 0.49 53.9 0.20 Total 485.3 182.1 0.38 90.4 0.19 Non-contributing Areas Inflow Point Upstream Area (ac) Watershed TP Load (lbs) Watershed TP Load (lbs/ac) TP Load to the Lake (lbs) TP Load to the Lake (lbs/ac) Colorado Pond 233.9 88.0 0.38 0 0 HYL001 7.1 0.8 0.11 0 0 HYL002 9.2 2.2 0.23 0 0 HYL005 66.5 7.3 0.11 0 0 HYL007 10.0 2.8 0.28 0 0 HYL008 27.2 3.0 0.11 0 0 Total 353.8 104.1 0.29 0 0 Overall Total 839.1 286.2 0.34 90.4 0.11 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 118 Figure A.17 Hyland Lake subwatersheds, flowpath directions, contributing areas and total phosphorus loads to the lake for the 2015 water year Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 119 A.2.12 Wing Lake Model Calibration The Wing Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2016 growing season (June 2016 through September 2016). The Wing Lake daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater inflows were used to match the spring water surface elevations while outflows were used to match the observed water surface elevations in later in the growing season. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Wing Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Wing Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. The upstream lake inflow loads from Lake Holiday were estimated from a water quality model developed for Lake Holiday. Figure A.18 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2016 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.19 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2016 growing season. Figure A.18 Wing Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 120 Figure A.19 Wing Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. A.2.13 Lake Rose Model Calibration The Lake Rose water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2016 growing season (June 2016 through September 2016). The Lake Rose daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the observed water surface elevations throughout the growing season. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Lake Rose does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Lake Rose model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. The upstream lake inflow loads from Wing Lake were estimated from the Wing Lake in-lake model output. Figure A.20 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2016 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.21 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2016 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 121 Figure A.20 Lake Rose comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. Figure A.21 Lake Rose time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. A.2.14 North Cornelia Lake Model Calibration The North Cornelia Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 growing season (June 2015 through September 2015). The North Cornelia Lake daily water balance did Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 122 not need to be adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter during the 2015 growing season. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since North Cornelia Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The North Cornelia Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Figure A.22 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.23 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 growing season. Figure A.22 North Cornelia Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 123 Figure A.23 North Cornelia Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 growing season. A.2.15 South Cornelia Lake Model Calibration The South Cornelia Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2016 growing season (June 2016 through September 2016). The South Cornelia Lake daily water balance did not need to be adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter during the 2016 growing season. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since South Cornelia Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The South Cornelia Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. The upstream lake inflow loads from North Cornelia Lake were estimated from the North Cornelia Lake in-lake model output. Figure A.24 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2016 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.25 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2016 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 124 Figure A.24 South Cornelia Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. Figure A.25 South Cornelia Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. A.2.16 Lake Edina Model Calibration The Lake Edina water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 growing season (June 2015 through September 2015). The Lake Edina daily water balance was adjusted using the Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 125 “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the spring water surface elevations. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Lake Edina does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Lake Edina model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. The upstream lake inflow loads from South Cornelia Lake were estimated from the South Cornelia Lake in-lake model output. Figure A.26Figure A.24 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.27 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 growing season. Figure A.26 Lake Edina comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 126 Figure A.27 Lake Edina time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 growing season. A.2.17 Penn Lake Model Calibration The Penn Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2016 growing season (June 2016 through September 2016). The Penn Lake daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the spring water surface elevations. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Penn Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Penn Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Figure A.28 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2016 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.29 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2016 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 127 Figure A.28 Penn Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. Figure A.29 Penn Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 128 References Barr Engineering Company. 2007. Detailed Assessment of Phosphorus Sources to Minnesota Watersheds – Atmospheric Deposition: 2007 Update. Prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Barr Engineering Company. 2010. Use Attainability Analysis for Lake Holiday, Wing Lake and Lake Rose. Prepared for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Barr Engineering Company. 2010. Use Attainability Analysis for Lake Holiday, Wing Lake and Lake Rose. Prepared for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Marciano, J.J. and Harbeck, G.E., 1954. Mass-transfer studies. In: USGS (Editor), Water-Loss Investigations: Lake Hefner Studies, Technical Report. United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., pp. 46-70. Nash, J. E. and J. V. Sutcliffe. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles, Journal of Hydrology, 10 (3), 282–290. Soil Survey Staff. (2015) Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) Database for Minnesota. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/. (FY2015 official release). Vollenweider, R.A. 1969. “Possibilities and Limits of Elementary Models Concerning the Budget of Substances in Lakes.” Archiv fur Hydrobiologie., 66, 1-36. 1. Municipal stormwater (MS4) The issuance date of the 2020 MS4 General Permit (MNR040000) was November 16, 2020. Rain and snow melt run over the abundant impervious surfaces in urbanized areas — roads, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, roof tops, etc. — and pick up pesticides, fertilizers, oils, metals, road salt, sediment, trash, and other pollutants and carry them into storm drains. Storm drains discharge directly into lakes rivers, streams, and wetlands, so stormwater runoff is a leading source of water pollution. In addition, stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces travels faster and in larger quantities, which results in damage to rivers, streams, and wetlands; destruction of aquatic habitats; and elevated pollutant levels reaching surface waters. Impervious surfaces also prevent stormwater from soaking into the ground and recharging groundwater. Local public entities that own or operate municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) play a key role in preventing stormwater runoff from harming Minnesota’s valuable water resources. What is an MS4? A municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is a conveyance or system of conveyances (roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, storm drains, etc.) that is also: Owned or operated by a public entity (which can include cities, townships, counties, military bases, hospitals, prison complexes, highway departments, universities, sewer districts, etc.) Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater Not a combined sewer Not part of a publicly owned treatment works MS4s in Minnesota must satisfy the requirements of the MS4 general permit if they are located in an urbanized area and used by a population of 1,000 or more or owned by a municipality with a population of 10,000 or more, or a population of at least 5,000 and the system discharges to specially classified bodies of water. Minnesota state rule (Minn. R. 7090) establishes criteria and a process for designating future MS4s; see the Stormwater rules page for more information. The MS4 general permit is designed to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants entering state waters from stormwater systems. Entities regulated by the MS4 general permit must develop a stormwater pollution prevention program and adopt best practices. Learn more on the Complying with the MS4 general permit page. A general permit covers multiple entities with similar operations and types of discharges. Issuing general permits allows for faster and more efficient permitting compared to issuing individual permits Nevada Springs Restoration Workbook DRAFT DOCUMENT 5 November 2012 1 A RESTORATION GUIDE FOR NEVADA, GREAT BASIN AND MOJAVE/SONORAN DESERT SPRINGS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT - NOVEMBER 5, 2012 Prepared by: The Nevada Springs Restoration Workshop Committee Lawrence E. Stevens, Chair, Springs Stewardship Institute Robert J. Andress, Gradient LLC Stephanie Carman, Bureau of Land Management Joseph Gurrieri, U.S. Forest Service David Kreamer, University of Nevada Las Vegas Donald R. Sada, Desert Research Institute Cynthia Tait, U.S. Forest Service Assisted by Abe Springer, Jeri Ledbetter, and Anya Fayfer, Springs Stewardship Institute INTRODUCTION Springs are places where groundwater reaches the Earth’s surface. Nevada, the nation’s driest state, supports a great abundance of springs, which are among the most important productive and important ecosystems. Springs provide many Great Basin and Mojave Desert ranches and farms with domestic and livestock water, and support many of the region’s unique plants and animals. In addition, springs are important paleontological, cultural, and historic sites. Springs often are intensively used for human purposes, but if the aquifers that support them are intact, springs can be remarkably resilient and can be readily managed for both human and natural functions. Concern for improving the sustainability of Nevada’s springs, and experience with their rehabilitation, prompted us to develop this workbook on restoration. This book outlines our suggestions about improving the care of springs, and is intended for use by public and government springs stewards throughout the state. While the approach and methods proposed here apply directly to Nevada springs, they also may prove useful to springs stewardship in most arid states and regions (Fig. 1). Nevada has long been a leader in the understanding of springs and the challenges of management, and our work follows the lead of The Nevada Springs Conservation Plan (Abele et al. 2011; http://www.fws.gov/nevada/partners/documents/springcons.pdf). That plan summarizes the current conditions, threats, and actions needed to conserve Nevada’s springs. It was prepared to serve as a catalyst to advance conservation efforts for Nevada’s spring systems. Here, we take the next step to improve Great Basin and Mojave Desert springs stewardship. We clearly recognize that springs and the ecological and economic amenities they provide are vital to those who own and manage them. Nonetheless, the use and ecological function of springs are not necessarily contrary purposes, as many land owners recognize. Springs can be sustainably used for water supplies or other services while still providing many natural ecological functions, and appropriate care of springs enhances both property value and the integrity of our natural heritage. Nevada Springs Restoration Workbook DRAFT DOCUMENT 5 November 2012 2 In this handbook, we suggest a rationale, methods and approaches for accomplishing both ends, clearly recognizing the primacy of stewardship rights and goals. In general, we find that springs management is best achieved by following the following overall formula: Define Desired Conditions and Goals InventoryAssessPlanImplementMonitor Evaluate Success and Modify as Needed This approach improves understanding of how to achieve desired conditions for the springs, the trade-offs involved, as well as the costs and timing of stewardship actions. The approach can be used to address the following suite of issues: 1) Is there a problem? 2) What is the problem? 3) How bad is the problem? 4) How can the problem be solved? 5) Solve the problem and maintain and monitor the desired condition. The following document is framed around these questions into modules to help concerned citizen or government agencies consider options and move forward with solving springs stewardship challenges. If broadly adopted, such an approach will greatly help improve the ecological health and integrity of these highly valued resources, and our natural heritage in general. Fig. 1: Bug Spring, Pima County, Arizona, May 2012. Nevada Springs Restoration Workbook DRAFT DOCUMENT 5 November 2012 3 VISIT SITE: RECOGNIZING PROBLEMS Many springs are intensively used and altered for various purposes, and many springs ecosystems are highly impaired. However, springs can be used and managed sustainably to provide human services, such as water delivery, as well as natural ecological functions. Recognizing the goals for management of a spring, ecological stressors, and stewardship solutions generally requires careful consideration, particularly if those solutions require substantial effort and cost. Here we provide a table to quickly recognize stewardship problems with springs (Table 1) and a decision flow chart as to how to solve stewardship problems (Fig. 2). Potential solutions for these problems vary by springs types, because of inherent differences in aquifer function, geomorphology, microhabitat arrays, and species occurrence. Descriptions of springs types, with examples and sketches, are available at SpringStewardship.org. Table 1: A quick check-list of ecological functions and stressors for quickly identifying stewardship challenges at springs ecosystems. Springs Type: Hillslope, Limnocrene, Helocrene, Rheocrene, Hanging Gardens, Other: Function Common Stressors (Circle Any That Apply) Status (Poor, Fair, Good) Aquifer/flow Groundwater pumping, climate change (drought) Groundwater quality Groundwater pollution Surface water quality Surface point source pollutants Geomorphology Alteration of the source or outflow Flow regulation Spring box, diversion, piping Aquatic habitat Dewatering; geomorphic, siltation or herbivore impacts Wetland habitat Dewatering; geomorphic, erosional or herbivore impacts Riparian habitat Dewatering; geomorphic, erosional or herbivore impacts Adjacent uplands Erosion; fire; geomorphic or herbivore impacts Native aquatic.wetland species Loss or decline of desired native species Native riparian species Loss or decline of desired native species Native upland speces Loss or decline of desired native species Nonnative aquatic/wetland species Occurrence or dominance of undesired nonnative species Nonnative riparian species Occurrence or dominance of undesired nonnative species Nonnative upland species Occurrence or dominance of undesired nonnative species Economics Domestic, agricultural, or mining water supplies; water bottling; wood supplies; wildlife; other Other Nevada Springs Restoration Workbook DRAFT DOCUMENT 5 November 2012 4 Fig. 2: A flow chart of problem recognition and resolution for improving springs stewardship. Individuals and agencies managing springs often express concerns about the sustainability of their springs. In our work as stewardship advisors we often hear the comment, “My springs are drying up.” Are these concerns real, and if so, what are the causes? Is the loss of springs simply a matter of leaking pipes, or encroaching vegetation that transpires groundwater; or is the problem related to channel incision, groundwater pumping or long-term drought? Another common concern involves decreasing water quality. The array of possible causes here may involve stagnation from failing or poorly designed infrastructure, local or regional groundwater pollution, changes in dissolved minerals related to reduced flows or unwanted plant growth, or self-protection from potential law suits. If a spring is in natural condition and is valued for its natural qualities, it may not require any additional stewardship action; however, it may be important as a reference site, to use in evaluating the health of other nearby springs. If so, sharing information about the site may benefit other land stewards and managing agencies, and state and federal programs exist that support wetland conservation and management. Several other comments are worth mentioning in relation to Figure 1. For example, if the springs are naturally dry or scoured, it may not be worthwhile or possible to manage them for an alternative ecological condition. Other common stressors include invasion of invasive weeds or nonnative animals, trampling by herbivores, or erosion from human uses at the spring or in the surrounding landscape. Springs stewardship can be improved by talking with experts, who may help identify problems arising from multiple causes, or regional groundwater issues. The federal allotment managing agencies, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Nevada Department of Wildlife all provide information about springs stewardship to interested citizens. Nevada Springs Restoration Workbook DRAFT DOCUMENT 5 November 2012 5 Fig. 2 provides a convenient flow chart showing how to proceed with recognizing and assessing the management options to improve and ensure the sustainability of springs. WHAT IS THE GOAL, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, AND HOW BAD IS IT? Many springs have been altered by a number of human activities that impair ecological integrity. The desired condition is often to maintain a spring’s functional characteristics that are similar to their historic condition, which represents ecological integrity. These conditions may be different for each spring, and discussion with a group of knowledgeable people will inform the most appropriate pathway to reach desired conditions. The first step in improving physical and biological condition of a spring is to develop a vision and desired outcome. Ensuring sustainable flow and water quality is often a primary goal, but in other situations the protection, preservation or recovery of individual or groups of species, or the overall ecological integrity of the site, may be important goals. Changes in management and restoration programs may not be needed for springs that are minimally affected by human actions, or for springs with persistent flow that are unaffected by natural factors such as drying or scouring floods. The description of specific objectives often enables us to clearly recognize milestones and endpoints in the recovery or improvement of spring conditions. Identifying problems affecting desired condition of a spring involves understanding activities that are stressing the system. In arid regions, stressors are generally related to excessive native and non-native grazing and trampling, surface water diversions, presence of invasive species, and excessive groundwater use. The influence of these on ecological integrity of a spring is relative to the amount of influence of riparian and aquatic systems. Small disturbances have little influence on integrity, but degradation of a system increases with the magnitude, frequency, and duration of activity. Desired conditions may occur where there is little evidence of livestock use, minimal surface and ground water diversion, and where invasive species are uncommon members of either the riparian or aquatic communities. Desired conditions cannot occur when stressors have a large influence on riparian vegetation and aquatic life, or when the abundance or distribution of rare species is decreased. High levels of stress are evidenced by: Spring morphology is altered (e.g., a flowing spring brook is ponded, a spring brook is channelized or dredged). Surface discharge in upper reaches of a spring brook is decreased by more than a critical amount of its natural discharge. Grazing, trampling, and other factors can alter the species composition of riparian communities as compared to conditions documented in nearby healthy riparian systems. Deleterious alterations may include diminished presence of woody, obligatory, or facultative wetland vegetation, increasing presence of upland species in the riparian system. Invasive species that are established and dominate either the riparian or aquatic communities, including bullfrogs, crayfish, non-native mollusks, salt cedar, cattails. Nonnative species such as crayfish prey on and reduce native species (Fig. 3). Nevada Springs Restoration Workbook DRAFT DOCUMENT 5 November 2012 6 y = -35.024x + 3372.8 R2 = 0.0299 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Density of Procambarus/m 2Density of Native Inverts/m2 Fig. 3: Density of non-native Procambarus red crayfish reduces the density of native macroinvertebrates in Ash Meadows springs in southern Nevada. WHAT CAN BE DONE? Springs management and restoration methods are determined by spring type and stressors. Common spring types in Nevada include stream-channel (rheocrene), pool-forming (limnocrene), and marsh or wet meadow (helocrene) springs. Desired conditions are most easily achieved when matched with the spring type and characteristics of the pre-disturbance spring. Site assessment should determine the overall feasibility of achieving the pre-disturbance spring condition based on degree of physical alteration and impact at any given site (Fig. 4). Fig. 4: Moapa Warm Springs channel rehabilitation, achieved through a partnership between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Otis Bay, Inc. (http://www.otisbay.com/projects/nevada/moapa/pederson/moapapederson.h tml) Nevada Springs Restoration Workbook DRAFT DOCUMENT 5 November 2012 7 Can the site be rehabilitated through management action(s) or are restoration activities required? There are two approaches to achieving desired conditions; 1) changes in the management of the site or individual resources; and 2) physical, on-the-ground restoration. Changes in management do not require physical site manipulation, but may involve reduction or removal of stressors such as water diversion, removal of invasive species, and/or livestock grazing, but may involve monitoring. If it is determined that a change in management is sufficient to achieve desired conditions, a management strategy can be developed. Remedies for impaired springs may include site specific actions depending on the amount and characteristics of site stressors. While many unimpaired or natural sites might require little action or management, impaired springs with rare or sensitive species can benefit from habitat improvement and monitoring. Remedies also may include site rehabilitation and restoration, which are site reconstruction activities that require construction equipment or hand tools to achieve desired conditions. Three types of management actions can be considered: 1) protection of natural sites, 2) eliminating identified stressors to reduce impairment, or 3) management actions to prevent or alleviate potential, future threats. Stressors to a site can include groundwater extraction, impacts to groundwater quality, livestock grazing, surface water diversion, invasive species, or recreation impacts. The magnitude of the stressor or impairment will typically inform the project approach. In certain situations a change in management may be sufficient to alleviate stressors while in other situations physical, on the ground actions may be necessary. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ALLEVIATE STRESSORS Groundwater extraction: Methods to eliminate stressors related to groundwater extraction can include determination of the impacts by nearby wells to flow at the site of concern. A management strategy could be to vary the pumping schedule or location to reduce impacts to spring source discharge. Impacts to water quality: Impacts to groundwater quality could be due to nearby industrial or agricultural activities. Management strategies may include monitoring downstream changes in water quality, and removal or control of the sources of pollution. Stagnation or eutrophication may result in diminished water quality. Management strategies to prevent stagnation can include minimizing nutrient input and maintaining unobstructed discharge. Water quality may also be affected by livestock. Livestock grazing: Inappropriate or excessive livestock grazing affects springs by compressing wet soils, breaking down banks, increasing sediment and nutrients, and reducing plant cover and the presence of desired riparian species. However, these adverse impacts can often be mitigated by simply changing how livestock are managed. Changes to fencing, season of use, duration of use, livestock numbers, livestock type (e.g. cow/calf pairs, yearlings, sheep), or off-site watering facilities can all contribute to improved management of impaired spring sites. Surface water diversion: Decreasing a springs’ discharge reduces the amount and productivity of aquatic and riparian habitats, in turn decreasing the number of plants and animals of the site. Management options include changing the location, frequency, or Nevada Springs Restoration Workbook DRAFT DOCUMENT 5 November 2012 8 quantity of diversion, allowing an increased amount of flow to discharge to the spring outflow habitat. Invasive species: Invasive species often threaten the integrity of springs and adjacent landscapes. Non-native species management for springs restoration may involve preventing introduction, mechanical removal of invasive plants or animals, fencing, biological control, or the application of pesticides. Recreation impacts: Recreational activities at springs include swimming, camping, picnicking, horse-camping, hunting, OHV use, fishing, and other activities, which compact or disturb soils, remove vegetation, introduce contaminants or non-native species, and disturbing wildlife. Reducing these impacts may range from building trails and boardwalks, restricting vehicular access, to elimination of camping or site closure. SPRINGS RESTORATION Overview: Restoration or rehabilitation involve actions that improve springs stewardship, including physical reworking of the physical characteristics, processes, and species at a site. Springs emerging from unimpaired aquifers often are remarkably resilient and can respond positively to such actions. Restoration actions may range from relatively minor activities, such as planting native species or removal of small manmade structures like spring boxes, tanks and piping, to larger- scale physical manipulation and reconstruction of site geomorphology. Where natural drainage and geomorphology are intact and physical conditions allow the desired conditions to be achieved, it may only be necessary to remove or modify infrastructure in a way that alleviates impacts and stressors. Complete physical reconstruction is typically required at sites where pre-disturbance topography and natural drainage has been highly altered or obliterated. A site restoration plan is needed to identify and relate the goals to the desired outcomes. This plan should clarify the overall project approach, methods, budget, and schedule. The desired conditions and project design will be equally influenced by project goals and objectives. Strategies selected to alleviate stressors and restore any given spring will be informed by life history data and habitat characteristic requirements for target species. A monitoring strategy should be included to identify monitoring variables, to provide information and adjust post-restoration management practices, and to evaluate project success. Restoration involves remediating the impacts of habitat alteration through physical, on-site actions and reduction of non-native species impacts, but should be undertaken after management practices have been rectified. After the stressors have been removed, the most important restoration activities for springs include those listed below. Livestock grazing: Restoring a site from livestock grazing impacts may involve improving bank stability, decompacting soils, controlling invasive species, and revegetation, and vary in relation to springs type and elevation. Restoration of the spring source: Spring sources and uppermost reaches of spring brooks are often important for springs-specialist plants and animals. Modification of flow Nevada Springs Restoration Workbook DRAFT DOCUMENT 5 November 2012 9 regulation structures (e.g., dams, diversions, spring boxes) may be necessary to restore the flow at the source and restoring the functionality of downstream spring brooks or wetlands. For example, installing a flow splitter, shifting the point of diversion downstream from the source, removing a dam, or modifying a spring box and pipes may help ensure flow at the springs source, with the amount of diverted flow to be evaluated based on goals for the site. Restoration of the spring brook and channel: If the spring brook channel is functioning naturally and is geomorphically appropriate, no action may be necessary. If not, the array of active options for restoring spring brooks range from reintroduction of flow to the historic channel, restoration of an existing channel, or constructing a new, geomorphically appropriate channel. Depending on the spring type and size of the spring, these activities may involve minor to substantial construction activities. Restoration of wetland, wet meadows, cienegas or fen habitats: Marsh-forming (helocrene) are characterized by diffuse flow across shallow-gradient landscapes. Restoration of such habitats often involves filling in ditches, preventing erosional head-cutting with grade control structures, eliminating erosional channels, removing drainage tiles or subgrade water diversion structures to decrease groundwater depth, and by replanting native wetland plant species. The goal of fen restoration is often to regenerate peat formation by recreating conditions that characterized the undisturbed marsh. Restoration of pool-forming springs: Pool-forming (limnocrene) springs are influenced by groundwater pumping, and may be subjected to stagnation, eutrophication, and deoxygenation, changes that reduce habitat quality and functionality. Restoration challenges for limnocrenes may involve recreating natural water quality and desired pool area. Invasive species: Restoring habitat often requires elimination of non-native species. Large earth-moving equipment may be needed to remove undesired trees, such as tamarisk, palms, Russian olive, and elms. Construction of fish barriers, weirs, or other structures also may be constructed to to exclude non-native fish. Construction of exclosures may be used to prevent grazing and browsing impacts of undesired mammal species. Recreation impacts: Restoration of springs from recreational activities is generally similar to those for grazing impacts. Decompaction of soils, replanting vegetation, introduce contaminants or non-native species, and disturbing wildlife. Reducing these impacts may range from building trails and boardwalks, restricting vehicular access, to elimination of camping or site closure. CONCLUSIONS Collectively, the above management and restoration approaches and actions have been demonstrated to be highly effective in helping to ensure the sustainability of springs, both for human uses and for natural amenities. But while this handbook provides guidance to springs Nevada Springs Restoration Workbook DRAFT DOCUMENT 5 November 2012 10 stewards interested in employing best management practices, more work needs to be done. The methods discussed here are still evolving, and we look forward to updating the book with new approaches as they are tried and demonstrated. We hope this book contributes to improving the sustainability of the springs of Nevada and the Great Basin and Mojave Deserts, and we welcome comments and suggestions for improving these techniques. CITED AND RELEVANT REFERENCES Abele, S.L., editor. 2011. Nevada Springs Conservation Plan. Springs Conservation Plan Working Group. The Nature Conservancy, Reno. Bradford, D.F., A.C. Neale, M.S. Nash, D.W. Sada, and J.R. Jaeger. 2003. Habitat patch occupancy by the red-spotted toad (Bufo punctatus) in a naturally fragmented environment. Ecology 84:1012-1023. Elzinga, C.L., D.W. Saltzer, and J.W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuringand monitoring plant populations. Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1730–1, Denver. Hershler, R. and D.W. Sada. 2000. A new species of hydrobiid snail of the genus Pyrgulopsis from northwestern Nevada. The Veliger 43:367-375. Hershler, R. & D.W. Sada. 2002. Biogeography of the Great Basin aquatic snails of the genus Pyrgulopsis. Pp. 255 – 276 in Hershler, R., D.B. Madsen, and D.R. Currey, editors. Great Basin Aquatic Systems History. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences, Number 33. Washington, DC. Kodric-Brown, A., C. Wilcox, J.G. Bragg, and J.H. Brown. 2007. Dynamics of fish in Australian desert springs: role of large-mammal disturbance. Diversity and Distributions 13:789–798. NatureServe. 2004. Springs and springbrooks of Nevada. NatureServe 2004; http/: www.ndow.org/wild/conservation/cwcs/final/200_208springs.pdf (accessed 15 April 2012). Oakley, K.L., L.P. Thomas, S.G. Fancy. 2003. Guidelines for long-term monitoring protocols. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:1000–1003. Available on-line at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr138.pdf (accessed 15 April 2012). Sada, D.W. 2000. Native fishes. Pp. 246 – 264 in Smith, G., editor. Sierra East: Edge of the Great Basin. University of California Press, Berkeley. Sada, D.W. 2001. Demography and habitat use of the Badwater snail (Assiminea infima), with observations on its conservation status, Death Valley National Park, California, U.S.A. Hydrobiologia 466:255-265. Sada, D.W., and K. Pohlman, 2002. Spring Inventory and Monitoring Protocols. Conference Proceedings. Spring-fed Wetlands: Important Scientific and Cultural Resources of the Intermountain Region, 2002. Sada, D. W., and K. F. Pohlmann. 2006. U.S. National Park Service Mojave Inventory and Monitoring Network Spring Survey Protocols: Level I and Level II. Desert Research Institute, Reno and Las Vegas. Sada, D.W. and G.L. Vinyard. 2002. Anthropogenic changes in biogeography of Great Basin Aquatic Biota. Pages 277 – 293 in Hershler, R., D.B. Madsen, and D.R. Currey, editors. Great Basin Aquatic Systems History. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences, Number 33, Washington, DC. Nevada Springs Restoration Workbook DRAFT DOCUMENT 5 November 2012 11 Sada, D.W., H.B. Britten, and P.F. Brussard. 1995. Desert aquatic ecosystems and the genetic and morphological diversity of Death Valley system speckled dace. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:350-359. Sada, D.W., J.E. Williams, J.C. Silvey, A. Halford, J. Ramakka, P. Summers, and L. Lewis. 2001. Riparian area management: A guide to managing, restoring, and conserving springs in the Western United States. Technical Reference 1737-17. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. BLM/ST/ST-01/001+1737. Sada, D.W., E. Fleischman, and D.D. Murphy. 2005. Associations among spring-dependent aquatic assemblages and environmental and land use gradients in a Mojave Desert mountain range. Diversity and Distributions 11:91-99. Scoppettone, et. al. 2005. Habitat Restoration as a Means of Controlling Non-Native Fish in a Mojave Desert Oasis. Restoration Ecology 13:247-256. Society for Ecological Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group, 2004. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration International, 2005. Guidelines for Developing and Managing Ecological Restoration Projects. Springer, A.E. and L.E. Stevens. 2008. Spheres of discharge of springs. Hydrogeology Journal DOI 10.1007/s10040-008-0341-y. Springer, A.E., L.E. Stevens, D. Anderson, R.A. Parnell, D. Kreamer, and S. Flora. 2008. A comprehensive springs classification system: integrating geomorphic, hydrogeochemical, and ecological criteria. Pp. 49-75 in Stevens, LE and VJ Meretsky, editors. Aridland springs in North America: ecology and conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Stacey, C.J., Springer, A.E. & Stevens, L.E. 2011. Have arid land springs restoration projects been effective in restoring hydrology, geomorphology, and invertebrate and plant species composition comparable to natural springs with minimal anthropogenic disturbance? CEE review 10-002 (SR87). Collaboration for Environmental Evidence: www.environmentalevidence.org/SR87.html. Stevens, L.E. and V.J. Meretsky. 2008. Aridland Springs in North America: Ecology and Conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Stevens, L.E, A.E. Springer, J.D. Ledbetter, 2012. Inventory protocols for springs ecosystems. Springs Stewardship Institute, Flagstaff. Available on-line at: www.springstewardship.org (accessed 15 April 2012). USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006. Conservation Practice Standard: Spring Development Code 574. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010. Part 631 National Engineering Handbook Chapter 32: Well Design and Spring Development. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2011. Part 630 Engineering Field Handbook Chapter 12: Springs and Wells. U.S. National Park Service. 2010. Surface Water Dynamics and Water Quality of Carbonate and Valley-fill Aquifer Springs of the Mojave Desert Network: Protocol Narrative. National Park Service Mohave Network draft report, Las Vegas. City of Eden Prairie Natural Springs Facts About Fredrick-Miller Spring The Fredrick-Miller Spring is a Protected Historic Landmark and Natural Resource: The natural spring is located on City property (9995 Spring Road) and has been in continuous use since 1890. The City of Eden Prairie acquired the property in 1969 and made improvements in 1972 and 2003. In 1997, the City designated the spring as a local Heritage Preservation Site which includes protections written in City Code. The site includes an access turnout for vehicles and a trough for year-round use. The source of the spring is located west of Spring Road and is routed to the access site on the east side through an underground pipe; it is likely that the spring's groundwatershed is west and northwest of the spring. The City performs a coliform bacteria test on the spring water monthly. A residential housing development is proposed for a private land parcel south of Prospect Road and east of Spring Road — this development does not impact the source of the spring or the access site. Based on Eden Prairie’s City Code and Guide Plan, the natural spring is protected and will remain for many future generations to enjoy. The earliest recorded mentions of springs and seeps around what is now Eden Prairie come from mid-19th century government surveys, and the diaries and memoirs of the area's first Euro-American settlers. Based on these sources, it is known that springs and seeps occurred in relative abundance in the Minnesota River valley areas, and these sources of clean water were highly sought after. Fredrick-Miller Spring 9995 Spring Road William Fredrick moved the spring access to its current location and built a wooden tank to contain the spring's waterflow in 1880. Arthur Miller acquired the spring in 1968 and donated it to the City of Eden Prairie in 1969. The City made improvements to the site in 1972 and in 2003. Little else disturbs the spring site and today it appears much like it did in the late 1800s. Fredrick-Miller Spring is located on the east side of Spring Road, one-quarter mile north of Flying Cloud Drive. The site includes an access turnout for automobiles and a trough for year-round use. Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area Spring 18700 Flying Cloud Drive A natural spring is located in the parking lot of the Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area, located in the southwest part of Eden Prairie off Flying Cloud Drive. The underground spring is piped to the surface to allow users to fill up water jugs with the spring water. Spring Water Testing The City performs a coliform bacteria test monthly on both natural springs. The test is pass/fail, so the results are only posted if a sample fails, and written notification is posted at the natural spring until there is a passing result E. Calvin Alexander Jr., Prof. Emeritus, U of MN, 4216 11th Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55407 alexa001@umn.edu 12 Apr 2021 1 Protecting Water Quality in Fredrick-Miller Spring 9995 Spring Road, Eden Prairie, MN MN Spring Inventory 27A0000003 (27A3) Thousands of Minnesota citizens collect, use and drink water from the historic Fredrick- Miller Spring (MSI 27A3). The artesian spring emerges from glacial sediments in the Riley Creek Ravine at 9995 Spring Road, Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The proposed Noble Hill Development, near the Fredrick-Miller Spring may have the potential for significant negative environmental effects on the Spring and the lower Riley Creek watershed. Potential adverse environmental effects include, but are not limited to, degradation from: the removal of trees and other native land cover, increased impervious surface increasing run off, increased pollutant loads from construction and residential activities, lawn fertilizers, lawn insecticides runoff and infiltration to groundwater, etc. Any or all such activities can adversely affect the water surface and ground water quantity and quality in Riley Creek and the Fredrick-Miller Spring. An effort to assure the future water quality in Fredrick-Miller Spring needs to include the following components: 1) Water Quality Monitoring: 1a) The water should be immediately analyzed for a complete suite of chemical, biologic and isotopic parameters. The list of needed parameters includes but is not limited to: flow rate, temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, a complete suite of major cations and anions, a complete suite of health relevant trace elements (lead, arsenic, manganese, radium, radon, etc.), volatile and chlorinated organic compounds, perfluoronated chemicals, pharmaceuticals, bacterial, and viruses. The list should include all the tests that are routinely monitored for Public Water Supplies. The Fredrick-Miller Spring is a de facto Public Water Supply -- used by more people than many municipal water systems routinely monitored by public agencies. 1b) Depending on the results of 1a, a shorter list of critical parameters should be selected for routine periodic, ongoing monitoring. 1c) The results and interpretation of the monitoring should be posted at the spring and be available on line because people from a large area use the water from the spring. 1d) Information about the chemical and isotopic composition of the Spring’s water is a necessary part of determining the Spring’s recharge zone. 2) Determination of the springs recharge zone (spring shed): Current or potential pollution sources should be identified and evaluated. This process with will take time and effort. E. Calvin Alexander Jr., Prof. Emeritus, U of MN, 4216 11th Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55407 alexa001@umn.edu 12 Apr 2021 2 2a) An initial, hopefully conservative, potential recharge zone should be assumed to be all of the land and surface water bodies at elevation above the Fredrick-Miller Spring on the north side of the Minnesota River Valley within two miles of the spring and should be evaluated – open and closed landfills, fuel storage tanks, spill sites, and any other potential pollution sources identified and cataloged. 2b) Tritium, carbon 14 and CFC age or residence determinations on the spring should be conducted. Stable isotopic analyses of the spring water, the water from Riley Lake, several points along Riley Creek and other water bodies or perennial marshes in 2-mile radius study area should be measured and interpreted to help define the water sources of the spring. 2c) All available water and monitoring wells and soil borings should be evaluated to determine the potentiometric surface(s) of the shallow aquifer(s) in the 2a) half circle. 2d) Isotopic analyses of oxygen and hydrogen in the Fredrick-Miller Spring, any other springs in the area, Riley Lake and other surface water bodies and along Riley Creek should be measured and interpreted. 2e) Based on the results of the above, the spring shed, or recharge zone can then be evaluated. The initial estimated recharge zone can then be refined to the actual recharge zone. 2f) Further land use changes in the vicinity of the spring, including tree removal and rezoning that would increase impervious area, should be postponed until the above information is compiled and interpreted. 2g) The Noble Hill Proposal is adjacent, directly north and east of the Fredrick-Miller Spring and the lower Riley Creek drainage. Any argument that the Spring is on the west side of Riley Creek and therefore will not be the Noble Hill Proposal area north east of the Creek is flawed and potentially incorrect. Much of the runoff form the Noble Hill area flows to Riley Creek up stream of the Fredrick-Miller Spring. In addition,water that infiltrates to ground water in the Noble Hill area must be discharging in springs along the north wall of the Minnesota River Valley. There are no mapped springs in the Minnesota Spring Inventory for over two miles east of the Fredrick-Miller Spring. The Fredrick-Miller Spring is the only known discharge area for infiltration from the Noble Hill area. From:Terry Jeffery To:RICHARD KLEIN Subject:RE: Nobel Hill Project - District Authority Clarification Date:Wednesday, March 24, 2021 10:38:00 AM Attachments:image002.png image003.png Mr. Klein, That is correct. We can incentivize preservation of woodland and minimization of impervious cover by allowing credit for tree preservation and decreasing the amount of treatment required if impervious cover is reduced but if the municipality allows for 100% impervious cover, we can comment on it but we can only say to the developer that they still need to meet our standards. The RPBCWD continues to take every precaution to keep employees, volunteers, and visitors safe and to minimize the spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus. The office is currently closed to visitors unless by appointment and staff are working remotely when appropriate to do so. Our back to work plan can be found here: RPBCWD Response to Covid-19 (Coronavirus) :: Riley Purgatory From: RICHARD KLEIN <rklein@ceds.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 7:20 AM To: Terry Jeffery <tjeffery@rpbcwd.org> Subject: Nobel Hill Project - District Authority Clarification Mr. Jeffery, Thank you for the quick an detailed response. From your response it appears that the District would not have authority regarding the following aquatic resource impact issues: According to U.S. Geological Survey StreamStats: 22% of the Riley Creek watershed is covered with buildings, streets and other impervious surfaces. Stream quality impairment begins at 10% impervious cover and at 25% restoration may not be possible. Forest covers 15% of the watershed and a minimum of 40% forest cover is needed to preserve a good quality stream quality. The Noble Hill plans propose removal of 456 trees - large portion of the forest onsite - which will be replaced with trees having far less ecological value. By increasing impervious area and further reducing watershed forest cover, Noble Hill will make it more difficult to restore Riley Creek to a higher-quality condition. While Fredrick-Miller Spring may not be directly affected by Noble Hill, further development of the Riley Creek watershed area may place this highly valued resource at risk. Is it correct that these issues are beyond the District’s authority and are solely in the jurisdiction of the municipality, which in this case is Eden Prairie? --------------------------- Richard Klein Community & Environmental Defense Services 24 Greenshire Lane Owings Mills, MD 21117 410-654-3021 From: Terry Jeffery <tjeffery@rpbcwd.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 4:02 PM To: RICHARD KLEIN <rklein@ceds.org> Subject: RE: Nobel Hill Project Mr. Klein, We recently received their application but have not provided comments to the applicant as we have not completed our review. Based upon preliminary review, the project will trigger the following rules: Rule C – Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Rule D – Wetland and Stream Bank Buffer Rule J – Stormwater Management Rule C is relatively consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit requirements excepting we have decompaction and topsoil requirements for the disturbed green space area. http://www.rpbcwd.org/download_file/view/1279/174 Rule D will define buffer widths based upon the MN Routine Assessment Methodology (MNRAM) classification. The buffers must be native vegetation. There are other caveats such as buffer averaging and extending buffers to the top of steep slopes. http://www.rpbcwd.org/download_file/view/1278/174 Rule J requires that they infiltrate or otherwise abstract the first 1.1” of runoff from all new and fully reconstructed surfaces. They must also provide annual runoff treatment efficiencies of 90% TSS removal and 60% TP removal. Finally, they cannot increase runoff rates at any point discharging the site. http://www.rpbcwd.org/download_file/view/1274/174 As a Watershed District we have no land use authority so the density, land use type, impervious cover, etc is at the discretion of the municipality. Instead we have standards with which they must comply. If you have more questions, please feel free to email or call me at 952.807.6685. Kind regards, Terry The RPBCWD continues to take every precaution to keep employees, volunteers, and visitors safe and to minimize the spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus. The office is currently closed to visitors unless by appointment and staff are working remotely when appropriate to do so. Our back to work plan can be found here: RPBCWD Response to Covid-19 (Coronavirus) :: Riley Purgatory From: RICHARD KLEIN <rklein@ceds.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 2:06 PM To: Terry Jeffery <tjeffery@rpbcwd.org> Subject: Nobel Hill Project Mr. Jeffery, We’re helping Eden Prairie residents with concerns regarding the Noble Hill project proposed for a 28- acre site at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road in the Riley Creek watershed. The project will involve substantial earth disturbance and increased impervious surfaces, but no direct impacts to wetlands, streams or their buffers. What permits-approval would such a project require from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District? The site is shown in the attached aerial. The plans for the Noble Hill project can be viewed at: https://gis.edenprairie.org/epgis/rest/services/Public/Current_PlanningProjects_Live/MapServe r/0/34835/attachments/90867 --------------------------- Richard Klein Community & Environmental Defense Services 24 Greenshire Lane Owings Mills, MD 21117 410-654-3021 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/rpbbmap.html Red Areas = High Potential Zones: rusty patched bumble bee likely present Assume rusty patched bumble bees are present where suitable habitat is present. Additional surveys can be done to verify presence or absence. If my project is in this zone, what do I do? Go back to the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee home page and follow the link for your specific situation. o Section 7 consultation or an Incidental Take Permit may be necessary if your project or action may harm or kill rusty patched bumble bees. o We recommend recovery permits for surveys and non-lethal survey techniques. Yellow and Blue Areas = Low Potential Zones: rusty patched bumble bee not likely to be present. Yellow Areas = Primary Dispersal Zones o These are the areas surrounding High Potential Zones (red areas). o The model to create the Primary Dispersal Zones considers the maximum dispersal potential of the species from sites with recent (2007- current) records. See illustration below. o These areas are important for conservation actions and additional survey effort. o Section 7 consultation and Incidental Take Permits are not needed in these areas. o We recommend recovery permits for surveys and non-lethal survey techniques in yellow areas. Blue Areas = Uncertain Zones o These are areas with slightly older records (detections between 2000 and 2006). o The model to create the Uncertain Zones considers the maximum dispersal potential of the species from sites with slightly older (2000 - 2006) records, but without sufficient survey effort to conclude the species’ extirpation from the area. See illustration below. o These areas are important for conservation actions and additional survey efforts. o Section 7 consultation and Incidental Take Permits are not needed in these areas. o We recommend recovery permits for surveys and non-lethal survey techniques in blue areas Gray Areas = Historical Range: rusty patched bumble bee not present Rusty patched bumble bees have not been observed or collected in these areas since before the year 2000. Section 7 consultation and Incidental Take Permits are not needed. No permits for surveys are needed. You may also use IPaC, which is an online project review tool to screen your project location for the presence of any listed species and other resources. Shapefiles for High Potential Zone .zip file - March 17, 2021 Shapefiles for Low Potential Zone .zip file - March 17, 2021 Please check back to make sure you have the most current version. The shapefiles will be updated periodically after we receive new information. Conserving the Nature of America The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Midwest The Midwest Region includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. Diurnal Avian Corridor Maps Minnesota Minnesota Map of Potential Bird-Structure Collision Areas (PDF) Goal: Identify river systems and other geological features that are valuable diurnal avian migration corridors. Protocol: All major river systems with a north-south orientation or northwest-southeast orientation were included in the analysis. East-west rivers were not included in this analysis unless expert opinion or the Important Bird Areas (IBAs) mapping effort pointed out known sites as corridors for at least one group of birds (i.e. shorebirds, raptors, etc.). East-west rivers tend to act more as stopover habitat for most species of landbirds and sometimes for waterfowl and shorebirds rather than as corridors since they are not oriented in the direction of most species’ spring or fall migration patterns. One examples of this pattern would be the Sauk River in Stearns County which generally flows west to east until it joins the Mississippi River at Sauk Rapids. Simultaneously, the state’s IBAs associated with a river system were mapped. The IBA selection process is based on a combination of existing scientific studies, existing observational data, and the opinion of a panel of experts who determine whether a site is to be included as an IBA. Corridors with existing IBAs were included if the selection criteria pointed to the value of an IBA as a migration corridor for various species groups. The remaining rivers were then analyzed using Google Earth for the presence of significant forest patches within a mile of either bank of the waterway or continuous gallery forest along its banks. Selected river corridors required a minimum of 50% forest patches or gallery forest along at least one bank of a stretch of a waterway for inclusion. In some cases, portions of the corridor which did not meet these criteria were eliminated from further consideration. In a few instances in heavily agricultural landscapes, blocks of forest habitat were patchily distributed along the banks or within one mile of the waterway, but were likely visible to migrating forest birds from one patch to the next and were included. In other instances, substantial wetlands along the banks or within a mile of a waterway indicated a potentially valuable corridor for shorebirds or marshbirds and were included “Dominant bird groups / species” This categorization is intended to be a general guide gleaned from IBA selection criteria and state expert opinion as to which groups of birds are most important in a selected river corridor and might be vulnerable to collisions with locally-sited communication towers, bridges, wind turbines, tall buildings, or other similar structures. This is not intended to be a comprehensive vulnerability assessment for a corridor’s avifauna, but serves only as a potential early warning system for biologists and developers. Developers should complete thorough pre-construction avian surveys for various projects sited in or along these corridors, paying special attention to those avian groups for which a river corridor provides known important habitat and passageway. Corridors noted with double asterisks (**) are the only corridors where bridge construction projects are likely to be a serious issue with migrant birds due to the large river width, broad migration corridor, likelihood of foggy conditions on a regular basis, and the potential height of any bridge constructed which may prove to be a hazard for migrant and resident birds. The first three sites below (marked with **) have the highest probability of potential bridge-avian collisions based on the topography of the river valley and the existence of species which may be most vulnerable to such collisions. The other corridors contain significant concentrations of birds, but are not thought to have the highest potential for avian collisions with bridges. They may, however, have high potential for avian collisions with other structures such as buildings, communication towers, and wind turbines. Upper Mississippi River ** (from Little Falls to Iowa state line) Various IBAs run from Monticello all the way to the Iowa border and include from north to south the following: North Metro Mississippi River IBA, Mississippi River Twin Cities Important Bird Area, Lake Pepin IBA, a portion of the Vermillion Bottoms-Lower Cannon River IBA, and the Upper Mississippi NWR IBA. Major documentation for considering this corridor as an IBA include raptor migration (buteos, Turkey Vulture, both eagle species including wintering birds and breeding Bald Eagles, Osprey, breeding Red-shouldered Hawk, breeding Peregrine Falcon), migrant White Pelican (> 5,000 birds), colonies of Great Blue Heron, Great Egret, and Green Heron, migrant waterfowl including nationally important concentrations of Tundra Swan, Canvasback (Weaver Bottoms), Common Goldeneye (Lake Pepin), and Common Merganser (Lake Pepin), numerous bottomland forest breeding passerines including Acadian Flycatcher, Wood Thrush, Kentucky, Cerulean, Prothonotary, and Hooded Warbler, and Louisiana Water-thrush. The bordering and island bottomland forests and adjacent bluff forests are a very important stopover site for spring and fall passerines from St. Cloud southward. Most vulnerable groups: waterfowl (especially Tundra Swan, diving ducks, mergansers), waterbirds (herons, egrets, White Pelican), raptors—eagles, Osprey, Turkey Vulture, Peregrine Falcon, passerines. St. Croix River** Waterbirds, mainly from Taylor Falls south to Prescott; raptors and landbirds from Wisconsin—Pine County, Minnesota boundary south to Prescott: a portion of this corridor is also defined as the St. Croix River Important Bird Area (IBA) on the Wisconsin side of the river while the St. Croix Bluffs IBA has been designated on the Minnesota side in Washington County. Major documentation for considering this corridor includes raptor migration (mainly Bald Eagle, Osprey, Turkey Vulture, Red-tailed Hawk, Broad-winged Hawk), waterfowl (Trumpeter Swans, geese and diving ducks), several Great Blue Heron colonies, and bottomland forest breeding birds including Red-shouldered Hawk, Prothonotary Warbler, and Louisiana Water-thrush. This corridor is also an important pathway for migrant landbirds spring and fall Most vulnerable groups: waterfowl—Trumpeter Swan, geese, raptors (eagles, Osprey, buteos, Turkey Vulture); passerines. Minnesota River Valley** Segment 1-(Browns Valley, Traverse County southeast to Mankato): this corridor is used primarily by migrant waterbirds (especially White Pelican), waterfowl, raptors (accipiters, Red-tailed Hawk, Bald Eagle) spring and fall, and landbirds, especially swallows, warblers, and vireos. The Lac Qui Parle—Big Stone IBA documents avian concentrations in a portion of this river stretch. Most vulnerable groups: waterbirds (White Pelican), waterfowl, raptors (Turkey Vulture, Osprey, buteos, and Bald Eagle), migrant landbirds. Segment 2-Mankato north and east to the junction with the Mississippi River at Fort Snelling): this corridor is an important waterfowl pathway and stopover area for Tundra Swan and ducks spring and fall, for fall raptors, especially Turkey Vulture, Osprey, buteos, and Bald Eagle, and for migrant and breeding landbirds including both cuckoo species, Wood Thrush, 25+ species of warblers, and Lark Sparrow. The Upper Minnesota River Valley IBA and the Lower Minnesota River Valley IBA document avian concentrations in this river stretch. Most vulnerable groups: waterfowl, raptors (Turkey Vulture, Osprey, buteos, and Bald Eagle), migrant landbirds. Lake Superior shoreline (from Pigeon River/Canadian border southwest to Park Point, Duluth): likely the most important migratory corridor in the state for 200+ species of migratory birds. Two individual IBAs are located along the shoreline, namely (from north to south, North Shore Peregrine Falcon Eyries, Hawk Ridge Nature Reserve IBA): This is the major western Great Lakes corridor for fall-migrating raptors including Rough-legged Hawk, Northern Goshawk, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Golden Eagle (200+ birds in fall), Osprey, Bald Eagle (3,000+ birds spring and fall) and owls including Northern Saw-whet Owl and Long-eared Owl. Spring shorebird flights along the shoreline are usually low but fall numbers of American Golden Plover (Hawk Ridge-Duluth) and Sanderling (Park Point-Duluth) can reach dozens to several hundred birds. Passerine migration is very heavy both spring and fall along the lakeshore and for some distance inland (up to 3 to 7 miles in some locations) with many fall birds moving along the ridgetops. The density of the fall raptor flight increases as one moves southwestward from Grand Portage as birds coming in from the west, hit the coast, and join other birds already moving southwardwest along the coast (Gerald Nieme, pers. comm., 2009). Most vulnerable groups: raptors-accipiters, buteos, Osprey, both eagle species, Long-eared Owl, Northern Saw-whet Owl, passerines. St. Louis River (from its mouth at Duluth Harbor upriver to Fond du Lac): the eastern portion of this corridor in the vicinity of the U.S. Highway 53 bridge is the major spring raptor pathway for accipiters, buteos, Golden Eagle, Bald Eagle, and Osprey in Minnesota. Depending upon winds this pathway may move eastward over Lake Superior (for eagles), more often westward a couple of miles. Many species use this corridor, notably White Pelican, Sandhill Crane, Common Loon, Northern Raven, Blue Jay, and swallows. Most vulnerable groups: waterbirds (Common Loon, Sandhill Crane), raptors (Bald Eagle, Osprey) Red River Valley (from the Canadian border north of St. Vincent, Kittson County south to Browns’s Valley, Traverse County): although not a well-studied corridor, this river valley serves as a minor raptor (<5,000 raptors per season) route and as a major waterfowl (swans, ducks, geese) route, often attracting tens of thousands of waterfowl during the frequent spring flood years. Based on years of anecdotal data from birders in the Fargo-Morehead and Crookston-Grand Forks area, this is also an important corridor for migrant forest landbirds spring and fall, the most significant pathway between the Mississippi River to the east and the James River in the Dakotas to the west. Despite some channelization and forest fragmentation in the southern portion of the valley, where in some places the bordering “forest” is only one tree wide, most of the remaining stretches are bordered by at least some forest cover as far north as the Canadian border. Several studies have shown that this river valley also lies in an important shorebird pathway for over 20 species of boreal or Arctic-breeding species. Most of this migration is nocturnal with stopover sites determined by the presence of floodwaters or exposed flats from drawdowns or droughts. Some diurnal fall shorebird migration has been noted for plovers and Buff- breasted Sandpiper at very low altitudes, but whether this is typical is unknown and needs further study. Most vulnerable groups: waterfowl, raptors (Osprey, accipiters, buteos, and Bald Eagle), migrant landbirds. Des Moines River Valley (from Petersburg Township at the Iowa state line northwest to Windom, Cottonwood County): this forested stretch offers a suitable pathway for migrant landbirds, especially cuckoos, vireos, flycatchers, thrushes, and warblers. A few raptor migration observations have been made in this largely unstudied corridor indicating the presence of at least a minor (5,000 birds) raptor migration route spring and fall for accipiters and buteos (Broad- winged Hawk, Red-tailed Hawk). Other Potential Corridors Other relatively short stretches of rivers in Minnesota can be utilized by birds as migration corridors. The Red Lake River from Crookston, Polk County northwest to its junction with the Red River at East Grand Forks, the Buffalo River (see Bluestem Prairie— Buffalo River IBA) in Clay County from Silver Lake northwest to its junction with the Red River near Georgetown, and the Blue Earth River from Mankato south to Elmore, Faribault County on the Iowa state line are all reported to be landbird migration corridors but need further study. The Marsh River in Northwest Norman County from Anthony northwest to its junction with the Red River near Shelly has a forested corridor along its banks and is likely a landbird corridor but needs additional study. Many waterfowl corridors such as various chain-of-lakes and close proximity large lakes acting as stepping stones for migrant ducks and geese exist throughout many portions of the state but have not been mapped out to date. The southern (and sometimes eastern and western) shores of the larger lakes such as Mille Lacs, Leech (see Mille Lacs IBA), Minnetonka, Upper and Lower Red Lake, Vermilion Lake, Lake Winnibigoshish, and Lake of the Woods (see Lake of the Woods IBA) often act as local concentration areas and/or corridors for migrant landbirds in spring. The literature seems to be absent on whether the reverse is true in the fall for northern shores, although anecdotal data indicates that at least some western shorelines such as Mille Lacs can be used by many landbirds. Vulnerability means the potential for a select group of species to collide with man-made structures including bridges, communication towers, and buildings. Back to Planning Home Midwest Ecological Services Home Last updated: January 2, 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990 Bloomington, MN 55437-1458 Contact Us Phone: 612-713-5360 Emmit Calvin Alexander, Jr. Morse-Alumni Professor Emeritus Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Minnesota Education Post Doc 1970-73 (in Physics) University of California Berkeley Ph.D. 1966-70 (in Chemistry) University of Missouri at Rolla B.S. 1961-66 (in Chemistry) Oklahoma State University Positions 2014-present Morse-Alumni Professor Emeritus, Earth Sciences Dept., University of Minnesota 2011-2014 Morse-Alumni Professor, Earth Sciences Dept., University of Minnesota 2007-2008 Sabbatical Visiting Professor, Earth Sciences Dept, University of Texas at San Antonio and Edwards Aquifer Authority 1997-2011 Morse-Alumni Professor, Geology & Geophysics Dept., University of Minnesota 1994-1995 Sabbatical Visiting Professor, Geography Dept., University of Auckland 1987-1997 Professor, Geology & Geophysics Dept., University of Minnesota 1978-1987 Associate Professor, Geology & Geophysics Dept., University of Minnesota 1973-1978 Assistant Professor, Geology & Geophysics Dept., University of Minnesota 1970-1973 Assistant Research Chemist, Physics Dept., University of California 1969-1970 Instructor, Chemistry Dept., University of Missouri at Rolla 1966-1969 Teaching Assistant, Chemistry Dept., University of Missouri at Rolla 1965-1966 Teaching Assistant, Chemistry Dept., Oklahoma State University Professional Society Memberships American Geophysical Union, The Geochemical Society, American Society of Testing Materials, American Society for the Advancement of Science, Sigma Xi, The Meteoritical Society, The National Speleological Society, Geological Society of America, National Ground Water Association, Minnesota Ground Water Association Honors and Awards Distinguished Service Award, GSA Karst Division, 2019 Elected Fellow of the Geological Society of America, 2015 Minnesota Ground Water Association’s Outstanding Service Award, 2013 National Speleological Society’s Outstanding Science Award, 2004 Elected best UM Geology and Geophysics Professor by IT Student Board - 2002 (co-winner with David Kohlstedt) Horace T. Morse-University of Minnesota Alumni Award for Outstanding Contributions to Undergraduate Education, 1997 Bush Sabbatical Supplement Award, 1994-1995 George Taylor/IT Alumni Outstanding Teaching Award at the UM - 1991 Elected best Geology and Geophysics Professor by IT Student Board, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 Nominee for IT Student Board Outstanding Professor Award, 1985 Elected Fellow of the National Speleological Society, 1983 Nominee for CLA Distinguished Teacher Award, 1975 National Defense Education Act Fellowship, 1966-1969 Consulting Allens/Esso/ExxonMobile 2012 (Karst Hydrogeology) Edwards Aquifer Authority’s Aquifer Science Advisory Panel 1999- 2016 Friends of Washington County 2008-2012 (Karst Hydrogeology) Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -2- 2 RMT, 1996- 1999 (Karst Hydrogeology) Delta/Amoco, 1995-1999 (Karst Hydrogeology) HDR Engineering, Inc., 1993-2000 (Hydrogeology) Versar/USEPA, 1993 (Karst Hydrogeology) Donohue and Associates, 1989-1991 (Karst Hydrology) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, various Counties (Hydrology, Karst Hydrogeology), 1978-Present Governing Boards 2011-2019 Board of Directors, NCKRI, Carlsbad, NM, Vice Chair 2014-2015. 2009-2015 Board of Trustees, Deep Portage Learning Center, Hackensack, MN. Teaching Functions I. Post-doctoral Associates B. Stein-Eric Lauritzen (sabbatical visit), Norway 1993-1994 A. Kazuo Saito, Japan 1976-1979 II. Graduate Students A. Doctoral Degrees 10. Brick, Gregory, 2013, “The Nitrate Deposits of Rock Crevices in the Upper Mississippi Valley., 165 p. 9. Tipping, Robert G. 2012, “Characterizing Groundwater Flow in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. A Chemical and Hydrostratigraphic Approach”, 186 p. (in Water Resources Science) 8. Luhmann, Andrew James, 2011, “Water Temperature as a Tracer in Karst Aquifers”, 177 p. 7. Magdalene, Suzanne Carole Clark, 2004, “From Field to Stream: Rapid Runoff through Agricultural Tile Drainage Systems within the Minnesota River Basin”, 254 p. 6. Gao, Yongli, 2002, “Karst Feature Distribution in Southeastern Minnesota: Extending GIS-Based Database for Spatial Analysis and Resource Management”, 210 p. 5. Doctor, Daniel Hatim, 2002, “The Hydrogeology of the Classical Karst (Kras) Aquifer of Southwestern Slovenia”, 252 p. Research Awards: Fulbright Fellowship 1998-1999 to Slovenia $ 13,000 for 9 months National Security Education Program Fellowship 1999-2000 to Slovenia $17,200 for 12 months Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -3- 3 4. Guo, Lifeng, 2002, “Geochemistry of Recharge Beneath Agricultural Fields: Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Heterogeneity and Equilibrium Geochemical Modeling”, 146 p. 3. Foster, Michael Benedict John, 1993, “Measurement of Flow Through the Unsaturated Zone Using a Prototype Conical Lysimeter”, 211 p. Publications while advisee not including ECA, Jr. as co-author: a. Foster, Michael B. (1990). The Karst of Southern and Western Transvaal (abs.). 11th Friends of Karst Meeting, Decorah, Iowa, GEO2, v. 17, nos. 2, 3, p. 65. b. Foster, Michael B, (1990). Geological Control of Karst Aquifer Development in the Proterozoic Chuniespoort Group Dolomites of the Klip River Catchment, Transvaal, South Africa (abs.). 1990 G.S.A. Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, Abstracts with Program, p. A66. Research Awards: $1500, G.S.A., 1991 - This grant was subsequently selected as the Outstanding Graduate Award in Hydrogeology 2. Huss, Gary Robert, 1987, "The Role of Presolar Dust in the Formation of the Solar System", 250 p. Publications while advisee not including ECA, Jr. as co-author: a. Huss, G.R. (1985) Isotopic anomalies and homogenization in the early solar system (abstract). Lunar Planet. Sci. XVI, LPI, Houston, pp. 382-383. b. Huss, G.R. (1985) Oxygen isotopes and pre-solar dust in the early solar system (abstract). Meteoritics, 20, pp. 667-668. c. Huss, G.I. and G.R. Huss. (1985) Fiery chunks of stone and iron plummet in to earth from outer space, The Minnesota Volunteer, March-April, pp. 16-20. d. Huss, G.R. (1986) Lack of conclusive evidence for live 26A1 in the early solar system (abstract). Meteoritics, 21, n. 4, pp. 401-402. e. Huss, G.R. (1987) Partial evaporation of pre-solar dust: the mechanism of Fe/silicate and oxygen isotopic variation in chondrites? Lunar and Planetary Sci. XVIII, LPI, Houston, pp. 447-448. f. Huss, G.R. (1987) Chondrules: Produced by an active early protosun? (Abstract), Meteoritics, 22, pp. 414-415. g. Huss, G.R. (1988) The role of presolar dust in the formation of the solar system. Earth, Moon, and Planets, 40, pp. 165-211. h. Huss, G.R. (1988) Chondrule sizes and chemical fractionations among chondrites may have resulted from protosolar eruptions. Lunar Planet. Sci. XIX, LPI, Houston, pp. 521-522. i. Huss, G.R., J. Wagstaff, P.J. Wasilewski and C. Thompson (1988) Search for meteorites north and west of Elephant Moraine, Victoria Land, 1987-1988. Antarctic Journal of the United States, 23, pp. 47-49. j. Huss, G.R., J. Wagstaff, P.J. Wasilewski and C. Thompson (1988) Do Antarctic meteorite concentrations reflect the average infall rate? Meteorites, 23, pp. 274-275. 1. Venkatesan, Thandalai R., 1976, "Systematics of K-Ar and 40Ar-39Ar Dating of the Terrestrial Sample 132022 from the Fiskenaesset Complex in West Greenland, Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -4- 4 Lunar Soils 75081, 71501, 12033 and a Lunar Rock Sample 67915" (in Physics), 117 p. B. Masters Degrees 24. John Hunter (2014) (Plan C) 23. Borchardt, Nicholas (2013) (Plan C) 22. Rahimi, Mina (2013) (WRS, Plan B) Locating Sinkholes in LiDAR Coverage of a Glacio-Fluvial Karst, Winona County, MN. 21. Suleimenov, Akhan (2012) (Plan C) 20. Donovan, Eamon (2012) (Plan C) 19. Groten, Joel (2012) Karst Hydrogeologic Investigation of Trout Brook, Dakota County, MN. 64 p. (Plan B in Water Resources Science) Research Awards $1,000 from the Karst Waters Institute’s William L. Wilson Scholarship in Karst Science 18. Anger, Cale Thomas, 2010, “Laboratory and Numerical Modeling of Bench Scale Dye Tracer Breakthrough Curves and Monitoring Hydrogeologic Response to Regional Aggregate Mining and Site Development: A Preliminary Groundwater Report for UMore Park, Minnesota,” 84 p. + 93 p. 17. Sherper Rohs, Karen June, 2008, “Hydrostratigraphy of the Mt. Simon Sandstone in the Twin Cities Basin,” 131 p. 16. Riveros-Iregui, Diego Andres, 2004, “The Role of Hydrologic Pathways and Biogenic Methane in the Sarita Wetland,” St. Paul, Minnesota, 54 p. 15. Pavlish, Jeremy Adam, 2004, “Impacts of Sub Water Table Gravel Mining on the Ground Water Feeding a Clay County, Minnesota Calcareous Fen”, (in Water Resources Science), 87 p. 14. Shade, Beverley Lynn, 2002, “The Genesis and Hydrogeology of a Sandstone Karst in Pine County, Minnesota”, 171 p. (including appendix). 13. Fong, Alison L., 2000, “Ground-water Quality in Three Different Land Use Areas, 1996-98”, 52 p. + appendix. Publications based on M.Sc thesis not including ECA, Jr. as co-author: a. Fong, Alison L., 2000, “Water-Quality Assessment of Part of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, Minnesota and Wisconsin – Ground-water Quality in Three Different Land Use Areas, 1996-98”, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 2000-XXXX 12. Hoffman, Ryan Scott, 1998, “Extent, Frequency, and Patterns of Herbicide and Insecticide Occurrence in Urban Streams of the United States”, 173 p. Publications based on M.Sc thesis not including ECA, Jr. as co-author: a. Hoffman, Ryan S., Paul D. Capel, and Steven J. Larson, 2000, “Comparison of Pesticides in Eight U.S. Urban Streams”, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 19, n. 9, p. 2249-2258. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -5- 5 11. Fay, Steffan J., 1996, Plan B Masters Research Awards: $1000 from NGWA, 1994 10. Magdalene, Suzanne Carole Clark, 1995, "Sinkhole Distribution in Winona County, Minnesota Revisited", 205 p. 9. Wheeler, Betty J., 1993, Plan B Masters Research Awards: $ 525 from Sigma Xi, 1986 $1000 Cave Research Foundation Grant, 1987 Publications while advisee not including ECA Jr. as co-author: a. Huppert, G.N. and Wheeler, B.J., (1986)” Underground Wilderness: Can the Concept Work?” In: Proceedings of the National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research. Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-212, Ogden, Utah: Intermountain Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, pp. 515-522. b. Wheeler, Betty J. (1993, revised 2017) Groundwater Tracing in the Duschee Creek Karst Basin in Southeast Minnesota. Plan B Paper, 76 p. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/188457 8. Tipping, Robert G., 1992,"An Isotopic and Chemical Study of Groundwater Flow in the Prairie du Chien and Jordan Aquifers, Northern Dakota County, Minnesota", 117 p. Research Awards: $ 1,240 from Minn. Geol. Survey, 1986 $ 600 from Sigma Xi, 1986 7. Davis, Marsha A., 1991, Plan B Masters Research Awards: Recipient of the National Speleological Society's Ralph A Stone Award ($1000) for the best student karst research project in 1985. 6. Samson, Scott D., 1986, "Chemistry, Mineralogy, and Correlation of Ordovician Bentonites", 128 p. 5. Grow, Sheila R., 1986, "Groundwater Chemical Variations in a Karst Basin in Fillmore County, Minnesota", 229 p. Research Awards: $300 Cave Research Foundation Grant, 1984 4. Dalgleish, Janet B., 1985, "Sinkhole Distribution in Winona County, Minnesota", 95 p. + maps. 3. Mohring, Eric H., 1983, "A Study of Subsurface Water Flow in a Southeastern Minnesota Karst Drainage Basin", 99 p. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/185273 2. Milske, Jodi A., 1982, "Stratigraphy and Petrology of Clastic Sediments in Mystery Cave, Fillmore County, Minnesota", 111 p. Research Awards: Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -6- 6 $300 from National Speleological Society 1. Groschen, George E., 1981, "Geochemistry of Williams Lake, Hubbard County, Minnesota", 136 p. IV. Undergraduate Students A. Senior Theses 8. Kasahara, Sophie (2016), “A Hydrogeologic Study of Cold Water Spring, Minneapolis, MN, Senior Honors Thesis, 6 May 2016, 55 p. 7. Maas, Benjamin J., 2008, “Water Quality of Crystal Cave, Wisconsin.” Senior Thesis, 34 p. 6. Bunge, Eric, 2005, “Salem Creek Dye Traces: Dodge/Olmstead Counties, Minnesota October 8, 2004.” Senior Thesis, 107 p. 5. Barry, John, 2004, “Spring Inventory, Mapping and Characterization, Lower St. Croix Valley Watershed.” Senior Thesis. 4. Geniusz, Annmarie, 2004, “Tracer Study of Chloride to Bromide Ratios in the Black Dog Lakes Area.” CLA Honors Thesis, 24 p + 19 p. of appendices. 3. Blissenbach, Jennifer, 1993,"Laboratory Scale Measurement of Unsaturated Flow Through a Conical Infiltrometer.” IT Honors Thesis. 2. Jahren, Anne Hope, 1991, "Geologic Images in Literature, Poetry, and Art.” CLA Honors Thesis. 1. Morris, Robert W., 1987, "The Petrography and Isotopic Anomalies of Coarse Grained Calcium-Aluminum-Rich Inclusions: Implications for Their Origins.” CLA Honors Thesis. B. Undergraduate Researchers (UROP = University of Minnesota’s Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program NSF REU = National Science Foundation’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program) 61. Edward Pencak (2017) UROP, From spring to stream: water quality analysis of Trout Brook, Dakota County, MN, Final report 30 Apr 2018. 10 p. 60. Kasahara, Sophie (2013, 2014) UROP, Coldwater Spring Characterization. 59. Young, Emma (2013) UROP, LiDAR Inventory of Sinkholes in Washington Co., MN. 58. Castner, Caitlin (2013) UROP, LiDAR Inventory of Sinkholes in Goodhue Co., MN. 57. Phipps, Jacob (2013), NSF REU, FMC SP Spring Characterization. 56. LaQua, Alexa (2013), NSF REU, FMC SP Spring Characterization. 55. Kasahara, Sophie (2013), UROP, Coldwater Spring Monitoring. 54. Feakins, Joan (2013), UROP, Thermal Monitoring of Twin Cities Karst Springs. 53. Peters, Joseph 2012, NSF REU, Summer Intern, Soudan Mine Hydrogeology. 52. Garmon, Travis, 2012, NSF REU, Summer Intern, Wykoff NW Springshed Mapping. 51. Bomberger, Cody 2011, NSF REU, Summer Intern, Trout Brook Hydrogeology. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -7- 7 50. Greenwaldt, Britney 2011, NSF REU, Summer Intern, Fillmore County LiDAR Mapping. 49. Ladd, Bethany, 2010, NSF REU, Summer Intern, Keefer Valley Springshed Mapping. 47. Finnes, Evan, 2009-2010, UROP, Tyson Spring Springshed Mapping. 46. Chai, Su Yi, 2009-2010, UROP, Freiheit Spring Springshed Mapping. 45. Larson, Erik B., 2009, NSF REU Summer Intern, LiDAR Sinkholes in Houston County. 44. Greene, Julie, 2009, NSF REU Summer Intern, Dye Tracing in Fillmore County. 43. Nobu, Masaru, 2009, NSF REU Summer Intern, Microbiology of the Soudan Mine. 42. Peterson, Kelsey, 2008, NSF REU Summer Intern, Fluorescent Properties of NOM. 41. Flynn, Shannon, 2008, NSF REU Summer Intern, Bat River Spring Tracing 40. Callahan, Daniel, 2007, NSF REU Summer Intern, Hydrogeology of Goliath’s Cave. 39. Eagle, Sarah, 2007, NSF REU Summer Intern, 2 July 2007 Morehart Farm Dye Trace. 38. Holzbauer, Micah, 2007, UROP, Environmental Geochemistry of Springs and Tufa Deposits along the Mississippi River Gorge, East Bank, University of Minnesota 37. Pinta, Steven, 2007, UROP, Mineralogy of the Soudan Mine: A Possible Correlation with Mars. 36. Hanson, Andri, 2007, UROP, The Soudan Mine and Mars: A Surprising Relationship. 35. Maas, Benjamin Joseph, 2007, UROP, Water Quality of Goliath Cave, Minnesota. 34. Costello, Dan, 2006 NSF REU Summer Intern, Spring Valley Caverns, Minnesota, Dye Trace, Mineralogy of Secondary Deposits in the Soudan Mine. 33. Maas, Benjamin Joseph, 2006, UROP, Changes in Drip Water Quality of Crystal Cave, Wisconsin. 32. Sandman, Mark, 2006, Senior Design Project, Cave Mapping Program. 31. Jevnisek, Jennifer, 2005, UROP, Water on Mars. 30. Boyle, Dylan Brian, 2005 NSF REU Summer Intern, Geochemistry of Transpired Water. 29. Velkoverh, Jamie, 2005 NSF REU Summer Intern, Yellow River Iowa Dye Trace. 28. Sanderson, Eric, 2005, UROP, Groundwater Hydrogeology of the St. Paul Campus. 27. Bunge, Eric, 2004, Senior Research Project, Salem Creek Dye Tracing. 26. Leaf, Andrew, 2004, NSF REU Summer Intern, Springs of Northeastern Washington County, Minnesota. 25. Ebert, Mark, 2004, Senior Research Project, Geochemical Finger Printing of Glacial Sediments. 24. Burgos, Viviana, 2003, NSF REU Summer Intern, Springshed Mapping with Dye Traces, Burnap Farm, Olmsted Co., MN. 22,23. Johnson, Sara & Allison Capel, 2003, UROP, Mapping Karst Features in the Minnesota River Near Mankato. 21. Powell, Susan, 2002, NSF REU Summer Intern. 20. Dalton, Katherine, 2001, NSF REU Summer Intern. 19. Leonard, Jill, 2001, NSF REU, Summer Intern. 18. Russo, Stacey, 2001, NSF REU Summer Intern. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -8- 8 17.Heuscher, Sonja, 2000, NSF REU Summer Intern, Investigation of Various Alcohols as Charcoal Eluants. 16. Dowling, Jason D., 1999, UROP, Water Analysis of Selected Springs of Wabasha County, MN. Publications while advisee not including ECA Jr. as co-author a. Dowling, Jason D. (2000) Water Analysis of Selected Springs of Wabasha County, MN.(Abstract) 14th National Conference on Undergraduate Research, April 27-29, 2000, Missoula, Montana, Abstract Book, p. 208. 15. Truong, Hong T., 1999, UROP, The Sinkholes of Banning State Park, Pine Co., MN. Publications while advisee not including ECA Jr. as co-author a. Truong, Hong T. (2000) Sinkhole Formation and Mapping in Banning State Park, Pine County, MN. (Abstract) 14th National Conference on Undergraduate Research, April 27-29, 2000, Missoula, Montana, Abstract Book, p. 211. 14. Shade, Beverley L. (1998) NSF REU, Sandstone Karst near Askov Minnesota. 13. Stott, Catherine J., 1997, UROP, Finding a More Efficient Method of Determining Water Quality in Small Watersheds. Publications while advisee not including ECA Jr. as co-author a. Stott, Catherine J. (1998) Stream Sediment Pore Water: A More Efficient Method of Determining Water Quality in Small Watersheds? (Abstract) 12th National Conference on Undergraduate Research, April 23-25, 1998, Salisbury State University, Salisbury, Maryland, Program, p. 201. b. Stott, Catherine J. (1998) Stream sediment Pore Water: A More Efficient Method of Determining Water Quality in Small Watersheds? In: (Robert D. Yearout, ed.) Proc. Nat’l. Conf. on Undergrad. Res., NCUR ’98, Univ. of North Carolina Press, Ashville, North Carolina, vol. V, p. 1800-1803. 12. Plante, Michael C., 1996, UROP, Sensitivity Study of the Shimadzu RF5000U Spectrofluorophotometer as Performed with Fluorescent Tracer Dyes. 11. Blissenbach, Jennifer L., 1992, UROP, Water Quality Analysis of Crystal Cave, Wisconsin. Publications while advisee not including ECA Jr. as co-author a. Blissenbach, Jennifer L. (1993) Water quality analysis of Crystal Cave, Pierce County, Wisconsin (Abstract 5-24-4). 7th Nat’l Conf. on Undergrad. Res., March 25-27, 1992, Salt Lake City, Utah. b. Blissenbach, Jennifer L. (1993) Water quality analysis of Crystal Cave, Pierce County, Wisconsin. In: (Robert D. Yearout, ed.) Proc. 7th Nat’l Conf. on Undergrad. Res., Univ. of North Carolina at Asheville, v. III, p. 1460-1464. 10. Mullen, Steven F., 1992, UROP, A Survey of Water Quality in Spring Valley Caverns. Publications While Advisee not including ECA Jr. as co-author a. Mullen, Steven F. (1993) A survey of water quality in Spring Valley Caverns, Minnesota (Abstract 5-25-3). 7th Nat’l Conf. on Undergrad. Res., March 25-27, 1992, Salt Lake City, Utah. b. Mullen, Steven F. (1993) A survey of water quality in Spring Valley Caverns. In: (Robert D. Yearout, ed.) Proc. 7th Nat’l Conf. on Undergrad. Res., Univ. of North Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -9- 9 Carolina at Asheville, v. III, p. 1455-1459. 9. Orbita, Doreen M., 1991, UROP, Frost Pumping. 8. Sethi, Tarun, 1990, UROP; A Survey of the Chemistry of the Waters of the Mystery Cave. Publications While Advisee not including ECA Jr. as co-author a. Sethi, Tarun (1991) Water Quality in Mystery Cave (Abstract Env. 11.9K). 5th Nat’l. Conf. on Undergrad. Res., March 21-23, 1991, Pasadena, Calif. 7. Harem, Sandra L., 1990, UROP; Niagara Cave; Water Quality Analysis and Trace Dye Study. 6. Orbita, Doreen M., 1990, UROP; A Stable Isotope/Chemical Investigation of Lake - Groundwater Interactions at Forest Lake. Research Awards: $500 from Washington County $500 from Forest Lake Publications While Advisee not including ECA, Jr. as co-author a. Orbita, Doreen M. (1991) A stable isotope/chemical investigation of lake-groundwater interactions at Forest Lake (Abstract ENV. 11.8K) 5th Nat’l Conf. on Undergrad. Res., March 21-23, 1991, Pasadena, Calif. b. Orbita, Doreen M. (1991) A stable isotope/chemical investigation of lake-groundwater interactions at Forest Lake. Proc. 5th Nat’l Conf. of Undergrad. Res. (K.M. Whatley, ed.) Univ. of North Carolina, Ashville, Vol. 2, pp. 900-904. 5. Goff, Karin, 1988, UROP; A Survey of Nitrate Contamination in Shoreview Wells. Research Awards: $1000 from City of Shoreview Publications While Advisee not including ECA, Jr. as co-author a. Goff, Karin (1989) A survey of nitrate contamination in wells located in Shoreview, MN (Abstract ES002). 3rd Nat'l. Conf. on Undergrad. Res. April 27-29, 1989, San Antonio, Texas. b. Goff, Karin (1989) A survey of nitrate contamination in wells located in Shoreview, MN. Proc. 3rd Nat'l. Conf. on Undergrad. Res. (K.M. Whatley, ed.), Univ. of North Carolina, Ashville, Vol. 2, pp. 471-476. 4. Johnson, Kevin, 1988, UROP; Depth Variations of Aquifer Water Chemistry in Western Hennepin County. Research Awards: $600 from City of Minnetrista 3. Marsh, Richard, 1987, UROP; Determining the Principal Axes of Anisotropy of a Fractured Medium. 2. Sweep, Ellen, 1987, UROP; Nitrate Content of Groundwater from Mt. Simon Recharge Zone. 1. Marsh, Richard, 1986, UROP; Groundwater Pollution in Fractured Aquifers. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -10- 10 IV. Teaching Record Term Course Course Name Credits Students Student Credit Hours Spring 2014 4702 Hydrogeology 3 Spring 2013 4702 Hydrogeology 3 19 57 Fall 2012 5713 Tracers & Karst Hydrogeology 3 11 33 Fall 2012 3004 Water & Society 3 22 66 Summer 2012 4971W Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 25 100 Term Course Course Name Credits Students Student Credit Hours Summer 2012 5971 Hydrogeology Field Camp 2 5 10 Spring 2012 4702 Hydrogeology 3 20 60 Fall 2011 3005 Earth Resources 3 14 42 Summer 2011 4971W Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 25 100 Summer 2011 5971 Hydro Field Camp 2 4 8 Spring 2011 4702 Hydrogeology 3 11 33 Spring 2011 4010 Research 1 1 1 Spring 2011 3401 Geochron & Earth History 3 19 57 Fall 2010 3004 Water & Society 3 20 60 Fall 2010 5713 Tracers & Karst Hydrology 3 6 18 Summer 2010 4971W Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 20 80 Summer 2010 5971 Hydrogeology Field Camp 2 6 12 Spring 2010 2303W Geochemistry 3 20 60 Spring 2010 3401 Geochron & Earth History 3 18 54 Spring 2010 4702 Hydrogeology 3 8 24 Fall 2009 3005 Earth Resources 3 15 45 Summer 2009 4971W Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 17 68 Summer 2009 5971 Hydrogeology Field Camp 2 2 4 Spring 2009 3401 Geochron & Earth History 3 18 54 Spring 2009 4702 Hydrogeology 3 9 27 Fall 2008 3004 Water & Society 3 35 105 Fall 2008 3890 Field Workshop 1 6 6 Fall 2008 4093 Senior Problems 1 1 1 Fall 2008 5713 Tracers & Karst Hydrology 3 8 24 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -11- 11 Summer 2008 4971 Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 19 76 Summer 2008 5971 Hydrogeology Field Camp 2 7 14 Spring 2008 ES3024 Environmental Chemistry at UTSA 2007-2008 Sabbatical at UTSA & EAA Summer 2007 4971 Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 28 112 Summer 2007 5971 Hydrogeology Field Camp 2 4 8 Spring 2007 3006 Planets of the Solar System 3 15 45 Spring 2007 3401 Geochron & Earth History 3 23 69 Term Course Course Name Credits Students Student Credit Hours Fall 2006 5701 Hydrogeology 3 12 36 Fall 2006 3004 Water and Society 3 32 96 Summer 2006 4971 Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 15 60 Spring 2006 4093 Hydrogeology Field Camp 2 1 2 Spring 2006 3401 Geochron & Earth History 3 16 48 Fall 2005 5713 Tracers & Karst Hydrology 3 3 9 Fall 2005 5701 Hydrogeology 3 7 21 Fall 2005 3005 Earth Resources 3 33 99 Summer 2005 4971 Hydrogeology Field Camp 3 15 45 Spring 2005 8994 Hydrogeology Field Camp 1 2 2 Spring 2005 4093 Senior Research Projects 1 1 1 Spring 2005 3401 Geochron & Earth History 3 10 30 Spring 2005 3006 Planets of the Solar System 3 26 78 Fall 2004 8994 Graduate Research Projects 1,2 2 3 Fall 2004 5701 Hydrogeology 3 13 39 Fall 2004 3004 Water and Society 3 29 87 Summer 2004 4971 Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 22 88 Spring 2004 8994 Graduate Research Projects 1 4 4 Spring 2004 4094 Senior Thesis 2 2 4 Spring 2004 4093 Senior Reseach Projects 1,2 2 3 Spring 2004 3401 Geochron & Earth History 3 23 69 Fall 2003 5713 Tracers & Karst Hydrology 3 7 21 Fall 2003 5701 Hydrogeology 3 8 24 Fall 2003 3005 Earth Resources 3 24 72 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -12- 12 Summer 2003 4971 Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 22 88 Spring 2003 5702 Regional Aquifer Systems 3 5 15 Spring 2003 3401 Geochron & Earth History 3 16 48 Spring 2003 3006 Planets of the Solar System 3 30 90 Fall 2002 5701 Hydrogeology 4 16 64 Fall 2002 3004 Water & Society 3 42 126 Summer 2002 4973 Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 12 48 Spring 2002 3401 Geochron & Earth History 3 16 48 Fall 2001 5701 Hydrogeology 4 8 32 Fall 2001 3005 Earth Resources 3 28 84 Term Course Course Name Credits Students Student Credit Hours Spring 2001 5702 Regional Aquifer Systems 3 8 24 Spring 2001 3401 Geochron & Earth History 3 14 42 Spring 2001 1904 Space Resources, Fresh. Sem. 2 6 24 Fall 2000 3004 Water and Society 3 44 132 Fall 2000 5701 Hydrogeology 4 13 52 Summer 2000 4973 Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 13 62 Spring 2000 3401 Geochron & Earth History 3 17 51 Spring 2000 3006 Planets of the Solar System 3 33 99 Fall 1999 5713 Tracers & Karst Hydrology 3 10 30 Fall 1999 5701 Hydrogeology 4 19 66 Fall 1999 3005 Earth Resources 4 29 116 Summer 1999 5112 Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 30 120 Spring 1999 5980 Regional Aquifer Systems 4 7 28 Spring 1999 1019 Our Changing Planet 4 53 212 Winter 1999 5643 Chemical Hydrogeology 4 9 36 Winter 1999 3005 Earth Resources 4 31 124 Fall 1998 5980 Current Topics 3 2 6 Fall 1998 3006 Water and Society 3 83 249 Spring 1998 5980 Regional Aquifer Systems 40973 11 42 Spring 1998 1019 Our Changing Planet 4 161 644 Winter 1998 5980 Current Topics 4 1 4 Winter 1998 5643 Chemical Hydrogeology 4 12 +1 48 Winter 1998 3005 Earth Resources 4 31 124 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -13- 13 Fall 1997 5613 Tracers & Karst Hydrology 4 11 44 Summer 1997 5112 Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 29 116 Spring 1997 3301 Geochemical Principals 4 22 88 Spring 1997 3007 Planets of the Solar System 3 10 30 Spring 1997 1019 Our Changing Planet 4 148 592 Winter 1997 5643 Chemical Hydrogeology 4 9 36 Winter 1997 3005 Earth Resources 4 21 84 Fall 1996 8098 Current Topics 1 4 4 Term Course Course Name Credits Students Student Credit Hours Summer 1996 5112 Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 15 60 Spring 1996 1019 Our Changing Planet 4 196 784 Spring 1996 3301 Geochemical Principals 4 17 68 Spring 1996 8098 Current Topics 1 12 12 Winter 1996 5643 Chemical Hydrogeology 4 20 80 Winter 1996 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 27 108 Fall 1995 5613 Tracers & Karst Hydrology 4 10 40 Summer 1995 5112 Hydrogeology Field Camp 4 21 84 1994-1995 Sabbatical Leave, Univ of Auckland, New Zealand Spring 1994 1019 Our Changing Planet 4 44 176 Spring 1994 3301 Geochemical Principals 4 23 92 Winter 1994 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 39 156 Winter 1994 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 10 40 Winter 1994 5643 Chemical Hydrogeology 4 17 68 Fall 1993 5613 Tracers in Hydrogeology 4 10 40 Spring 1993 1019 Our Changing Planet 4 115 460 Winter 1993 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 53 212 Winter 1993 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 27 108 Fall 1992 8098 Current Topics 2,3 3 7 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -14- 14 Spring 1992 1019 Our Changing Planet 4 47 188 Winter 1992 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 53 212 Winter 1992 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 51 204 Fall 1991 5613 Tracers in Hydrogeology 3 14 42 Spring 1991 5507 Physics & Chemistry of the Earth III 4 7 28 Spring 1991 3211H Honors Earth Science 5 40 200 Winter 1991 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 70 280 Term Course Course Name Credits Students Student Credit Hours Winter 1991 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 48 192 Fall 1990 8098 Current Topics 2,3 15 32 Fall 1990 1012 Intro to Comparative Planetology 4 164 656 Spring 1990 5507 Physics & Chemistry of the Earth III 4 4 16 Spring 1990 3211H Honors Earth Science 5 37 185 Winter 1990 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 66 264 Winter 1990 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 37 148 Fall 1989 5613 Tracers in Hydrogeology 3 16 48 Fall 1989 1012 Intro to Comparative Planetology 4 137 548 Spring 1989 5507 Physics & Chemistry of the Earth III 4 10 40 Spring 1989 3211H Honors Earth Science 5 41 205 Winter 1989 5321 Nuclear Geology 4 7 28 Winter 1989 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 40 160 Fall 1988 1012 Intro to Comparative Planetology 4 87 348 Spring 1988 5507 Physics & Chemistry of the Earth III 4 3 12 Spring 1988 3211 Honors Earth Science 5 32 160 Winter 1988 (Single Quarter Leave) Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -15- 15 Fall 1987 5613 Tracers in Hydrogeology 3 10 30 Spring 1987 5507 Physics & Chemistry of the Earth III 4 7 28 Winter 1987 5321 Nuclear Geology 4 2 8 Winter 1987 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 74 296 Winter 1987 1001 Intro to Physical Geology 4 283 1132 Spring 1986 5507 Physics & Chemistry of the Earth III 4 14 56 Winter 1986 1005 Geo Perspectives on Energy 4 67 268 Term Course Course Name Credits Students Student Credit Hours Fall 1985 5613 Tracers in Hydrogeology 3 6 18 Spring 1985 1111 Intro Physical Geology 5 62 310 Spring 1985 5507 Physics & Chemistry of the Earth III 4 15 60 Winter 1985 5321 Nuclear Geology 4 10 40 Winter 1985 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 60 240 Winter 1985 1001 Intro Geology 5 197 985 Fall 1984 8098 Current Topics 2 2 4 Spring 1984 5507 Physics & Chemistry of the Earth III 4 7 28 Spring 1984 5100 Grand Canyon Field Trip 1 9 9 Spring 1984 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 64 256 Winter 1984 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 67 268 Fall 1983 8621 Special Topics 2 8 16 Fall 1983 5314 Geochron & Radiogenic Isotope Geochemistry 4 6 24 Fall 1983 1012 Earth as a Planet 4 39 156 Spring 1983 5507 Physics & Chemistry of the Earth III 4 19 76 Winter 1983 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 113 452 Fall 1982 1012 Earth as a Planet 4 37 148 Spring 1982 5302 Nuclear Geology 4 11 44 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -16- 16 Spring 1982 1007 Environmental Geology 4 52 208 Winter 1982 5506 Physics & Chemistry of the Earth II 4 16 64 Fall 1981 5301 General Geochemistry 3 24 72 Fall 1981 1012 Earth as a Planet 4 58 232 Spring 1981 5302 Nuclear Geology 4 10 40 Winter 1981 5506 Physics & Chemistry of the Earth II 4 12 48 Winter 1981 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 126 504 Fall 1980 5301 General Geochemistry 3 19 57 Term Course Course Name Credits Students Student Credit Hours Fall 1980 1012 Earth as a Planet 4 72 288 Spring 1980 5302 Nuclear Geology 4 9 36 Winter 1980 5506 Physics & Chemistry of the Earth II 4 7 28 Winter 1980 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 4 83 332 Fall 1979 5303 General Geochemistry 3 9 27 Fall 1979 1012 Earth as a Planet 4 67 268 Winter 1978 1005 Geologic Perspectives on Energy 3 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -17- 17 Service Functions 1973 to Present I. Professional Organizing Committee of the 14th Multidisciplinary Sinkhole Conf., Rochester, MN, 2015. Organizing Committee of the 13th Multidisciplinary Sinkhole Conf., Carlsbad, NM, 2013. Board of Governors, National Cave & Karst Research Institute, 2011 to present. Board of Governors, Deep Portage Nature Preserve, 2010 to present. Program Co-Chair of the 12th Multidisciplinary Sinkhole Conference, St. Louis, MO, 2010. Program Co-Chair and Co-editor of the Proceedings of the 11th Multidisciplinary Sinkhole Conference, Tallahassee, FL, 2008. Advisory Board for Journal of Caves and Karst Studies , 2006 - 2008. Aquifer Science Advisory Panel, Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, 2005 to present. Associate Editor of the Proceedings of the 10th Multidisciplinary Sinkhole Conference, 2005 (ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No., 144, Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst.) Associate Editor of the Proceedings of 9th Multidisciplinary Sinkhole Conference (ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 122, Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst), 2003. Blue Ribbon Panel member, Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, 2000 - 2005. Geological Society of America, Day Metal Award Committee, 1998 - 2000. Minn. Environmental Quality Board Water Research Advisory Committee, 1991. Hennepin Conservation District Ground Water Advisory Committee, 1989 - 1991. Planning Committee for National Karst Waters Institute, 1989 - 1991. Minn. Environmental Quality Board Advisory Committee on Ground Water Protection, 1988 -1989. American Society of Testing Materials Subcommittee on Ground Water Monitoring, 1987- 1993. National Speleological Society Research Advisory Committee, Chair, 1986. NSF Minority Graduate Fellowship Program Review Panel, 1983 - 1984. Regional Correspondent, GEO2, 1982-1986. Standards Committee, The Geochemistry Society, 1974. Associate Editor, Proceedings of the Fifth Lunar Science Conference, 1976. Associate Editor, Proceedings of the Seventh Lunar Science Conference, 1976. American Geophysical Union Geochronology Session Co-Chairman, 1974. Scientific Reviewer for: Science, J. Geophy. Res., Geochim. Cosmochim Acta, Nature, Earth and Planet. Sci. Lett., Proc. of Lunar and Planetary Sci. Confs., Ground Water, Water Resouces Res., etc. 1973 to present (5 to 10/year) Proposal Reviewer for NSF, NASA and Water Resources Research Center - 1973-present (2 to 5/year). II. Departmental Current: Curator of Meteorites 2014 to present Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -18- 18 Former: Field Camp Committee, 1996-2002, Chair 2002-2003, 2004-2007, member 2007-2014. Chair of the Meteorite Committee, Curator of Meteorites, 1996 to 2014. Safety Committee, 1996-2007, 2008-2012. Search Committee for Large Lakes Observatory position, 1998. Search Committee for Environmental Coordinator, 1996. Departmental Awards Committee 1995-2002. Departmental Honors Program Director, 1994-2012. Search Committee for Minnesota Geological Survey Director, 1993-1994, 2001-2002, 2002- 2003. Executive Review Committee, 1989-1992, 1995-96. Analytical Facilities, 1989-1994 Search Committee for Gibson Chair, 1987-1992 (Committee Chair 1991-1992), 2001-2002. Undergraduate Studies Committee, Director 1984-1987, member 1991-1994, 1995-2007. Search Committee for Sedimentologist, 1983. Search Committee for Isotope Geochemist, 1980-1981, 1985-1987. Graduate Studies Committee, 1977-1983, 2008-2011. Library Committee, Chair 1975-1984, member 1984-1987, 2002-2003. Faculty Advisor to Undergraduate Geology Club, 1975-1977. III. University IT Instructional Computing Committee 2006-2007. Storm Water Linkage Committee, 2005-2008. Subcommittee on Twin Cities Facilities and Support Services, 2001-2007, Chair 2003-2006. Lower Division I.T. Advising, 1993-1994, 1995-2000. 1992 National UROP Conference Steering Committee, 1990-1992. Planning Committee 1991 Environmental Laboratory Technology Conference. Ad hoc Tenure Review Committee, 1990. Search Committee for Director of Independent Study, 1988-1989. I.T. Consultative and Appeals Committee, 1988-1991. I.T. Honors Committee, 1985-1991. Academic Freedom and Responsibility Appeals Committee, 1984-1987. CLA Honors Committee, 1983-1990. I.T. Curriculum Committee, 1984-1993. I.T. Academic Standards and Student Affairs Committee, 1983-1987. Search Committee for IT librarian, 1977-1978. IT Library Committee, 1975-1985 (Chairman 1975-76, 1979-1982), 2001-2002. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -19- 19 Publications I. Books and Book Chapters 11. Brick, Greg A. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (editors) (2020) Caves and Karst of Upper Midwest, USA: Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 314 p + xiii, ISBN 978-3-030-54632-8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54633-5 10. Doctor, Daniel H. and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2020) Karst Geology of the Upper Midwest, USA, in: Brick, Greg A. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (eds) Caves and Karst of Upper Midwest, USA: Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Springer, Cham, Chapter 1, p 1-21, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54633-5_1 9. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Greg A. Brick (2020) Caves and Karst of Minnesota, in: Brick, Greg A. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (eds) Caves and Karst of Upper Midwest, USA: Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Springer, Cham, Chapter 3, p 37-114, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54633-5_3 8. Feinberg, Joshua M., Yongli Gao, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (editors) (2016) Caves and Karst Across Time, GSA Special Paper 516, Geological Society of America, Denver, CO, 300 p. ISBN:978-0-8137-2516-1. 7. Tipping, R., Scott C. Alexander and E.C. Alexander Jr. (2011) Groundwater Policy at State and Local Levels: The Science-Policy Linkage, (K. William Easter and Jim Perry, eds.) Water Policy in Minnesota Issues, Incentives, and Action. RFF Press, Earthscan, London, p. 122-133. ISBN: 978-1-61726-086-5. 6. Yuhr, Lynn B., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Beck, Barry F. (editors) (2008) Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 11th Multidisciplinary Conference. ASCE/GI Geotechnical Special Publication No. 183, Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Reston, VA, 761 pp. 5. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Quinlan, James F. (1992) Practical Tracing of Groundwater with Emphasis on Karst Terranes (A Short Course Manual for the 1992 Geol. Soc. America Meeting) G.S.A., 2 volumes, ~275 p. 4. Quinlan, James F. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1990) Practical Tracing of Groundwater with Emphasis on Karst Terranes (A Short Course Manual for the 1990 Geol. Soc. America Meeting) Quinlan and Assoc., Nashville, TN, 2 volumes, 215+ p. 3. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (editor) (1980) An Introduction to Caves of Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin: Guidebook for the 1980 National Speleological Society Convention (NSS Convention Guidebook #21). 190 p. + v + 5 maps in pocket. 2. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1978) The Evolving Earth: A Student Supplement. Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 141 p. + xii. l. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Ozima, M. (editors) (1978) Terrestrial Rare Gases. Japan Science Societies Press, 242 p. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -20- 20 II. Refereed Scientific Publications 118.Timothy N. Titus, J. Judson Wynne, Michael J. Malaska, Ali-akbar Agha-Mohammadi, Peter B. Buhler, E. Calvin Alexander, James W. Ashley, Armando Azua-Bustos, Penelope J. Boston, Debra L. Buczkowski, Leroy Chiao, Glen E. Cushing, John DeDecker, Pablo de León, Cansu Demirel-Floyd, Jo De Waele, Alberto G. Fairén, Amos Frumkin, Gary L. Harris, Heather Jones, Laura H. Kerber, Erin J. Leonard, Richard J. Léveillé, Kavya Manyapu, Matteo Massironi, Ana Z. Miller, John E. Mylroie, Bogdan P. Onac, Scott Parazynski, Cynthia B. Phillips, Charity M. Phillips-Lander, Thomas H. Prettyman, Haley M. Sapers, Francesco Sauro, Norbert Schorghofer, Dirk Schulze-Makuch, Jennifer E. Scully, Kyle Uckert, Robert V. Wagner, William L. Whittaker, Kaj E. Williams, and Uland Y. Wong. (2021) A Roadmap for Planetary Caves Science and Exploration, submitted Nature Astronomy Notes. 117. McDaris, J.R., Feinberg, J.M., Runkel, A.C., Levine, J., Kasahara, S., Alexander Jr., E.C. (2021) Increasing Influence of Chloride-rich Surface Water on Groundwater Quality in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area: The Case for Monitoring with Specific Conductance. submitted to Journal of Hydrology. 116. Sasowsky, Ira D., Alexander Jr., E. Calvin (2020) Sinkholes Developed in Sandstone. In: (eds.) Land L, Kromhout C, Byle M, Proceedings of the Sixteenth Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst (first edition): NCKRI Symposium 8. Carlsbad (NM): National Cave and Karst Research Institute, p. 307-314. 115. Barry, John D., Miller, Tom P., Steenberg, Julia R., Runkel, Tony C., Kuehner, Kevin J., Alexander, Jr., E. Calvin, (2020) Combining high resolution spring monitoring, dye tracing, watershed analysis, and outcrop and borehole observations to characterize the Galena Karst, Southeast Minnesota, U.S.A. Land L, Kromhout C, Byle M, Proceedings of the Sixteenth Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst (first edition): NCKRI Symposium 8. Carlsbad (NM): National Cave and Karst Research Institute, p. 3-17. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/sinkhole_2020/ProceedingswithProgram/Resource_monitoring_and_management/1/ 114. Feinberg, J.M., Lascu, I., Lima, E.A., Weiss, B.P., Dorale, J.A., Alexander Jr., E.C., and Edwards, R.L. (2019) Magnetic detection of paleoflood layers in stalagmites and implications for historical land use changes. Earth Planetary Sci. Lett, v 530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2019.115946 113. Alexander, Scott C. and Alexander Jr., E. Calvin (2018) Carbon-14 Age Dating Calculations from Minnesota Groundwaters. Report to Minnesota DNR, 34 p. https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/211402 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -21- 21 112. Green, Jeffrey A., Tipping, Robert G., Barry, John D., Brick, Gregory A., Wheeler, Betty J., Rutelonis, J. Wes, Richardson, Bart C. and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2018), Electronic Access to Minnesota Springs, Karst Feature & Groundwater Tracing Information. in: (eds. Sawowsky, I.D, Byle, M.J. and Land, L.) Proc. 15th Multidisciplinary Conf. on Sinkholes and the Engin. And Envir. Impacts of Karst and the 3rd Appalacian Karst Symp. Apr 2-6, Shepherstown, WV, NCKRI Symp. 7, Carlsbad, NM, p. 167-171. 111. Barry, John D., Green, Jeffrey A., Rutelonis, J. Wes, Steenberg, Julia R. and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2018) Coupling Dye Tracing, Water Chemistry, and Passive Geophysics to Characterize a Siliciclastic Pseudokarst Aquifer, Southeat Minnesota, USA. in: (eds. Sawowsky, I.D, Byle, M.J. and Land, L.) Proc. 15th Multidisciplinary Conf. on Sinkholes and the Engin. And Envir. Impacts of Karst and the 3rd Appalacian Karst Symp. Apr 2-6, Shepherstown, WV, NCKRI Symp. 7, Carlsbad, NM, p. 5-16. 110. Worthington, Stephen R.H., Pierre-Yves, Jeannin, Alexander Jr., E. Calvin, Davies, Gareth J., Schindel, Geary M. (2017) Contrasting definitions for the term “karst aquifer”. Hydrogeo. J., published online 6 July 2017, 4 p. DOI 10.1007/s10040-017-1628-7 109. Worthington, Stephen R.H., Gareth J. Davies, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2016) Enhancement of Bedrock Permeability by Weathering. Earth Sciences Review, v. 160, p. 188-202. 108. Tipping, Robert C., Mathew Rantala, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Yongli Gao and Jeffrey A. Green (2015) History and Future of the Minnesota Karst Feature Database. Proceedings of the 14th Sinkhole Conference. In: (Daniel H. Doctor, Lewis Land and J. Brad Stephenson, editors), National Cave & Karst Research Institute Symposium 5, Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 14th Multidisciplinary Conference, Oct 5-9, 2015, Rochester, MN, NCKRI, Carlsbad, MN, p. 263-270. 107. Shade, Beverly L., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Scott C. Alexander (2015) The Sandstone Karst of Pine County, Minnesota. Proceedings of the 14th Sinkhole Conference. In: (Daniel H. Doctor, Lewis Land and J. Brad Stephenson, editors), National Cave & Karst Research Institute Symposium 5, Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 14th Multidisciplinary Conference, Oct 5-9, 2015, Rochester, MN, NCKRI, Carlsbad, MN, p. 157-166. 106. Kasahara, Sophie M., Scott C. Alexander and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2015) Human Impacts on Water Quality in Coldwater Spring, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Proceedings of the 14th Sinkhole Conference. In: (Daniel H. Doctor, Lewis Land and J. Brad Stephenson, editors), National Cave & Karst Research Institute Symposium 5, Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 14th Multidisciplinary Conference, Oct 5-9, 2015, Rochester, MN, NCKRI, Carlsbad, MN, p. 9-18. 105. Groten, Joel T. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2015) Karst Hydrogeologic Investigation of Trout Brook. Proceedings of the 14th Sinkhole Conference. In: (Daniel H. Doctor, Lewis Land and J. Brad Stephenson, editors), National Cave & Karst Research Institute Symposium 5, Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 14th Multidisciplinary Conference, Oct 5-9, 2015, Rochester, MN, NCKRI, Carlsbad, MN, p. 1-8. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -22- 22 104. Green, Jeffrey A. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2015) Creation of a Map of Paleozoic Bedrock Springsheds in Southeast Minnesota. Proceedings of the 14th Sinkhole Conference. In: (Daniel H. Doctor, Lewis Land and J. Brad Stephenson, editors), National Cave & Karst Research Institute Symposium 5, Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 14th Multidisciplinary Conference, Oct 5-9, 2015, Rochester, MN, NCKRI, Carlsbad, MN, p. 211-222. 103. Doctor, Daniel H., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Roy A. Jameson and Scott C. Alexander (2015) Hydrologic and Geochemical Dynamics of Vadose Zone Recharge in a Mantled Karst Aquifer: Results of Monitoring Drip Waters in Mystery Cave, Minnesota. Proceedings of the 14th Sinkhole Conference. In: (Daniel H. Doctor, Lewis Land and J. Brad Stephenson, editors), National Cave & Karst Research Institute Symposium 5, Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 14th Multidisciplinary Conference, Oct 5-9, 2015, Rochester, MN, NCKRI, Carlsbad, MN, p. 19-29. 102. Alexander, E. Calvin Jr. and Betty J. Wheeler (2015) A Proposed Hypogenic Origin of Iron Ore Deposits in Southeast Minnesota Karst. Proceedings of the 14th Sinkhole Conference. In: (Daniel H. Doctor, Lewis Land and J. Brad Stephenson, editors), National Cave & Karst Research Institute Symposium 5, Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 14th Multidisciplinary Conference, Oct 5-9, 2015, Rochester, MN, NCKRI, Carlsbad, NM, p. 167-175 101. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Kelton D.L. Barr, Andrew J. Luhmann and Cale T. Anger (2015). Goliath’s Cave, Minnesota: Epigenic Modification and Extension of Preexisting Hypogenic Conduits. In: (Daniel H. Doctor, Lewis Land and J. Brad Stephenson, editors), National Cave & Karst Research Institute Symposium 5, Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 14th Multidisciplinary Conference, Oct 5-9, 2015, Rochester, MN, NCKRI, Carlsbad, MN, p. 201-209. 100. Schilling, Keith, Raymond Anderson, David Peate, Jeffrey Dorale and E.C. Alexander, Jr. (2015) Mining unique soft and old water within the Manson Impact Structure, Iowa (USA). Hydrogeology Journal, v. 23, p. 95-103. DOI 10.1007/s10040-014-1193-2, published online (2014) 99. Luhmann, A.J, M.D. Covington, J.M. Myre, M. Perne, S.W. Jones, E.C. Alexander, Jr., M.O. Saar (2014) Thermal damping and retardation in karst conduits. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 18, 1-54. www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/18/2014 doi: 10.5194/hessd-18-1-2014 98. Cheng, Hai, R. Lawrence Edwards, Chuan-Chou Shen, Victor J. Polyak, Yemane Asmrom, Jon Woodhead, John Hellstrom, Yongjin Wang, Xinggong Kong, Christoph Spötl, Xianfeng Wang and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2013) Improvements in 230Th dating, 230Th and 234U half-life values, and U-Th isotopic measurements by multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Earth & Planetary Science Letters, v. 371-372, p. 82-91. 97. Alexander, E. Calvin Jr., Anthony C. Runkel, Robert G. Tipping and Jeffrey A. Green (2013) Deep time origins of sinkhole collapse failures in sewage lagoons in SE Minnesota. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -23- 23 In: (Lewis Land, Daniel H. Doctor and J. Brad Stephenson editors) NCKRI Symposium 2 Proceedings of the 13th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Carlsbad, New Mexico, published on-line by NCKRI, Carlsbad, NM, p. 285-292. ISBN 978-0-9795422-7-5 96. Rahimi, Mina and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2013) Locating sinkholes in LiDAR coverage of a glacio-fluval karst, Winona County, MN. In: (Lewis Land, Daniel H. Doctor and J. Brad Stephenson editors) NCKRI Symposium 2 Proceedings of the 13th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Carlsbad, New Mexico, published on-line by NCKRI, Carlsbad, NM, p. 469-480. ISBN 978-0-9795422-7-5 95. Alexander, Scott C., Mina Rahimi, Erik Larson, Cody Bomberger, Brittany Greenwaldt and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2013) Combining LiDAR, aerial photography and pictometric tools for karst features database management. In: (Lewis Land, Daniel H. Doctor and J. Brad Stephenson editors) NCKRI Symposium 2 Proceedings of the 13th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Carlsbad, New Mexico, published on-line by NCKRI, Carlsbad, NM, p. 441-448. ISBN 978-0-9795422-7-5 94. Luhmann, Andrew J., Matthew D. Covington, Scott C. Alexander, Su Yi Chai, Benjamin F. Schwartz, Joel T. Groten and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2013) Comparison of discharge, chloride, temperature, uranine, δD, and suspended sediment responses from a multiple tracer test in karst. Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 28, p. 191-199. Published online 13 Feb 2013, DOI 10.1007/s13146-013-0127-8. 93. Anger, Cale T. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., (2013) Bench-scale models of dye breakthrough curves. Carbonates and Evaporates, v. 28 p. 221-227. Published online 10 Oct 2012, DOI 10.1007/s13146-012-0092-7. 92. Luhmann, Andrew J., Matthew D. Covington, Scott C. Alexander, Su Yi Chai, Benjamin F. Schwartz, Joel T. Groten and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2012) Comparing Conservative and Nonconservative Tracers in Karst and Using Them to Estimate Flow Path Geometry. Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 448-449, p. 201-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.04.044 91. Green, Jeffrey A., Anthony C. Runkel and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2012) Karst conduit flow in the Cambrian St. Lawrence Confining Unit, southeast Minnesota. Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 27, p. 167-172. Published online 28 Jun 2012, DOI 10.1007/s13146-012-0102-9. 90. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Jeffrey A. Green, Anthony Runkel and Katherine J. Logan (2011) Southeastern Minnesota karst hydrogeology: New insights from data loggers, tracing, LiDAR and hydrophysics. in Miller, J.D., Jr., Hudak, G.J., Wittkop, C. and McLoughlin, P.I. eds., Archean to Anthropocene: Field Guides to the Geology of the MidContinent of North America: Geological Society of America Field Guide 24, p. 243-257. 89. Brick, Greg and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2011) Early Graphic Representations of Groundwater Nitrate Concentrations, Ground Water, first published online Dec., 2011 at: Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -24- 24 DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00896.x; then in Ground Water, v. 50, no 2, Mar-Apr. 2012, p 319-322. 88. Luhmann, Andrew J., Matthew D. Covington, Andrew J. Peters, Scott C. Alexander, Cale T. Anger, Jeffrey A. Green, Anthony C. Runkel and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2011) Classification of Thermal Patterns at Karst Springs and Cave Streams, Ground Water, Vol 49, no. 3, p 324-334. (Published on line: 16 Jul 2010, DOI: 10.1111/j.1745- 6584.2010.00737.x) 87. Mark A. Borchardt, Kenneth R. Bradbury, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Rhonda J. Kolberg, Scott C. Alexander, John R. Archer, Laurel A. Braatz, Brian M. Forest, Jeffrey A. Green, and Susan K. Spencer (2011) Case Study of Norovirus Outbreak Caused by Septic System in a Dolomite Aquifer, Ground Water, Vol. 49, No. 1, January/February 2011, p. 85–97. (Published on line 22 Feb 2010, DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2010.00686.x) 86. Sushmita Dasgupta, Martin O. Saar, R. L. Edwards, Chuan-Chou Shen, Hai Cheng, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2010) Three thousand years of extreme rainfall events recorded in stalagmites from Spring Valley Caverns, Minnesota. Earth & Planetary Science Letters, v. 300, p. 46-54. 85. Kelton D. L. Barr and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2009) Examples of Hypogenic Karst Collapse Structures Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. (K.W. Stafford, L. Land, and G. Veni eds.) Advances in Hypogene Karst Studies: NCKRI Symposium 1. National Cave and Karst Research Institute, Carlsbad, NM, p. 51-59. 84. Greg Brick, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. Daniel H. Doctor (2009) Isotopic Study of Nitrates from Upper Mississippi Valley Saltpeter Caves. In (William B. White, ed.) Proceedings 15th International Congress of Speleology, Kerrville, TX, 19-26 July 2009, Vol 1, p. 289-293. ISBN 978-1-879961-33-3. 83. Scott C. Alexander, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Jeffrey A. Green, William E. Schuster and Brian Forest (2008) Dye Trace Study of a New Septic System in Door County, Wisconsin. In: (Yuhr, Lynn B., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Beck, Barry F., editors) Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 11th Multidisciplinary Conference. ASCE/GI Geotechnical Special Publication No. 183, Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Reston, VA, p. 495-504. 82. Scott C. Alexander, Andrew J. Luhmann, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Jeffrey A. Green and Andrew J. Peters (2008) Spring Characterization Methods & Springshed Mapping. In: (Yuhr, Lynn B., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Beck, Barry F., editors) Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 11th Multidisciplinary Conference. ASCE/GI Geotechnical Special Publication No. 183, Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Reston, VA, p. 485-494. 81. Jeffrey A. Green, Andrew J. Luhmann, Andrew J. Peters, Anthony C. Runkel, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., and Scott C. Alexander (2008) Dye Tracing Within the St. Lawrence Confining Unit in Southeastern Minnesota. In: (Yuhr, Lynn B., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Beck, Barry F., editors) Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 11th Multidisciplinary Conference. ASCE/GI Geotechnical Special Publication No. 183, Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Reston, VA, p. 477-484. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -25- 25 80. Bobbie Neubert, J.A. Bellian, Xueming Xu, Kevin McGowan, Geary M. Schindel and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2008) 3-D Photo Real Modeling of Devil’s Sinkhole in Rocksprings, Texas. In: (Yuhr, Lynn B., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Beck, Barry F., editors) Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 11th Multidisciplinary Conference. ASCE/GI Geotechnical Special Publication No. 183, Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Reston, VA, p. 188-201. 79. Kelton Barr, Alexander Klimchouk and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2008) Hypogenic Karst and its Implications for Minnesota Hydrogeology. In: (Yuhr, Lynn B., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Beck, Barry F., editors) Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Proceedings of the 11th Multidisciplinary Conference. ASCE/GI Geotechnical Special Publication No. 183, Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Reston, VA, p. 43-53. 78. Y. Gao and E.C. Alexander, Jr. (2008) Sinkhole Hazard Assessment in Minnesota Using a Decision Tree Model. Environmental Geology, v. 54, n. 5, p. 945-956. --- Connolly, Harlod C. Jr., Caroline Smith, Gretchen Benedix, Luigi Folco, Kevin Richter, Jutta Zippel, Akira Yamauchi, Hasnaa Chennaoui Aoudjehane (2007) The Meteoritical Bulletin, No. 98, 2008 March, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, v. 43, n. 3, p 571-632. (Official naming and description of the Turtle Lake, Wisconsin L5 chondrite fall.) 77. Yongli Gao, Robert G. Tipping and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2006) Applications of GIS and Database Technologies to Manage a Karst Feature Database. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 68, n. 3, p. 144-152. 76. Daniel H. Doctor, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Metka Petrič, Janja Kogovšek, Janko Urbanc, Soja Lojen, Willibald Stichler (2006) Quantification of Karst Aquifer Discharge Components During Storm Events through End-member Mixing Analysis Using Natural Chemistry and Stable Isotopes as Tracers, Hydrogeology Journal, v. 14, p. 1171-1191. DOI 10.1007/s10040-006-0031-6. 75. Robert G. Tipping, Anthony C. Runkel, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Jeffery A. Green (2006) Evidence for hydraulic heterogeneity and anisotropy in the mostly carbonate Prairie du Chien Group, southeastern Minnesota, USA. Sedimentary Geology, v. 184, no. 3-4, p. 305-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2005.11.007 74. Anthony C. Runkel, Robert G. Tipping, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Scott C. Alexander (2006) Hydrostratigraphic Characterization of intergranular and secondary porosity of the Cambrian sandstone aquifer of the cratonic Interior of North America: Improving predictability of hydrogeologic properties. Sedimentary Geology, v. 184, no. 3-4, p. 281-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2005.11.006 73. Robert A. Edwards, Beltran Rodriquez-Brito, Linda Wegley, Matthew Haynes, Mya Breitbart, Dean M. Peterson, Martin O. Saar, Scott Alexander, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Forest Rohwer (2006) Using Pyrosequencing to Shed Light on Deep Mine Microbial Ecology Under Extreme Hydrogeological Conditions. BioMed Central Genomics 2006, vol. 7, 57, 13 p. (20 Mar 2006). http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/7/57 72. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, James J. Piegat, Kelton Barr and Bradley Nordberg (2005) Dye Tracing Sewage Lagoon Discharge in a Sandstone Karst, Askov, Minnesota. In: (Barry Beck, editor) Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst: Proceedings of the Tenth Multidisciplinary Conference, San Antonio, 24- Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -26- 26 28 September 2005, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 144, Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, p. 449-458. 71. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2005) Invited keynote address: Karst Hydrogeology and the Nature of Reality Revisited: Philosophical Musings of a Less Frustrated Curmudgeon. In: (Barry Beck, editor) Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst: Proceedings of the Tenth Multidisciplinary Conference, San Antonio, 24-28 September 2005, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 144, Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, p. 1-2. 70. Jeffrey A. Green and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2005) Springshed Mapping in Support of Watershed Management. In: (Barry Beck, editor) Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst: Proceedings of the Tenth Multidisciplinary Conference, San Antonio, 24-28 September 2005, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 144, Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, p. 403-409. 69. Gao, Y, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., M. Bounk, and R.G. Tipping (2005) Metadata Development for a Multi-State Karst Feature Database. In: (Barry Beck, editor) Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst: Proceedings of the Tenth Multidisciplinary Conference, San Antonio, 24-28 September 2005, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 144, Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, p. 629-633. 68. Doctor, D.H. and E. C. Alexander, Jr. (2005) Interpretation of Water Chemistry and Stable Isotope Data from a Karst Aquifer According to Flow Regimes Identified through Hydrograph Recession Analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Rapid City, South Dakota, September 12-15, 2005 (E. L. Kuniansky, ed.). US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5160, p. 82-92. 67. Y. Gao, E.C. Alexander, Jr., R.J. Barnes, (2005) Karst Database Implementation in Minnesota: Analysis of Sinkhole Distribution, Environmental Geology, v. 47, n. 8. (May 2005), p. 1083-1098. 66. Y. Gao, E.C. Alexander, Jr., R.G. Tipping, (2005) Karst Database Development in Minnesota: Design and Data Assembly, Environmental Geology, v. 47, n. 8 (May 2005), p. 1072-1082. 65. Dorale, Jeffrey A., R. Lawrence Edwards, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Chuan-Chou Shen, David A. Richards, and Hai Cheng (2004) Uranium-Series Dating of Speleothems: Current Techniques, Limits, & Applications. Chapter 10 in: (Ira D. Sasowsky & John Mylroie, eds.) Studies of Cave Sediments, Physical and Chemical Records of Paleoclimate, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, p. 177-197. 64. Jeffrey A. Green, Jeremy A. Pavlish, Jeanette H. Leete, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2003) Quarrying Impacts on Groundwater Flow Paths. In: (Barry F. Beck, editor) Geotechnical Special Publication No. 122, Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Reston, VA, p. 216-222. 63. Yongli Gao and Emmit Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2003) A Mathematical Model for a Map of Relative Sinkhole Risk in Fillmore County, Minnesota. In: (Barry F. Beck, editor) Geotechnical Special Publication No. 122, Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Reston, VA, p. 439-449. 62. Runkel, A.C., Tipping, R.G., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Green, J., Mossler, J.H., and Alexander, Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -27- 27 S. (2003) Hydrogeology of the Paleozoic Bedrock in Southeastern Minnesota. Minn. Geol. Survey Report of Investigations 61, St. Paul, MN, 105 p. + 2 plates. 61. Beverley L. Shade, Scott C. Alexander and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2002) Karst Features in Pine County, Minnesota. In: (Terrence J. Boerboom, Project Manager) Contributions to the Geology of Pine County, Minnesota, Minnesota Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 60, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn., p. 55-91. 60. Jeffrey A. Green, William J. Marken, E. Calvin Alexander Jr., Scott C. Alexander (2002) Karst Unit Mapping Using Geographic Information System Technology, Mower County, Minnesota, USA. Environmental Geology, vol. 42, p. 457-461. 59. Gao, Yongli, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., and Robert G. Tipping (2002) The Development of a Karst Features Database for Southeastern Minnesota. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, April 2002, v. 64, n. 1, p. 51-57. 58. Green, Jeffrey A., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2000) Chapter 6 The Mower County karst. In (John H. Mossler, Project Manager) Contributions to the Geology of Mower County, Minnesota, Report of Investigations 50, Minn. Geol. Survey, St. Paul, MN, p. 103-109. 57. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., (2000) Iron meteorites and paradigm shifts [invited paper]. In: (O. Manuel, ed.) Origin of Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post-1957 Observations, Proceedings of the International Symposium Organized by Glenn T. Seaborg and Oliver K. Manuel. Kluwer Academic/Phenum Publishers, New York, p. 401-406. 56. Davis, Stanley N., June Fabryka-Martin, Laura Wolfsberg, Stephen Moysey, Robert Shaver, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., and Noel Krothe (2000) Chlorine-36 in Ground Water Containing Low Chloride Concentrations. Ground Water, Vol. 38, No. 6, p. 912-921. 55. Denniston, Rhawn F., Gonzalez, Luis A., Baker, Richard G., Asmerom, Yemane, Reagan, Mark K., Edwards, R. Lawrence, Alexander, E. Calvin, (1999) Speleothem evidence for Holocene fluctuations of the prairie-forest ecotone, north-central USA, The Holocene, v. 9. n. 6, p. 671-676. 54. Caffee, M.W., Hudson, G.B., Velsko, C., Huss, G.R., Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Chivas, A.R. (1999) Primordial Noble Gases from Earth's Mantle: Identification of a Primitive Volatile Component, Science, v. 285, n. 5436, p. 2115-2118. 53. Smart, C.C., Zabo, L., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Worthington, S.R.H. (1998) Some Advances in Field Fluorometry for Groundwater Tracing. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, v. 53, n 2, p. 305-320. DOI: 10.1023/A:1005816719920 52. Frank, Edward F., Mylroie, John, Troester, Joe, Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Carew, James L. (1998) Karst development and speleogenesis, Isla de Mona, Puerto Rico, J. of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 60, n. 2, p. 73-83. 51. Frank, Edward F., Wicks, Carol, Mylroie, John, Troester, Joe, Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Carew, James L. (1998) Geology of Isla de Mona, Puerto Rico, J. of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 60, n. 2, p. 69-72. 50. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1996) Chapter 10. Karst Hydrogeological Research at Mammoth Cave National Park. In (William L. Halvorson and Gary E. Davis, eds.) Science and Ecosystem Management in the National Parks, University of Ariz. Press, Tucson, AZ, p. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -28- 28 201- 228. ISBN 0-8165-1566-2 49. Foster, Michael B.J., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Misra, D., and Nieber, John L. (1994) Measurement of flow through the unsaturated zone using a prototype funnel lysimeter. Tech. Rept. No. 139, Minn. Water Resources Res. Center, May, 1994, 66 p. 48. Mooers, Howard D. and Alexander, E.Calvin, Jr. (1994) Contribution of spray irrigation of wastewater to groundwater contamination in the karst of southeastern Minnesota, U.S.A., Applied Hydrogeology, 1/94, p. 34-43. 47. Alexander, E. C. , Jr. , (1992). The Evolving relationship between Mammoth Cave National Park and its hydrologic symbionts. Proceedings of the 1991 National Cave Management Symposium, Bowling Green Kentucky, Oct. 23-26, 1991, ACCA, Horse Cave, Kentucky, p. 11-56. 46. Alexander, Scott C., and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1989) Residence times of Minnesota ground water (invited paper). Jour. Minn. Academy of Science, v. 55, n.1, p. 48-52. 45. Everts, C.J., Kanwar, R.S., Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Alexander, S.C. (1989) Comparison of tracer mobilities under laboratory and field conditions. J. Environ. Qual., v. 18, n. 4, p. 491-498. 44. Samson, S.D., Kyle, P.R., and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1988) Correlation of North American Ordovician bentonites using apatite chemistry. Geol., v. 16, p. 444-447. 43. Samson, S.D. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Calibration of the interlaboratory 40Ar-39Ar dating standard, MMhb-1. Chem. Geol. (Isotope Geoscience Section), v. 66, p. 27-34. 42. Samson, S.D., Kyle, P.R., and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Correlation of Ordovician K-Bentonites by Phenocryst Chemistry. In: (Sloan, R.E. ed.) Middle and Late Ordovician Lithostratigraphy and Biostratigraphy of the Upper Mississippi Valley. Report of Investigations 35, Minn. Geol. Survey. St. Paul, Minn., p. 57-58. 41. Huss, G.R. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) On the pre-solar origin of all planetary noble gas components in meteorites. Proc. of 17th Lunar and Planetary Sci. Conf., Part 2. J. Geophys. Res., v. 92, n. B4, p. E710-E716. 40. Saito, K., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Dragon, J.C., and Zashu, S. (1984) Rare gases in cyclosilicates and cogenetic minerals. J. Geophys. Res., v. 89, n. B9, p. 7891-7901. 39. Milske, J.A., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Lively, R.S. (1983) Clastic sediments in Mystery Cave, southeastern Minnesota. NSS Bull., v. 45, p. 55-75. 38. St. Ores, J., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Halsey, C.F. (1982) Groundwater pollution prevention in Southeast Minnesota's Karst region. Extension Bulletin 465-1982, Ag. Ext. Ser., Univ. of Minn. 18 p. 37. Evans, J.E., Johnson, T.C., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Lively, R.S., and Eisenreich, S.J. (1981) Sedimentation rates and depositional processes in Lake Superior using 210Pb geochronology. J. Gt. Lakes Res., v. 7, p. 229-310. 36. Dalrymple, G.B., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Lanphere, M.A. (1981) Irradiation of samples for 40Ar-39Ar dating using the GSTR. U.S. Geological Survey Profession Paper 1176, 55 p. 35. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Coscio, M.R., Jr., Dragon, J.C., and Saito, K. (1980) K/Ar dating of Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -29- 29 lunar soils IV: Orange glass from 74220 and agglutinates from 14259 and 14163. Proc. llth Lunar and Planet. Sci. Conf., v. 2, p. 1663-1667. 34. Hooke, R.LeB., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Gustafson, R.J. (1980) Temperature profiles in the Barnes Ice Cap, Baffin Island, Canada, and heat flux from subglacial terrane. Can. J. Earth Sci., v. 17, p. 1174-1188. 33. Saito, K., Basu, A.R., and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1978) Planetary type rare gases in an upper mantle-derived amphibole. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., v. 39, p. 274-280. 32. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Coscio, M.R., Jr., Dragon, J.C., Pepin, R.O., and Saito, K. (1977) K/Ar dating of lunar soils III: Comparison of 39Ar-40Ar and conventional techniques; 12032 and the Age of Copernicus. Proc. 8th Lunar Sci. Conf., v. 3, p. 2725-2740. 31. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Bates, A., Coscio, M.R., Jr., Dragon, J.C., Murthy, V.R., Pepin, R.O., and Venkatesan, T.R. (1976) K/Ar dating of lunar soils II. Proc. 7th Lunar Sci. Conf., v. l, p. 625-648. 30. Ozima, M. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1976) Rare gas fractionation patterns in terrestrial samples and the earth-atmosphere evolution model. Rev. Geophy. Space Phy., v. 14, p. 385-390. 29. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1976) Trapped helium and argon and the formation of the atmosphere. Nature, v. 261, p. 77. 28. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Schwartzman, D.W. (1976) Argon isotopic evolution of the upper mantle. Nature, v. 259, p. 104-106. 27. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1975) 40Ar-39Ar studies of Precambrian cherts, an unsuccessful attempt to measure the time evolution of the atmospheric 40Ar-36Ar ratio. Precambrian Res., v. 2, p. 329-344. 26. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Kuhl, S.B. (1974) 40Ar-39Ar studies of lunar breccias. Proc. 5th Lunar Sci. Conf., v. 2, p. 1353-1373. 25. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Davis, P.K. (1974) 40Ar-39Ar ages and trace element contents of Apollo 14 breccias: An interlaboratory cross-calibration of 40Ar-39Ar standards. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, v. 38, p1. 911-928. 24. Reynolds, J.H., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, P.K., and Srinivasan, B. (1974) Studies of K-Ar dating and xenon from extinct radioactivities in breccia 14318: Implications for early lunar history. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, v. 38, p. 401-417. 23. Herzog, G.F., Anders, E., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, P.K., and Lewis, R.S. (1973) Iodine- 129/Xenon-129 age of magnetite from the Orqueil meteorite. Science, v. 180, p. 489-491. 22. Srinivasan, B., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Beaty, R.D., Sinclair, D.E., and Manuel, O.K. (1973) Double beta decay of selenium-82. Econ. Geol., v. 68, p. 252-257. 21. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, P.K., and Reynolds, J.H. (1972) Rare gas analyses on neutron irradiated Apollo 12 samples. Proc. 3rd Lunar Sci. Conf., v. 2, p. 1787-1795. 20. Srinivasan, B., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Manuel, O.K. (1972) Radiation effects in 129I- 129Xe dating of Bjurbole chondrules by neutron irradiation. Icarus, v. 16, p. 571-576. 19. Srinivasan, B., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Manuel, O.K. (1972) Te130-Xe130 age determinations of tellurium minerals. Econ. Geol., v. 67, p. 592-596. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -30- 30 18. Srinivasan, B., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Manuel, O.K. (1972) Xenon isotopes in tellurobismuthite Boliden, Sweden. J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem., v. 34, p. 2381-2396. 17. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, P.K., and Lewis, R.S. (1972) 40Ar-39Ar dating of Apollo sample 15555. Science, v. 175, p. 417-419. 16. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1971) Spallogenic Ne, Kr, and Xe from a depth study of 12002. Proc. 2nd Lunar Sci. Conf., v. 2, p. 1643-1650. 15. Srinivasan, B., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Manuel, O.K. (1971) Iodine-129 in terrestrial ores. Science, v. 173, p. 327-328. 14. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Lewis, R.S., Reynolds, J.H., and Michel, M.C. (1971) Plutonium-244: confirmation as an extinct radioactivity. Science, v. 172, p. 837-840. 13. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1970) Rare gases from step-wise heating of lunar rock 12013. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., v. 9, p. 201-207. 12. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Srinivasan, B., and Manuel, O.K. (1969) I-Xe dating of silicates from Toluca Iron. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., v. 6, p. 355-358. 11. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Srinivasan, B., and Manuel, O.K. (1969) Xenon in Kirkland Lake tellurides. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., v. 5, pp. 478-482. 10. Srinivasan, B., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Manuel, O.K., and Troutner, D.E. (1969) Xenon and krypton from the spontaneous fission of Californium-252. Phys. Rev., v. 179, p. 1166-1169. 9. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Manuel, O.K. (1969) Xenon in chondrules and matrix materials of condrites. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, v. 33, p. 298-301. 8. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Manuel, O.K. (1968) Noble gases in silicate inclusions of Kodaikanal. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., v. 4, p. 363-367. 7. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Bennett, G.A., Srinivasan, B., and Manuel, O.K. (1968) Xenon-134 from the decay of Cesium-134. Phys. Rev., v. 175, p. 1494. 6. Manuel, O.K., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Roach, D.V., and Ganapathy, R. (1968) 129I-129Xe dating of chondrites. Icarus, v. 9, p. 291-304. 5. Canales, R.A., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Manuel, O.K. (1968) Terrestrial abundance of noble gases. J. Geophys. Res., v. 73, p. 3331-3334. 4. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Manuel, O.K. (1968) Xenon in the inclusions of Canyon Diablo and Toluca Iron Meteorites. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., v. 4, p. 113-117. 3. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Manuel, O.K., and Ganapathy, R. (1968) Decay of Rb86 by electron capture. Phys. Rev., v. 165, p. 1264. 2. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Bennett, J.H., and Manuel, O.K. (1968) On noble gas anomalies in the Great Namaqualand troilite. Zeitschrift Fur Naturforschung, v. 23, p. 1266-1271. 1. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Manuel, O.K. (1967) Isotopic anomalies of krypton and xenon in Canyon Diablo graphite. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., v. 2, p. 220-224. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -31- 31 III. Unrefereed Scientific Publications 68. Green, Jeffrey A., Barry, John D., Alexander, E. Calvin Jr., Alexander, Scott C. (2021) Meyer’s Basin Springshed & Forlorn River Springshed dye traces 1996-1999 Fillmore County, Minnesota. MN DNR report, 16 p. University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/218008. 67. Runkel, Anthony C., Tipping, Robert R., Jones, Perry M., Meyer, Jessica R., Parker, Beth L., Alexander, E. C., Jr. and Steenberg, Julia R., (2013) A Multilevel Monitoring System Provides New Insights into a Bedrock Aquitard in Southeastern Minnesota. Minnesota Ground Water Association Newsletter, v. 32, n. 2, p. 12-13. 66. Anderson, Julia R., Anthony C. Runkel, Robert G. Tipping, Kelton D.L. Barr and E. Calvin Alexander Jr., (2011) Hydrostratigraphy of a fractured, urban aquitards: in Miller, J.D., Jr., Hudak, G.J., Wittkop, C. and McLoughlin, P.I. eds., Archean to Anthropocene: Field Guides to the Geology of the Mid-Continent of North America: Geological Society of America Field Guide 24, p. 457-475, doi:10.1139/2011.0024(11). 65. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Greg A. Brick, Arthur N. Palmer (2009) Ch. 4: Glaciated Central Lowlands, Minnesota, p. 146-150. In: Palmer, Arthur N., and Palmer, Margaret V., 2009, Caves and Karst of the USA: Huntsville, AL., National Speleological Society, 446 p. ISBN 9781879961289. 64. Bruce, Lyle G., Arati Kolhatkar, Angela Strain, John Grams, Wayne Hutchinson, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., (2007) Anaerobic degradation of hydrocarbons in a fractured karst aquifer in central Missouri. Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection, and Remediation® Conference, NGWA, Houston, TX, 5 Nov 2007. 63. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Andri E. Hanson, Steven M. Pinta, Penelope J. Boston, Jeffrey A. Gralnick. (2007) The Soudan Mine, Minnesota: A Hydrochemical Analog For Rimstone Dams On The Martin Surface. Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVIII (2007), 1758.pdf, 2 p. 62. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Jeffrey A. Green and Robert G. Tipping (2005) Karst Mapping in Minnesota. In: (Greg A. Ludvigson and Bill J. Bunker, ed.) Facets of the Ordovician Geology of the Upper Mississippi Valley Region, Iowa Geological Survey Guidebook Series No. 24, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, p. 72-75. 62. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Howard C. Hobbs and Robert G. Tipping (2005) Field Trip 5, Sinkhole Anatomy 101. In: (Lori Robinson, ed.) Field Trip Guidebook for Selected Geology in Minnesota and Wisconsin, Guidebook 21, Minn. Geol. Survey, St. Paul, MN, p. 97-104. 60. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., David J. Berner, Yongli Gao, and Jeffrey A. Green (2003) Sinkholes, Sinkhole Probability, and Springs and Seeps, Geologic Atlas of Goodhue County, Minnesota, County Atlas Series C-12, Part B, Plate 10, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN. 59. Worthington, S.R.H., Schindel, G.M., and Alexander, E. C., Jr. (2002) Techniques for investigating the extent of karstification in the Edwards Aquifer, Texas. In Hydrogeology Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -32- 32 and Biology of post-Paleozoic carbonate aquifers, J.B. Martin , C.M. Wicks, I.D. Sasowsky (editors), Karst Waters Institute, Special Publication 7, p. 173-175. 58. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Scott C. Alexander and Kelton Barr (2001) Dye Tracing to Camp Coldwater Spring, Minneapolis, MN. Minn. Groundwater Assoc. Newsletter, v. 20, n. 4, p. 4-6. 57. Tipping, Robert G., Jeffrey A. Green, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2001) Karst Features, Geologic Atlas of Wabasha County, Minnesota, County Atlas Series C-14, Part A, Plate 5, Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul, MN. 56. Gao, Yongli, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., and Mingtang Lei (2001) A Comparison of Human-induced Sinkhole Between China and the United States. In: (Barry F. Beck and J. Gayle Herring, eds.) Geotechnical and Environmental Applications of Karst Geology and Hydrogeology, Balkema Publishers, Exton, PA, p. 25-30. 55. Gao, Yongli, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., and Robert Tipping (2001) Application of GIS Technology to Study Karst Features of Southeastern Minnesota. In: (Barry F. Beck and J. Gayle Herring, eds.) Geotechnical and Environmental Applications of Karst Geology and Hydrogeology, Balkema Publishers, Exton, PA, p. 83-89. 54. Green, Jeffrey A., William J. Marken, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., and Scott C. Alexander (2001) Karst Unit Mapping Using Geographic Information System technology, Mower County, Minnesota, USA. In: (Barry F. Beck and J. Gayle Herring, eds.) Geotechnical and Environmental Applications of Karst Geology and Hydrogeology, Balkema Publishers, Exton, PA, p. 89-94. 53. Green, J.A., Mossler, J.H., Alexander, S.C., and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1997) Karst Hydrogeology of Le Roy Township, Mower County, Minnesota. Minn. Geol. Survey Open File Report 97-2, scale 1:24,000, St. Paul, MN, 2 plates. 52. Jameson, Roy A., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1996) Zinc leaching from galvanized steel in Mystery Cave, Minnesota. In: (Rea, G. Thomas, ed.) Proceedings of the 1995 National Cave Mangement Symposium, Spring Mill State Park, Mitchell, Ind., Oct. 25-28, 1995, p. 178-186. 51. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and R.S. Lively (1995) Karst hydrogeology--Aquifers, Caves, and Sinkholes (Plates 8 & 9). In: (R.S. Lively and N.H. Balaban, eds.) Text Supplement to the Geological Atlas Fillmore County, Minnesota, County Atlas Series, Atlas C-8, Part C, Minn. Geol. Survey, St. Paul, p. 10-39. 50. Witthuhn, Kate and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1995) Sinkholes and Sinkhole Probability. Plate 8 in Geological Atlas of Fillmore County, Minnesota, County Atlas Series, Atlas C-8, Part B, Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources, St. Paul. 49. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Jeffrey A. Green, Scott C. Alexander and Ronald C. Spong (1995) Springsheds. Plate 9 in Geological Atlas of Fillmore County, Minnesota, County Atlas Series, Atlas C-8, Part B, Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources, St. Paul. 48. Paola, C., E.C. Alexander, Jr., R.L. Edwards, P.J. Hudleston, E. Ito, S.-I. Karato, K.R. Kelts, K.L. Kleinspehn, B.M. Moskowitz, M. Person, W.E. Seyfried, Jr., R.E. Sloan, J. Stout, C. Teyssier and B. Tickoff (1995) Geodynamics as the center of a new Earth sciences curriculum and the theme of a new undergraduate laboratory. Journal of Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -33- 33 Geological Education, vol. 43, p. 1-7. 47. Spong, Ronald C., Steffan R. Fay and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1995) Optical brightener screening for sewage contamination of water table aquifers in southeastern Minnesota, USA. Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrogeologists XXVI International Congress, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, June 1995, 7 p. 46. Fay, Steffan R., Ronald C. Spong, Scott C. Alexander, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1995) Optical brighteners: sorption behavior, detection, septic system tracer applications. Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrogeologists XXVI International Congress, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, June 1995, 9 p. 45. Magdalene, Suzanne and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1995) Sinkhole distribution in Winona County, Minnesota revisited. In: (Beck, Barry F. and Felicity M. Person, eds.) Karst Geohazards, Proceedings of the Fifth Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impact of Karst, Gatlinburg, Tenn., 2-5 April, 1995, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 43-51. 44. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Jeffery S. Broberg, Andrew R. Kehren, Marco M. Graziai and Wendy L. Turri (1993). Bellechester Minnesota Lagoon Collapses. Environ. Geol., v. 22, n. 4, p. 353-361. 43. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Jeffery S. Broberg, Andrew R. Kehren, Marco M. Graziani and Wendy L. Turri (1993). Bellechester Minnesota Lagoon Collapses. In: (Beck, Barry F., ed.) Applied Karst Geology Proceedings of 4th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst., Panama City Beach, FL, Jan. 25-26, 1993. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 63-72. 42. Quinlan, James F., Peter L. Smart, Geary M. Schindel, E. C. Alexander, Jr., Alan J. Edwards and A. Richard Smith (1992). Recommended Administrative/Regulatory Definition of Karst Aquifers, Principles for classification of carbonate Aquifers, Practical Evaluation of Vulnerability of Karst Aquifers, and Determination of Optimum Sampling Frequency at Springs. In: (Quinlan, J. and Stanley, A., eds.) Proceedings of 3rd Conference on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terranes. Nashville, TN, Dec. 4-6, 1991. NGWA, Dublin, Ohio, p. 573-635. 41. Jannik, Nancy O., E. C. Alexander, Jr. and Lawrence J. Landherr (1992). The Sinkhole Collapse of the Lewiston, MN Waste Water Treatment Facility Lagoon. In: (Quinlan, J. and Stanley, A., eds.) Proceedings of 3rd Conference on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring of Ground Water in Karst Terranes. Nashville, TN, Dec. 4-6, 1991. NGWA, Dublin, Ohio, p. 715-724. 40. Alexander, E. C., Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Barbara J. Huberty and James F. Quinlan, (1992). The Oronoco Landfill Dye Trace III: Results from a superfund Remedial Investigation in a Glaciated, Diffuse-Flow Karst. In: (Quinlan, J. and Stanley, A., eds.) Proceedings of 3rd Conference on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring of Ground Water in Karst Terranes. Nashville, TN, Dec. 4-6, 1991, NGWA, Dublin, Ohio, p. 417-429. 39. Lively, R.S., Jameson, R.A., Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Morey, G.B., (1992) Radium in the Mt. Simon-Hinckley Aquifer, East-central and Southeastern Minnesota. Information Circular #36, Minn. Geol. Survey, St. Paul, MN, 58 p. 38. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., (1989) Karst hydrogeology and the nature of reality: The Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -34- 34 Minnesota experience. Distributed by the NWWA, Dublin, Ohio, 63 p. 37. Wheeler, Betty J., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Adams, Russell, S., Jr. and Huppert, George N. (1989) Agricultural land use and groundwater quality in the Coldwater Cave groundwater basin, Upper Iowa River karst region, U.S.A. Part II. In: Gillieson, D. and Ingle Smith, D. (eds.) Resource Management in Limestone Landscapes: International Perspectives. Spec. Pub. #2, Univ. College, Aus. Def. Force Acad., Canberrra, Australia, 11 p. (p. 249-260) 36. Huppert, George N., Wheeler, Betty J., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Adams, Russell, S., Jr. (1989) Agricultural land use and groundwater quality in the Coldwater Cave groundwater basin, Upper Iowa River karst region, U.S.A. Part I. In: Gillieson, D. and Ingle Smith, D. (eds.) Resource Management in Limestone Landscapes: International Perspectives. Spec. Pub. #2, Univ. College, Aus. Def. Force Acad., Canberra, Australia, 11 p. 35. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Maki, Geri L. (1988) Sinkholes and Sinkhole Probability, Plate 7, Balaban, N.H., (ed)., Geologic Atlas Olmsted County, Minnesota. Minn. Geol. Survey, St. Paul, Minnesota. (1 to 100,000 scale map with text.) 34. Everts, C.J., Kanwar, R.S., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Alexander, S.C. (1988) A comparison of tracers to study solute transport in the vadose zone. 1988 Amer. Soc. Ag. Eng. Internat'l Meeting, June 26-29, Rapid City, SD. 33. Everts, C.J., Kanwar, R.S., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Alexander, S.C. (1988) A comparison of tracers for study of solute transport in vadose zone (Paper No. 88-136). Presented at 1988 Mid-Central Region Meeting of Amer. Soc. of Agr. Eng., Columbia, Missouri, April 8-9, 1988, 13 p. 32. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, M.A., Alexander, S.C., and Lively, R.S. (1988) Thermal springs of the southern Black Hills. In: (G. Schilberg and D. Springhetti, editors) Caves and Associated Features of the Black Hills, 1988 NSS Convention Guidebook, Nat'l Speleol. Soc., Huntsville, AL, p. 14-26. 31. Caffee, M.W., Hudson, G.B., Velsko, C., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Huss, G.R., and Chivas, A.R. (1988) Non-atmospheric noble gases from CO2 well gases. Lunar Planetary Science XIX, LPI, Houston, p. 154-155. 30. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Karst Hydrogeology of southeastern Minnesota. In: (Balaban, N.H., ed.) Field Trip Guidebook for the Upper Mississippi Valley, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Minn. Geol. Sur. Guidebook Series No. 15, p. 1-22. 29. Quinlan, J.F. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) How often should samples be taken if relevant locations are to reliably monitor for pollutants from an agricultural, waste disposal, or spill site in a karst terrane? A first approximation. Karst Hydrogeology: Engineering and Environmental Applications, edited by Beck, B.F. and Wilson, W.L., A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 277-286. 28. Alexander, E., Davis, M., and Dalgleish, J. (1986) Dye tracing through thick unsaturated zones. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Underground Water Tracing, Athens, Instit. of Geol. and Mineral Expl., Athens, Greece, p. 181-188. 27. Mohring, E. and Alexander, E. (1986) Quantitative tracing of karst groundwater flow: Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -35- 35 Southeastern Minnesota, North Central, U.S.A. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Underground Water Tracing, Athens, Instit. of Geol. and Mineral Expl., Athens, Greece, p. 215-227. 26. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Milske, J.A. (1986) Dye Tracing studies of the Fountain Minnesota Sewage System. Proceedings of the Environmental Problems in Karst Terranes and Their Solutions Conference, National Water Well Associations, Dublin, Ohio, p. 249- 262. 25. Huss, G.R. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1986) On the Origin of Planetary Noble Gases. Lunar and Planetary Science XVII, p. 370-371. 24. Magner, J.A., Book, P.R., and Alexander, E.C.Jr. (1986) A Waste Treatment/Disposal Site Evaluation Process for Areas Underlain by Carbonate Aquifers. Ground Water Monitoring Review, v. 6, no. 2, p. 117-121. 23. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1985) Karst in the Upper Mississippi Valley. Program Abstracts and Field Guide to "Pleistocene Geology and Evolution of the Upper Mississippi Valley" Aug. 13-16, 1985, Winona, MN, p. 3-4. 22. Hedges, J. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1985) Karst-related features of the Upper Mississippi Valley Region. Studies in Speleology, v. 6, p. 41-49. 21. Adams, R.S., Jr., Grow, S., and Alexander, E.C., Jr., (1985) The presence of "apparent" atrazine in groundwater of southeastern Minnesota. A Report on Field Research, University of Minnesota Agricultural Experimental Station Miscellaneous Publication 2 (revised)-1985, p. 160-162. 20. Huss, G.R. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1985) Noble gases and the early history of the earth: Inappropriate paradigms and assumptions inhibit research and communication. In Workshop on THE EARLY EARTH: The Interval from Accretion to the Older Archean. (K. Burke and L.D. Ashwal, eds.), pp. 37-38. LPI Tech. Rpt. 85-01. Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston. 19. Dalgleish, J. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1984) Sinkholes and sinkhole probability, Plate 5, Balaban, N.H. and Olsen, B.M., eds., Geologic Atlas of Winona County: Minn. Geol. Survey, St. Paul, Minnesota (1 to 100,000 scale map with text). 18. Dalgleish, J. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1984) Sinkhole distribution in Winona County, Minnesota. in: Beck, B. (editor) Sinkholes: Their Geology, Engineering and Environmental Impact, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, p. 79-85. 17. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Book, P.R. (1984) Altura Minnesota lagoon collapses. in: Beck, B. (editor) Sinkholes: Their Geology, Engineering and Environmental Impact, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, p. 311-318. https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/188558 https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/188559 16. Lively, R.S., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Milske, J. (1981) A late Pleistocene chronologic record in southeastern Minnesota. Proceedings of Eighth International Congress of Speleology, Bowling Green, Kentucky. v., 2, p. 623-626. 15. Saito, K. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1979) 40Ar-39Ar studies of lunar soil 74001. Lunar and Planetary Science X, p. 1049-1051. 14. Alexander, E.C., Jr. Coscio, M.R., Jr., Dragon, J.C., Saito, K., and Pepin, R.O. (1979) Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -36- 36 Distribution of bromine, iodine, barium and uranium in four lunar soils. Lunar and Planetary Science X, p. 15-17. 13. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1978) Helium and the other noble gases; 2, 10, 18, 36, 54, 86. In: (K.H. Wedepohl, ed.) Handbook of Geochemistry Springer Verlag, New York, Vol. II/5, 72 p. 12. Saito, K., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Basu, A.R. (1978) Rare gases in mantle-derived amphiboles. In: (R.E. Zartman, ed.) Short Papers of the Fourth International Conference, Geochronology, Cosmochronology, Isotope Geology. U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Report 78-701, p. 368-370. 11. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Mickelson, G.M., and Lanphere, M.A. (1978) MMhb-l: a new 40Ar-39Ar dating standard. In: (R.E. Zartman, ed.) Short Papers of the Fourth International Conference, Geochronology, Cosmochronology, Isotope Geology. U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Report 78-701, p. 6-8. 10. Murthy, V. Rama, Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Saito, K. (1978) Rb-Sr and 40Ar-39Ar systematics of the Estherville Mesosiderite. Lunar Science IX, pp. 781-783. 9. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Coscio, M.R., Jr., Dragon, J.C., and Saito, K. (1978) 40Ar-39Ar studies of glasses from lunar soils. Lunar Science IX, p. 7-9. 8. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Saito, K., Dragon, J.C., Coscio, M.R., Jr., and Pepin, R.O. (1977) 40Ar-39Ar and rare gas studies of lunar soils. Lunar Science VIII, p. 10-12. 7. Venkatesan, T.R. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1976) 40Ar-39Ar study of a clast 21-l from 67915. Lunar Science VII, p. 894. 6. Alexander, E.C. Jr., Bates, A., Coscio, M.R., Jr., Dragon, J.C., Pepin, R.O., and Venkatesan, T.R. (1976) K-Ar ages of lunar soils. Lunar Science VII, p. 7-9. 5. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Kahl, S.B. (1972) 40Ar-39Ar studies of lunar breccias. Lunar Science V, p. 9-11. 4. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, P.K., Reynolds, J.H. and Srinivasan, B. (1973) Radiogenic xenon and argon in 14318 and implications. Lunar Science IV, p. 30-32. 3. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, P.K., Reynolds, J.H. and Srinivasan, B. (1973) Age, exposure history, and trace element composition of some Apollo 14 and 15 rocks as determined from rare gas analyses. Lunar Science IV, p. 27-29. 2. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, P.K., Lewis, R.S., and Reynolds, J.H. (1972) Rare gas analyses on neutron irradiated lunar samples. Lunar Science III, p. 12-14. 1. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, P.K., Kaiser, W.A., Lewis, R.S., and Reynolds, J.H. (1971) I. Stepwise heating analyses of pile-irradiated rocks 10044 and 10057; II. Further rare gas studies in rock 12013; III. Depth studies and rare gases in rock 12002. 1971 Lunar Science Conference Abstracts, p. 216-218. IV. Short Abstracts, Poster Presentations and/or Talks Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -37- 37 340. Sasowsky, Ira D. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2021) Processes and Problems in Sandstone Karst, AEG Karst Hazards Forum (virtual), 23 Mar 2021. 339. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2021) Minnesota Karst Hydrogeology: Dissolving Bedrock and the Power of Water. Presented to the Minnesota Master Naturalists, West Metro Chapter Virtual Meeting, 11 Mar 2021 338. Kasahara, Sophie M., Scott C. Alexander, and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2020) Water Quality Trends in Coldwater Spring, MNRRA, Minneapolis, 2020 MGWA. Fall Meeting (virtual) 12 Nov 2020. 337. Barry, John D., Runkel, Anthony C., Walsh, Jim F., Crisman, David P., Aley, Thomas J., and Alexander, E. Calvin Jr. (2020) Using tracers and borehole characterization to understand flow and recharge in crystalline rock. Northcentral GSA Meeting, May 2020. 336. (2019) Magnetic detection of paleoflood layers in stalagmites and implications for historical land use changes. AGU 335. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2018) Paleo Landslides in SE MN Karst Lands. (#126-4) GSA Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA - 2018. 334. Rutelonis, Wes, Barry, John, Green, Jeffrey, Johnson, Holly, MacDonald, Ruth, Richardson, Bart, Alexander, Calvin (2018) Minnesota Groundwater Tracing Database (MGTD), Minn. Water Resources Conf., 16-17 Oct. 2018, St. Paul, MN. 333. Pencak, Edward, Alexander, Scott C. and Alexander Jr., E. Calvin (2018) From spring to stream: Water quality analyses in Trout Brook, Dakota County, MN. (poster) Minnesota Ground Water Association Spring Conference, 26 April 2018, St. Paul, MN. 332. Barry, John D., Green, Jeff A., Rutelonis, Josephy W., Steenberg, Julia R. and Alexander Jr., E. Calvin (2018) Coupled dye tracing, water chemistry, and passive geophysics to characterize a siliciclastic pseudokarst aquifer, Southeastern Minnesota, USA (talk). Program with Abstracts, 15th Sinkhole Conference, 3rd Appalachian Karst Symposium, Shepherdstown, WV, 2-6 Apr 2018, p. 22. 331. Green, Jeffery A., Tipping, Robert G., Barry, John D., Brick, Gregory A., Wheeler, Betty J., Rutelonis, Joseph W., Richardson, Bart C. and Alexander Jr., E. Calvin (2018) Electronic Access to Minnesota Springs, Karst Features and Dye Traces Information (poster). Program with Abstracts, 15th Sinkhole Conference, 3rd Appalachian Karst Symposium, Shepherdstown, WV, 2-6 Apr 2018, p. 30. 330. Bilek, Susan L., Luhmann, Andrew J., Grapenthin, Ronni, Diniakos, Rio S., Morton, Emily A., Alexander Jr., E. Calvin, Alexander, Scott C., Larsen, Martin, and Green, Jeffrey A. (2017) Seismic monitoring of karst recharge events - Results from a pilot experiment. (Abstract #298654, 327-10), 2017 GSA Meeting Seattle, WA. 329. Bilek, Susan L., Andrew J. Luhmann, Rio S. Diniakos, Emily A. Morton, Alex Rinehart, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Martin Larsen and Jeffrey A. Green (2016) Seismic signals recorded during artificial and natural karst recharge events. (Poster, S43A- 2792), 15 Dec 2016 Fall AGU Meeting, San Francisco, CA. 328. Luhmann, Andrew J., Matthew D. Covington, and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2016) Using water temperature to infer recharge type and flow path geometry in karst aquifers. (Paper 188-6), Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 48, No. 7. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -38- 38 327. Alexander Jr. E. Calvin (2016) Irrigation pumping associated sinkhole development in Dakota County, MN. (Paper 190-2), 2016 Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 48, No. 7. 326. Gao, Yongli, Robert G. Tipping, E. Calvin Alexander Jr. and Jeffrey A. Green (2016) Development of the Minnesota Karst Feature Database for resource management, hazard assessment and Hydrogological Investigations. (Paper 190-3), Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 48, No. 7. 325. Maas, Benjamin J. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2016) Hydrology of Goliath’s Cave, Filmore County, Minnesota . (Paper 190-5), Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 48, No. 7. 324. Worthington, Stephen R.H., Gareth J. Davies, and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2016) Is weathering the main cause of permeability contrasts in the five major lithologies? (Paper 190-7), Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 48, No. 7. 323. Luhmann, Andrew J., Susan L. Bilek, Rio S. Diniakos, Emily A. Morton, Alex Rinehart, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Scott C. Alexander Martin Larsen, Jeffrey A. Green Ronni Grapenthin and Glenn A. Spinelli. (2016) Delineating karst conduit locations using geophysical signals generated during recharge events. (Paper 190-10), Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 48, No. 7. 322. Davies, Gareth J., Stephen R.H. Worthington, and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2016) Is there substantial preferential and rapid flow in silicate-rock aquifers? (Paper 252-1), Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 48, No. 7. 321. Alexander, Scott C. and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2016) Carbon-14 age dating of ground waters in Minnesota Paleozoic rocks. (Paper 252-2), Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 48, No. 7. 320. Larsen, Martin R., Jeffrey A. Green, Betty J. Wheeler, Sophie M. Kasahara and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2016) Groundwater tracing in Orion, Marion and Eyota Townships of Olmsted County, Minnesota. (Paper 252-3), Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 48, No. 7. 319. Kuehner, Kevin J., Jeffrey A. Green, Betty J. Wheeler, Sophie M. Kasahara, Andrew J. Luhmann and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2016) Water Tracing in the Crystal Creek Watershed in Minnesota. (Paper 252-4), Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 48, No. 7. 318. Tan, Liangcheng, Yongli Gao, Jessica Buckles, R. Lawrence Edwards, Lijun Tian, Julia Nissen and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2016) High resolution hydrological variation in southeast Minnesota during the Mid-Holocene. (Paper 252-7), Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 48, No. 7. 317. Nissen, Julia, R. Lawrence Edwards, E. Calvin Alexander Jr., Joel S. McKinney, Daniel Shapiro and Sushmita Dasgupta (2016) Reconstructing Midwestern climate variability during the Late Pleistocene. (Paper 252-8), Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 48, No. 7. 316. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (2016) The Impact of Karst on Agriculture. The Ridges Sanctuary, Bailey’s Harbor, WI, 4 Aug 2016. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -39- 39 315. Boston, P.J. and E.C. Alexander, Jr. (2016) Preservation of Microbial-Mineral Biosignatures in Cave and Paleo Springs, (Abs. 2074) Biosignature Preservation and Detection in Mars Analog Environments Conference (2016), 16-19 May, Lake Tahoe, NV. 314. Alexander Jr., E. Calvin and Sophie M. Kasahara (2015) Coldwater Spring, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. A window into a Human Impacted Shallow Urban Aquifer. (Abs. 185-4) Abstracts with Programs, 2015 GSA Annual Meeting & Exposition, Baltimore, MD, v. 47, n. 7, p. 471. 313. Alexander Jr., E. Calvin (2015) Karst: Form-Process-Function – An Expansion of the Concept. (Abs. 161-12) Abstracts with Programs, 2015 GSA Annual Meeting & Exposition, Baltimore, MD, v. 47, n. 7, p. 416. 312. Tipping, Robert C., Mathew Rantala, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Yongli Gao and Jeffrey A. Green (2015) History and Future of the Minnesota Karst Feature Database. MGWA/14th Sinkhole Conference, Rochester, MN, 8 Oct 2015, oral presentation. 311. Shade, Beverly L., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Scott C. Alexander (2015) The Sandstone Karst of Pine County, Minnesota. MGWA/14th Sinkhole Conference, Rochester, MN, 7 Oct 2015, oral presentation. 310. Kasahara, Sophie M., Scott C. Alexander and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2015) Human Impacts on Water Quality in Coldwater Spring, Minneapolis, Minnesota. MGWA/14th Sinkhole Conference, Rochester, MN, 7 Oct 2015, oral presentation. 309. Groten, Joel T. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2015) Karst Hydrogeologic Investigation of Trout Brook. MGWA/14th Sinkhole Conference, Rochester, MN, 7 Oct 2015, oral presentation. 308. Green, Jeffrey A. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2015) Creation of a Map of Paleozoic Bedrock Springsheds in Southeast Minnesota. MGWA/14th Sinkhole Conference, Rochester, MN, 8 Oct 2015, oral presentation. 307. Doctor, Daniel H., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Roy A. Jameson and Scott C. Alexander (2015) Hydrologic and Geochemical Dynamics of Vadose Zone Recharge in a Mantled Karst Aquifer: Results of Monitoring Drip Waters in Mystery Cave, Minnesota. MGWA/14th Sinkhole Conference, Rochester, MN, 7 Oct 2015, oral presentation. 306. Alexander, E. Calvin Jr. and Betty J. Wheeler (2015) A Proposed Hypogenic Origin of Iron Ore Deposits in Southeast Minnesota Karst. MGWA/14th Sinkhole Conference, Rochester, MN, 7 Oct 2015, oral presentation. 305. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Kelton D.L. Barr, Andrew J. Luhmann and Cale T. Anger (2015). Goliath’s Cave, Minnesota: Epigenic Modification and Extension of Preexisting Hypogenic Conduits. MGWA/14th Sinkhole Conference, Rochester, MN, 7 Oct 2015, poster. 304. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Kracher, A., Wasson, J.T., von der Handt, A. (2015) The Minnesota Meteorite Mystery: Two Unrelated Very Flat Irons. Poster. Abs. 5231, sess. 306, 2015 Meteoritical Society Meeting, Berkeley, CA. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -40- 40 303. Covington, Luhmann, Myre, Perne, Jones, Alexander, and Saar (2014) Relationships between conduit properties and the damping and retardation of thermal pulses in karst conduits. Abst submitted to the Fall 2014 AGU Meeting in San Francisco. 302. Brisco, Lindsey, Scott C. Alexander, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Thelma D. Berquo, Sirine F. Fakra, F. Marc Michael, Bruce M. Moskowitz, Brandy Toner (2013) Geochemical and biological gradients in the Soudan Underground Mine (Poster). Minn. Ground Water Assoc. Meeting, 13 Nov. 2013, St. Paul, MN. 301. Phipps, Jacob D., Alexa J. LaQua and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2013) Springsheds and water quality in Forestville Mystery Cave State Park, Minnesota. Poster 135-7, GSA Program with Abstracts, v. 47, n. 7, p. 353. 300. MacKinney, Joel S., Julie B. Retrum, I.J. Orland, Sushita Dasgupta, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Jeffrey A. Dorale and R. Lawrence Edwards (2013) Northern midwest climate changes leading up to the Wisconsinan Glacial Maximum. Poster 341-10, GSA Program with Abstracts, v. 47, n. 7, p. 778. 299. Alexander, E. Calvin Jr. (2013) Mystery Cave, Minnesota: A window into the paleohydrology of the Upper Mississippi Valley. Abstract 276-9, GSA Program with Abstracts, v. 47, n. 7, p. 640. 298. Alexander, E. Calvin Jr., Anthony C. Runkel, Robert G. Tipping and Jeffrey A. Green (2013) Deep time origins of sinkhole collapse failures in sewage lagoons in SE Minnesota. The 13th Sinkhole Conference, Program with Abstracts, 6-10 May 2013, Carlsbad, NM, p. 50-51. 297. Rahimi, Mina and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2013) Locating sinkholes in LiDAR coverage of a glacio-fluval karst, Winona County, MN (poster). The 13th Sinkhole Conference, Program with Abstracts, 6-10 May 2013, Carlsbad, NM, p. 45. 296. Alexander, Scott C., Mina Rahimi, Erik Larson, Cody Bomberger, Brittany Greenwaldt and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2013) Combining LiDAR, aerial photography and pictometric tools for karst features database management. The 13th Sinkhole Conference, Program with Abstracts, 6-10 May 2013, Carlsbad, NM, p. 57. 295. Runkel, Anthony C., Robert R. Tipping, Perry M. Jones, Jessica R. Meyer, Beth L. Parker, E.C. Alexander, Jr., Julia R. Steenberg (2013) A Multilevel Monitoring System Provides New Insights into a Bedrock Aquitard in Southeastern Minnesota. Hydrogeology and Public Health: Connecting Science, Education and Poilicy. Minn. Ground Water Association Spring Conference, St. Paul, MN, 24 Apr 2013. 294. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. Jeffrey Green (2013) Introduction to Karst, MN Karst–Nature and Occurrence, Karst Aquifer Characterization (three invited talks). Minnesota Karst Landscape’s Interactions with Feedlots, Minn. Pollution Control Agencey, Oronoco, MN, 16-18 April, 2013. 293. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2013) Impact of Karst on Agriculture (invited talk). Dinner on the Bluff, Eagle Bluff Environmental Learning Center, Lanesboro, MN, 6 Apr 2013. 292. Toner, Brandy Cody Sheik, Benjamin Bonis, Lindsey Briscoe, Scott Alexander, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Gregory Dick, and Jeffrey Gralnick. (2012) Terrestrial deep biosphere Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -41- 41 observatory: the Soudan Iron Mine. Abstract xxxxxxx presented at 2012 Fall Meeting, AGU, San Francisco, CA, 3-7 Dec. 291. Garmon, William Travis, Peters, Joseph Paul, Ustipak, Kelsi R. and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2012) Mapping karst springsheds in Fillmore County, Minnesota: Increasingly nuanced interpretations (poster 163-7). Abstracts with Programs, 4-7 November 2012 GSA Annual Meeting & Exposition, Charlotte, NC, p. 413. 290. Peters, Joseph Paul, Garmon, William Travis and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2012) What is the modern meteoric contribution to Minnesota’s Soudan Iron Mine’s deep crustal brines? (poster 25-10). Abstracts with Programs, 4-7 November 2012 GSA Annual Meeting & Exposition, Charlotte, NC, p. 80. 289. Wheeler, Betty J., Alexander, Scott C., Green, Jeffrey, A., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2012) Ground water tracing information database for Minnesota. (poster) The 57th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference: Groundwater Opportunities and Conflicts in the 21st Century: Economy to Ecology, Program with Abstracts. 1-2 Oct. 2012, Earle Brown Heritage Center, Brooklyn Park, MN. Hosted by the Minnesota Ground Water Association. 288. Alexander, Scott C., Rahimi Kazerooni, Mina, Larson, Erik, Bomberger, Cody, Greenwaldt, Brittany, and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2012) The combined application of LiDAR, aerial photography and pictometric tools for sinkhole delineation. (poster) The 57th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference: Groundwater Opportunities and Conflicts in the 21st Century: Economy to Ecology, Program with Abstracts. 1-2 Oct. 2012, Earle Brown Heritage Center, Brooklyn Park, MN. Hosted by the Minnesota Ground Water Association. 287. Ustipak, Kelsi R., Green, Jeffrey A., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2012) Integration of water tracing and structural geology for the delineation of springsheds. (poster) The 57th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference: Groundwater Opportunities and Conflicts in the 21st Century: Economy to Ecology, Program with Abstracts. 1-2 Oct. 2012, Earle Heritage Center, Brooklyn Park, MN. Hosted by the Minnesota Ground Water Association. 286. Green, Jeffrey A., Runkel, Anthony, and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2012) Karst hydrogeology investigations in the Cambian St. Lawrence Aquitard. (talk) The 57th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference: Groundwater Opportunities and Conflicts in the 21st Century: Economy to Ecology, 1-2 Oct. 2012, Earle Brown Heritage Center, Brooklyn Park, MN. Hosted by the Minnesota Ground Water Association. 285. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Runkel, Anthony Green, Jeffrey A. (2012) Deep time in the Upper Mississippi Valley Karst. (talk) The 57th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference: Groundwater Opportunities and Conflicts in the 21st Century: Economy to Ecology, 1-2 Oct. 2012, Earle Brown Heritage Center, Brooklyn Park, MN. Hosted by the Minnesota Ground Water Association. 284. Barr, Kelton D. L. and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2012) Examples of hypogenic karst collapse structures in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. (talk) The 57th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference: Groundwater Opportunities and Conflicts in the 21st Century: Economy to Ecology, 1-2 Oct. 2012, Earle Brown Heritage Center, Brooklyn Park, MN. Hosted by the Minnesota Ground Water Association. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -42- 42 283. Talbot, Michael T. and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2012) The impact of karst on agriculture. (invited talk). Minn. Ground Water Association Meeting, 19 April 2012, Earle Brown Center, St. Paul, MN. 282. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2012) The impact of karst on agriculture (invited, keynote address). 5th Driftless Area Symposium, 27-28 March, 2012, La Crosse, WI. 281. Briscoe, Lindsey J., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Alexander, Scott C., Berquó, T., Gralnick, Jeffrey, Michel, F. Marc, Moskowitz, Bruce, Salomon, Christine E., and Toner, Brandy M. (2011) Iron mineral formation in microbial mats formed from shield brines along an oxidation-reduction gradient. Abstract 129-3, 2011 Geological Society of America Meeting & Exposition, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 43, No. 5, p. 327. 280. Anderson, Julia, Runkel, Anthony, Tipping, Robert G., Barr, Kelton D., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2011) Hydrostratigraphy of a fractured, urban aquitard. Abstract 110-4, 2011 Geological Society of America Meeting & Exposition, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 43, No. 5, p. 289. 279. Brick, Greg, Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Watkins, Justin and Lundy, James R. (2011) Surface and groundwater nitrate databases for southeastern Minnesota, USA. Poster 108-3, 2011 Geological Society of America Meeting & Exposition, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 43, No. 5, p. 285-286. 278. Ladd, Bethany S., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2011) Dye tracing in the Jordan Sandstone near the Crystal Springs State Fish Hatchery, Winona County, Minnesota. Poster 108-4, 2011 Geological Society of America Meeting & Exposition, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 43, No. 5, p. 286. 277. Bellomo, Laura, Hanson, Paul R., Jennings, Carrie E., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2011) Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of glacial sediment in Cryatal Cave, WI. Abstract 182-2, 2011 Geological Society of America Meeting & Exposition, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 43, No. 5, p. 450. 276. Luhmann, Andrew J., Covington, Matthew D., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2011) Using a multi-tracer experiment to estimate flow path geometry. Abstract 135-7, 2011 Geological Society of America Meeting & Exposition, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 43, No. 5, p. 342. 275. Green, Jeffrey A., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2011) Dye tracing observations from the Prairie du Chien Group in Minnesota, Abstract 60-11, 2011 Geological Society of America Meeting & Exposition, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 43, No. 5, p. 167. 274. Anderson, Raymond R., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Schilling, Keith E., Peate, David W. and Dorale, Jeffrey (2011) The geology and geochemistry of ancient groundwater in the Central Peak Aquifer of the Manson Impact Structure, Iowa. Abstract 3-9, 2011 Geological Society of America Meeting & Exposition, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 43, No. 5, p. 29. 273. Toner, Brandy M., Briscoe, Lindsey J., Michel, F. Marc, Alexander, Scott C., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Gralnick, Jeffry A. (2011) Iron microbial mat formation from deep continental brines. (abstract) Goldschmidt Conference, Aug 2011, Prague, Czech Republic. p. 2022. http://goldschmidt.info/2011/abstracts/finalPDFs/2022.pdf 272. Talbot, Michael T. and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2011) The impact of karst on agriculture. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -43- 43 a. (abstract) (eds.: Engel, Annette Summers, Engel, Scott, Moore, Paul J., DuChene, Harvey) Carbonate Geochemistry: Reactions and Processes in Aquifers and Reservoirs, Billing, MT, 6-9 August 2011, Karst Waters Institute Special Publication 16, KWI, P.O. Box 1442, Leesburg, VA 20177, p. 69. b. 1 November, Soft Rock Seminar, Geology and Geophysics Dept. Seminar, Univ. of Minn. c. 9 November, Minn. Speleological Survey, Bloomington, Minn. 271. Alexander, E. Calvin Jr. (2011) The Soudan Mine and Martin Karst. a. 10 May, South Texas Geological Society Banquet Talk, San Antonio, Texas. b. 4 Oct, Intro Graduate Student Seminar, Geology and Geophysics Department, Univ. of Minn. 270. Rahimi, Mina and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2011) Three decades of sinkhole mapping in Winona County, MN, Poster presented at The 12th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst 10-14 January 2011, St. Louis, MO. 269. Anger, Cale T. and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2011) Bench scale models of dye breakthrough curves. Poster presented at The 12th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst. Program with Abstracts, 10-14 January 2011, St. Louis, MO, p 36. 268. Green, Jeffrey A., Runkel, Anthony C. and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2011) Karst conduit flow in the Cambrian St. Lawrence confining unit, southeast Minnesota, U.S.A. Abstract presented at The 12th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst. Program with Abstracts, 10-14 January 2011, St. Louis, MO, p 36. 267. Luhmann, Andrew J., Covington, Matthew D., Alexander, Scott C., Chai, Su Yi and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2011) Comparison of discharge, conductivity, temperature, dye, deuterium and turbidity responses from a multiple tracer test in karst. Abstract presented at The 12th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst. Program with Abstracts, 10-14 January 2011, St. Louis, MO, p 34. 266. Webb, S., Feinberg, J.M., Wang, X., Alexander, C. Jr. (2010) Age constraints for laminated cave sediments using detrital remnant magnetization: Mystery Cave, Minnesota. Abstract GP13A-0767, presented at 2010 Fall Meeting, AGU, San Francisco, Calif., 13-17 Dec. 265. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Scott C. Alexander (2010) Soudan Mine Hydrobiogeology: a Martian Analog?, (invited seminar) Univ. of Iowa Geosciences Dept., 12 November 2010. 264. Gellash, Christopher A., Bradbury, Kenneth R., Bahr, Jean M., Borchardt, Mark A. and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2010) Identifying pathways for sanitary sewer pathogens to reach deep water supply wells in Madison, Wisconsin, Abstract 152-10, GSA 2010 Abstracts with Programs, Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, Vol. 42, No. 5, p. 378. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -44- 44 263. Luhmann, Andrew J., Covington, Matthew D. and Alexander, E. C., Jr. (2010) Thermograph Recessions, Abstract 129-7, GSA 2010 Abstracts with Programs, Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, Vol. 42, No. 5, p. 329. 262. Jeffrey A. Green, Andrew J. Peters, Andrew J. Luhmann, Scott C. Alexander, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2010) Karstic flow in the St. Lawrence confining unit. Abstract 47-6, GSA 2010 Abstracts with Programs, Joint Meeting North-Central/South-Central Sections, Vol. 42, No. 2, p.108. 261. Mina Rahimi Kazerooni, Scott C. Alexander and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2010) LiDAR Mapping of Sinkholes: Winona County, MN (poster). Abstract 47-3, GSA 2010 Abstracts with Programs, Joint Meeting North-Central/South-Central Sections, Vol. 42, No. 2, p. 107-108. 260. Daniel H. Doctor, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Roy Jameson and Scott C. Alexander (2010) Month-scale Residence Time of Vadose Zone Storage Estimated Through Hydrologic and Geochemical Monitoring of Cave Drip Waters, Minnesota, U.S.A. Abstract 26-12, GSA 2010 Abstracts with Programs, Joint Meeting North-Central/South-Central Sections, Vol. 42, No. 2, p. 78. 259. Cale T. Anger and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2010) Bench-Scale Models of Dye Breakthrough Curves. Abstract 40-3, GSA 2010 Abstracts with Programs, Joint Meeting North-Central/South-Central Sections, Vol. 42, No. 2, p. 98. 258. Andrew J. Luhmann, Cale T. Anger, Julie Greene, Erik B. Larson, Scott C. Alexander, Matthew D. Covington, Jeffrey A. Green and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2010) Simultaneous Fluorescent Dye, Conductivity and Thermal Traces in a Karst Springshed. Abstract 26-5, GSA 2010 Abstracts with Programs, Joint Meeting North-Central/South-Central Sections, Vol. 42, No. 2, p. 77. 257. Greg Brick and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2010) Prevalence of Nitrate in Cave Sediments of the Upper Mississippi Valley (poster). Abstract 47-4. Abstract 47-4, GSA 2010 Abstracts with Programs, Joint Meeting North-Central/South-Central Sections, Vol. 42, No. 2, p. 108. 256. Alexander, E. Calvin Jr. (2010) The Log Den (WI) Norovirus Outbreak: Viral Ground Water Contamination in the Niagara Dolomite Karst Aquifer, (invited talk), Washington Geological Society, 27 January 2010, The Carnegie Institute, Washington, DC . 255. Alexander, E. Calvin Jr. (2010) The Log Den (WI) Norovirus Outbreak: Viral Ground Water Contamination in the Niagara Dolomite Karst Aquifer, (invited talk) EPA Symposium on Ground Water-borne Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Etiologic Agents and Indicators, 26 January 2010, The Carnegie Institute, Washington, DC . 254. Alexander, E. Calvin Jr. (2009) The Soudan Mine and Martian Karst. a. 30 April, Amer. Inst. Prof. Geologists, St. Paul, MN. b. 29 October, Univ. of Minn., Paleoclimate Seminar, Geol. & Geophysics Dept. 253. M.D. Covington, A. J. Luhmann, E. C. Alexander, Jr., S. C. Alexander, M. O. Saar, C. M. Wicks (2009) Thermal Signals as a Means of Characterizing Karst Aquifers. Eos Trans. AGU, 90 (52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract H14A-04. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -45- 45 252. Cale T. Anger, Andrew J. Luhmann, Scott C. Alexander and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2009) Delineating End-member Tracer Breakthrough Curve Geometries: Quantitative Field and Modeling Applications in Southeastern Minnesota. Abstract 176-15, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 41, No. 7, p. 467. 251. Erik B. Larson, Scott C. Alexander, Jeffrey A. Green and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2009) Advances in Sinkhole Mapping: A LiDAR Survey of Houston County, Minnesota. Abstract 261-8, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 41, No. 7, p. 678. 250. Andrew J. Luhmann, Matthew D. Covington, Andrew J. Peters, Scott C. Alexander, Cale T. Anger, Jeffery A. Green and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2009) Thermal Patterns of Karst Springs and Cave Streams in Southeastern Minnesota. Abstract 127-6, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 41, No. 7, p. 346. 249. John Oughton, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Scott C. Alexander (2009) Biomass Energy Assessment: A Case Study Context for Farmland in Central Illinois (abs. 11-2). 2009 Abstracts with Program, North Central Section, Rockford, IL, V. 41, n. 4, p. 19. 248. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Andrew J. Luhmann, Cale T. Anger, Jeffrey A. Green and Andrew P. Peters (2009) Sinks and Rises of the South Branch Root River, Fillmore County, Minnesota. (abs. 10-4). 2009 Abstracts with Program, North Central Section, Rockford, IL, V. 41, n. 4, p. 18. 247. Andrew J. Luhmann, Scott C. Alexander, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Jeff A. Green and Andew P. Peters (2009) Flow Path Characterization using Spring Thermographs (abs. 10- 3). 2009 Abstracts with Program, North Central Section, Rockford, IL, V. 41, n. 4, p. 17. 246. John G. Ackerman, Clayton T. Kraus, David W. Gerboth, Daniel S. Dornink and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2009) Holy Grail Cave, Fillmore County, Minnesota (abs. 10-5). 2009 Abstracts with Program, North Central Section, Rockford, IL, V. 41, n. 4, p. 18. 245. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2008) The Soudan Mine and Martian Karst a. 4 December, Geology & Geophysics Dept. Seminar, Univ. of Minn. b. 28 August, Freshman Orientation, Univ. of Minn. c. 18 June, NSF REU Seminar, Geology & Geophysics Dept., Univ. of Minn. d. 4 April, Hydrogeology Seminar, Univ. of Texas Austin e. 28 February, North Texas Geological Society, Wichita Falls, Texas. f. 25 February, Sigma Xi Annual Banquet, Trinity College, San Antonio, Texas. g. 8 February, Univ. of Texas Grotto, Austin, Texas. h. 6 February, Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas. i. 14 January, Bexar Grotto, San Antonio, Texas. 244. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Barr, Kelton and Alexander, Scott C. (2008) Goliath’s and Mystery Caves Minnesota: Epigenic Modifications and Extension of Preexisting Hypogenic Conduits. Abstracts with Program, 2008 Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting, Vol. 40, no. 6, Abs. 240-4, p. 343. 243. Luhmann, Andrew J., Alexander, Scott C., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Green, Jeffrey A., Peters, Andrew J. and Runkel, Anthony C. (2008) Combined Tools for Springshed Mapping. Abstracts with Program, 2008 Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting, Vol. 40, no. 6, Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -46- 46 Abs. 253-10, p. 383. 242. Schindel, Geary M., Johnson, Steven B. and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2008) Hypogene Processes in the Balcones FCult Zone Edwards Aquifer in South-Central Texas, a New Conceptual Model to Explain Aquifer Dynamics. Abstracts with Program, 2008 Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting, Vol. 40, no. 6, Abs. 240-11, p. 344. 241. Barr, Kelton and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2008) Examples of Hypogenic Karst Collapse Structures, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota Abstracts with Program, 2008 Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting, Vol. 40, no. 6, Abs. 240-5, p. 343. 240. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2008) National Ground Water Association Karst Short Course, 16-18 May 2008, San Antonio Texas (co-taught with Steve Worthington and Geary Schindel.) a. Which Rocks become Karstified? b. Water Chemistry I: Theory. c. Water Chemistry III: Variability. d. Tracers I: Introduction. e. Tracers III: Injected Tracers. f. Tracers IV: Interpretation of Results. 239. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2007) Edwards Aquifer Authority Distinguished Lecturer Series, a day long lecture series, South West Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas, 16 November 2007. a. Introduction and Karst Rocks b. Spatial & Temporal Changes in Karst Waters c. Well Properties & Mixing d. Water Chemistry I, Mixing Corrosion e. Catastrophic Failures in Sandstone Karst f. Water Chemistry II, CAFOs & Cation Exchange g. Contaminant Transport in Karst Aquifers h. Soudan Mine & Martian Karst i. Concluding Remarks 238. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Alexander, Scott C. (2007) Contaminant Transport in Karst Aquifers. Abstracts with Program, 2007 Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting, Vol. 39, no. 6, Abs. 191-11, p. 516. 237. Runkel, A.C, and Tipping, R.G., Alexander, E. C., Jr. (2007) Fractures and Other Secondary Pores in Relatively Undeformed Paleozoic Bedrock, Minnesota and North-Central USA. Minnesota Ground Water Association’s Annual Meeting, 19 April 2007, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. 236. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Alexander, Scott C., Runkel, A.C, and Tipping, R.G. (2007) Fractured Sandstone Karst Aquifers, the St. Peter, Jordan and Hinckley Formations” Example from Askov, Woodbury, Rochester and Elsewhere. Minnesota Ground Water Association’s Annual Meeting, 19 April 2007, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. 235. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2006) Sandstone Karst of Minnesota. Presented to Olmsted County Public Works Department, 8 Dec 2006, Rochester, Minnesota. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -47- 47 234. Alexander, E. Calvin Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Dean Peterson, Steven A. Hauck and Tony Zavodnik (2006) Soudan Mine Seeps: Hydrogeology, Geochemistry, Planetology, & Microbiology (invited seminar), Univ. of North Dakota Grand Forks, 6 Descmber 2006. 233. Dasgupta, Sushmita, Edwards, R. Lawrence, Shen, C., Alexander Jr., E. Calvin (2006) Determination of initial 230Th/232Th ratios in a speleothem from Spring Valley Caverns Minnesota using fluorescent annual banding. EOS Transactions AGU Fall Meeting, PP51D-1167. 232. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Keith S. Rosvold, Douglas J. Bergstrom, Kelton Barr, Paul Heuer, Jacob Fick, and Steve Kernik (2006) Sinkhole Collapse of Storm Water Retention Pond CD-P27, Woodbury, Minnesota. Minnesota Water 2006 and Annual Water Resources Joint Conference, 25 October 2006, Session VI-C, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. 231. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Geary M. Schindel, and Steven B. Johnson (2006) An Evaluation of Methods for the Delineation of Source Water Protection Areas in Karst Terrains. Minnesota Water 2006 and Annual Water Resources Joint Conference, 24 October 2006, Session I-D, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. 230. Schindel, Geary, Steven Johnson, Edwards Aquifer Authority, 1615 North St. Mary's Street, San Antonio, TX 78215, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Stephen Worthington (2006) An Evaluation of Methods for the Delineation of Source Water Protection Areas in Karst Terrains. 2006 Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting, Philladelphia, PA, Abstracts with Programs. 229. Yongli Gao, Emmit Calvin Alexander, Jr., Michael J. Bounk (2006) Development of a GIS-Based Regional Upper Mississippi Valley Karst Feature Database. Geoinformatics 2006 Conference – Abstract, Reston, Virginia, May 10-12, U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investiations Report 2006-5201, p. 45. 228. Dasgupta, S., R.L. Edwards, E.C. Alexander, Jr., H. Cheng, J.A. Dorale (2005) A High Resolution Absolute-dated Oxygen Isotope Record of the Past 7000 Years from Spring Valley Caverns, Southeastern MN, USA. Eos Trans. AGU, v. 86, n. 52, Fall Meet. Suppl. Abstract PP21D-07. 227. Alexander, Scott C., Dylan B. Boyle and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2005) Solute Export through Transpiration: A Possible Control of Soil Water Chemistry? (poster presentation) Eos Trans. AGU, v. 86, n. 52, Fall Meet. Suppl. Abstract H53E-0534. 226. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Scott C. Alexander (2005) Invited Talk: Flow Velocities in Karst Aquifers, (oral presentation 12-5). 2005 Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 37, n. 7, p. 33. 225. Scott Alexander, Mark Person, Hans Olaf Pfannuch and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2005) Design and Operation of a Hydrogeology Field Camp at the University of Minnesota, (oral presentation 139-10) . 2005 Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 37, n. 7, p. 318. 224. Yongli Gao, Scott Alexander, Hans-Olaf Pfannkuch, Mark Person and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2005) Scale-dependent Aquifer Test at University of Minnesota’s Hydrogeology Field Site, (oral presentation 139-11). 2005 Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 37, n. 7, p. 318. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -48- 48 223. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2005) Invited keynote address: “Karst Hydrogeology and the Nature of Reality Revisited: Philosophical Musings of a Less Frustrated Curmudgeon.” In: (Barry Beck, editor) Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst: Proceedings of the Tenth Multidisciplinary Conference, San Antonio, 24-28 September 2005. 222. Yongli Gao, Emmit Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Michael J. Bounk (2005) Metadata Development for a Multi-state Karst Feature Database, (oral presentation). 10th Sinkhole Conference, San Antonio. 221. Jeffrey A. Green and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2005) Springshed Mapping in Support of Watershed Management, (poster presentation). 10th Sinkhole Conference, San Antonio. 220. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, James J. Piegat, Kelton Barr and Bradley Nordberg (2005) Dye Tracing Sewage Lagoon Discharge in a Sandstone Karst, Askov, Minnesota, (oral presentation). 10th Sinkhole Conference, San Antonio. 219. Greg A. Brick and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2005) The Rediscovery of LeSueur’s Saltpeter Caves in Minnesota. 2005 National Speleological Society Annual Meeting, Huntsville, AL. 218. Bob Tipping, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Howard Hobbs, (2005) Field trip: Sinkhole Anatomy 101 – Karst Geology of Southeastern Minnesota. NC GSA Meeting. 217. Alexander, E. Calvin Jr., Alexander, Scott C., Peterson, Dean, Hauck, Steven A. and Zavodnik, Tony (2005) A Reconnaissance Geochemisty of Ground Water Seeps in the Soudan Mine, Minnesota (abstract). North Central GSA Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, 19-20 May 2005. 216. Alexander, Scott C., Alexander, E. Calvin Jr., Pfannkuch, Hans-Olaf 1, and Archer, Greg (2005) Utilizing a University Campus as a Learning Environment. NC GSA Meeting. 215. Ray, Sushmita, Edwards, R. Lawrence, Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Dorale, Jeffrey A. (2005) A 1400-year History of Extreme Rainfall Events from Stalagmites from Spring Valley Caverns, Southeastern, Minnesota. NC GSA Meeting. 214. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2005) Invited keynote address: “Sinkhole Studies at Askov.” 68th Annual Wastewater Operations Conference, 18 Mar 2005, Bloomington, MN. 213. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2005) Tower-Soudan Mine: Research Opportunities. Presented at the Geological Society of Minnesota’s meeting, 7 Feb 2005. 212. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2005) A Grand Canyon Tour, North Arizona. Presented at the Geological Society of Minnesota’s meeting, 24 Jan 2005. 211. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, James Piegat, Kelton Barr and Brad Nordberg (2004) Dye Tracing Sewage Lagoon Discharge in a Sandstone Karst, Askov, Minnesota, abstract 75-6, Abstracts with Programs, 2004 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 7-10 November, 2004, v. 36, n. 5 p. 190. 210. Yongli Gao and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2004) Sinkhole Hazard Distribution and Assessment in Minnesota Using GIS and Database Management System, abstract 138-1, Abstracts with Programs, 2004 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 7-10 November, 2004, v. 36, n. 5 p. 330. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -49- 49 209. Geary M. Schindel, Steven Johnson, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Stephen R.H. Worthington and Gareth Davies (2004) Quantitative Tracing as a Predictive Tool to Assess the Potential Impacts of Hazardous Materials to Water Supplies and Environmental Receptors, abstract 169-6, Abstracts with Programs, 2004 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 7-10 November, 2004, v. 36, n. 5 p. 396. 208. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2004) Wind & Jewel Caves, Black Hills, South Dakota, presented to the Minnesota Geological Society, 18 October 2004. 207. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2004) The Joy of Dyeing: A Breakthrough Curve Menagerie, Invited Departmental Seminar, Department of Geosciences, Univ. of Iowa, 26 Mar 2004. 206. Burgos, Viviana Lopez, Scott C. Alexander, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Jeffrey A. Green, and Jeremy Pavlich (2003) Recent Advances in Springshed mapping Using Dye Tracing, GIS and Structural Geology Tools, poster 151-7, Abstracts with Programs, 2003 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, 2-5 November, 2003, v. 35, n. 6 p. 374. 205. A.C. Runkel, Robert G. Tipping, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2003) A Regional-scale Hydrostratigraphically-based Characterization of a Heterogeneous Sedimentary Aquifer System: Construction of a New Hydrogeologic Framework for Paleozoic Strata in the Northern Midcontinent, North America, abstract 20-6, Abstracts with Programs, 2003 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, 2-5 November, 2003, v. 35, n. 6, p. 54. 204. Schindel, Geary M., Stephen R.H. Worthington, Gareth J. Davies, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. Joe L. Ray, and Stephen Johnson (2003) Quantitative Tracers as Contaminant Surrogates – An Important Tool for Planning and Managing Source Water Protection Areas, abstract 114-15, Abstracts with Programs, 2003 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, 2-5 November, 2003, v. 35, n.6, p. 281. 203. Yongli Gao and Emmit Calvin Alexander Jr. (2003) A Mathematical Model for a Map of Relative Sinkhole Risk in Fillmore County, Minnesota, Ninth Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Huntsville, Alabama, 7-10 September 2003. 202. Jeffrey A. Green, Jeremy A. Pavlish, Jeanette H. Leete, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2003) Quarrying Impacts on Groundwater Flow Paths (poster), Ninth Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Huntsville, Alabama, 7-10 September 2003, p. . 201. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2003) Water Sampling in Caves: First, Get a Data Logger. (Invited talk) Texas Speleological Association Annual Meeting, Cascade Caverns, Boerne, Texas, 3 May 12, 2003. 200. Beverley L. Shade, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Scott C. Alexander (2002) Preliminary Hydrogeochemisry of a Sandstone Karst in Pine County, MN (abstract 218-24). Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting (27-30 October 2002), Denver, Colorado, Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, n. 6, p. 499. 199. Geary M. Schindel, Steven B. Johnson, Stephen R. H. Worthington, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Scott Alexander, Lew Schnitz (2002) Groundwater Flow Velocities for the Deep Artesian portion of the Edwards Aquifer, near Comal Springs, Texas (abstract 155-10). Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -50- 50 Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting (27-30 October 2002), Denver, Colorado, Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, n. 6, p. 347. 198. Roy A. Jameson. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2002) Estimation of Recharge and Effective Recharge Area fro Blue Lake, Mystery Cave, Minnesota (abstract 98-7). Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting (27-30 October 2002), Denver, Colorado, Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, n. 6, p. 226. 197. Yongli Gao, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Robert G. Tipping, Jeffrey A. Green (2002) Karst Modeling in a GIS Environment (abstract 98-6). Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting (27-30 October 2002), Denver, Colorado, Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, n. 6, p. 226. 196. Geary M. Schindel, Steven Johnson, Stephen R. H. Worthington, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Scott Alexander, Lew Schnitz (2002) Groundwater Flow Velocities for the Deep Artesian portion of the Edwards Aquifer, near Comal Springs, Texas. 2002 National Speleological Society Annual Convention, Maine, 25 July 2002. 195. Roy A. Jameson and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2002) A Hydrologic Model for Blue Lake, Mystery Cave, Minnesota. Joint North-Central and Southeastern Sections Geol. Soc. Amer Annual Meeting (April 3–5, 2002), Lexington, Kentucky. 194. Gao, Yongli, Robert G. Tipping, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Scott C. Alexander (2001) Extending GIS Technology to Study Karst Feature of Southeastern Minnesota (poster), Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 82(47), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract H42D-0394, p. F478. 193. Worthington, Stephen R.H., Geary Schindel and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2001) Aquifer- scale Properties for Hyraulic Characterization of Carbonate Aquifers. 2001 Annual Geol. Soc. Amer. Meeting Program, 1-10 Nov 2001, Boston, MA, p. P-30. 192. Shade, Beverley L., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Scott C. Alexander (2001) The Sandstone Karst of Pine County, Minnesota (abstract). 2001 Annual Geol. Soc. Amer. Meeting Program, 1-10 Nov 2001, Boston, MA, p. P-13. 191. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Jeffrey A. Dorale, Beverly L. Shade, R. Lawrence Edwards, Richard S. Lively, Stephen R.H. Worthington, Feride Serefiddin and Derek Ford (2001) A Major Revision of U/Th Speleothem Dates from Cold Water Cave, Iowa (abstract). 2001 Annual Geol. Soc. Amer. Meeting Program, 1-10 Nov 2001, Boston, MA, p. P-13. 190. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., S.C. Alexander and K.D. Barr (2001) Dye Tracing to Camp Coldwater Spring, Minneapolis, MN (poster). Program & Abstracts, 46th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference, October 22-24, 2001, Madison, WI, p. 33. 189. Shade, B.L., E. C. Alexander, Jr. and S.C. Alexander (2001) The Sandstone Karst of Pine County, Minnesota (abstract), Program & Abstracts, 46th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference, October 22-24, 2001, Madison, WI, p. 22. 188. Green, J.A. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2001) Updating the Karst Groundwater Basin Map of Fillmore County, Minnesota (abstract), Program & Abstracts, 46th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference, October 22-24, 2001, Madison, WI, p. 16. 187. Doctor, Daniel H., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and W. Stichler (2001) Isotopic Tracers Do Not Usurp Groundwater Chemistry or Vice Versa: Combined Isotopic and Chemical Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -51- 51 Tracers in Upper Mississippi Valley and Slovenian Karst Aquifers Yield More Information than Either Would Alone (Abstract H41A-07), 2001 Spring Meeting Program, American Geophysical Union, 29 May- 2 Jun 2001, Boston, MA, p. 87. 186. Yongli Gao, Mingtang Lei, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2001) A Comparison of Human Induced Sinkholes Between China and the United States (abstract), to be presented at the 8th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, April 1-4, 2001 Galt House Hotel, Louisville, Kentucky. 185. Green Jeffrey A., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., William J. Marken, and Scott C. Alexander (2001) Karst Unit Mapping, Mower County, Minnesota, USA (abstract), to be presented at the 8th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, April 1-4, 2001 Galt House Hotel, Louisville, Kentucky. 184. Shade, Beverly L. Scott C. Alexander, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., and Hong Truong (2000) Solutional Processes in Silicate Terranes: True Karst vs. Psuedokarst with emphasis on Pine County, Minnesota (abstract), Abstracts with Programs, v. 32, n. 7, 2000 GSA Annual Meeting, p. A-27. 183. Person, Mark A., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Anthony Runkel (2000) The Role of Ice Sheets on Recharge and Environmnetal Isotope Records within the Paleozoic Aquifers and Caves of Southeast Minnesota (abstract), Abstracts with Programs, v. 32, n. 7, 2000 GSA Annual Meeting, p. A-61. 182. Yongli Gao and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2000) Karst Feature Distribution in Southeastern Minnesota (abstract). 45th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference, Oct. 16-18, 2000, Columbus, OH. 181. Magdalene, Suzanne, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2000) Chemical Hydrology of Drainage from Agricultural Fields into the Minnesota River. Minnesota Water 2000, April 25-26, 2000, Minneapolis, MN. 180. Alexander, Scott C., Randy Bradt, Moira Campion, Julie Ekman, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2000) Geochemical and Isotopic Identification of Ground Water Recharge Environments. Minnesota Water 2000, April 25-26, 2000, Minneapolis, MN. 179. Shade, Beverly, Scott C. Alexander, Tony Runkel, Hong Truong, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2000) Petrographic and Geochemical Analysis of Groundwater Movement through the Hinckley Sandstone, Banning State Park, Minnesota. Minnesota Water 2000, April 25-26, 2000, Minneapolis, MN. 178. Gao, Yongli and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2000) Sinkhole Distribution in Southeastern Minnesota (poster). Minnesota Water 2000, A Watershed Year, April 25-26, 2000, Minneapolis, MN. 177. Gao, Yongli, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1999) Sinkhole Distribution in Southeastern Minnesota: Extending GIS-Based Analysis and Operations to Support Resource Management (poster). 44th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference, October 13-15, 1999, St. Paul, MN, Program, p. 48. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -52- 52 176. Magdalene, Suzanne and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1999) Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology of Drainage from Agricultural Fields into the Minnesota River. 44th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference, October 13-15, 1999, St. Paul, MN, Program, p. 40. 175. Green, Jeffrey A., William J. Marken, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1999) Karst Hydrogeomorphic Unit Mapping, Mower County, Minnesota. 44th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference, October 13-15, 1999, St. Paul, MN, Program, p. 34. 174. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Roy A. Jameson, Lifeng Guo, and Daniel H. Doctor (1999) Geochemical and Isotopic Evidence for Multiple Residence Times in the Same Aquifer II: Regional, Field and Local Scales. 44th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference, October 13-15, 1999, St. Paul, MN, Program, p. 33-34. 173. Wheeler, Betty J., Sheila R. Grow, Scott C. Alexander, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1999) Geochemical and Isotopic Evidence for Multiple Residence Times in the Same Aquifer I: Springshed Scale. 44th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference, October 13-15, 1999, St. Paul, MN, Program, p. 32-33. 172. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1999) The Isotopic Record of Early Solar System Processes in Iron Meteorites (invited talk), Symposium on "Origin of Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post-1957 Observations", 218th Amer. Chem. Soc. National Meeting, New Orleans, LA, August 22-26, 1999, Program, p. 112. 171. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1999) Recent Advances in Tracer Technology (invited talk), Symposium on Karst Modeling, February 24-27, 1999, Charlottesville, VA. 170. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Sheila R. Grow, Betty J. Wheeler, Roy A. Jameson, Lifeng Guo, and Daniel H. Doctor (1999) Geochemical and isotopic evidence for multiple residence time in the same aquifer (invited talk), Symposium on Karst Modeling, February 24-27, 1999, Charlottesville, VA., Karst Modeling, KWI Special Publication 5, Karst Waters Institute, p 233-234. 169. Person, Mark, Ryan, Jennifer, Alexander, E., Calvin, Jr., Runkel, Anthony, Tipping, Robert (1998) Quaternary hydrogeology of the Paleozoic Aquifer System in southeastern Minnesota: Some Insights from Mathematical Modeling and Groundwater Age Data. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, v. 79, n. 45, (Nov. 10, 1998), p. F280. 168. Green, J.A., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Alexander, Scott C. (1998) Fracture Flow Characteristics of Middle Devonian Carbonates in SE Minnesota. SEPM Research Conference, Fluid Flow in Carbonates: Interdisciplinary Approaches, Sept. 20-24, 1998, Door County, Wisc., Program with Abstracts. 167. Doctor, Daniel H. and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1998) Discharge, Chemistry, and Stable Isotopic Measurements of Drip Waters in Mystery Cave, Minn.: Records of Hydrologic Processes in the Vadose Zone. SEPM Research Conference, Fluid Flow in Carbonates: Interdisciplinary Approaches, Sept. 20-24, 1998, Door County, Wisc., Program with Abstracts. 166. Tipping, R.G., Runkel, A.C., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Green, J.A. (1998) Ground-Water Flow in the Prairie du Chien Carbonate Aquifer, Southeastern Minnesota. SEPM Research Conference, Fluid Flow in Carbonates: Interdisciplinary Approaches, Sept. 20-24, 1998, Door County, Wisc., Program with Abstracts. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -53- 53 165. Doctor, Daniel H., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1998) Results of Monitoring the Isotopic Composition and Hydrology of Infiltrating Drip Waters in Mystery Cave, Minnesota, EOS, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 1998 Spring Meeting, v. 79, n. 17, Supplement, April 28, 1998, p. S83-84. 164. Hoffman, Ryan S. and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1998) Evidence of Karstic Features in the Twin Cities, Minnesota: A summary Review of the Ordovician Platteville Formation. Minnesota Water ’98, Protecting Minnesota’s Water Supplies, May 5-6, 1998, Minneapolis, MN. Collection of Abstracts, p.111. 163. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Noyes, Richard W. (1998) The Sinkholes of Pine Co. Minnesota Water ’98, Protecting Minnesota’s Water Supplies, May 5-6, 1998, Minneapolis, MN. Collection of Abstracts, p. 110. 162. Doctor, Daniel, and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1998) Monitoring of Vadose Zone Waters in Minnesota Karst. Minnesota Water ’98, Protecting Minnesota’s Water Supplies, May 5-6, 1998, Minneapolis, MN. Collection of Abstracts, p. 108. 161. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Magdalene, Suzanne, and Alexander, Scott C. (1998) Impacts of Subsurface Drainage and Surface Tile Inlets on Chemical Movement. Minnesota Water ’98, Protecting Minnesota’s Water Supplies, May 5-6, 1998, Minneapolis, MN. Collection of Abstracts, p. 51. 160. Alexander, Scott C., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1998) Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal by ISTS on Clay Tills: How Do You Know when a good System is going Bad? Minnesota Water ’98, Protecting Minnesota’s Water Supplies, May 5-6, 1998, Minneapolis, MN. Collection of Abstracts, p. 39. 159. Berner, David, and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1998) A Sinkhole Probability Assessment of Goodhue Co., MN. Minnesota Water ’98, Protecting Minnesota’s Water Supplies, May 5-6, 1998, Minneapolis, MN. Collection of Abstracts, p. 12. 158. Magdalene, Suzanne and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1997) Sediment and chemical loading in agricultural tiling systems, south-central, Minnesota. 1997 Abstracts with Programs, Geol. Soc. Amer. 31st Annual North-Central Section Meeting, May 1-2, 1997, Madison, WS, v. 29, n. 4, p. 57. 157. Jameson, Roy A. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1997) Hydrology and geochemistry of Blue Lake, Mystery Cave, Minnesota. Jour. Minn. Acad. Sci., v. 61, n. 1, p. 4. 156. Alexander, Scott C., and Alexander, E.C., Jr., (1997) Carbon-14 age dating calculations for Minnesota Ground Waters. Jour. Minn. Acad. Sci., v. 61, n. 1, p. 5. 155. Alexander, Calvin, (1997) Results and interpretation of 1996 groundwater monitoring data. Mower County Water Management Committee, March 19, 1997, Austin, Minn. 154. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., (1997) Special problems associated with siting of large-scale feedlots in karst and other geologically sensitive areas. Forum on the Environmental Impacts of Concentrated Livestock Production, Feb. 22, 1997, St. Paul, Minn. 153. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., (1997) Hydrogeology of southeastern Minnesota, the use of tracers in karst topography. AIPG noon luncheon, Feb. 11, 1997, Roseville, Minn. 152. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1997) Hydrogeology and karst in New Zealand. Symposium on International Activities in Hydrological Science at the University of Minnesota, Jan. 29, Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -54- 54 1977, St. Paul, Minn. 151. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1996) Pigs, pits and politics, Geology Departmental seminar, Northern Illinois University, Nov. 8, 1996. 150. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1996) Minnesota groundwater: How old is it and why should you care. MEHA Fall Education Conference, October 24, 1996, Rochester, MN. 149. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1996) Karst - As dirty as pigs and politics. AIPG Fall Meeting, Pewaukee, Wisc., October 16, 1996. 148. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Alexander, Scott C. (1996) The impact of agriculture on the geochemistry of groundwater recharge in regional karst aquifers. 1996 Abstracts with Programs, Geol. Soc. Amer. North-Central Section, May 2-3, 1996, Ames, Iowa, p. 25. 147. Green, Jeffrey A., Alexander, Scott C., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., (1996) The LeRoy Minnesota karst area. 1996 Abstracts with Programs, Geol. Soc. Amer. North-Central Section, May 2-3, 1996, Ames, Iowa, p. 41. 146. Magner, Joe A., Alexander, Scott C., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., (1996) Pesticides, geochemistry and isotopic character of selected springs and seeps in the Minnesota River Valley. 1996 Abstracts with Programs, Geol. Soc. Amer. North-Central Section, May 2-3, 1996, Ames, Iowa, p. 54. 145. Magdalene, Suzanne, Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Larson, Tim (1996) The impact of agricultural tile drainage on the Minnesota River. 1996 Abstracts with Programs, Geol. Soc. Amer. North-Central Section, May 2-3, 1996, Ames, Iowa, p. 54. 144. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1996) Karst topography and sinkholes: Engineering implications (Invited talk). 44th Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conference, St. Paul, Minn., Feb. 23, 1996. 143. Foster, M.B.J., E. C. Alexander, Jr., D. Misra, and J.L. Nieber (1995) Measurement of flow through the unsaturated zone using a prototype funnel lysimeter. EOS, Trans. Amer, Geophys. Union, 1995 Fall Meeting, v. 76, n., 46, p. F245. 142. Alexander, S.C., S.R. Fay, and E.C. Alexander, Jr. (1995) Development of optical brightener analytical techniques and applicaton to identification and tracing of septic system waters. EOS, Trans. Amer, Geophys. Union, 1995 Fall Meeting, v. 76, n., 46, p. F238. 141. Kendall, Carol and E.Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1995) Isotope Hydrology Shortcourse Minn. Ground Water Assoc. Fall Conference. Oct. 27, 1995, St. Paul, Minn. 140. Jameson. Roy A. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1995) Zinc leaching from galvanized steel in Myster Cave, Minnesota: Implications for management. Program, 1995 National Cave Management Symposium, October 25-28, 1995, Spring Mill State Park, Ind., p. 24. 139. Jameson, Roy A. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1995) The hydrology and chemistry of Coon Lake Drips, Mystery Cave, Minnesota. Program, National Speleological Society Convention 1995, p. 24. 138. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1995) The impact of intensive agriculture on the geochemistry of groundwater recharge in regional karst aquifers. Programme with Abstracts, International Association of Geomorphologists, Southeast Asia Conference, Singapore, 18-23 June, Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -55- 55 1995, p. 28. 137. Magdalene, Suzanne, Scott C. Alexander, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Tim Larson (1994) Impact of agricultural tile drainage on pollutant loading in the Minnesota River. Amer. Water Res. Assn. Ann. Meeting, Nov. 7-11, 1994, Chicago, Ill. 136. Alexander, Scott C., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Jeffrey A. Green (1994) Ground water dye tracing as a resource management tool in the karst of Fillmore County, Minnesota. Amer. Water Res. Assn. Ann. Meeting, Nov. 7-11, 1994, Chicago, Ill. 135. Fay, S.R., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and R.C. Spong (1994) Optical brighteners as indicators of septic system pollution in water table aquifers in southeastern Minnesota. Amer. Water Res. Assn. Ann. Meeting, Nov. 7-11, 1994, Chicago, Ill. 134. Paola, C., E.C. Alexander, Jr., R.L. Edwards, P.J. Hudleston, S.-I. Karato, K.R. Kelts, K.L. Kleinspehn, M. Person, W.E. Seyfried, Jr., J.H. Stout and C. Teyssier (1994) Geodynamics: The center of a new Earth sciences curriculum, and the theme of a new undergraduate laboratory. Geol. Soc. Amer. Program with Abstracts, vol. 26, no. 7, 1994 Annual Meeting, p. A-168. 133. Jameson, Roy A., and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1994) A mass-based evaporation pan study in Mystery Cave, Minnesota. The NSS Bulletin, vol. 56, no. 2, p. 111. 132. Jameson, Roy A., and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1994) Digital titrators in karst studies. The NSS Bulletin, vol. 56, no. 2, p. 113. 131. Magdalene, Suzanne, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Scott C. Alexander (1994) Rapid response of agricultural tile line discharges to recharge events, Watonwan County, MRAP. Minnesota Water 94 Conf., April 21-22, 1994, Minneapolis, Minn. 130. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Steffan J. Fay, Jeffrey A. Green, Suzanne Magdalene, Robert C. Tipping, and Kathleen M. Witthuhn (poster) (1994) Karst hydrogeology and land use management in southeastern Minnesota. Minnesota Water 94 Conf., April 21-22, 1994, Minneapolis, Minn. 129. Alexander, E.C., Jr., L. Guo, M.K. Landon, G.N. Delin and C.P. Regan (1994) Geochemical characteristics and transport of agricultural leachates in a sand-and-gravel aquifer near Princeton, Minnesota (poster) Farm Sandy Soils: Strategies for Managing Nutrients and Pesticides in the Upper Midwest Conf. March 1-2, 1994, St. Cloud, Minn. 128. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1994) Groundwater Pollution. Minn. Assoc. of Farm Mutual Ins. Co. Annual Short Course, Alexandria, Minn., March 17, 1994. 127. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1994) Karst hydrogeology. Macalester College Geology Department. March 15, 1994. 126. Alexander, S.C., S.J. Fay, E.C. Alexander, Jr., and J.A. Green (1993) Groundwater tracing in southeastern Minnesota karst using fluorescent dyes. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 1993 Fall Meeting, vol. 74, no. 43, p. 286. 125. Witthuhn, K.M., and E.C. Alexander, Jr. (1993) Sinkhole population, distribution, and Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -56- 56 hydrogeologic controls in Fillmore County, Minnesota. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 1993 Fall Meeting, vol. 74, no. 43, p. 285-286. 124. Alexander, E.C. Jr., S.C. Alexander, K.M. Witthuhn, and Hau Zhang (1993) Stratigraphic controls on the chemical and isotopic composition and geologic sensitivity of groundwater in Fillmore County, Minn. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 1993 Fall Meeting, vol. 74, no. 43, p. 285. 123. Guo, L., E.C. Alexander, Jr., M.K. Landon, G.N. Delin, and C.P. Regan (1993) Geochemical characteristics and transport of agricultural leachates in a surficial sand-and-gravel aquifer near Princeton, Minnesota, 1991-92 (Abs.). Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 1993 Fall Meeting, vol. 74, no. 43, p. 269. 122. Jameson, Roy A. and E.Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1993) Environmental Geochemistry of Mystery Cave, Minnesota (Abs.). Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs, vol. 25, no. 6, 1993 Annual Meeting, p. A377. 121. Jameson, Roy A. and E.C. Alexander, Jr. (1993) Digital titrators in karst studies, 1993 National Speleological Society Convention, Pendleton, Oregon, Guidebook, p. 43. 120. Jameson, Roy A. and E.C. Alexander, Jr. (1993) A mass-based evaporation pan study in Mystery Cave, Minnesota, 1993 National Speleological Society Convention, Pendleton, Oregon, Guidebook, p. 38-39. 119. Misra, D., J.L. Nieber, M.J.B. Foster, and E.C. Alexander, Jr. (1993) Modeling variably saturated flow in a conical lysimeter containing heterogeneous and dual porosity soil. Amer. Geophys. Union's 13th Annual Hydrology Days, Ft. Collins, Colo., March 30-April 2, 1993. 118. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1993) Minnesota Groundwater: How old is it? Why should you care? a. Jan. 9, 1993, Minnesota Mineral Club, Falcon Heights, MN. b. Feb. 27, 1993, Water Quality Meeting, Forest Resources Center, Preston, MN. c. Mar. 23, 1993, South Eastern MN Waterworks, Rochester, MN. d. Apr. 7, 1993, MN Waterworks Operator School, Bloomington, MN. e. Apr. 21, 1993, IBM, Rochester, MN. 117. Foster, M.J.B., E.C. Alexander, Jr., D. Misra, and J.L. Nieber (1992). Development and testing of a two-meter diameter conical infiltrometer. 1992 Fall Meeting, American Geophys. Union, Eos, v. 73, n. 43, p. 207-208. 116. Alexander, E.C., Jr., L. Guo, C.P. Regan, and M.K. Landon (1992). Geochemistry of ground water in an outwash aquifer under agricultural fields at the Management Systems Evaluation Area (MSEA) near Princeton, Minnesota. 1992 Fall Meeting, Amer. Geophys. Union, EOS, v. 7, n. 43, p. 158. 115. Holtz, Bonnie, Scott C. Alexander, E.C. Alexander, Jr., Charles P. Regan, and Bill C. Thompson (1992). Brown/Nicollett/Cottonwood County Minnesota Clean Water Partnership. Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Abstracts and Programs, v. 24, n. 7, p. A242. 114. Foster, Michael B.J., and E.C. Alexander, Jr. (1992). Identification of septic system effluent in ground water using small catchment hydrochemistry. 1992 Geological Society Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -57- 57 of America Annual Meeting, Abstracts with Programs, v. 24, n. 7, p. A200. 113. Alexander, E. C., Jr. (1992) Minnesota Groundwater: How old is it and why should you care? a. January 29, 1992, MDNR Training Course, Macalester College, St. Paul, MN. b. April, 21, 1992, FmHA Annual Meeting, Maplewood, MN. c. April, 22, 1992, Earth Day, Mound, MN. d. April 24, 1992, IBM, Rochester, MN. e. May 20, 1992, Amer. Assoc. of Brewing Chemists, St. Paul, MN. f. Sept. 17, 1992, Water Quality Meeting, Maple Grove, MN. g. Nov. 12, 1992, Departmental Seminar, University of Minn., Minneapolis, MN. 112. Foster, M.B.J., and E. C. Alexander, Jr. (1992). Development of a prototype conical lysimeter installed using a large tree transplanter (poster), Minnesota Water ‘92, February 13-14, 1992, Minneapolis, MN. 111. Alexander E. C., Jr., and Scott C. Alexander (1992). Ages and residence times of Minnesota groundwater (poster). Minnesota Water ‘92, February 13-14, 1992, Minneapolis, MN. 110. Lively, R.S., E.C Alexander, Jr., and Roy Jameson (1992). Radium in the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer, east-central and southeastern Minnesota (poster). Minnesota Water ‘92, February 13-14, 1992, Minneapolis, MN. 109. Estes, Elizabeth K. and E. C. Alexander, Jr. (1992) Karst hydrogeologic research at Mammoth Cave National Park. Research in U.S. National Parks Symposium, AAAS Annual Meeting, Feb 6-11, 1992, Chicago, I11, Program/Abstracts, p. 193. 108. Quinlan, James F., Geary M. Schindel and E. C. Alexander, Jr. (1991). A recommended administrative/regulatory definition of karst aquifers and a practical, general classification there of: I. A first approximation. Third Conference on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terranes, Dec. 4-6, 1991, Nashville, Tenn., Program, p. 99 - 100. 107. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Barbara J. Huberty and James F. Quinlan (1991). The Oronoco landfill dye trace III: Results from a superfund remedial investigation in a glaciated diffuse-flow Karst. Third Conference on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terranes, Dec. 4-6, 1991, Nashville, Tenn., Program, p. 65-66. 106. Jannik, Nancy O., E. C. Alexander, Jr. and Lawrence J. Landherr (1991). Sinkhole collapse of the Lewiston, Minnesota, WWTF lagoon. Third Conference on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terranes, Dec. 4-6, 1991, Nashville, Tenn., Program, p. 115 - 116. 105. Foster, M.B.J. and E.C. Alexander, Jr., (1991) Development of a field tracer test for large soil samples (video + poster). ASAE National Symposium on Preferential Flow, Chicago, IL. 104. Estes, Elizabeth K and E. C. Alexander, Jr., (1991). The evolving relationship between Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -58- 58 Mammoth Cave National Park and its hydrogeologic symbionts. Guidebook, National Cave Management Symposium, Bowling Green, KY, October 23-26, 1991, p. 6. 103. Alexander, E. C., Jr. (1991) Minnesota Groundwater: How Old Is It and Why Should You Care? a. March 5, 1991, Amer. Institute of Prof. Geologists, Roseville, MN. b. March 7, 1991, Minn. Rural Water Assoc. Annual Meeting, St. Cloud, MN. c. April 29, 1991, Earth Day, Mound, MN. d. April 29, 1991, Hennepin County Mentor Connection, Plymouth, MN. e. June 6, 1991, Cragun’s 91, Brainerd, MN. f. Sept. 17, 1991, National Rural Water Assoc., Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN. g. Nov. 19, 1991, Sigma Xi Meeting, Rochester, MN. h. Nov. 21, 1991, Minn. Golf Course Managers Annual Meeting, Maple Grove, MN. 102. Alexander, E. C., Jr. (1990) Minnesota's Groundwater: An ancient resource under current threat. Compleat Scholar Talks, Bell Museum, Univ. of Minn. Oct. 2, 9, & 16, 1990. 101. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Barbara J. Huberty, Geri L. Maki, and James F. Quinlan (1990) The Oronoco Landfill dye trace II: Verification of the effectiveness of monitoring wells at a karst superfund site. 1990 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, Abstracts with Programs, p. A370. 100. Alexander, Scott C., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Doreen M. Orbita and Joseph A. Magner (1990) A feasibility survey of stable isotope analyses to study lake ground water interactions in east central Minnesota. 1990 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, Abstracts with Programs, p. A296. 99. Mooers, Howard D. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1990) Wastewater irrigation fields and the source of nitrate contamination in the karst of southeastern Minnesota. 1990 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, Abstracts with Programs, p. A297. 98. Jameson, Roy A., and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1990) Hydrology and chemistry of condensation waters in Snedegar's and Greenville Saltpetre Caves, West Virginia. 1990 Annual Convention, National Speleological Society, Yreka, Calif., Program, pp. 34-35. 97. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1990) Minnesota Groundwater: How Old Is It and Why Should You Care? a. March 15, 1990, Cambridge Community College, Cambridge, MN. b. March 22, 1990, Univ. of Minn, Duluth, Geology Department Weekly Seminar. c. April 4, 1990, American Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Bloomington, MN. d. April 17, 1990, Univ. of Minn. Alumni Assoc., Redwood Falls, MN. e. April 24, 1990, Univ. of Missouri at Rolla, Chemistry Departmental Seminar, Rolla, MO. f. April 30, 1990, Minn. Geol. Survey, Lunch Talk, St. Paul, MN. g. May 14, 1990, Opportunities in Science Talk, Bemidji State University, Bemidji, MN. h. May 15, 1990, Opportunities in Science Talk, Reif Center, Grand Rapids, MN. i. May 17, 1990, Lehmann Center, Minneapolis, MN. j. June 4, 1990, Metropolitan Nature Center Staff and Volunteer Training Program, Tamarack Nature Center, White Bear Lake, MN. k. June 13, 1990, The Earth, The Sky, The Sea: Saving our Global Ecosystem. A Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -59- 59 Workshop for K-12 educators. NSP Center, Minneapolis, MN. l. Oct. 5, 1990, Departmental Seminar, Iowa State University, Dept. of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences, Ames, Iowa. m. Oct. 10, 1990, Minn. Water Commission, La Crescent, MN. n. Oct. 25, 1990, Gustavas Adolphus College, St. Peter, MN. 96. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1990) Soil and Geological Site Assessment. (Invited Talk) North Central Water Quality Conference. St. Louis, MO. April 22, 1990. 95. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Scott C. Alexander, Howard Trussell, Barbara J. Huberty, Geri L. Maki, and James F. Quinlan (1990) The Oronoco Landfill Dye Trace I: The Monsters That Live Below One Part Per Billion. GEO2, v. 17, nos. 2 & 3, p. 59. 94. Goff, Karin and Alexander, A. [sic] Calvin, Jr. (1989) A survey of Nitrate Contamination in Wells Located in Shoreview, Minnesota. Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting. St. Louis, Abstracts with Program, p. A161. 93. Quinlan, James F., Ewers, R.O., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1989) Reliable Methods for Hydrologic Characterization of Sites Underlain by Karst Aquifers (invited abstract). Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting. St. Louis, Abstracts with Program, p. A322. 92. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., Wheeler, Betty J., Grow, Sheila R., Quinlan, James F., Ewers, Ralph O., and Meiman, J. (1989) Time variability of water quality at sites with non-Darcian flow, especially in karst terranes (invited abstract). Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting. St. Louis, Abstracts with Programs, p. A322. 91. Magner, Joe A., Alexander, Scott C., and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1989) Nitrates, Pesticides and Residence Times of Minnesota Ground Waters (Abstract). Tracers in Hydrogeology: Principles, Problems, and Practical Applications. Annual meeting of Assoc. Ground Water Scientists and Engineers, Houston, Texas, Oct. 31, Nov. 1, 1989, Ground Water, v. 27, n. 5, p. 726. 90. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1989) Karst hydrogeology and the nature of reality: The Minnesota experience (Keynote Address). Third Annual Watershed conference, June 14-15, 1989, Springfield, Missouri, Watershed Committee of the Ozarks. 89. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1989) Perceptions and problems of scale. (Invited talk). Assessing Groundwater Sensitivity to Contamination., April 11, 1989, St. Paul, Minn., WRRC. 88. Caffee, M.W., G.B. Hudson, C. Velsko, E.C. Alexander, Jr., G.R. Huss, and A.R. Chivas (1988) Xenon from CO2 well gases. Abstracts Presented to the Topical Conference: Origin of the Earth. Lunar and Planetary Institute Contribution #681, p. 9-10. 87. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1988) Karst hydrogeology and the nature of reality: Philosophical musings of a frustrated curmudgeon. (Keynote Address). Second Conf. on Envir. Problems in Karst and Their Solutions, Nov. 16-18, 1988, Nashville, Tenn. NWWA. 86. Alexander, E.C., Jr., (1988) Age or residence times of Minnesota Groundwater. (Invited Talk) Rochester Chapter of the Sierra Club, September 22, Quarry Hill Nature Center. 85. Alexander, E.C., Jr., (1988) Non-point source pollution in Minnesota. (Invited Departmental Seminar) Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue Univ. September 7, 1988. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -60- 60 84. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, M.A., and Alexander, S.C. (1988) A Chemical and Isotopic Investigation of the Thermal Springs of the Southern Black Hills. Program of The 1988 NSS Convention, Hot Springs, SD, p. 12. 83. Davis, M.A., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Alexander, S.C. (1988) Water Chemistry at Wind Cave and Jewel Cave. Program of The 1988 NSS Convention, Hot Springs, SD, p. 12. 82. Davis, M.A., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Alexander, S.C. (1988) Dye Traces at Wind and Jewel Caves. Program of The 1988 NSS Convention, Hot Springs, SD, p. 12. 81. Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Alexander, S.C. (1988) A Chemical and Isotopic Study of the Age of Groundwaters in the Paleozoic Karst Aquifers of Southeastern Minnesota. Program of The 1988 NSS Convention, Hot Springs, SD, p. 33. 80. Wheeler, B.J., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Adams, R.S., Jr. (1988) Water Quality of Rural Wells in an Agricultural Basin in Minnesota. Program of The 1988 NSS Convention, Hot Springs, SD, p. 32. 79. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1988) The Legacy of Karst Groundwater. (Invited Talk) Wisconsin's Groundwater An Endangered Resource, June 24, 1988, LaCrosse, WI. 78. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1988) Groundwater. (Invited Talk) LCMR Issues Seminar, Lake Itasca, May 26, 1988. 77. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1988) Age and Residence Times of Minnesota Groundwater. (Invited Talk) Twin Cities Geologists, March 24, 1988. 76. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1988) Minnesota Groundwater Pollution. (Invited Talk) Pipestone County Ag Day, March 24, 1988. 75. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1988) Age dating of Water. (Invited Talk) Southeastern Minnesota Waterworks Operators Association. Rochester, Minnesota, March 23, 1988. 74. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1988) Groundwater Pollution in Minnesota (Keynote address). Minnesota Environmental Education Board Statewide Conference, Deep-Portage Nature Reserve, March 5, 1988. 73. Wheeler, B.J., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Huppert, G.N., and Adams, R.S., Jr. (1988) Relationship of groundwater quality and land use practices in the Coldwater Cave groundwater basin, Upper Mississippi Valley Karst, U.S.A. Program, 10th FOK, San Salvadore, Bahamas, p. 28. 72. Alexander, S.C., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Lively, R.S. (1988) Detailed cationic analyses of a Lighthouse Cave stalagmite. Program, 10th FOK, San Salvadore, Bahamas, pp. 10-11. 71. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, M.A., Alexander, S.C., and Lively, R.S. (1988) Thermal springs of the southern Black Hills. Program, 10th FOK, San Salvadore, Bahamas, p. 10. 70. Lively, R., Alexander, S.C., and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1988) Ages, residence times and isotopic studies of Minnesota groundwater. (Abstract) Minnesota Water: 1988. Feb. 15- 16, 1988. St. Paul, Minn. 69. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Alexander, S.C., and Lively, R.S. (1987) Recharge of the Mt. Simon/Hinckley Aquifer: Responses to Climate Change and Water Use. (Abstract) Eos, v. 68, N. 44, p. 1270. 68. Caffee, M.W., Hudson, G.B., Velsko, C., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Huss, G.R. (1987) Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -61- 61 Excess 129Xe in CO2 Well Gas. (Abstract) Eos, v. 68, N. 44, p. 1337. 67. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Isotopic Studies of Minnesota Groundwater. (Invited Seminar) Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, December 3, 1987. 66. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Time Variability of Nitrates and Macropore Flows in Soils. (Abstract) Nitrate Seminar, November 30, 1987, Earle Browne Center, University of Minnesota, St. Paul. 65. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Why is Groundwater Becoming Contaminated? (Invited Talk) Water Quality and Management: Implications for Agriculture, Family and Community--Iowa Extension Service In-service Training Session. Nov. 9-11, 1987, Ames, Iowa. 64. Davis, M.A., Alexander, S.C., and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Impact of Surface Development on Underlying Cavern Features. (Abstract) 1987 National Cave Management Symposium, October 21-24, 1987, Rapid City, South Dakota. 63. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Age Dating of Groundwater in Southeastern Minnesota--New Research Findings. (Invited Talk) Groundwater Quality: A Training Session for Local Government Staff. Rochester, Minn., June 25, 1987. 62. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Problems of Sampling Frequency in Karst Terranes. (Invited Talk) ASTM Workshop on Standards Development for Ground Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring Investigations, September 17-18, 1987, Minneapolis, MN. 61. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Wheeler, B.J., and Quinlan, J.F. (1987) Precipitation- Driven Fluctuations in the Concentration of Non-point Source Pollutants in Groundwater. (Abstract) NWWA Conference on Contaminant Hydrogeology, Annual Meeting of the Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers, Sept. 15-17, 1987 in Minneapolis, Minn., Ground Water, v. 25, N. 5, p. 604. 60. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Alexander, S. (1987) Carbon-14 Dating of Groundwater from Olmsted County, Minnesota. (Abstract) Conference on: "The Quality of Ground Water in Geologically Sensitive Areas." June 8-9, 1987, Winona, Minn. 59. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Wheeler, B.J., and Adams, R.S., Jr. (1987) Time Variation of Nonpoint Pollutants in the Karst Aquifers of Southeastern Minnesota (Abstract) Conference on: "The Quality of Ground Water in Geologically Sensitive Areas." June 8-9, 1987, Winona, Minn. 58. Wheeler, B.J. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Karst Ground Water Quality in Duschee Creek Watershed, Southeastern Minnesota. (Abstract) Conference on: "The Quality of Ground Water in Geologically Sensitive Areas." June 8-9, 1987, Winona, Minn. 57. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Why is Groundwater Becoming Contaminated? (Invited Talk) North Central Region Eight State Groundwater Workshop. May 11-13, 1987, Ames, Iowa. 56. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Defining the Problem. (Keynote Address) Conference on "Groundwater: Defining the solutions", May 9, 1987. Rochester, Minn. 55. Alexander, E.C. Jr. and Lively, R.S. (1987) Major caves of the Ordovician Galena Carbonates in Minnesota and Iowa (Abstract), Abstracts with Programs, 1987; North-central section G.S.A. Meeting, St. Paul, Minn., April 30-May 1, 1987, p. 185. 54. Wheeler, B.J. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Temporal variations of the Water Chemistry Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -62- 62 in Coldwater Cave, Winneshiek county, Iowa (Abstract), Abstracts with Programs, 1987; North-central section G.S.A. Meeting, St. Paul, Minn., April 30-May 1, 1987, p. 252. 53. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Lively, R.S. (1987) Isotopic Investigation of Glacial Sand Aquifers Near Park Rapids, Minnesota (Abstract), Abstracts with Programs, 1987; North-central Section G.S.A. Meeting, St. Paul, Minn., April 30-May 1, 1987, p. 185. 52. Samson, S.D., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Kyle, P.R. (1987), Chemistry, Mineralogy and Correlation of Ordovician Bentonites, (Abstract) Abstracts with Programs, 1987; North-central Section G.S.A. meeting, St. Paul, Minn., April 30-May 1, 1987, pp. 241-242. 51. Lively, R.S. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) North American Speleothem Record Reviewed. (Invited Talk) G.S.A. Penrose Conference entitled "Late Quaternary Sea Level: The Marine and Terrestrial Record," 6-12 April, 1987, Ferry Reach, Bermuda. 50. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) O and H isotopes in dated aquifers: Are ice volumes underestimated? (Invited Talk) G.S.A. Penrose Conference entitled "Late Quaternary Sea Level: The Marine and Terrestrial Record," 6-12 April, 1987, Ferry Reach Bermuda. 49. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) Dye Tracing to Monitor Ground Water Movements. (Invited Talk) A.S.C.E. Geotechnical Conference. Ames, Iowa, Feb. 10-11, 1987. 48. Quinlan, J.F. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) How Often Should Samples be Taken if Relevant Locations are to Reliably Monitor for Pollutants from an Agricultural, Waste Disposal, or Spill Site in a Karst Terrane? A First Approximation. 2nd Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes, Orlando, FL. Feb. 1987. 47. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1987) The Quality of Water in Karst Aquifers (invited talk). Soil Conser. Soc. Amer., Minn. Chapter, 1987 Annual Meeting, Jan. 23, 1987, St. Paul, Minn. 46. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Milske, J.A. (1986) Dye Tracing Studies of the Fountain Minnesota Sewage System. Presented at Environmental Problems in Karst Terranes and Their Solutions. A NWWA Conference held in Bowling Green, Kentucky, Oct. 28-30, 1986. 45. Mohring, E.H. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1986) Quantitative Dye Tracing of Karst Groundwater Flow: Southeastern Minnesota, North Central U.S.A. Abstracts of the 5th International Symposium on Underground Water Tracing. Athens, Greece, Sep. 22-27, 1986, pp. 54-55. 44. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, M.A., and Dalgleish, J.B. (1986) Dye Tracing Through Thick Unsaturated Zones. Abstracts of the 5th International Symposium on Underground Water Tracing. Athens, Greece, Sept. 22-27, 1986, pp. 43-44. 43. Davis, M.A. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1986) Impact of Surface Development on Water Quality in Wind and Jewel Caves. Conference on Science in the National Parks, Program and Abstracts, Ft. Collins, CO, July 13-18, 1986. p. 242. 42. Samson, S.D. and Alexander, E.C. Jr. (1986) Interlaboratory Calibrations of the 40Ar-39Ar Dating Standard, MMhb-1. TERRA cognita, v. 6, N. 2. p. 171. 41. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Milske, J.A., Davis, M.A., and Samson, S.D. (1986) Isotopic Investigations of the Mount Simon Aquifer, Minnesota. TERRA cognita, v. 6, N. 2, p. 265. 40. Huss, G.R. and Alexander E.C., Jr. (1986) Presolar Dust and the Chronology of the Early Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -63- 63 Solar System. TERRA cognita, v. 6, N. 2, p. 176. 39. Hedges, J. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1986) Interstratal caves in the St. Peter Sandstone. Program Abstracts, 98th Session Iowa Academy of Science, No. 131. 38. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Grow, S.R., Wheeler, B.J., Davis, M.A., Adams, R.S., Jr., Manser, R.J., and Book, P.R. (1986) Groundwater Pollution in Minnesota Karst. (Invited Paper) AAAS Annual Meeting Program, 25-30 May, 1986; Philadelphia. p. 26. 37. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1986) Special Precautions Required for Engineering Projects in Karst Areas. (Invited Paper) Presented at: 32 Annual Wastes Engineering Conferences. Jan 23-24, 1986, Univ. of Minn., St. Paul. 36. Grow, S.R. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1985) Groundwater Quality in a Southeastern Minnesota Karst Basin. Presented at 30th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference. St. Paul, MN. Oct. 23-25, 1985. 35. Lively, R.S. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1985) Karst and the Pleistocene history of the Upper Mississippi Valley. Program abstracts and Field Guide to "Pleistocene Geology and Evolution of the Upper Mississippi Valley", Aug. 13-16, Winona, MN, pp. 31-32. 34. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Milske, J.A., Dalgleish, J.B., Mohring, E.H., and Book, P.R. (1984) Dye tracing to private domestic wells in karst regimes. Presented at the NSS Convention, Sheridan, WY, June, 1984. 33. Hedges, J. and Alexander, C. (1984) Karst-related features of the Upper Mississippi Valley Region. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci., v. 91, no. 1, abs. 127 in Program Abstracts. 32. Milske, J.A., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Lively, R.S. (1983) A U/Th disequilibrium dated Pleistocene sedimentary record in Mystery Cave, Minnesota. Eos, v. 64, no. 18, p. 334. 31. Mohring, E.H., Book, P.R., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Milske, J.A. (1983) Quantitative tracing of groundwater flow through fractured karst aquifers. Eos, v. 64, no. 18, p. 230. 30. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Siegel, D.I., and Milske, J.A. (1983) Isotopic studies of the Mt. Simon Aquifer, southern Minnesota. Eos, v. 64, no. 18, p. 225. 29. Groschen, G.E. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1981) Geochemistry of Williams Lake, Hubbard County, Minnesota. Amer. Geophys. Union 1981 Midwest Meeting, Sept. 17-18, 1981. 28. Milske, J.A., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Lively, R.S. (1981) Late Pleistocene cave deposits in southeastern Minnesota. Minn. Acad. of Sci. Abst. of Papers at 49th Ann. Meeting, p. 12. 27. Mohring, E. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1981) Quantitative tracing of underground streams. Minn. Acad. of Sci. Abst. of Papers at 49th Ann. Meeting, p. 12. 26. Milske, J.A. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1980) Detrital sediments in Mystery Cave, southeastern Minnesota. NSS Bull., v. 42, no. 4, p. 72. 25. Mohring, E. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1980) Quantitative fluorometric dye tracing in Fillmore County, Minnesota. NSS Bull., v. 42, no. 4, p. 72. 24. Spong, R.C., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Shaw, G.H., and Venkatakrishnan, R. (1980) Karst water tracing in Fillmore County, Minnesota. NSS Bull., v. 42, no. 2, p. 35. 23. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Shaw, G.H., Venkatakrishnan, R., and Spong, R.C. (1980) The southeast Minnesota karst project. NSS Bull., v. 42, no. 2, p. 35. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -64- 64 22. Lively, R.S. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1980) 230Th-234U ages of speleothems from Mystery Cave, Minnesota. NSS Bull., v. 42, no. 2, p. 34. 21. Saito, K., Menzies, M., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Pepin, R.O. (1978) Rare gases in mantle xenoliths. Eos, v. 59, no. 12, p. 1215. 20. Saito, K., Basu, A., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Dragon, J.C. (1977) Rare gases in mantle derived samples. Eos, v. 58, no. 12, p. 1249. 19. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Coscio, M.R., Jr., Dragon, J.C., and Saito, K. (1977) Rare gases in pegmatite minerals and in the acid insoluble residue from Gunflint chert. Eos, v. 58, no. 12, p. 1251. 18. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1976) Total fusion 40-Argon/39-Argon analyses of grain-size separated lunar soils. Eos, v. 57, no. 12, p. 1014. 17. Alexander, C. (1976) Terrestrial rare gases and the evolution of the Earth atmosphere. Chemical Evolution-Comparative Planetology, Sept. 29-Oct. 1, 1976; College Park Colloquia on Chemical Evolution, p. 34. 16. Norman, D.I., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Sawkins, F.J. (1976) Helium in cordierites: a possible indicator of low temperature metamorphic events. Eos, v. 57, no. 4, p. 352. 15. Beltrame, R.J., Norman, D.I., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Sawkins, F.J. (1976) Volatiles released by step-wise heating a cordierite to 1200°C. Eos, v. 57, no. 4, p. 352. 14. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Ozima, M. (1975) Rare gas fractionation patterns in terrestrial samples and the Earth-atmosphere evolution model. Eos, v. 56, no. 12, p. 1072. 13. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1974) 40Ar-39Ar studies of Precambrian cherts. Eos, v. 55, no. 4, p. 466. 12. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Evensen, N.M., and Murthy, V.R. (1973) 40Ar-39Ar and Rb-Sr studies of the Fiskenaesset Complex, West Greenland. Eos, v. 54, no. 11, p. 1227. 11. Fisher, R.L., Engel, C.G., and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1973) Preliminary 40Ar/39Ar studies of central Indian ridge gabbros and anothosites. Eos, v. 54, no. 11, p. 1220. 10. Srinivasan, B., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, P.K., and Reynolds, J.H. (1972) Rare gas analyses of Apollo sample 14318. Eos, v. 53, no. 11, p. 1038. 9. Davis, P.K. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1972) 40Ar/39Ar dating of Apollo sample 14066. Eos, v. 53, no. 11, p. 1038. 8. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1971) On the time evolution of the atmospheric 40Ar/36Ar ratio. Eos, v. 52, no. 11, p. 859. 7. Davis, P.K., Lewis, R.S., and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1971) 40Ar/39Ar dating of lunar samples. Eos, v. 52, no. 11, p. 857. 6. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Lewis, R.S., Reynolds, J.H., and Michel, M. (1971) Plutonium-244: Confirmation as an extinct radioactivity. Eos, v. 52, no. 7, p. 534. 5. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, P.K., Kaiser, W.A., Lewis, R.S., and Reynolds, J.H. (1970) Rare gas mass spectrometry of lunar samples. Pacific Conference on Chemistry and Spectroscopy. Oct. 6-9, 1970, San Francisco, program p. 66. 4. Srinivasan, B. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1970) Xenon in tellurium and cesium minerals. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -65- 65 Eos, v. 51, no. 4, p. 454. 3. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Srinivasan, B., and Manuel, O.K. (1970) I-Xe dating of meteorites. Eos, v. 51, no. 4, p. 340. 2. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Manuel, O.K. (1968) Noble gases in the inclusions of iron meteorites. Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, v. 49, no. 1, p. 237. 1. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Manuel, O.K. (1967) Noble gases in Canyon Diablo graphite. Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, v. 48, no. 3, p. 866. V. Research Reports 53. Larsen, Martin R., Scot B. Johnson, Jeffrey A. Green, Sophie M. Kasahara, Betty J. Wheeler and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2019) 2015 Olmsted County Dye Traces. MN DNR Report, April 2019, 14 p. https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/202540 52. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2018) Comments on Geophysical Investigation at the Meral Farm located in Mable, Minnesota, Critique sent to the Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 24 October 2018, 9 p. 51. Larsen, Martin R., Jeffrey A. Green, John D. Barry, Sophie M. Kasahara, Betty J. Wheeler and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2018) 2017 York Blind Valley Dye Trace, Fillmore County, MN. MN DNR Report, October 2018, 9 p. 50. Larsen, Martin R., John D. Barry, Sophie M. Kasahara, Betty J. Wheeler and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2018) Fountain Spring Cave Dye Trace, Fillmore County, MN, 2016 Dye Trace Report, MN DNR Report, October 2018, 9 p. 49. Barry, John D., Martin R. Larsen, Jeffrey A. Green, J. Wes Rutelonis and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2018) International Trace, Olmsted County, Minnesota, 2016 Dye Trace Report, MN DNR Report, October 2018, 12 p. 48. Barry, John D., Alycia K. Overbo, Jeffrey A. Green, Martin R. Larsen, Scott C. Alexander, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2018) Springdale Dye Trace Report, Olmsted County, Minnesota, 207 Dye Trace Report, MN DNR Report, October 2018, 13 p. 47. Barry, John D, Jeffrey A. Green, Caleb Fischer, Aaren Mathison, Jeffrey Weiss and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2018) Harmony West, Fillmore County, Minnesota, 2018 Dye Trace Report, MN DNR Report, September 2018, 10 p. 46. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2018) Excavation of Potential Sinkhole MN23:D10284, 26 July 2018 - Catalpa Site, Newburg Township, Fillmore County, MN, Field Report, 10 p. 45. Alexander, Scott C. and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2018) Carbon-14 Age Dating Calculations for Minnesota Groundwaters. MN DNR Report, February 2018, 34p. + Data Appendix. 44. Green, Jeffrey A., Andrew J. Peters, Andrew J. Luhmann, Scott C. Alexander, Betty J. Wheeler and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2016) Dye Trace Report Harmony, Minnesota Area, Traces: October 2007, June 2009 and November 2010. MN DNR Report, June 2016, 18 p. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -66- 66 43. Ustipak, Kelsi R., Jeffrey A. Green, Betty Wheeler and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2016) 1980 to 2012 Dye Tracing in the South Branch Whitewater River Valley, Elb/Altura, Minnesota Area. Report to the MN DNR, 24 June 2016, 12 p. 42. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (2016) Water Quality in Bore Holes at the 2016 MCES Regulator 04 Site. Report to Braun Intertec, 11 p. 41. Green, Jeffrey A., Andrew Luhmann, Scott Alexander, Betty Wheeler and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2016) Dye Trace Report on the Groundwater Springsheds of Roaring Spring and Frego Creek near Canton, Minnesota. Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources Report, Feb. 2016, 17 p. 40. Adams, Roberta, John Barry, Jeff Green, Robert Tipping, Tony Runkel and E. Calvin Alexander Jr. (2016) Minnesota Regions Prone to Surface Karst Feature Development. MN DNR Ecological & Water Resources Division, Series GW-01, 5 p. PDF available from: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/springshed.html Shape files at: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/geos-surface-karst-feature-devel 39. Johnson, Scott B., Jeffrey A. Green, Martin R. Larsen, Sophie M. Kasahara, Betty J. Wheeler and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2014) Wiskow Dye Traces 2014, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources Report, 3 Sept 2014, 45 p. 38. Green, Jeffrey A., John D. Barry and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2014) Springshed Assessment Methods for Paleozoic Bedrock Springs of Southeastern Minnesota. Report to the LCCMR. Sept. 2014, 48 pp. + Large Map: Green, Jeffrey A. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2014) Mapped Paleozoic Karst Springsheds in Southeast Minnesota. 48 p. PDF available from: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/springshed/springshed_assessment_protocols.pdf Map PDF available from: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/springshed/springshed_ma p.pdf 37. Phipps, Jacob D., Alexa J. LaQua and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2013) Dye Trace in Forestville Mystery Cave State Park. Univ. of Minn. Earth Sciences Dept. NSF REU Summer Intern Report. 8 p. 36. Groten, Joel T. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2012) Karst Hydrogeologic Investigation of Trout Brook, Dakota Co. Minnesota. Draft Plan B MSc Report, 21 December, 2012, 62 pp. 33. Groten, Joel, and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2011) Hydrogeologic Monitoring at University of Minnesota Outreach and Educational Park (UMore Park), 2011. A report to UMore Park, January 2012, 36 pp. 34. Anger, Cale T. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2010) Monitoring Hydrogeologic Response to Regional Aggregate Mining and Site Development – Data Assessment and Groundwater Evaluation. A report to the University of Minnesota Outreach, Research, and Educational Park (UMore Park), 15 March 2010, 68 pp. 33. Green, Jeffrey A., Andrew J. Peters, Andrew J. Luhmann, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Scott C. Alexander (2009) Frego Creek Spring 2009 Dye Trace. Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources Report, 23 p. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -67- 67 31. Green, Jeffrey A., Andrew J. Peters, Andrew J. Luhmann, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Scott C. Alexander (2008) Frego Creek Dye Trace. Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources Report, 69 p. 30. Green, Jeffrey A., Peters, Andrew J., Luhmann, Andrew J., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Alexander, Scott C. (2009) Harmony Fall 2008 Dye Traces, 23 p. [Unpublished DNR Report] 29. Green, Jeffrey A., Peters, Andrew J., Luhmann, Andrew J., Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Alexander, Scott C. (2008) Harmony Spring 2008 Dye Trace, 23 p. [Unpublished DNR Report] 28. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. and Scott C. Alexander (2005) A Karst Hydrogeochemical Investigation of Connections Between the Sinks of Hecker Creek, Stonehouse Springs and Selected Water Wells in Post Township, Allamakee County, Iowa. A report to: Sullivan & Ward, P.C., 801 Grand Ave., Suite 3500, Des Moines, Iowa 50309-2719, September 2005, 20 pp. + 2 Append. 27. Alexander, Scott C., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Hans-Olaf Pfannkuch, et classica (2005) Hydrogeology of the St. Paul Campus, January 2005, 76 pp. 26. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., (2004) Hydrogeologic Investigation of Karst near Askov Lagoon, Askov, Minnesota, Report to the Minnesota Pollution Control agency, 20 p. + 18 figures + 10 tables, + 3 appendices. 25. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Scott C. Alexander (1999) Van Zuilen Lagoon Dye Trace. report to Baumgartner Environics, August, 1999, 19 ms pages + appendix. 24. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Scott C. Alexander (1998) Karst Receptor Study Phase II -- Traces 2 & 3, Amoco Oil Company Spring Valley Terminal Spring Valley, Minnesota, Delta No. A091-88. report to Delta Environmental Consultants, March 27, 1998, 32 p. 23. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Scott C. Alexander (1997) Karst Receptor Study Phase II, Trace 1, Amoco Oil Company Spring Valley Terminal Spring Valley, Minnesota, Delta No. A091-88. report to Delta Environmental Consultants, January 21, 1997, 24 p. + appendix. 22. Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr., and Scott. C. Alexander (1996) Karst Receptor Study Phase I, Amoco Oil Company Spring Valley Terminal Spring Valley, Minnesota, Delta No. A091-88. report to Delta Environmental Consultants, July 25, 1996, 28 p. + 2 appendicies. 21. Jameson, Roy A. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1995) The waters of Mystery Cave, Technical Report. Report to the Minn. Dept. of Nat. Res., 414 p. 20. Fay, Steffan J., and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1994) Groundwater Dye Trace Report: Watson-Warrington Group Detention Structure, Section 17, Township 112 North, Range 15 West, Featherstone Township, Goodhue County, Minnesota. Report to Goodhue County Soil and Water Conservation District, February 1994, 25 p. + 3 appendices. 19. Jameson, Roy A. and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1993) The waters of Mystery Cave, Interpretive Report. Report to the Minn. Dept. of Nat. Res., 114 p. 18. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Barbara Huberty and Keith Anderson (1991). Olmsted County Dye Trace Investigation - Final Report, Report to Olmsted County via Donohue and Associates, February 1991, 7 loose leaf binders. 17. Foster, Michael B.J., Alexander, Scott C., Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Geology 5321 (1990) The October 1989 Dual Dye Trace through the Mystery Cave System. Report to the Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -68- 68 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, July, 1990, 29 p. 16. Alexander, E. C., Jr. (1990) Anion Analyses of Selected Wells and Springs: Oronoco Dye Trace Study. Report to Olmsted County, July, 1990, 35 p. 15. Alexander, E. C., Jr. (1990) Random Dye Detections - Oronoco Dye Trace Study: An Interim Data Summary and Interpretation. Report to Olmsted County, June, 1990, 28 p. 14. Alexander, E. C., Jr. and Howard D. Mooers (1990) Hydrogeologic Investigation of Groundwater Contamination Associated with the Lakeside Packing Co. Spray Fields. Report to Plainview Township Board, 33 p. 13. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Davis, M.A., and Alexander, S.C. (1989) Hydrologic study of Jewel Cave/Wind Cave. Final Report, National Park Service Contract CX-1200-5-A047. 12. Goff, Karin and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1989) A survey of Nitrate Contamination in Shoreview Wells. Report to UROP and Shoreview. July, 1989, 60 p. 11. Johnson, Kevin D. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1989) Depth Variations of Aquifer Water Chemistry in Western Hennepin County (Minnetrista, MN). Report to UROP and Minnetrista, June 25, 1989, 25 p. 10. Alexander, Scott C.. and Alexander, E.C.., Jr. (1989) Chemical and Isotopic Survey of the Age or Residence Times of Ground Waters in Minnesota. Report to the MPCA, 39 p. 9. Alexander, Scott C. and Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr. (1989) Hampton Minnesota Dye Trace. Report to Minn. Pollution Control Agency. March, 1989, 77 p. 8. Alexander, S.C. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1988) A Chemical and Isotopic Survey of the Age or Residence Times of Ground Waters of the Mesabi Range near Hibbing. Report to the MGS and IRRRB, 15 p. and 1 map. 7. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Alexander, S.C. (1987) A Chemical and Isotopic Survey of the Age or Residence Times of Ground Water in Rochester and Olmsted Counties. Report to MGS, Olmsted County and Rochester, 32 p. and 1 appendix. 6. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Samson, S., and Lively, R. (1986) Chemical and Isotopic Investigation of three wells near the Rosemount Facility. Report to the University of Minnesota, 6 p., 1 fig. and 1 table. 5. Alexander, E.C., Jr., Milske, J.A., Davis, M., and Samson, S. (1986) Isotope Investigation of Wells in and around New Brighton, Minnesota. Report to MGS, MPCA and City of New Brighton, 10 p. and 3 figures. 4. Milske, J.A. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1984) Fountain dye trace: final report, 29 June, 1984, Report to McGhie and Betts, Inc. and EPA, 19 p. and 2 appendices. 3. Dalgleish, J. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1984) Hydrogeologic investigation of the proposed expansion site of the Winona County (Murphy) Landfill. Report to Winona County, April, 1984, 33 p. 2. Alexander, E.C., Jr. and Milske, J., (1983) Age of the Water in the Schmidt Brewery Well Phase 2 Report. Report to G. Heileman, Inc. Feb. 1983, 12 p. 1. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1982) Age of the water in the Schmidt Brewery Well Phase 1 Report. Report to G. Heileman, Inc., May 1982, 18 p. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -69- 69 VI. Popular Articles 11. Alexander, E. Calvin Jr. (2012) The History of Caving in Minnesota. The Minnesota Speleology Monthly, vol. 44, no. 8 (August), p. 3-4. 10. Wheeler, Betty J., E.C. Alexander, Jr., and Russell S. Adams, Jr. (1990) Groundwater in Southeastern Minnesota's Karst Country. CURA Reporter, vol. 20, No. 2, p. 10-14. 9. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1990) Groundwater: The Invisible Resource. Imprint, vol. 7, No. 2, p. 1-3. 8. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1983) Groundwater: Hidden Questions: Hidden Answers. J. Freshwater, v. 7, p. 21-22. 7. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1983) Radiometric dating and the atmospheric argon correction in K/Ar dating. In: Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy, edited by P. Zetterburg, Oryx Press, Phoenix, Ariz., p. 350-353. 6. Sloan, R.E. and Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1982) Places of geological and mineralogical interest in Minnesota. Rocks and Minerals, v. 57, n.3, p. 132-134. 5. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1982) Minnesota caves. Rocks and Minerals, v. 57, n.3, p. 118-122. 4. Sloan, Robert and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (1982) Where to go & what to see. Rocks and Minerals. v. 57, n. 3, p 132-134. 3. Alexander, E.C. (1981) August 1981 Root River dye trace. Minn. Speleol. Monthly, v. 13, n. 9, p. 93-97. 2. Alexander, E.C., Jr. (1979) Radiometric dating and the atmospheric argon correction in K/Ar dating. J. Minn. Sci. Teachers Assoc., v. 1, p. 22-23. 1. Alexander, E.C. (1978) Extraterrestrial resources in the solar system, Foundation Report, v.2, p. 1-6. VII. Teaching Materials 8. Geologic Society of Minnesota (2003) Field Trip “Gasworks Bluff to Godrey’s Point: Urban Hydrogeology of the Platteville Limestone along West River Road, Along the Winchell Trail”. A ½ day field trip co-led with Greg Brick plus a 38 page Guidebook. 7. MPCA Short Courses (2002), four 6. Minnesota Karst Workshop (1999) Course Manual and Reference Manual. A 4 day workshop for the MPCA in Rochester, Mn, May10-13, 1999. Organized and cotaught the course. 5. Alexander, E. Calvin , Jr. and Jeffery A. Green (1997) Karst of Southeastern Minnesota, Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -70- 70 MGWA-AIPG-AWG Fall Field Trip 1997, Sept. 26-27, 1997, 100 p. 4. Sloan, Bob., and Calvin Alexander (1997) Southeastern Minnesota Middle Ordovician Carbonate stratigraphy, Biostratigraphy of a recovery from a mass extinction, and the related Cretaceous to Recent Karst, Guidebook for the 27th Annual Field Conference, Sept. 12-14, 1997, Rochester, Minn. Great Lakes Section, Soc. Econ. Paleontol. & Miner., 50 p. 3. Green, Jeffery A., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Dave Wall (1997) Liquid Manure Storage in the Karst Region, Evaluating and Minimizing the Risks, Sinkhole Field Trip, Lake Louise State Park to Lewiston, June 12, 1997, 40 p. 2. Alexander, E. C., Jr., (1991). Understanding Your Quality Data. 3" Notebooks Assembled for 6 Workshops held at: Duluth, January 23-24, 1991 Brainerd, February 6-7, 1991 New Ulm, February 20-21, 1991 Rochester, March 13-14, 1991 Morris, March 27-28, 1991 Crookston, April 3-4, 1991 1. Sloan, Robert and E. C. Alexander, Jr. (1985) Study Guide for: Physical Geology, Geo. 1001 (T451-W485), Physical Geology for Teachers, Geo. 5051 (T452-W485). University of MN Continuing Education and Extension, 50 pp. plus tear pages. VIII. Genealogy Publications (2670 pages Vol. 1 thru Vol. 9) 9. Alexander, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr., Ellanore Isabell McIntosh Alexander and Bill R. Alexander (2019) Volume 9 of Ever Onward to New Frontiers, The 250-Year Saga of the John & Levicy Alexander Family. North Star Press of St. Cloud, Clearwater, MN, 316 p. ISBN 978-1-68201-098-3 8. Alexander, Bill R., E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Ellanore Isabell McIntosh Alexander (2017) Volume 8 of Ever Onward to New Frontiers, The 250-Year Saga of the John & Levicy Alexander Family. North Star Press of St. Cloud, Clearwater, MN, 437 p. ISBN 978-1-68201-089-1 7. Alexander, Ellanore Isabell McIntosh, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Bill R. Alexander (2017) Volume 7 of Ever Onward to New Frontiers, The 250-Year Saga of the John & Levicy Alexander Family. North Star Press of St. Cloud, Clearwater, MN, 425 p. ISBN 978-1-68201-085-3 6. Alexander, Ellanore Isabell McIntosh, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Bill R. Alexander (2016) Volume 6 of Ever Onward to New Frontiers, The 250-Year Saga of the John & Levicy Alexander Family. North Star Press of St. Cloud, Clearwater, MN, 414 p. ISBN 978-1-68201-060-0 5. Alexander, Ellanore Isabell McIntosh, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Bill R. Alexander (2013) Volume 5 of Ever Onward to New Frontiers, The 250-Year Saga of the John & Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -71- 71 Levicy Alexander Family. North Star Press of St. Cloud, Clearwater, MN, 225 p. ISBN 978-0-87839-643-6 4. Alexander, Ellanore Isabell McIntosh, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. and Bill R. Alexander (2011) Volume 4 of Ever Onward to New Frontiers, The 250-Year Saga of the John & Levicy Alexander Family. North Star Press of St. Cloud, Clearwater, MN, 317 p. ISBN 978-0-87839-568-9 3. Alexander, Ellanore Isabell McIntosh, E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2010) Volume 3 of Ever Onward to New Frontiers, The 250-Year Saga of the John & Levicy Alexander Family. North Star Press of St. Cloud, Clearwater, MN, 232 p. ISBN 978-0-87839-391-9 2. Alexander, Ellanore Isabell McIntosh and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2007) Volume 2 of Ever Onward to New Frontiers, The 250-Year Saga of the John & Levicy Alexander Family. North Star Press of St. Cloud, Clearwater, MN, 245 p. ISBN 0-87839-259-9 1. Alexander, Ellanore Isabell McIntosh and E. Calvin Alexander, Jr. (2007) Volume 1 of Ever Onward to New Frontiers, The 250-Year Saga of the John & Levicy Alexander Family. North Star Press of St. Cloud, Clearwater, MN, 69 p. ISBN 0-87839-249-1 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -72- 72 Research Support While at the University of Minnesota Year Project Title Granting Agency Amount 2011 Innovative Springshed Mapping for Trout Stream Management III (Jul 2011 to Jun 2013) LCCMR 280,000 External Sales (calendar 2011) various 48,469 2010 Science and Innovation from the Soudan Iron Mine, (Jul 2009 to Jun 2013) Jeff Gralnick PI, $540,00, $43,740 to ECA, Jr. Co-PI LCCMR 43,740 Nitrate Data Tabulation (Jun 2010 to Dec 2011 MPCA 33,414 External Sales (calendar 2010) various 62,718 2009 Innovative Springshed Mapping for Trout Stream Management II (Jul 2009 to Jun 20011) LCCMR 250,000 UMore Park Monitoring Univ. of Minn. 26,000 External Sales (calendar 2009) various 17,040 2008 External Sales (calendar 2008) various 11,621 2007 Innovative Springshed Mapping for Trout Stream Management I (Jul 2007 to Jun 2009) LCCMR 270,000 External Sales (calendar 2007 to April) various 23,899 2006 External Sales (calendar 2006) various 39,084 2005 Site and Conceptual Design for the Soudan Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL) w Marshak et al. NSF 500,000 External Sales (calendar 2005) various 52,324 2004 External Sales (calendar 2004) various 104,573 2003 External Sales (calendar 2003) various 29,354 US EPA 319 via (Bob Tipping of the MGS) USEPA 15,000 2002 External Sales (calendar 2002) various 74,117 DNR Chemistry and Isotopes (2002-2003 MnDNR 32,000 LCMR Quarrys ’02-’03 via (Jeff Green of the DNR) MnDNR 30,000 US EPA 319 via (Bob Tipping of the MGS) USEPA 15,000 2001 External Sales (calendar 2001) various 88,380 US EPA 319 via (Bob Tipping of the MGS) USEPA 15,000 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -73- 73 Year Project Title Granting Agency Amount 2000 External Sales (calendar 2000) various 61,375 Groundwater Flow in OPDC (w Runkel and Tipping) (7/1/99-6/30/01) LCMR 120,000 Development of a State Wide Data Base of Selected Karst Features (w Tipping) (2/1/00 – 4/15/01) MDH 60,958 1999 External Sales (calendar 1999) various 89,481 Groundwater Flow in OPDC (w Runkel and Tipping) (7/1/99-6/30/01) LCMR 120,000 Felton Prairie Geophysics (-6/30/99) MNDNR 5,000 1998 Goodhue Co. Atlas (7/97-6/98) MNDNR 9,480 Mower Co. Karst Atlas (1/98-6/99) MNDNR 20,000 Tritium, 14C, and Stable Isotopes (7/97-6/99) MNDNR 84,000 ISTS/FEmA Project (7/97-6/99) MPCA/LCMR 30,000 External Sales various 55,707 1997 Isotopic Studies: Selected Minn Waters (fall, new) MPCA Isotopic Studies: Selected Minn Waters (1/10/96- 31/7/97) MPCA 16,244.29 Tritium, 14C, and Stable Isotopes (1/7/97-31/12/97) MNDNR Tritium, 14C, and Stable Isotopes (1/1/97-30/6/97) MNDNR 6,000 Goodhue Co. Atlas (7/96-6/97) MNDNR 9,300 Contract Research various 39,475 1996 Contract Research various 27,800 Tritium, 14C, and Stable Isotopes (7/95-12/96) MNDNR 19,850 Isotopic Studies of White Water and MN River Basin (1/10/95-30/09/96) MPCA 3,816 ISTS/FEmA Project (7/95-6/97) MPCA/LCMR 36,047 1995 Summer Session Improvement Grant U of MN 3,000 Minnesota River Implementation (7/95-6/97) MPCA/LCMR 85,500 Contract Research various 41,700 Tritium, 14C, and Stable Isotopes (FY 95) MNDNR 24,925 1994 Optical Brightener Study Dakota Co.-LCMR 32,519 Minnesota River Implementation (7/93-6/95) MPCA/LCMR 140,975 Tritium, 14C, and Stable Isotopes (FY 94) MNDNR 25,900 ISTS/FEmA Project MPCA/EPA 60,000 Contract Research various 58,058 Isotopic Studies of Minn. Groundwater V MPCA 27,500 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -74- 74 Year Project Title Granting Agency Amount 1993 Isotopic Studies of Minnesota Groundwater IV MPCA 22,747 Undergraduate Geodynamics Lab (w/Paola et al.) NSF 45,988 Tritium, 14C, and Stable Isotopes (FY 93) MNDNR 22,375 Contract Research various 34,020 Mystery Cave MNDNR 9,000 Coon Creek Anoka Consrv. Dst 28,428 1992 Isotopic Studies of Minnesota Groundwater III MPCA 87,609 Interactive Earth Systems - A Curriculum and Course Development Project (w/Murthy et al.) NSF 122,719 for 2 years Karst and Hydrogeochemistry/Fillmore County Atlas MN DNR 145,000 for 2 years Minn. Groundwater & Isotope Studies MGS 5,750 1991 Isotopic Studies of Minn. Groundwater II MPCA 56,028 A Field Tracer Test Method for Large Soil Samples USDA/CSRS 74,200 Minn. Groundwater Isotopic Studies USGS 7,720 A Field Tracer Test Method for Large Soil Samples WRRC 36,470 Mystery Cave Groundwater Investigation DNR/LCMR 62,000 Review of Mammoth Cave Hydrogeology Research NPS 5,000 Anoka Sand Plain Groundwater Isotopes & Geochemistry MGS 11,980 1990 Minn. River Valley Water Geochemistry USEPA 10,000 Isotopic Studies of Minn. Groundwater I MPCA 18,573 Peterson Trout Farm MDNR 1,200 Olmsted County Clean Water Partnership MPCA 10,000 Brown Nicollet Clean Water Partnership MPCA 10,000 Jordan Aquifer Sensitivity/Isotopes USGS 6,000 Forest Lake Isotope FLWS 2,550 Washington Co./Apple Valley/Isotopes Apple Valley 900 Eagan Isotopes Eagan 500 Burnsville Isotopes BDL WMC 500 1989 Stearns Co. Geology and Ground Water Hydrology SCSU 11,000 Jordan Aquifer Project LCMR via DNR 27,000 Straight River Age Dating USGS 4,000 Isotopic Studies of Minnesota Ground Waters MPCA 8,800 City of Detroit Lakes Chemical Isotopic Inves. Detroit Lakes 2,500 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -75- 75 Year Project Title Granting Agency Amount 1988 Hydrologic Connections and Water Quality at Lanesboro Hatchery MDNR 15,300 Water Budget for Wind and Jewel Caves NPS 14,000 Washington County Groundwater Age Study Washington County 15,000 Groundwater Age Studies MPCA 9,000 Hydrogeologic Investigation of Plainview Area Plainview Twp Brd 4,000 Hibbing Groundwater Age Study IRRRB 2,700 Pore Water Geochemistry USGS 12,500 Big Springs Demonstration Project Iowa DNR 8,750 1987 Hydrologic Study at Wind and Jewel Caves Nat'l Park Svc. 14,000 Groundwater Quality Variations in Southeastern, MN CURA 16,600 1986 Hydrologic Study at Wind and Jewel Caves Nat'l Park Svc. 13,771 Hampton Dye Trace MPCA 1,500 NASA Graduate Student Researchers - Gary Huss NASA 18,000 1985 Karst hydrogeological investigation of the Lanesboro watershed LCMR 255,000 Age residence times and recharge rates of groundwater in Minnesota aquifers LCMR 100,000 A search for accumulations of juvenile gases in the Earth's crust NASA 32,000 Hydrology Study of Wind and Jewel Caves Nat'l Park Ser. 13,498 NASA Graduate Student Researchers Program for Gary Huss NASA 18,000 Tracking agricultural and industrial pollutants through a karst hydrogeologic system (with Russel Adams) WRRC 15,100 Addition of H/D collector to mass spectrometer (with E. Ito) Graduate School 5,000 1984 Fountain Dye Trace EPA 15,000 A search for accumulations of juvenile gases in the Earth's crust NASA 39,000 Tracking agricultural and industrial pollutants through a karst hydrogeologic system (with Russel Adams) WRRC 15,100 1983 Forestville Creek Project Trout Unlimited 1,800 Initial CO2 Well Investigation NASA 4,975 Tracking agricultural and industrial pollutants through a karst hydrologic system WRRC 13,000 Geology of southeastern Minnesota LCMR 60,000 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -76- 76 Year Project Title Granting Agency Amount 1982 Application of Miniaturized, High Performance, Double Focusing Mass Spectrometers to Terrestrial Rare Gas and Stable Isotope Geochemistry NSF 208,000 Dye Trace of the South Branch Root River The Freshwater Biological Res. Foundation 5,500 Dye Trace of Murphy Landfill Winona County 5,300 1981 Drainage and Groundwater Protection in Karst Areas, S.E. Minnesota State of Minn.(LCMR) 60,000 (for 2years) Electrolytic Refining of Extraterrestrial Nickel-Iron Alloys The Space Foundation 7,000 1980 Rare Gas Studies on Lunar, Meteoritic and Selected Terrestrial Materials (with R.O. Pepin) NASA 130,000 1979 Isotopic and Geochemical Studies of Lunar Samples and Differentiated Meteorites (with V. Rama Murthy) NASA 20,000 Rare Gas Studies on Lunar Meteoritic and Selected Terrestrial Materials (with R.O. Pepin) NASA 120,669 Southeastern Minnesota Groundwater Study (with G.H. Shaw) State of MN (LCMR) 76,000 1978 Rb-Sr and 40Ar-39Ar Isotopic and Trace Element Studies of Lunar Samples and Meteorites (with V. Rama Murthy) NASA 106,500 Rare Gas Studies on Lunar, Meteoritic and Selected Terrestrial Materials (with R.O. Pepin) NASA 118,526 230Th/234U Disequilibrium Dating of Speleothems and Natural Waters U of M Graduate School 2,500 1977 Rare Gas Abundance and Isotopic Constraints on the Origin and Evolution of the Earth's Atmosphere NSF/OIP no funds transferre d Rare Gas Studies on Lunar Materials NASA 122,000 Geology and Subsurface Drainage in the Karst Region of S.E. Minn. (with G.H. Shaw) State of Minn. (LCMR) 60,000 Rb-Sr and 40Ar-39Ar Isotopic and Trace Element Studies (with V. Rama Murthy) NASA 112,000 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -77- 77 Year Project Title Granting Agency Amount 1976 Rare Gas Studies on Lunar Materials NASA 197,600 Rb-Sr and 40Ar-39Ar Isotopic and Trace Element Studies (with V. Rama Murthy) NASA 105,000 1975 Rb-Sr and 40Ar-39Ar Isotopic and Trace (with V. Rama Murthy) NASA 86,425 Rare Gas Studies on Lunar Materials NASA 92,006 1974 Rb-Sr and 40Ar-39Ar Isotopic and Trace Element Studies (with V. Rama Murthy) NASA $ 72,000 Isotopic and Trace Element Studies Related to Crust-Mantle History (with V. Rama Murthy) NSF 45,000 40Ar-39Ar Studies of Oldest Known Terrestrial Rocks Bearing on Continental Evolution and the Early History of the Earth U of M Graduate School 7,000 Rb-Sr and 40Ar-39Ar Isotopic and Trace Element Studies (with V. Rama Murthy) NASA 105,000 Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -78- 78 Students who did not complete their degree programs. 1. Frank, Edward Forrest Publications while advisee not including ECA, Jr. as co-author: a. Frank, E.F. (1995) Cave Phosphates, Isla de Mona Puerto Rico. Cave Research Foundation Annual Report, submitted b. Frank, Edward F. (1998) A radiocarbon date of 380 +/- 60 years BP for a Taino site, Cueva Negra, Isla de Mona, Puerto Rico. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 60, n. 2, p 101-102. c. Frank, Edward F. (1998) History of the guano mining industry, Isla de Mona, Puerto Rico. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 60, n. 2, p. 121-125. d. Frank, Edward F., and Benson Richard (1998) Vertebrate paleontology of Isla de Mona, Puerto Rico. Journal of Caves and Karst Studies, v. 60, n. 2, p. 103- 106. Research Awards: 1993 - $500 GSA Travel Award 1994 - $2,500 USGS Field Support for trip to Isla de Mona 1994 - $1,500 Cave Research Foundation Research Grant 2. Roy A. Jameson Publications while advisee not including ECA, Jr. as co-author: i. Dougherty, Percy H., Roy A. Jameson, Stephen R.H. Worthington, George N. Huppert, Betty J. Wheeler, and John W. Hess (1998) Karst regions of the eastern United States with special emphasis on the Friars Hole Cave System, West Virginia: In (Daoxian, Yuan, and Zaihau, Liu, eds.) Global Karst Correlation, UNESCO/IUGS International Geological Corrrelation Program, Project 299: Geology, Climate, Hydrology and KarstFormation (1900-1994), Final Report, p. 137-155. h. Jameson, Roy A. (1994) “Geochemistry of Karst Waters” and “Human Impacts on Karst and Management of Karst”, Virginia Karst Field Seminar, Virginia Assoc. Prof. Soil Scientists, Oct. 9, 1994, Radford Univ., VA. g. Jameson, Roy A. (1993) Management considerations for clay vermiculations. In: (Foster, Debra, L., ed.) Proceedings of the National Cave Management Symposium, The Amer. Cave Conserv. Assoc., Horse Cave, KY, p. 139-143. f. Jameson, Roy A. (1991) Management considerations for clay vermiculations (abs.) National Cave Management Symposium, Bowling Green, KY, Oct. 23-26, 1991, p. 9. Updated 14 April 2021 Alexander -79- 79 e. Jameson, Roy A. (1991) Thrust faults in the central Appalachian Karst: Broad patterns and an example from the Millpond passage of Greenville Saltpeter Cave, Monroe County, West Virginia. In: (Ernst Kastning, Ed.) Caves, Karst and Environmental Impact in the New River Drainage Basin of Virginia and West Virginia; Guidebook for a Geologic Field trip, Appalachian Karst Symposium, Radford, VA. d. Jameson, Roy A. (1991) Concept and classification of cave breakdown: An analysis of patterns of collapse in Friars Hole Cave System, West Virginia. In: (Ernst and Karen Kastning, eds.) Appalachian Karst, Radford University, Radford, VA, pp. 35-44. c. Jameson, Roy A. (1991) Fracture controls on groundwater flow and cave development in northern Greenbrier and southern Pocahontas Counties, West Virginia. (abs.) In: (Ernst and Karen Kastning, eds.) Appalachian Karst, Radford University, Radford, VA, p. 116. b. Jameson, Roy A. (1990) A classification of cave breakdown (abs.). 1990 Geol. Soc. Amer. Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, Abstracts with Program p. A109 a. Jameson, R.A. (1989) Features of condensation corrosion in caves of the Greenbrier Karst, West Virginia (abs.). 1989 Annual Convention, National Speleological Society, Sewanee, Tenn., Program, pp. 56-57. ®2021 Pulte Homes of Minnesota LLC. All rights reserved. BL#BC627273 April 28, 2021 City of Eden Prairie Mayor Ron Case Councilmember Mark Freiberg Councilmember PG Narayanan Councilmember Kathy Nelson Councilmember Lisa Toomey City Manager Rick Getschow Re: Noble Hill application – Response to comments and petition for EAW Dear Mayor, City Council, and City Manager: Our Noble Hill planning application has generated some comments and questions heard either at the Planning Commission public hearing held on March 22, 2021 or after this meeting. In addition, members of the public recently submitted a petition to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The purpose of this memo is to provide factual and science-based responses to these comments and questions to gain a better understanding of the issues. Executive Summary Based on the factual data assembled and analyzed, we have concluded the following: • The petition for an EAW should be denied. It lacks scientific basis and the studies we’ve completed to date do not suggest that any significant environmental issues exist. Furthermore, an EAW would not provide significantly greater information than what has already been collected. • The Noble Hill proposal sets aside over 31% of the land to protect the more sensitive areas on this property. • Fredrick-Miller Spring was originally a seep. Its origins are not that of an artesian condition but rather somewhat filtered surface water. • The source of the Fredrick-Miller Spring (seep) is located to the west of Spring Road at a higher elevation than the road or the outlet structure. Storm water and infiltrated water from Noble Hill, the Creek or even Spring Road can’t climb up a hill to get to the source of the seep. Noble Hill will not harm the quality of Fredrick-Miller Spring. ⚫ Page 2 • Storm water from Noble Hill will be controlled in rate and volume of runoff and treated through infiltration ponds. We will comply with all storm water management regulations at both the City and Watershed District levels. These regulations are very robust compared to regulations seen in other states. 1. Biodiversity The first of four justifications outlined in the petition is biodiversity of the property. The below Hennepin County Natural Resources Inventory Map was referenced in the petition. This map shows that a southwestern portion of the property is categorized as having “high” biodiversity significance, falling between “outstanding” and “moderate” categories. The remainder of the land has not been identified as outstanding, high, or even moderate biodiversity significance. ⚫ Page 3 Below is a graphic showing our engineering grading plan. The area southwest of the red line will be left undisturbed. The undisturbed area roughly matches the area identified as having high biodiversity significance. This land will be preserved and dedicated to the City for perpetual stewardship. It should be noted that the ecologist noticed that the biodiversity of the preserved area has been compromised to some extent since the biodiversity mapping was completed in the mid-1990’s: “The current lack of native ground cover in this area and the abundance of invasive, nonnative brush indicates it has likely declined in quality considerably over the last 25 years in terms of the native plant community characteristics that may have contributed to mapping as part of an area of higher biodiversity in the past.” ⚫ Page 4 The petition also references threatened and endangered species. We recently contracted with a highly reputable company (Stantec). We asked an ecologist from Stantec who formerly worked for the DNR to walk the site to determine if any threatened and endangered species, particularly Kitten-Tails were present. See the attached corresponding report summarizing her findings on the property. The site visit was conducted on the Standal Property during the week of April 19, 2021. No threatened or endangered species were found on the site. Another point discussed at both the public hearing and in the petition relates to tree removal. Incorrect comments were made by members of the public and in the petition about the number of trees that are proposed to be removed to create the Noble Hill neighborhood. We have worked very hard to lessen tree removal to a bare minimum, but in order to preserve the more environmentally sensitive property in the southwest, development (and therefore tree removal) will occur on the northern (old tree farm) parts of the property. The City has a stringent tree preservation ordinance and our application complies with this ordinance. Here are the facts regarding tree removal, preservation, planting, and mitigation: • There are 789 significant trees on the property which are identified by being either 12 to 32-inch in diameter deciduous or 8 to 24-inch coniferous trees. These exclude the trees planted as part of the “crop” for the tree farm. Heritage trees are significant deciduous trees 32 inches in diameter and significant coniferous trees 24 inches or greater in diameter. • 445 significant trees will be removed. • 344 significant trees will be saved. • Pulte will be planting 327 new trees. • Pulte will be paying a $190,625 tree mitigation fee which will provide funds for the City to plant trees throughout Eden Prairie. We also heard a question about the ability to save or relocate one specific group of white pines in one specific area (see below graphic). We evaluated the ramifications of this type of change. • Trees of this size, over 40 feet in height, are too large to ball/burlap and transplant to another location without doing irreparable damage to the root system that eventually kills the tree. Relocation is not an option. • Saving these trees pushes the development further into Outlot D. As discussed earlier in this narrative, Outlot D contains environmentally sensitive areas such as Sand Gravel Prairie, large tree stands and Riley Creek and associated wetlands. One of the strengths of this proposal is the fact that over 31% of the project site (the most environmentally sensitive areas) is being preserved as open space. Preserving some white pines at the expense of preserving the environmentally sensitive area that is contiguous with other City owned preservation land is not an environmentally attractive option. • The retaining walls needed to be built to accommodate this kind of adjustment to the plan would be significantly higher. The retaining wall that would be built into what is currently referred to Outlot D would need to be 20 feet high. ⚫ Page 5 2. Riley Creek Impairment The second of four justifications outlined in the petition is Riley Creek impairment. The primary concern is that the existing water quality of Riley Creek could be made worse or would be more difficult to improve after development of Noble Hill. Residents of the State of Minnesota are fortunate to have an abundance of water resources. To protect these valued assets, our state has developed a strong and comprehensive technical system of storm water regulations starting in the 1980’s. These regulations are robust compared to what we observe in other states. Our regulations typically involve two levels of regulatory authority: cities and watershed districts. For this application, we must comply with both City of Eden Prairie and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District storm water regulations. We have put forth a significant amount of engineering effort toward meeting all requirements and we will be in full compliance. Here are a few of the specific requirements that must be met prior to permits being issued: • Storm water regulations require that a newly created neighborhood must control and regulate 1) the rate at which storm water leaves the site; 2) the quality of the water leaving the site; 3) the volume of stormwater released must mitigate for the additional impervious surface; 4) stormwater from the site must protect area wetland(s) and shall meet certain discharge standards. ⚫ Page 6 • Noble Hill stormwater systems must after development maintain or decrease the level of phosphorous, level of impurities (known as total suspended solids), and annual volume of water released from the property. See below table for compliance. • Wetland protection standards require 75% of phosphorous be removed before water is discharged to a wetland and 90% of total suspended solids be removed. Pulte’s stormwater management system will exceed these requirements, removing 98% of total phosphorous and 98% of total suspended solids. • Due to the large amount of dedicated open space, Noble Hill has a comparatively low level of impervious surface. Just 6.3 acres of the 28.6 acres or a total of 22% of the development site will be covered with impervious surface. 40% is typical for low density residential neighborhoods. This low level of impervious surface positively impacts the rate, volume and quality of storm water runoff compared to more typical applications. • It should be noted that the existing Standal home, driveway, parking area, barn, and pool are located immediately adjacent to Riley Creek. Runoff goes directly into Riley Creek without holding back volume or treating the water. These facilities will be removed. In addition, two 100-gallon fuel oil storage tanks will be removed and properly disposed of, the well will be capped, and the old septic system will be eliminated. In total, removing these features will remove risks of pollutants entering Riley Creek, wetlands, and the water table. 3. Fredrick-Miller Spring The third of four justifications outlined in the petition is concern for contaminating the Fredrick- Miller Spring. While there was a lot of attention given to the Spring at the public hearing by people who spoke, scientific data was excluded from the very impassioned statements made that night. A significant amount of the work that must be completed to prepare a development application to the City involves a variety of “hard science” work. The civil engineering and geotechnical engineering work that we had completed for the application led us to strongly believe that the Noble Hill neighborhood could not negatively impact the quality of the spring water. However, to further clarify the science behind the Spring, we recently hired experts (geologists at Summit Envirosolutions) in ground water to specifically study whether it was possible that Noble Hill could negatively impact the quality of the spring water. That study has been completed and is attached to this memo. Results of the study confirm that the Noble Hill neighborhood will in no way negatively impact the water that comes out of the Fredrick-Miller Spring outlet structure. Below are the relevant findings: TSS Loading (lbs) TP Loading (lbs) Annual Volume (acre- ft) Existing* 865.1 4.762 5.8358 Proposed* 396.0 2.18 2.6716 ⚫ Page 7 • The petition incorrectly states that it is an “artesian spring fed well.” An artesian well is commonly under pressure between two poor permeable rock or soil formations. Geologically, this typically results in high quality water since the water is protected from surface contamination by the overlying low permeability rock or soil. The Spring was originally more of a seep, which occurs when a water table is perched above a sloped clay layer below sandy soil. The water from this seep flowed from the surface through permeable soil, found the clay layer, and ran on top of the clay layer until it surfaced on the hillside west of Spring Road. • The pipe from which people collect water from the Fredrick-Miller Spring and the source of the water are in two different locations. While the Fredrick-Miller Spring outlet structure (collection site) is on the east side of Spring Road on City-owned property, the source of the Spring (seep) comes from an elevated grade location on the west side of the road. • The Spring (seep) comes out of the ground 50 to 60 feet higher than Riley Creek. • The Standal property (Noble Hill) is on the east side of Spring Road. • The low point between the source of the Spring (seep) water and Noble Hill is the bed of Riley Creek. • The petition incorrectly states that the City only tests for coliform bacteria. It is our understanding from discussions with City staff that testing has also occurred for nitrates and since the land in the recharge area has converted from agricultural land to residential neighborhoods, test results have shown a significant reduction in nitrate levels. The petition contains unsupported allegations such as: “…the spring will be directly affected by the project…” The science does not support such allegations. The petition also included a brief document by a Professor Alexander from the University of Minnesota. Please see the attached Summit Envirosolutions response to this document. It is apparent that Professor Alexander did not have all the factual data available to form accurate conclusions. In conclusion, creation of Noble Hill will not impact the source of the Spring (seep), nor its collection site. Neither surface water nor infiltrated water can travel down the hill to a low point, travel beneath Riley Creek, and then travel up another hill to the source of the Fredrick-Miller Spring. See the below graphic for a representation and cross section of the area. ⚫ Page 8 4. Health, Safety and Quality of Life The fourth of four justifications outlined in the petition is concern for health, safety, and quality of life. Such criteria are very subjective and unscientific. However, we will attempt to address some of the comments. The petition discusses the need for an overall regional environmental study for homes and neighborhoods that have already been built in the surrounding area. This is not practical or reasonable. This is also not how our regulatory process works. Cities update their comprehensive plans every ten years. As part of this process, cities make value judgements regarding what land and natural resources should be preserved. The petition appears to be requesting a change to our entire regulatory system, demanding more stringent environmental regulations for storm water, biodiversity, air pollution, tree preservation, etc. Our regulatory system has evolved over time to find a balance between property rights, efficiency of infrastructure, accommodating population growth, and environmental protection. The petition request for a regional study is beyond the scope of this individual application. The petition also opposes the addition of more residents, traffic, noise, and air pollution. These are broad and imprecise points. Since this property has been planned for development for decades, the road network has been designed to accommodate traffic generated by this neighborhood. It cannot be denied that additional homes and people may increase noise and air pollution in the area. However, the overall density of housing in this area is lower than typically experienced in urban or even most suburban areas. There is no reason to believe that this area will produce more noise and air pollution than any other developed part of the Twin Cities area. Additionally, Pulte homes are 77% to 83% more efficient than the typical resale home. As a region, we have chosen to fit more people into infill areas to maximize efficiencies related to transportation, transit, air pollution, greenhouse gases, sewer, and water. The last petition comment in this section questions “road safety risks and sight-distance issues on Spring Road.” Transportation engineering is a hard science. Through empirical data collected over decades, safe road design standards have evolved. It is known how much sight-distance is required to have safe intersections at specific speeds. Our design will comply with these national design standards. It should be noted that as part of this design, site distance will be increased from what a person would see today. City Goal: Empty-nester housing It is our understanding that the City Council has an interest in providing housing options that meet the needs of aging populations. Every floor plan offered at Noble Hill will have an option to have a bedroom on the main floor of the home as well as a bathroom with a shower. This type of design accommodates empty nester buyers. City Goal: Pre-Wiring for Electric Vehicles We also understand that there is some interested in providing home buyers with an option to pre-wire their new home for electric vehicles. This option is and will be provided to all our home buyers through our electrical contractor. New homeowners can choose either 30 or 50 amp pre-wiring for charging EV cars. ⚫ Page 9 Conclusion We have worked hard to respond to comments heard at and since the public hearing. Our focus has been on utilizing hard science to gain a full understanding of the issues. Comments made at the public hearing and in the petition for an EAW are lacking in science. Many statements are casually and recklessly made with no scientific backing or proof. It is very disappointing to see false rumors spread without any basis in fact. The State of Minnesota previously determined specific thresholds for when an EAW will be required. The most common threshold for a residential development is 250 or more homes. There is discussion at our legislature to increase this threshold for a variety of practical reasons. The Noble Hill application includes just 50 homes and we have completed the following environmental studies: a wetland delineation, a tree inventory, storm water management, a rare plant survey, Fredrick-Miller Spring study, a geotechnical investigation, an archaeological reconnaissance level survey, a traffic study, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (searches for potential contaminants) and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. An EAW is not needed for this modest sized neighborhood, particularly given the findings of these studies. The purpose of completing an EAW is to decide whether a project warrants preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. These are commonly required for mines, pipelines, and other large and highly impactful projects. It is important to note that EAW’s are specific to individual projects/applications. They are not used to determine regional or area wide impacts, as suggested by the petitioners. It would be reasonable to ask the following question: What would an EAW provide that is not currently available for the Noble Hill application? The answer is: nothing. Here is a listing of the categories addressed in an EAW and a description of the corresponding work completed for Noble Hill. 1. Existing and proposed land cover types – This basic material is covered in the City planning staff report. 2. Permits required – This is a simple listing of all required permits. This doesn’t provide useful information to the City or to the public. 3. Land use – A description of existing land use and future land use is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. This material is also covered in the City planning staff report. 4. Geology, soils, and topography – We completed a topographic survey, a geotechnical investigation and a Fredrick-Miller Spring study which outlined and discuss all relevant issues. 5. Water resources – We completed a Fredrick-Miller Spring study, a wetland delineation, a thorough storm water management plan, a preliminary sanitary sewer plan, and a preliminary water plan. We have a full understanding of water resources and will comply with all water related regulations. 6. Contamination/hazardous materials – We completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a Phase II study. As part of the findings, we will be removing and properly disposing of two existing fuel storage tanks along Riley Creek. 7. Fish, wildlife, plant communities and sensitive ecological resources – The relevant tools were available for all parties to understand that the Sand Gravel Prairie area was ⚫ Page 10 considered sensitive and worthy of preservation. The plans were created enabling this preservation to occur. In addition, we completed a Rare Plant Survey which identified no threatened or endangered species on the property. 8. Historic properties – An archeological reconnaissance-level survey was completed with no findings of interest. 9. Visual – We have prepared cross sectional exhibits which show how views may be impacted by some homeowners in the Hennepin Village neighborhood. Some homeowners in Hennepin Village along the shared boundary will have changed views with the removal of trees, the addition of home, and the addition of planted trees. No trees will be removed from the Hennepin Village property. 10. Air – We have not completed any study in this area, nor is this required for residential neighborhoods. This question is aimed more at mines and large manufacturing plants which generate large amounts of emissions and/or odors. 11. Noise - We have not completed any study in this area, nor is this required for residential neighborhoods. This question is aimed more at mines and large manufacturing plants which generate significant noise, especially outside of typical work hours. 12. Transportation – A traffic study was completed and updated for the Noble Hill application. It found that the road network has the capacity to adequately serve this new neighborhood. 13. Cumulative potential effects – This is primarily handled at the City Comprehensive Plan stage. For instance, the City plans its infrastructure system (sewer, water, roads) to have the necessary connectivity and capacity to serve a fully built out City. The City’s parks/trails/open space/natural resource systems are also planned cumulatively. The dedication of Sand Gravel Bluff and other open space will add contiguous land to existing City open space. This question also deals with whether additional adjacent properties are planned for development soon which could impact this planning process. In this case, no adjacent properties appear to be guided for development soon. 14. Other environmental effects – This category is undefined. In summary, we are unable to determine any additional information that an EAW would provide. It is also inconceivable that this modest application would reach a threshold of requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. We have preserved the most sensitive environmental land on the property, equating to 31% of the land. This preserved land includes Riley Creek, wetlands, sand gravel prairie, and a wide buffer between the future homes and Riley Creek. The area with the most biodiversity is being preserved in perpetuity. Our application is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and all ordinances. We are complying with stringent storm water management requirements which protect Riley Creek. We have proven that Noble Hill will not harm the water quality of Fredrick-Miller Spring. And the surrounding infrastructure has been planned and designed to accommodate this neighborhood. ⚫ Page 11 An immense amount of work has been put forth to comply with regulations and to better understand the environmental impacts of this application. Based on the positive findings of this work, we respectfully request approval of this application. Sincerely, Pulte Homes Dean Lotter, Manager of Land Planning & Entitlement Pulte Homes Paul Heuer, Director of Land Planning & Entitlement Attachments: Stantec Rare Plant Survey Results Summit Envirosolutions Study of Fredrick-Miller Spring Summit Envirosolutions Response to Professor Alexander Comments (Many other studies are available upon request) Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 733 Marquette Avenue Suite 1000, Minneapolis MN 55402-2309 April 27, 2021 File: 193708305 Attention: Mark Rausch Alliant Engineering 733 Marquette Ave, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Reference: Noble Hill Rare Plant Survey Results Dear Mark, This letter presents the results of a rare plant survey conducted by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) on April 20, 2021 at the proposed Noble Hill Standal Property (project site) in Eden Prairie, MN. Background Kitten-tails (Besseya bullii), a state-listed threatened plant in MN, has been documented at two locations within a mile of the project site (MN DNR Natural Heritage Information System). As such, the DNR recommended a survey to assess potential suitable habitat within the project site and to avoid potential take of a protected species. Kitten-tails is a perennial forb that typically flowers in late April through May. It has large round basal leaves, and the flowering stems are spikes with yellow flowers. The whole plant is pubescent (hairy). It prefers dry prairie, oak savanna, and oak woodland habitats. Survey Methods and Results Prior to conducting the rare plant survey of the project site, a nearby kitten-tail reference population was observed on April 16 to confirm that the species was at a good growth stage for potential detection at the project site. Many of the plants in the reference population were bolting at that time, with flower stems emerging through the flattened stems of last year’s prairie grass growth (see attached photo log). Basal leaves were deep green, up to 3” across, and readily detected through the prairie grass cover. Prairie species with somewhat similarly shaped basal leaves, such as alumroot (Heuchera richardsonii) and Parlin’s pussytoes (Antennaria parlinii), were also present in the same habitat. Prairie species in bloom at the reference kitten-tail site included pasqueflower (Anemone patens), ground plum (Astragalus crassicarpus), and sun-loving sedge (Carex inops). The pedestrian meander survey for kitten-tails at the project site was completed on April 20 by Larissa Mottl, Stantec senior ecologist and DNR pre-approved surveyor for rare plants. The survey focused on areas of potential suitable habitat within the proposed tree clearing and grading limits for the project site and the DNR-mapped Dry Sand-Gravel Prairie habitat in Outlot D. No kitten-tails or other rare plant species were observed in those focal survey areas at the project site. April 27, 2021 Mark Rausch Page 2 of 14 Reference: Noble Hill Rare Plant Survey Results Potential suitable kitten-tails habitat was observed at the project site in the area mapped by the DNR as native Dry Sand-Gravel Prairie in Outlot D, but no kitten-tails or other rare plants were observed there. A photo of this area is provided in the attached photo log. This native prairie occurs beyond the proposed tree clearing and grading limits, but within the area illustrated as a bluff impact zone on the attached map. The prairie is degraded by eastern red cedars (Juniperus virginianus) which have nearly eliminated all growth by prairie plants within their driplines. Nonnative, invasive plants such as leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and crown vetch (Securigera varia) occur there as well. Two small areas within the proposed tree clearing and grading limits were observed to have patchy to continuous cover by native prairie grasses. These areas are highlighted on the attached map. The south area is contiguous with prairie in the Prairie Bluff Conservation Area to the south and primarily had Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), along with little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), and the native prairie forb, bee balm (Monarda fistulosa). The north area occurs on a northwest-facing slope with eastern red cedars. Porcupine grass (Hesperostipa spartea) and marbleseed (Onosmodium molle) were observed there, in addition to Indian grass, big bluestem, sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), and little bluestem. Both of these areas are of poor quality and had few native prairie forbs. The forbs detected at the time of the field visit (bee balm and marbleseed) are very disturbance-tolerant species that can also colonize disturbed areas and old fields. Based on the April 20, 2021 field observations, the remaining open and forested areas within the proposed tree and grading limits are not suitable habitat for kitten-tails. Representative photos are attached in the photo log. Most of the project site has open canopy with planted conifers and ground cover dominated by nonnative grasses such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). There are scattered prairie grasses that have colonized the open upland areas. Pockets of oak and deciduous woodland cover (such as basswood, ash, elm, black cherry, quaking aspen, and boxelder) were checked specifically for the quality of the ground layer and suitability for kitten-tails. A portion of woodland along the southwest edge of the proposed clearing/grading limits was included in a Site of High Biodiversity Significance, mapped by the Minnesota County Biological Survey in the mid-1990s. The current lack of native ground cover in this area and the abundance of invasive, nonnative brush indicates it has likely declined in quality considerably over the last 25 years in terms of the native plant community characteristics that may have contributed to mapping as part of an area of higher biodiversity in the past. Deciduous woodland areas throughout the project site typically had minimal ground cover due to thickets of common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) or honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) in the understory. Where ground layer species were present, nonnative species including garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and motherwort (Leonurus cardiaca) were common. In more open areas with open-grown oaks or basswood, the ground cover beneath the trees was dominated by smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass. Areas with planted pines or spruce had dominant ground cover comprised of nonnative grasses or pine needle duff. Summary In summary, no kitten-tails or other rare plants were detected at the project site within the proposed limits for tree clearing or grading, or in the Dry Sand-Gravel Prairie in Outlot D, at the time of the survey. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. April 27, 2021 Mark Rausch Page 3 of 14 Reference: Noble Hill Rare Plant Survey Results Regards, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Larissa Mottl M.S. Senior Ecologist Phone: 612 712 2096 Larissa.Mottl@stantec.com Paul Bockenstedt Senior Ecologist, Senior Project Manager Phone: 612 712 2018 Paul.Bockenstedt@stantec.com Attachment: Project Site Map, Photo Log, Résumés c. Paul Heuer (PulteGroup), Dean Lotter (PulteGroup), file PROJECT SITE MAP The following Exhibit O: Noble Hill - Sensitive Resource Map was provided by Alliant Engineering. Annotations have been added to illustrate two areas (shaded in yellow) with native prairie grass cover observed during the April 20, 2021 rare plant survey. OSPREY POINTJUNE G R A S S L N WETLAND 1 JU N E GRASS LNCREEK TOP OF BANK (OHWL) DELINEATED WETLAND LIMITS 30' STRUCTURE SETBACK TOP OF BLUFF TOE OF BLUFF SAND-PRAIRIE AREA PROPOSED TREE CLEARING / GRADING LIMIT NOBLE HILL - SENSITIVE RESOURCE MAP EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA EXHIBIT O April 27, 2021 Mark Rausch Page 5 of 14 Reference: Noble Hill Rare Plant Survey Results PHOTO LOG Reference kitten-tail population – bolting flower stems - April 16, 2021 April 27, 2021 Mark Rausch Page 6 of 14 Reference: Noble Hill Rare Plant Survey Results Reference kitten-tail population – basal leaves - April 16, 2021 April 27, 2021 Mark Rausch Page 7 of 14 Reference: Noble Hill Rare Plant Survey Results Standal Property - Dry Sand-Gravel Prairie (center) and Prairie Bluff Conservation Area prairie (to the right/south of fenceline) – April 20, 2021 April 27, 2021 Mark Rausch Page 8 of 14 Reference: Noble Hill Rare Plant Survey Results North area of prairie grasses on northwest slope – April 20, 2021 April 27, 2021 Mark Rausch Page 9 of 14 Reference: Noble Hill Rare Plant Survey Results South area of prairie grasses adjacent to the Prairie Bluff Conservation Area (view west) – April 20, 2021 April 27, 2021 Mark Rausch Page 10 of 14 Reference: Noble Hill Rare Plant Survey Results Representative open upland cover at the Standal Property – April 20, 2021 April 27, 2021 Mark Rausch Page 11 of 14 Reference: Noble Hill Rare Plant Survey Results Mature oaks with buckthorn thicket – April 20, 2021 April 27, 2021 Mark Rausch Page 12 of 14 Reference: Noble Hill Rare Plant Survey Results Open-grown bur oak with buckthorn thicket and garlic mustard – April 20, 2021 April 27, 2021 Mark Rausch Page 13 of 14 Reference: Noble Hill Rare Plant Survey Results Example deciduous woodland cover – April 20, 2021 April 27, 2021 Mark Rausch Page 14 of 14 Reference: Noble Hill Rare Plant Survey Results Example deciduous woodland cover – April 20, 2021 Larissa Mottl Ecologist · 21 Years of Experience · Minneapolis, Minnesota * denotes projects completed with other firms Ms. Mottl is an ecologist with over 20 years of experience with natural resources management, natural area inventory, and ecological restoration in the Midwest. She has conducted natural area and native plant community GIS mapping and assessments and rare plant surveys in Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan. She is accomplished at ecological restoration and conservation land management planning, and specifically project planning and design for the protection and restoration of rare natural resources. Through her former role as a natural resources program coordinator with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Scientific and Natural Area Program, she conducted rare plant surveys and implemented ecological restoration to enhance prairie habitat for rare prairie plants such as kitten-tails (Besseya bullii), prairie moonwort (Botrychium campestre), tuberous Indian plantain (Arnoglossum plantagineum), edible valerian (Valerian edulis), prairie bushclover (Lespedeza leptostachya), and small white lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium candidum). EDUCATION Bachelor of Arts in Biology with Distinction, University of Minnesota, Morris, Morris, Minnesota, 1996 Master of Science in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Iowa State University , Ames, Iowa, 2000 CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING Aquatic Plant Identification, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2019 Pre-Approved Surveyor for Plants, including Prairie Bushclover (Lespedeza leptostachya), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota, 2019 Natural Heritage Information System Training, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2016 MEMBERSHIPS Board Member, Minnesota Native Plant Society Member, Society for Ecological Restoration Member, Natural Areas Association PROJECT EXPERIENCE Botanical and Natural Area Surveys Rare Plant Survey: Bladderpod (Physaria ludoviciana), Red Wing, Minnesota Larissa conducted a survey for bladderpod (Physaria ludoviciana), a Minnesota state-listed plant, and suitable habitat on bedrock bluff prairie near Red Wing. Recommended avoidance measures for trail maintenance and restoration activities. Rare Plant Surveys in Dry Sand-Gravel Prairie and Oak Barrens: Andover, Minnesota Conducted surveys for rare prairie plants such as seaside three-awn (Aristida tuberculosa) and tall nutrush (Scleria triglomerata) in a utility right-of- way and documented populations. Rare Plant Survey: Prairie Moonwort (Botrychium campestre)*, Minnesota Larissa assisted with a survey for prairie moonwort (Botrychium campestre) in dry bedrock bluff prairie at the Oronoco Prairie Scientific and Natural Area in Olmstead County, MN. Larissa Mottl Ecologist · 21 Years of Experience · Minneapolis, Minnesota * denotes projects completed with other firms Oronoco Prairie Scientific and Natural Area Prairie Restoration and Rare Plant Monitoring*, Oronoco, Minnesota Larissa developed plans and project specifications for woody removal, invasive plant species control, prescribed fire, and inter-seeding to enhance native bedrock bluff prairie habitat for several rare plant species. She also documented a new occurrence for the federally-listed threatened species, prairie bushclover (Lespedeza leptostachya). She directed field staff, contractors, and volunteers in restoration activities, conducted rare plant monitoring, developed multi-year project plans for grant proposals, and administered grant- funded projects at the SNA. Rare Plant Survey: Small White Lady's-slipper (Cypripedium candidum)*, Minnesota Larissa conducted baseline surveys for small white lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium candidum) populations in calcareous fen at MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Scientific and Natural Areas in Savage and Chanhassen, MN, prior to woody removal and prescribed fire restoration activities. She coordinated survey activities with the Minnesota Biological Survey and a volunteer. MDOT I94/US31 Rare Plant Surveys, Benton Harbor, Michigan, United States Larissa assisted with three rare plant surveys of approximately 450 acres of Michigan Department of Transportation Right-of-Way resulting in records for four Michigan state-listed plant species. Rare Plant Survey: Dwarf Lake Iris (Iris lacustris) and Houghton's Goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii), Mackinaw City, Michigan Larissa conducted field surveys for two focal rare plant species and for occurrences of invasive plant species in the project area. Rare Plant Survey: Sand Prairie at Vinton (Iowa) Airport Larissa assisted with a rare plant search for narrowleaf pinweed (Lechea tenuifolia), twisted yellow-eyed grass (Xyris torta), and other species in sand prairie in east-central Iowa. Rare Plant Survey: Murray (Iowa) Larissa assisted with a rare plant search for western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara). Ecological Monitoring and Restoration Prairie Vegetation Surveys*, Minnesota Larissa conducted vegetation surveys at over 50 remnant prairies throughout west-central Minnesota for a retrospective study of the effects of fire and grazing on pollinators and native plants. She identified over 300 plant species at all stages in the growing season, and in grazed conditions. Larissa trained and directed a field assistant, provided field safety implementation and oversight, and completed data entry and data quality control. Minnesota DNR Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) Management and Restoration*, Minnesota As program coordinator for a 23-county DNR administrative region with over 50 SNAs and DNR conservation easements, Larissa directed management and ecological restoration projects, worked with contractors in developing adaptive management plans, conducting monitoring and field surveys for rare plants, managed annual budgets of over $500k, developed project proposals for grant funding, guided a network of volunteer site stewards, and collaborated with several conservation organizations, local and county governments, and private landowners on management and acquisition projects. Larissa Mottl Ecologist · 21 Years of Experience · Minneapolis, Minnesota * denotes projects completed with other firms Prairie Stewardship Plans for Conservation Easements, Minnesota Larissa is working with MN DNR staff and landowners in developing management plans for MN DNR Native Prairie Bank conservation easements. Sites often have rare plant occurrences. Plan development includes field assessments, landowner and DNR staff meetings, determining priority natural features for management and restoration activities, and articulating activities and timelines for management activities. Planning involves consideration of rare plants and animals and the appropriate use of prescribed grazing, prescribed haying, prescribed fire, and invasive species control methods. Larissa has documented new populations of rare plants through field surveys. Habitat Management Plans for Conservation Easements, Minnesota Collaborating with landowners and Minnesota Land Trust staff, Larissa is developing management plans for conservation easements throughout Minnesota. In addition to field assessments and native plant community GIS mapping, plan development involves balancing the natural resource management and restoration needs of the properties with the goals of the landowners in order to assign realistic goals and appropriate ecological restoration activities. Larissa has documented two state-listed plant species during field surveys including ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) and black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata). Adaptive Management Plans for Scientific and Natural Areas, Minnesota Larissa worked with MN DNR staff in developing Adaptive Management Plans for Scientific and Natural Areas. The site-specific plans included identification of rare resources, and developing specific activities and timelines for management, restoration, monitoring, and outreach activities for the protection of rare plants and animals and habitat enhancement. Grinnell College Conard Environmental Research Area Management*, Grinnell, Iowa As biological field station manager and outreach coordinator, Larissa planned and led management, ecological restoration and monitoring, research, and outreach activities. Management included forest, savanna, and prairie restoration, invasive species control, prescribed burns, ecological monitoring, and involving volunteers in management activities. Paul Bockenstedt Ecologist · 33 Years of Experience · Minneapolis, Minnesota Mr. Bockenstedt is an Ecologist. Paul has worked in the natural resources field since 1983 and, before joining Stantec, worked at a number of public agencies in the upper Midwest, including the Minnesota DNR and Iowa DNR. At Stantec, Paul inventories, monitors, manages, and restores a wide variety of natural areas across the upper Midwest. Paul has performed numerous rare plant searches, both as free standing projects and as part of other natural areas inventory work. Since joining Stantec in 1997, Paul has documented more than 300 previously unrecorded rare plant records throughout the upper Midwest, including numerous state and county records in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois. Paul’s work has resulted in the first confirmed records in Minnesota for the following plant species: Baldwin’s ironweed Vernonia baldwinii, licorice bedstraw Galium circaezans var. hypomalacum, pokeberry Phytolacca americana, and sweet coneflower Rudbeckia subtomentosa. EDUCATION M.A. Biology, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, 2002 B.S. Environmental Sciences, University of Dubuque, Dubuque, Iowa, 1989 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Natural Areas Inventory/Rare Plant Surveys Vinton (Iowa) Airport Rare Plant Search Paul conducted a rare plant search that resulted in documentation of three new rare plant populations: Ozark milkvetch (Astragalus distortus), cleft phlox (Phlox bifida), and lanceleaf violet (Viola lanceolata). IA DNR State Preserve Botanical Surveys Paul was project manager and conducted floristic/ plant surveys at four of Iowa’s State Preserves, including Little Maquoketa Indian Mounds, Slinde Mounds, and Crossman Prairie. MN DNR State Trails Land Cover Surveys Natural areas mapping, rare plant population mapping and management planning on over 300 miles of MN DNR-owned trails throughout the state, including Paul Bunyan, Heartland, Douglas, and Harmony-Preston Trails Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) - Management planning for this state/ federal-listed rare plant at multiple MN DNR and private conservancy sites in western Minnesota. Busse Woods Rare Plant Survey/Natural Community Mapping Paul served on a team of botanists to conduct rare plant searches and natural areas classification/ quality ranking for this site in Elk Grove, IL. IA DNR Lower Wapsipinicon River Natural Areas Inventory - Paul served as project manager/plant ecologist to inventory select natural areas in the lower Wapsipinicon River valley, as well as classifying and qualitatively ranking natural areas. The project resulted in documentation of multiple new rare plant species, including: Matricary grape fern (Botrychium matricariifolium)-a county record, lanceleaf violet (Viola lanceolata), autumn fimbristylis (Fimbrisylis autumnalis), water shield (Brassenia schreberii), and others. Central MN Event Center Tubercled-rein Orchid Search, St. Cloud, Minnesota T/E Plant Search for Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis), Dodge County, Minnesota Viking Voyageur Gas Pipeline — Rare plant searches and natural community inventory of 400 miles of right-of-way in Minnesota and Wisconsin Twin Metals Minnesota — Rare plant searches and Native Plant Community mapping on 7,600+ acres of a proposed copper-nickel mine site in northern Minnesota. Paul Bockenstedt Ecologist · 33 Years of Experience · Minneapolis, Minnesota MN DNR - Minnesota County Biological Survey Plant Ecologist (2008-09) Paul served as the primary consulting plant ecologist for the effort to locate rare plant populations, as well as map high-quality Native Plant Communities and Sites of Biodiversity Significance in Watonwan and Faribault Counties Hormel Nature Center Tubercled-rein orchid Population Management Paul identified a new population of more than 500 tubercled-rein orchids (Platanthera flava var. herbiola) in close proximity to drained wetlands. Paul worked with wetland scientists and engineers to develop a wetland restoration plan that successfully restored hydrology to the drained wetlands without impacting the state-threatened orchid population. Xcel Energy CapX 2020 Rare plant searches, natural areas inventory and wildlife habitat assessment on 100+ miles of ROW; including documentation of several new yellow pimpernel (Taenidia integerrima) and glade mallow (Napaea dioica) populations. Will County Forest Preserve District (Illinois) Floristic Surveys, Natural Areas Mapping, Floristic Quality Assessment analysis are rare plant surveys at seven preserves throughout Will Co. MN DNR Lyle-Austin Wildlife Management Area Natural Community Inventory and Rare Plant Search - Resulting in documentation of over 20 new rare plant records along a 9.5-mile former railroad right-of-way. Viking Gas Transmission – Staples Loop Rare Plant Survey - Search for tubercled-rein orchid (Platanthera flava var. herbiola) Big Sand Mound State Preserve Natural Resources Management Plan (Louisa, IA) Paul served as the lead ecologist to develop a restoration and management plan for portion of this iconic sand prairie preserve that occurs on Louisa Generating Facility grounds. Badger Army Ammunition Plant, Rare Plant Inventory and Management Plan, Baraboo, WI Work included field inventory over two growing seasons documenting multiple rare plant populations on approximately 1,500 acres and development of management recommendations to sustain rare plant populations. Dodge County (MN) Roadside Prairie Inventory and Rare Plant Search Paul served as the plant ecologist for this MN DNR project to locate, classify, and qualitatively rank prairies along all secondary roadsides in Dodge County, resulting in the documentation of more than 15 new rare plant populations. Goodhue Co Natural Areas Inventory, Minnesota Paul served as project manager and lead plant ecologist for this two-year, county-wide inventory of natural communities, rare plants, and sensitive resources. The effort resulted in documentation of a new calcareous fen, numerous high-quality plant communities, and 34 new rare plant populations. Gogebic Range Rare Plant Surveys and Natural Community Type Mapping – Hurley, WI Included multiple search visits on ~7,000 acres, resulting in documentation of the largest known concentration of Braun’s holly fern (Polystichium braunii) in Wisconsin, as well as multiple populations of New England sedge (Carex novae angliae), Rocky Mountain sedge (Carex backii) and others. Olmsted County Natural Resource Corridors/CIP Bridge Replacement Plan Natural Areas Inventory Resulted in documentation of sweet-scented Indian plantain (Hasteola suavolens) and glade mallow (Napaea dioica) populations. Monitoring of the federal threatened prairie bushclover (Lespedeza leptostachya) in south- central Iowa Paul’s Master’s Thesis was to monitor the effects of grazing, prescribed fire, and no treatment on the recruitment, survival and longevity of prairie bushclover. Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. ∙ 5608 International Parkway ∙ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 www.summite.com April 9, 2021 Mr. Dean Lotter PulteGroup, Inc. 7500 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite 670 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Mr. Mark Rausch Alliant Engineering, Inc. 733 Marquette Avenue Suite 700 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2340 Subject: Results of Impact Assessment Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Messrs. Lotter and Rausch: Summit Envirosolutions Inc. (Summit) was retained to evaluate whether there would be an impact to the Fredrick-Miller Spring (Spring) located at 9995 Spring Road in Eden Prairie, Minnesota as a result of the Noble Hill development. This letter presents the results and conclusions regarding our assessment of impacts from the proposed development activities. Summit performed the following Scope of Services: • Compiled published geologic information in the area within a Geographic Information System (GIS); • Performed field reconnaissance to evaluate the current conditions and hydrogeologic setting of the Spring; • Obtained surveyed elevations of pertinent Spring and proposed development features; and, • Prepared this letter report that summarize our findings and conclusions. Figure 1 shows the location of the outlet structure for the Spring. Figure 2 presents the topography of the area with the proposed project limits, the possible recharge area of the Spring, and the potential area of the original seep before the water was piped beneath Spring Road. The topography is characterized by steep hills on both sides of Spring Road and a valley that contains Riley Creek. Fredrick-Miller Spring Impact Assessment April 9, 2021 Page 2 The Geologic atlas of Hennepin County (Balaban, N.H., 1989) was consulted to obtain geologic information in the vicinity of the Spring. As shown on Figure 3, the surficial geology of the area is comprised of alluvium, colluvium, outwash, and till. The alluvium and colluvium are Holocene-age deposits that represent reworking of older glacial sediments. The outwash and till deposits are Pleistocene- age glacial deposits and are part of the New Ulm Formation. The outwash deposits are comprised of sand and gravel and the till deposits are comprised of clay. Summit obtained well logs from the Minnesota Well Index to obtain more information regarding subsurface geology. Four wells were identified within the potential recharge area as shown on Figure 4. The well logs are attached and the information is summarized below: Well ID Elevation Top of Clay Depth Top of Clay Elevation 437574 899 91 808 407642 855 110 745 205960 910 125 785 194925 901 135 766 Average 776 The subsurface geology is characterized by 91 to 135 feet of sandy outwash underlain by clay till. The presence of the clay at each well location may explain why groundwater seeped out of the side of the east- facing hill above the Spring until the water was piped down the hill to the Spring outlet structure. The precipitation that infiltrates vertically through the sand cannot penetrate the clay, hence the horizontal movement toward the Spring. The general interpreted hydrogeologic setting is depicted on Figure 5. Based on the published data, the field reconnaissance, and our experience in similar geologic terrains, it is our opinion that the entire recharge area for the Fredrick-Miller Spring is located west of Spring Road and that activities associated with the proposed development will have no impact on the quantity or quality of the water recharging the Spring. Please contact us if you have questions regarding the contents of this letter or the project in general. Sincerely, Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. ____________________ Bruce D. Johnson, PG Principal ___________________ John E. Dustman, PG Principal Figure 1 Fredrick-Miller Spring Location File: 20210407_FMSSummit Proj. No.: 2265-0001Plot Date: 4/8/2021Arc Operator: JEDReviewed by: BDJ Pioneer Park RileyCre ekBl u f f Cr e ekRice Lake Spring RdShetlandRdEden PrairieRdP ros pect RdSky LnSpri n g RdDellRdP io nee r T r l PioneerTrl Flying C loud D r Prairie BluffConservationArea The Landing S taringLake P k wy Grass Lake Riverview R d Charlson R d Pioneer T r l Flying CloudAthletic Fields Staring LakePark Flying CloudAirport Minnesota R iver Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA Fredrick Miller Spring & µ 0 10.5 Miles Figure 2 Area Topography File: 20210407_FMSSummit Proj. No.: 2265-0001Plot Date: 4/9/2021Arc Operator: JEDReviewed by: BDJ 00437574 00205960 00194925 00407642 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Fredrick Miller Spring Outlet Structure &µ 0 1,000500 Feet Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, Minnesota Well Possible Spring Recharge Area & Potential Seep Location Figure 3 Surficial Geology File: 20210407_FMSSummit Proj. No.: 2265-0001Plot Date: 4/8/2021Arc Operator: JEDReviewed by: BDJ Ql Ql Qc Qc Qts Qht Qts Qas Qht Qht Qht Qht 00437574 00205960 00194925 00407642 Fredrick Miller Spring & µ 0 500250 Feet Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, Minnesota Qts, New Ulm Fm, TC outwash Qht, New Ulm Fm, Heiberg till Qas, Alluvium, fine-grained Qc, Loamy sand and gravel Surficial geology Possible Spring Recharge Area Balaban, N.H.. (1989). C-04 Geologic atlas of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey. Figure 4 Wells Within Spring Recharge Area File: 20210407_FMSSummit Proj. No.: 2265-0001Plot Date: 4/8/2021Arc Operator: JEDReviewed by: BDJ 00437574 00205960 00194925 00407642 Fredrick Miller Spring &µ 0 500250 Feet Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, Minnesota Balaban, N.H.. (1989). C-04 Geologic atlas of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey. Well Possible Spring Recharge Area 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 Distance (feet) 740 760 780 800 820 840 860 880 Elevation (Feet AMSL)&&Clay Sand &&& &Perched Water Table Precipitation Infiltrates &&Riley Creek Pipe Seep West East &Fredrick- Miller Spring Outlet Structure &Figure 5 Interpreted Hydrogeologic Setting File: 20210407_FMSSummit Proj. No.: 2265-0001Plot Date: 4/9/2021Arc Operator: JEDReviewed by: BDJ Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, Minnesota 300 450 600 750 950150 1,050 1,200 1,350 1,500 1,650 1,800 1,950 2,100 2,250 2,400 Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031437574 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Eden Update Date 10/16/2019 Quad ID 104C Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed OLSON, BRUCE 116 22 W 29 DBABBD 290 ft.290 ft.02/04/1988 Elevation 899 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Sealed Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 16540 BEVERLY DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness GRAVEL & SAND 0 21 SANDY CLAY 21 91 CLAY 91 238 LIMEROCK 238 290 Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 253in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 4 290in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 253Open Hole From ft. To ft.290 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) SOUTH 0.5 SECT. SEALED 08-14-2019 BY 1445 Material FromAmount To well grouted, type unknown ft. 253 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 437574 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/07/2021 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade AERMOTOR X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.128 Measureland surface 02/04/1988 ft. hrs. Pumping at 25 g.p.m. feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 02/10/1988 0 189 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Torgerson Well Co.27056 TORGERSON, R. Remarks Prairie Du Chien Group Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Minnesota Geological Survey Prairie Du Chien 238 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y461472 4963701 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 06/02/2000Information from Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031407642 County Hennepin Entry Date 12/18/2012 Quad Eden Update Date 01/06/2015 Quad ID 104C Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed THONE, MARK 116 22 W 29 ACDDBC 220 ft.220 ft.10/15/1991 Elevation 855 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 9700 EDEN PRAIRIE RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness DIRT 0 2 MEDIUMBLACK SAND 2 100 MEDIUMBROWN COARSE SAND 100 110 MEDIUMBROWN SILTY CLAY 110 190 MEDIUMGRAY BROKEN ROCK,190 205 HARDBLK/YEL SHAKOPEE ROCK 205 220 HARDYELLOW Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 205 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.7 205in. To ft. 4 220in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 205Open Hole From ft. To ft.220 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft. 205 ft.1 Cubic yards Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 407642 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/07/2021 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade FLINT 7 WALLING X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.102 Measureland surface 10/16/1991 ft.102 hrs.3 Pumping at 30 g.p.m. 125 feet Northeas Direction Sewer Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 1 230 147 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Associated Well Co.27259 SCHULTZ, M. Remarks Pr.du Chien/Shakopee Fm Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Pr.du Chien/Shakopee Fm Minnesota Geological Survey Shakopee Fm 205 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y461543 4963794 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 05/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031205960 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Eden Update Date 09/09/2015 Quad ID 104C Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed CLUBO, BILL 116 22 W 29 DBDDCD 274 ft.274 ft.06/28/1968 Elevation 910 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 9990 EDEN PRAIRIE RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness YELLOW CLAY AND 0 85 SAND 85 125 CLAY 125 256 BLUE SHAKOPEE ROCK 256 274 Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 256in. To ft. lbs./ft. Screen?MakeType 256Open Hole From ft. To ft.274 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 205960 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/07/2021 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.145 Measureland surface 06/28/1968 ft. hrs. Pumping at 25 g.p.m. feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion?Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 0 Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Rogers Well Co.27014 Remarks Prairie Du Chien Group Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Minnesota Geological Survey Prairie Du Chien 256 Digitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger (Digitizing Table) System X Y461573 4963341 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 01/01/1990Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031194925 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Eden Update Date 09/09/2015 Quad ID 104C Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed SMALL, 116 22 W 29 DBDBDD 285 ft.285 ft.11/06/1986 Elevation 901 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Sealed Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 7 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 16525 BEVERLY DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness SAND & GRAVEL 0 45 SOFTBROWN SAND 45 135 SOFTBROWN CLAY 135 258 SOFTBLUE BROKEN LIMESTONE 258 260 MEDIUMTAN DOLOMITE 260 264 HARDRED BROKEN LIMESTONE 264 268 MEDIUMRED DOLOMITE 268 285 HARDTAN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 261 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 7 261in. To ft. 4 285in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 261Open Hole From ft. To ft.285 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) SOUTH 0.5 SECT. SEALED 05-15-2006 BY 1480; PREVIOUS USE: DO Material FromAmount To bentonite ft.7 261 ft.0 Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 194925 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/07/2021 MONITORPitless adapter manufacturer Model 6P54BNS4C1 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX FLINT & WALLING X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.150 Measureland surface 11/06/1986 ft.158 hrs.3 Pumping at 30 g.p.m. 30 feet NorthDirection Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 4F19A15 1.5 230 15180 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Rogers Well Co.27014 ROGERS, W. Remarks Prairie Du Chien Group Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Minnesota Geological Survey Prairie Du Chien 258 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y461534 4963447 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 06/02/2000Address verification Angled Drill Hole John E. Dustman Principal Mr. Dustman is a Principal Geologist with more than 35 years of experience per- forming geologic, hydrogeologic, and environmental assessments. He has exten- sive experience in groundwater supply, soil and groundwater remediation, environmental review, compliance, and management. He serves as a Principal Project Manager for water supply assessments, aquifer tests, wellhead protection plans, soil and groundwater contamination assessments, brownfields redevelop- ment projects, remedial investigations, feasibility studies, hazardous waste as- sessments, aboveground and underground storage tanks, and environmental review documents. Other responsibilities include overall company financial ac- countability, developing company strategic plans, client, program, and employee management, project planning and management, and technical consultation. Mr. Dustman has held the position of President and CEO of Summit Envirosolutions for 24 years. In addition to founding Summit Envirosolutions in 1991 to provide high quality environmental, water, and cultural resource consulting services, Mr. Dustman has focused on the integration of evolving technologies to increase the quality and de- crease the cost of geologic, hydrogeologic, and environmental assessments and compliance. As a leader in the collection, storage, analysis, reporting, and visual- ization of environmental data, he has successfully furnished data management products and services for clients, consultants, regulators, attorneys, and other en- vironmental professionals. In recent years, Mr. Dustman has focused on integrat- ing technologies for projects involving water supply and natural resource extraction. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Led the design of EPIPHINY®, a database tool for the storage and mining of geo- logic, hydrogeologic, and environmental data. Led the design of AQUIMETRICS™, a software as a service (SAS) tool that ena- bles real-time and continuous monitoring and visualization of water level data. The invention received a U.S. Patent. Principal-in-Charge of hundreds of projects requiring subsurface characterization for the purpose of soil and groundwater remediation. Clients include BP, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Cenex, Southwest Gas, Federated Insurance, Bur- lington Northern, and Signature Flight Support. Led the field investigations and development of a process for integrating teleme- try, GIS, GPS, database, and internet technologies for data management/analysis for cities, food processing industries, mines, ethanol plants, parks, brownfields, airports, and petroleum refining/storage facilities. Education B.S., Geology, Montana State University, 1983 Undergraduate Studies, Uni- versity of Delaware, 1978-79 Registrations/Certifications Professional Geologist, MN (#51589) 40-Hour OSHA Hazardous Waste Safety Training and Annual Refreshers Good Laboratory Practices-- The Basics, Minneapolis Min- nesota Good Laboratory Practic- es/Small Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Studies Professional Affiliations National Ground Water Asso- ciation Minnesota Ground Water Association Patents U.S. Patent 5,553,492 - Meas- uring System for Measuring Real Time Groundwater Data U.S. Patent 8,244,499 - Meth- ods and Systems for Managing Aquifer Operation Committees Member – Technical Advisory Committee – Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee JOHN E. DUSTMAN PRESENTATIONS/PUBLICATIONS “Source Water Aquifer Visualization”, Minnesota Chapter American Water Works Association, Waterworks Operators School, April 2016. “Tools and Resources for Developing Smart Wellfields”, 31st Annual Minnesota Rural Water Associ- ation Water and Wastewater Technical Conference, St. Cloud, Minnesota, March 2015. “Cleaning Up the Past in the Future”, The Waterfront Center’s 27th Annual International Conference, Seattle, Washington, October, 2009. “Technology Integration for Sustainable Ground Water Management and Water Resource Protec- tion”, National Ground Water Association 2009 Ground Water Summit, Tucson, Arizona, April, 2009. “Groundwater Information Management and Data Visualization for Enhanced Aquifer Utilization in Water Supply”, 7th Washington Hydrogeology Symposium, Tacoma, Washington, April, 2009. “Ethanol Production Plant Monitors Impacts to Water Supply and Stays in Compliance”, Mid- Atlantic Regional Water Resources Research Institutes Regional Water Conference, The Water- Energy Nexus: A Necessary Synergy for the 21st Century, National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, November, 2008. “Integrating Technologies for Mine Water Management and Monitoring”, National Ground Water Association, 2008 U.S. EPA/NGWA Remediation of Abandoned Mine Lands Conference, Denver, Colorado, October 2008. “Integration of Continuous Data Streams in Geographic Information Systems and Neural Network Technologies”, Geological Society of America, North Central Section, 39th Annual Meeting, Minne- apolis, Minnesota, May 2005. “RealFlow - Continuous Data Collection for Groundwater Management”, Minnesota Air, Water, and Waste Conference, Bloomington, Minnesota, February 2005. “Management and Analysis of Groundwater Data”, Minnesota Groundwater Association Conference, Brainerd, Minnesota, November 2004. “Application of Artificial Neural Networks to Complex Groundwater Management Problems” (co- author), Natural Resources Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2003. JOHN E. DUSTMAN “Integration of Real Time, Continuous Data Streams into Groundwater Modeling and Neural Net- work Technologies”, International Society of Environmental Forensics Conference, Virginia Beach, VA. September, 2003. . “Optimizing Wellfield Efficiency using an Automatic Data Collection System and Artificial Neural Network Technology”, Frontiers in Assessment Methods for the Environment, Association of Envi- ronmental Engineering and Science Professors Symposium, University of Minnesota, August 2003 (co-author). “Databases and GIS for Airport Environmental Management”, American Association of Airport Ex- ecutives, Spring Conference, Dayton, Ohio, March, 2002. “The Future of Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems for Environmental Manage- ment in the Aviation Industry”, American Association of Airport Executives and National Air Trans- portation Association Symposium, Orlando, Florida, November 2000. “A Case Study: Using Remote data Acquisition and GIS to Optimize Ground Water Remediation”, Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection, and Re- mediation Conference and Exposition, Anaheim, California, November, 2000 (co-author). . “The Future of GIS Applications: Building Self-Calibrating Environmental Models”, Irish Organiza- tion for Geographic Information, GIS Ireland 2000, Dublin, Ireland, October 2000. “Using GIS, GPS, Geophysics, and Continuous Real-time Data to Remediate Petroleum Hydrocar- bons at Airports”, American Association of Airport Executives, Spring Conference, Columbus, Ohio, March, 1999. “Environmental Issues for the Safety Professional”, National Safety Council Annual Convention, Dallas, Texas, November, 1995. “Soil, Bedrock, and Groundwater Sampling Using Rota-Sonic Drilling Techniques”, NGWA Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1992. “Remedial Investigation/Clean Up of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contamination in Complex Aquifer Systems”, NGWA Outdoor Action Conference, Orlando, Florida, 1989. “Geology and Hydrogeology for Lay Persons”, presented seminars and civic meetings. “Wellhead Protection and Aquifer Resource Management”, Numerous seminars and state well drill- ing BRUCE D. JOHNSON, PG, CPG Principal Geologist Mr. Johnson is a Principal Geologist with more than 34 years of experience per- forming geologic, hydrogeologic, and contaminant assessment studies. He has extensive experience in environmental remediation, compliance, and manage-ment obtained through various technical and management positions within the engineering/scientific consulting firms. He also serves as a Principal Geologist for soil and groundwater contamination assessments, brownfields redevelopment projects, remedial investigations, feasibility studies, hazardous waste assess- ments, aboveground and underground storage tanks, Environmental Assessment Worksheets, mine prospecting, siting and permitting and regulatory compliance assistance. Other responsibilities include developing company strategic plans, program and client management, project planning and management, and tech-nical consultation and overview for development and legal review projects. Mr. Johnson has held the position of Secretary of the Summit Board of Directors for over 10 years and is the current Corporate Health and Safety Officer. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE REPRESENTATIVE WATER RESOURCE EXPERIENCE Groundwater Pump Test and Water Appropriation; Dundas, Minnesota Mr. Johnson conducted the installation of pressure transducers and monitored and evaluated the data collected during a 14-day pump test. The 12-inch produc- tion well was pumped at a rate of 1,247 gallons per minute (gpm) for 7-days and allowed to recover for 7-days. The groundwater elevation data was continuously monitored in the production well and five on-site monitoring wells (completed in the bedrock and local quaternary deposits) along with seventeen domestic wells. Dataloggers were downloaded daily during the test. The data were imported into Summit’s Geographic Environmental Management System (GEMS), which is a data platform developed to enable an efficient method to reduce aquifer test da-ta. Import routines for In-Situ and Campbell Scientific electronic files are avail-able in GEMS to populate a Microsoft® Access® database. The database is then linked to ESRI ArcGIS® products for spatial analysis and visualization. Graphs and potentiometric surface contour maps were generated throughout the aquifer test to visualize the development of the cone-of-depression in the field. Based on analysis of the aquifer test, we concluded that there appeared to be an adequate groundwater supply for the proposed ethanol plant. The aquifer testing data indicate that the source aquifer was capable of provide the requested rate and volume for the life span of the project. Based on the aquifer test results, it was also determined that the confined nature of the source aquifer, the depth of the aquifer, and the presence of clay layers above the aquifer, that no adverse impacts to nearby surface water features, including wetlands were anticipated as a result of the pumping at this site. Well interference with domestic wells was determined to be minimal based on the aquifer test data collected at the sur-rounding domestic wells. EDUCATION B.A., Geology, University of Minnesota, 1985 REGISTRATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS Professional Geologist, TN (1992), WI (1995), MN (1998), UT (2003) Certified Groundwater Professional, IA (1998) Certified Professional Geologist, American Insti-tute of Professional Geolo-gists (1994) Minnesota Department of Health – Monitoring Well Contractor (2001) 40-Hour OSHA Hazardous Waste Safety Training (Annual 8-Hour Refreshers) MSHA Training (Annual Refresher) CPR and First Aid PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Institute of Professional Geologists PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS Minnesota State Board of AELSLAGID - Board mem-ber (2007-2014) - Chair of the Complaint Committee 2012 and 2013 - Executive Committee - Secretary 2014. National Association of State Boards of Geology (ASBOG) - Subject Matter Expert / State Representative (2007-2014) - Member At Large Subject Matter Expert (2015 to Present). BRUCE D. JOHNSON, PG, CPG REPRESENTATIVE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE Brownfields Redevelopment of a Bike and Recreation Pathway Site; South St. Paul, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as senior project manager/senior geologist for the investiga-tion and remediation of a 1.5-mile-long bike and recreation pathway along a railroad line in South St. Paul, Minnesota. The investigation was conducted us-ing a Geoprobe and soil samples were screened in the field for organic vapors. The investigative activities did not indicate highly impacted soil or groundwater although fill material was denoted along the trail boundary. The fill was reported as possible foundry sand that was also found on the adjacent property to the south. A response action plan (RAP) was prepared and submitted to the Minne- sota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program for the removal and disposal of some the fill material to occur at the time of development. During the construction activities, several areas of po- tential impacted soil were observed and disposal. Summit completed the RAP Implementation Report and received a No Further Action and No Association Determination Letters from the MPCA VIC program and the recreational trail has been constructed and is currently in use. Brownfields Redevelopment of a Former Automobile Salvage Operation Site; Blaine, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as senior project manager/senior geologist for the investiga-tion and remediation of a 20-acre former salvage operation site in Blaine, Min-nesota. The initial investigation was completed after a large fire which consumed nearly the complete operation. The investigative activities did not in-dicate highly impacted soil or groundwater although fill material was denoted along the western property line. The fill was reported as concrete blocks, slabs, and curbs. A pre-development response action plan was prepared and submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program for the removal and disposal of the fill material pri-or to completion of a detailed development design. The initial excavation activi- ties indicated the presence of solid waste other than concrete. Based on the results of the investigation and the screening of excavated soil, the focus of the cleanup was to separate the solid waste from the soil. This was completed in an effort to return the excavated soil from this process back to the excavation to re-store the grade of the property and recycle the usable soil and reduce the overall disposal costs. During the remediation activities, several areas of potential im- pacted soil were observed, and disposal of the soil was being coordinated. Summit has prepared documents to negotiated site-specific clean-up concentra-tions with the MPCA. Summit has prepared an Excavated Soil Re-Use and Dis- posal Plan associated with the excavated soil and will prepare a full DRAP for the project that will include the development of the property as a city mainte-nance facility. Minnesota Department of Health Advisory Council on Wells and Boring, Monitor-ing Well Contractor - Mem-ber (2017 to present) PROFESSIONAL HONORS & AWARDS Minnesota Section of the American Institute of Professional Geologists Certificate of Merit, January 1998 President of the Minnesota Section of the American Institute of Professional Geologists, 2000 Distinguished Service Award Minnesota Section of the American Institute of Professional Geologists, 2005 American Institute of Professional Geologists Na-tional Section Leadership Award, 2016 BRUCE D. JOHNSON, PG, CPG Brownfields Redevelopment of a Former Greenhouse Facility; Roseville, Minnesota Mr. Johnson provided senior project manager for a multi-phase project that con-sisted of performing the investigation and completion of a development response action plan (DRAP) necessary to receive the required liability assurances and allow the redevelopment of the former greenhouse property as a complex that included a senior housing facility and green space. The former greenhouse was built in the 1950s and modified in several phases. The investigation performed at the site identified limited on-site petroleum and limited agricultural chemical and pesticide impacts to the underlying soil. A DRAP was developed based on the development plan and the investigation results. The areas containing impacts above the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Soil Reference Values (SRVs) for Tier 1 Residential sites were addressed by: (1) comparing the layout for the buildings with the extent of impacts and making adjustments to excava-tion work as needed; (2) determining areas where limited impacted soil could be re-used on the property; (3) conducting the removal and off-site disposal of the impacted soil to a depth of approximately 10 feet below grade to eliminate di-rect-contact risk; and, (4) replacing the excavated soil with clean fill. The re-quired liability assurance letters were granted by the MPCA and the property received a No Further Action letter. Brownfields Redevelopment of a Petroleum and Hazardous Material Con-taminated Site; St. Paul, Minnesota Mr. Johnson provided senior project manager for a multi-phase project that con-sisted of performing the investigation and completion of a development response action plan (DRAP) necessary to receive the required liability assurances and allow the redevelopment of the former residential and commercial development area into a complex that included low-income housing and a branch library for Ramsey County. The site area included a residential and commercial area devel- oped in the early 1900s. The investigation performed at the site identified lim-ited on-site petroleum and lead impacts to the soil. A DRAP was developed based on the development plan and the investigation results. The areas contain- ing impacts above the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Soil Refer-ence Values (SRVs) for Tier 2 Industrial sites were addressed by: (1) comparing the layout for the buildings with the extent of impacts and making adjustments to excavation work as needed; (2) conducting the removal and off-site disposal of the impacted soil to a depth of approximately 12 feet below grade to eliminate direct-contact risk; and, (3) removing and stabilizing lead impacted soil for dis-posal. The required liability assurance letters were granted by the MPCA and a No Further Action letter was secured. Brownfields Redevelopment of a Commercial Mall and Former Gasoline Station; Falcon Heights, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as a senior project manager for a multi-phase project that consisted of performing the investigation and completion of a development re-sponse action plan (DRAP) necessary to receive the required liability assurances and allow the redevelopment of the former shopping mall and restaurant proper-ty as a complex that included a senior housing facility, multi-family apartment building and townhome complex. The former shopping mall was a facility was built in the 1950s on the previous location of a regional airport that dated back to at least the 1920s. The investigation performed at the site identified that lim- BRUCE D. JOHNSON, PG, CPG ited on-site petroleum impacts to the underlying soil. A DRAP was developed based on the development plan and the investigation results. The areas contain-ing impacts above the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Soil Refer-ence Values (SRVs) for Tier 2 Industrial sites were addressed by: (1) comparing the layout for the buildings with the extent of impacts and making as many ad-justments to excavation work as needed; (2) determining areas where limited impacted soil could be re-used on the property; (3) conducting the removal and off-site disposal of the impacted soil to a depth of approximately 10 feet below grade to eliminate direct-contact risk; and, (4) replacing the excavated soil with clean fill. The required liability assurance letters were granted by the MPCA and the property received a No Further Action letter. Brownfields Redevelopment of a Petroleum Contaminated Site; West Saint Paul, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as senior project manager/senior geologist and a regulatory liaison for the commercial development at the location of a former service sta-tion in West Saint Paul, Minnesota. Mr. Johnson provided an opinion associated with the prior investigation activities at a former service station property and the potential impacts associated with the proposed development. Mr. Johnson com-pleted additional site investigation to determine the magnitude and extent of the petroleum release and the potential impacts to the development. The investiga-tion revealed that the impacts were limited vertically to a depth of 15 feet below grade and that the impacts had not appeared to have impacted groundwater. A development design change was discussed based on the results of the investiga-tion and the building location was shifted slightly to reduce the volume of im-pacted soil required to be removed. Mr. Johnson subsequently calculated the volume of impacted soil and negotiated the removal criteria with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Petroleum Brownfield section. It was deter-mined that the development would require the removal of the petroleum impact- ed soil to the negotiated clean-up levels. Based on the observations during excavation activities completed by Summit, the remediation was limited to the removal and disposal of approximately 850 tons of petroleum impacted soil. Confirmation sampling indicated that the excavation activities were complete and the MPCA was satisfied that the petroleum impacts were fully remediated. The MPCA provided a no further action letter. Brownfields Redevelopment of a Petroleum Contaminated Site; Shoreview, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as senior project manager to review and provide an opinion associated with the prior investigation of a petroleum release at a former service station property, and the potential impacts associated with the proposed devel-opment. Additional site investigation was preformed to determine the magnitude and extent of the petroleum release and the potential impacts to the develop- ment. The investigation revealed that the impacts were limited vertically to a depth of 25 feet below grade and that the impacts had not appeared to have im-pacted groundwater. Mr. Johnson subsequently calculated the volume of im- pacted soil and negotiated removal criteria with the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) agency which provided funding on the project. It was de-termined that the development would require the removal of the petroleum im- pacted soil. Summit completed “real-time on-site analysis of soil during the excavation activities and was able to expedite the excavation activities along BRUCE D. JOHNSON, PG, CPG with limit the extent of the excavation based on real data. The real-time on-site analytical testing completed by Summit limited the remediation to the removal and disposal of approximately 1,600 cubic yards of petroleum impacted soil. Confirmation sampling confirmed the accuracy of Summit’s on-site analytical results were accurate. HUD and the MPCA were satisfied that the petroleum impacts were fully remediated and the MPCA provided a no further action letter. REPRESENTATIVE LEGAL SERVICE EXPERIENCE Legal Support Commercial Property; Moorhead, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as Principal Geologist of the review of previous and recent petroleum data and preparation of a professional opinion and expert testimony as part of a suit associated with petroleum impact to the subject property from an off-site leaking underground storage tank (LUST) issue. Mr. Johnson review previous consultant reports for four adjacent LUST sites and pertinent surround-ing site records at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and provided his re- view and opinions in an Environmental Summary report and representation in court. Legal Support Former Office Park Property; Moorhead, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as Principal Geologist of the review of existing environmen-tal data and preparation of a successful professional opinion of the environmen- tal activities performed as part of a high profile Quick-Take Eminent Domain case. Mr. Johnson review over 3,000 pages of court documents, consultant re-ports, and pertinent surrounding site records at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and provided his review and opinions in a Site Review Report. The re-port was part of the successful defense of the property owner and resulted in a large savings associated with the property value. Legal Support Mining Property; Beltrami County, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as Principal Geologist of the review of deed language and other expert reports and prepared a technical memorandum in response to a dis-pute associated with mineral rights. Mr. Johnson outlining a successful profes- sional opinion associated with previous site documentation and provided and opinion on the geologic language included in the deed and the potential geologic understanding of the deed author. Legal Support Petroleum Impacted Property; LaPorte, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as Principal Geologist of the review of existing documenta- tion of a large petroleum spill associated with a pipeline. He provided a scope of work for assessing the remaining petroleum spill on the private property and a potential course of action for the request to the MPCA to re-open the petroleum release. PRESENTATIONS/PUBLICATIONS “Professional Ethics,” Presentation to the American Institute of Professional Geologist, Roseville, Minnesota. “Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience and Interior Design Legislative Updates and Board Activities,” BRUCE D. JOHNSON, PG, CPG Presentation to the American Institute of Professional Geologist, Roseville, Minnesota. “Alternative Remediation Methods: Phytoremediation or Vegetative Remedia-tion of Agricultural Chemicals,” Presentation to Cenex Harvest States Dis-trict Managers Association, Black River Falls, Wisconsin. “Wellhead Protection and Aquifer Resource Management,” Numerous seminars and state well drilling conventions. “Landspreading of Petroleum Contaminated Soil,” Presentation to Planning Commission, Town of Columbus, Minnesota. "Soil Identification and Drilling Techniques,” Twin City Testing Training Presentation. 5608 International Parkway, New Hope, Minnesota 55428 www.summite.com MEMORANDUM TO: Dean Lotter, PulteGroup FROM: John Dustman, Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. SUBJECT: Review of Dr. Calvin Alexander’s submittal I reviewed Dr. Alexander’s “Steps to Protect Water Quality of Fredrick-Miller Spring”. Unfortunately, I do not think Dr. Alexander was given all the information we have regarding the recharge area of the spring. The oral history is clear that the original seep location is located up the east-facing hill west of the current location and was outfitted with an old bathtub and piping to convey the water first to an area west of Spring Road and then under the road to the current location. I do not believe Dr. Alexander was given that information, since he suggests that the initial recharge area should be “…all of the land and surface water bodies at elevation above the Fredrick-Miller Spring…”. If he knew the original seep location is located on the east-facing hill west of Spring Road on what is an isolated topographical feature, he would likely not suggest a 2-mile area for further study. The other key pieces of information that are not referenced in his document are the surficial geology map (Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County Balaban, N.H., 1989) that shows outwash surrounded (and underlain) by till and the 18 drilling logs (obtained from the Minnesota Well Index) that enabled us to interpolate a clay surface that is the likely mechanism for the Spring recharge. I think if Dr. Alexander had this same information, he would likely not use the term “artesian spring”, because the flow produced at the Spring discharge outlet is gravity drainage from a “perched” water table that is unconfined. Although unnecessary for the proposed project, the City could excavate down to the pipe west of Spring Road and trace the route back to the origin if additional proof beyond the oral history is required. It is likely that the bathtub was buried near the sand/clay interface indicated on the 18 drilling logs in the area. Technical Memo - Wenck | 1802 Wooddale Drive | Woodbury, MN 55125-2937 Toll Free 800-472-2232 Main 651-294-4580 Email wenckmp@wenck.com Web wenck.com To: Leslie Stovring, City of Eden Prairie From: Anne Wilkinson, PhD, Stantec Copy: Hagen Kaczmarek, Stantec Date: February 26, 2021 Subject: 2020 WOMP Riley Creek Monitoring Results INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize monitoring data collected during 2020 at the Riley Creek Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program site in the City of Eden Prairie (City). Wenck Associates, Inc. (Wenck) routinely monitored water quality for the City from January through December in 2020. BACKGROUND The watershed outlet-monitoring program (WOMP) was established to assess nonpoint source pollution impacts on Metropolitan Area watersheds. The routine data collected is used to evaluate current watershed conditions to develop target pollution loads and/or TMDL plans for Metropolitan Area watersheds and measure progress toward improving water quality. Riley Creek is one of 15 monitoring sites in WOMP. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) characterizes the Riley Creek site in the Minnesota-Lower basin with rural/transitional dominant land use in a 13.1 square mile watershed. Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 2 Figure 1. Location of the Riley Purge monitoring station and the watershed. Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 3 METHODS Wenck collected water grab samples and sonde readings biweekly and delivered them to MCES Laboratory Services for analysis. The laboratory receives the stream samples, logs all samples into Laboratory Information Management System, LIMS, and stores the samples until analysis. The laboratory is also responsible for ensuring that QA/QC procedures are in place for all laboratory functions. Details regarding laboratory QA/QC procedures are in the laboratory’s Quality Assurance Management Plan. Streamflow is collected continuously by Met Counsel throughout the year. The MCES Water Quality Parameters are presented in Table 1. The sonde reading include: temperature (C), dissolved oxygen percent (%), dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/L), pH, specific conductivity(uS/ms) and oxidation-reduction potential(mV). Table 1: MCES Water Quality Parameters Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 4 Figure 2: Wenck field staff collecting water quality sample (left) and in-situ reading (right) at the Riley Creek WOMP site. RESULTS Monitoring results are summarized in Table 2. 2020, and historical time series of relevant Water Quality parameters are included in Figures 1-27. Additional measured Water Quality Parameters can be found in the Appendix, Figures A1-A4. The Lowest Reporting Limits (LRL) and Upper Reporting Limits (URL), defined by the MPCA, are included as a dashed line when applicable. Grab samples collected during storm events are indicated on the graphs with a hollow blue circle, while routine samples are indicated by solid orange circles. Storm samples occurred on June 29th, 2020, and October 12th, 2020. Table 2. Summary Statistics for WOMP Water Quality Parameters. Mean Min Max Standard n Ammonia Nitrogen, Unfiltered [mg/L] 0.06 0.02 0.11 0.06 18 Cadmium, Unfiltered [mg/L] 0.00006 0.00006 0.00006 2 Chloride, Unfiltered [mg/L] 69.66 35.50 95.20 18 Chlorophyll-a Trichromatic Uncorrected [mg/L] 0.005 0.001 0.021 16 Chlorophyll-a, Pheo- Corrected [mg/L] 0.005 0.001 0.019 0.018 16 Chlorophyll-b [mg/L] 0.001 0.001 0.003 16 Chlorophyll-c [mg/L] 0.002 0.001 0.005 16 Chromium, Unfiltered [mg/L] 0.0003 0.0001 0.0005 2 Conductivity [μmho/cm] 3281 501 3560 616 Copper, Unfiltered [mg/L] 0.001 0.000 0.001 2 Dissolved Oxygen [mg/L] 10.3 7.8 13.6 18 E. Coli Bacteria Count [#/100 mL] 636 6 2420 100 19 Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 5 Mean Min Max Standard n Hardness, Unfiltered [mg/L] 273 203 396 3 Lead, Unfiltered [mg/L] 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007 2 Nickel, Unfiltered [mg/L] 0.002 0.002 0.002 2 Nitrate N, Unfiltered [mg/L] 0.95 0.21 1.61 10 19 Nitrite N, Unfiltered [mg/L] 0.06 0.06 0.06 19 Ortho Phosphate as P, Filtered [mg/L] 0.02 0.008 0.06 18 pH 8.0 7.0 9.1 6.5-9 18 Pheophytin-a [mg/L] 0.001 0.001 0.003 16 Stage 4.7 4.4 6.1 continuous Sulfate, Filtered [mg/L] 14.2 7.9 24.2 3 Suspended Solids [mg/L] 19 1 102 10 19 Temperature [C] 11.7 1.0 21.8 19 Total Alkalinity, Unfiltered [mg/L] 224 156 341 3 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Unfiltered [mg/L] 0.447 0.140 0.910 0.2 18 Total Nitrate/Nitrite N, Unfiltered [mg/L] 0.95 0.21 1.61 19 Total Organic Carbon, Filtered [mg/L] 4.7 2.3 6.8 3 Total Phosphorus, Filtered [mg/L] 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.1 18 Total Phosphorus, Unfiltered [mg/L] 0.07 0.03 0.20 18 Volatile Suspended Solids [mg/L] 3.3 1 16 1 19 Zinc, Unfiltered [mg/L] 0.004 0.004 0.004 2 Water Quality Standard Values were obtained from the MPCA1. Historic time series data was obtained from the Met Council2 for Conductivity, E. coli, Total Suspended Solids, Volatile Suspended Solids, Orthophosphate, Ammonia, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, and Nitrate. These historic time series appear prior to their respective 2020 time series for each parameter. 1 Guidance Manual for Assessing the Quality of Minnesota Surface Waters for Determination of Impairment (state.mn.us), 2018 2 EMIS (state.mn.us) Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 6 Water Quality Time series Figure 3. Riley Creek Flow throughout 2020. Figure 4. Times Series of Temperature measured at Riley Creek WOMP site 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecFlow (cfs)Riley Creek Flow-2020 0 5 10 15 20 25 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7Temperature (̊C)Temperature-2020 Temperature Water Quality Standard Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 7 Figure 5. Times Series of Temperature measured at Riley Creek WOMP site Figure 6. Times Series of pH measured at Riley Creek WOMP site 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7DO (mg/L)Dissolved Oxygen-2020 Chlorophyll-a, Pheo-Corrected Water Quality Standard Stream Flow 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7pHpH-2020 pH Water Quality Standard (lower)Water Quality Standard (upper) Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 8 Figure 7. Average Annual Values of Conductivity measured at Riley Creek WOMP site Figure 1. Times Series of Conductivity measured at Riley Creek WOMP site 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Conductivity (umho/cm)Conductivity-Historical Conductivity 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7 Flow (cfs)Conductivity (μmho/cm)Conductivity-2020 Conductivity Water Quality Standard Stream Flow Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 9 Figure 9. Times Series of Chloride, Unfiltered measured at Riley Creek WOMP site. Water Quality Standard value of 230mg/L. Figure 10. Times Series of Chlorophyll-a, Pheo-Corrected measured at Riley Creek WOMP site 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7 Flow (cfs)Chloride (mg/L)Chloride-2020 Chloride, Unfiltered Water Quality Standard Stream Flow 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7Chl-a (mg/L)Chlorophyll-a, Pheo-Corrected-2020 Chlorophyll-a, Pheo-Corrected Water Quality Standard Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 10 Figure 11. Average Annual Values of E. Coli measured at Riley Creek WOMP site Figure 12. Times Series of E.coli measured at Riley Creek WOMP site. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025E. Coli (#/100mL)E. Coli-Historical E. Coli 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1001 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7 Flow (cfs)E. Coli Count (#/100mL)E. Coli-2020 E. Coli Water Quality Standard (Class 2)Stream Flow Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 11 Figure 13. Average Annual Values of Total Suspended Solids Concentration measured at Riley Creek WOMP site Figure 14. Times Series of Total Suspended Solids measured at Riley Creek WOMP site 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025TSS (mg/L)Total Suspended Soilids-Historical Total Suspended Soilids 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000 20 40 60 80 100 120 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7 Flow (cfs)TSS (mg/L)Total Suspended Solids-2020 Total Suspened Solids Water Quality Standard Stream Flow Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 12 Figure 15. Average Annual Values of Series of Volatile Suspended Solids Concentration measured at Riley Creek WOMP site Figure 16. Times Series of Volatile Suspended Solids Concentration measured at Riley Creek WOMP site 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025VSS (mg/L)Volitile Suspended Soilids-Historical Volitile Suspended Soilids 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7 Flow (cfs)VSS (mg/L)Volatile Suspended Solids-2020 Volatile Suspended Solids Water Quality Standard Stream Flow Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 13 Figure 17. Times Series of Total Phosphorus, Unfiltered measured at Riley Creek WOMP site Figure 28. Times Series of Total Phosphorus, Filtered measured at Riley Creek WOMP site 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7 Flow (cfs)Total Phosphorus (mg/L)Total Phosphorus-2020 Total Phosphorus Series2 Stream Flow 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7 Flow (cfs)Total Phosphorus (mg/L)Total Phosphorus-2020 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Standard Stream Flow Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 14 Figure 19. Average Annual Values of Orthophosphate Concentration measured at Riley Creek WOMP site Figure 20. Times Series of Orthophosphate Concentration measured at Riley Creek WOMP site 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Ortho Phosphate (mg/L)Orthophosphate-Historical Ortho Phosphate 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7Ortho-Phosphate (mg/L)Orthophosphate-2020 Orthophosphate, Filtered Water Quality Standard Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 15 Figure 21. Average Annual Values of Ammonia Concentration measured at Riley Creek WOMP site Figure 32. Times Series of Ammonia Nitrogen, Unfiltered measured at Riley Creek WOMP site 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Ammonia (mg/L)Ammonia-Historical Ammonia 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L)Ammonia-2020 Ammonia Nitrogen, Unfiltered Water Quality Standard Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 16 Figure 23. Average Annual Values of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen measured at Riley Creek WOMP site Figure 4. Times Series of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Concentration measured at Riley Creek WOMP 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L)Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen-Historical Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7TKN (mg/L)Total Kjeldol Nitrogen, 2020 Total Kjeldol Nitrogen Series2 Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 17 Figure 25. Average Annual Values of Nitrate Concentration measured at Riley Creek WOMP site Figure 26. Times Series of Nitrate Concentration measured at Riley Creek WOMP site 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Nitrate (mg/L)Nitrate Nitrate 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7Nitrate (mg/L)Nitrate Nitrate Water Quality Standard Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 18 Figure 27. Times Series of Total Nitrate/Nitrite Concentration measured at Riley Creek WOMP site 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7Total Nitrate/Nitrite (mg/L)Total Nitrate/Nitrite-2020 Total Nitrate/Nitrite Water Quality Standard Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 19 DISSCUSION 2020 Other parameters measured in Riley Creek indicate acceptable levels for: DO remained the daily minimum throughout the monitoring season. Chloride remained well below the water quality standard but peaked in the growing season. Conductivity also spiked in the growing season. Chlorophyll-a remained under the limit other than one high measurement in March. pH levels were within the acceptable range and did not exceed the standard during the summer months. TP increased above the quality standard during the two sampled storm events but otherwise stayed below the standard. Nitrates were well below the water quality standard. Historic Trends Water quality data has been collected at the Riley Creek site as part of WOMP monitoring since 1999. The general trends over the past 21 years show: Stability in: · Conductivity. This may be a result of similar road salt applications throughout the years. Increases in: · E. coli. This may be a result of increasing residential neighborhoods and, therefore, fecal matter from pets. Decreases in: TSS and VSS. This may be attributed to stream restoration practices (understory clearing, re-sloping, hard armoring reaches). Over the years, the watershed district and City have completed bank stabilization projects to reduce bank erosion and prevent slope failures that may impact residential properties along the creek. Orthophosphate. Decreases in OP could be due to fewer fertilizer applications as the area has become more residential. Ammonia, TKN, and Nitrate. Decreases in the N series could be due to land-use transition from less agricultural use to more residential/mixed-use. By monitoring Riley Creek, the City and Metropolitan Council will see how water quality is changing in the watershed, which we can use to understand how land-use change and BMPs affect the water quality in the stream. Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 20 APPENDIX Figure A1. Times Series of Chlorophyll-a, Uncorrected measured at Riley Creek WOMP site Figure A2. Times Series of Chlorophyll-b measured at Riley Creek WOMP site 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7Chl-a (mg/L)Chlorophyll-a, Uncorrected-2020 Chlorophyll-a, Uncorrected Water Quality Standard 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7Chl-b (mg/L)Chlorophyll-b-2020 Chlorophyll-b Water Quality Standard Ms. Leslie Stovring Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie February 26, 2021 21 Figure A3. Times Series of Chlorophyll-c measured at Riley Creek WOMP site Figure 5. Times Series of Pheophytin-a Concentration measured at Riley Creek WOMP site 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7Chl-c (mg/L)Chlorophyll-c-2020 Chlorophyll-c Water Quality Standard 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/3 4/3 5/4 6/4 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/6 11/6 12/7Pheophytin-a(mg/L)Pheophytin-a-2020 Pheophytin-a Series2 Memorandum TO: Beth Novak-Krebs, AICP, City of Eden Prairie Senior Planner CC: Paul Heuer, Dean Lotter, Pulte FROM: Mark Rausch, PE DATE: February 10, 2021 SUBJECT: Noble Hill Development – Trip Generation Estimate The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) was utilized to determine average trip generation rates for other similar land use types, and in turn develop an estimated trip generation for the existing and proposed sites. The data is shown in the table below: Table 1. Existing and Proposed Trip Generation1 Land Use ITE Land Use Code Number of Units for Generation Trips Generated: Weekday ADT2 AM Peak3 PM Peak4 Existing Site Single-Family Detached Housing 210 1 9.4 0.7 1.0 Proposed Site Single- Family Detached Housing 210 50 472.0 37.0 49.5 Net Total Difference 462.6 36.3 48.5 1.Estimates Per Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. 2. Weekday Generation rate = 9.44 trips / dwelling unit 3. Weekday Generation rate = 0.74 trips / dwelling unit / 7-9 am Peak Hour 4.Weekday Generation rate = 0.99 trips / dwelling unit / 4-6 pm Peak Hour As shown in the table, an estimated increase in weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 463 trips is expected to Spring Road. An increase in AM and PM peak hour traffic is also expected (an increase of 36 and 49 trips, respectively). February 19, 2021 Received by Planning 1-19-2021 Table of Contents Description Page A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 A.1. Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1 A.1.a. Structural Loads ...................................................................................................... 1 A.1.b. Pavement Traffic Loads .......................................................................................... 1 A.2. Site Conditions and History ................................................................................................. 2 A.3. Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 4 A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents .......................................................... 4 A.5. Scope of Services ................................................................................................................. 4 B. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 5 B.1. Geologic Overview .............................................................................................................. 5 B.2. Boring Results ...................................................................................................................... 5 B.3. Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 6 B.4. Laboratory Test Results ....................................................................................................... 6 C. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 7 C.1. Design and Construction Discussion ................................................................................... 7 C.1.a. Building Subgrade Preparation .............................................................................. 7 C.1.b. Reuse of On-Site Soils ............................................................................................. 7 C.1.c. Disturbance of On-Site Soils ................................................................................... 8 C.1.d. Effects of Groundwater .......................................................................................... 8 C.2. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation .............................................................................. 8 C.2.a. Building Subgrade Excavations ............................................................................... 8 C.2.b. Excavation Oversizing ............................................................................................. 9 C.2.c. Excavated Slopes .................................................................................................. 10 C.2.d. Filling on Slopes .................................................................................................... 11 C.2.e. Excavation Dewatering ......................................................................................... 11 C.2.f. Selecting Excavation Backfill and Additional Required Fill ................................... 11 C.2.g. Pavement and Exterior Slab Subgrade Preparation ............................................. 11 C.2.h. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll .............................................................................. 12 C.2.i. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction Requirements ................................... 12 C.3. Spread Footings ................................................................................................................. 14 C.3.a. Embedment Depth ............................................................................................... 14 C.3.b. Subgrade Improvement ....................................................................................... 14 C.3.c. Net Allowable Bearing Pressure ........................................................................... 15 C.3.d. Settlement ............................................................................................................ 15 C.4. Below-Grade Walls ............................................................................................................ 15 C.4.a. Drainage Control .................................................................................................. 15 C.4.b. Selection, Placement and Compaction of Backfill ................................................ 17 C.4.c. Configuring and Resisting Lateral Loads............................................................... 18 C.5. Interior Slabs ..................................................................................................................... 19 C.5.a. Moisture Vapor Protection .................................................................................. 19 C.5.b. Radon ................................................................................................................... 19 C.6. Frost Protection ................................................................................................................. 19 C.6.a. General ................................................................................................................. 19 C.6.b. Frost Heave Mitigation ......................................................................................... 20 Table of Contents (continued) Description Page C.7. Pavements and Exterior Slabs ........................................................................................... 21 C.7.a. Design Sections .................................................................................................... 21 C.7.b. Bituminous Pavement Materials .......................................................................... 22 C.7.c. Subgrade Drainage ............................................................................................... 22 C.7.d. Performance and Maintenance ........................................................................... 22 C.8. Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 23 C.8.a. Subgrade Stabilization .......................................................................................... 23 C.8.b. Selection, Placement, and Compaction of Backfill ............................................... 23 C.8.c. Corrosion Potential .............................................................................................. 23 D. Procedures...................................................................................................................................... 24 D.1. Penetration Test Borings ................................................................................................... 24 D.2. Exploration Logs ................................................................................................................ 24 D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets ............................................................................................. 24 D.2.b. Geologic Origins ................................................................................................... 25 D.3. Material Classification and Testing ................................................................................... 25 D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification .......................................................................... 25 D.3.b. Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................... 25 D.4. Groundwater Measurements ............................................................................................ 25 E. Qualifications .................................................................................................................................. 26 E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................. 26 E.1.a. Material Strata ..................................................................................................... 26 E.1.b. Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................. 26 E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility .......................................................................... 26 E.2.a. Plan Review .......................................................................................................... 26 E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing ............................................................... 27 E.3. Use of Report..................................................................................................................... 27 E.4. Standard of Care ................................................................................................................ 27 Appendix Soil Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring Sheets ST-1 through ST-4 Descriptive Terminology of Soil Gradations (2 Reports) A. Introduction A.1. Project Description Gonyea Homes and Remodeling is planning to develop a single-family housing development at the Standal Property at 9875 Spring Road in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The development is a collection of 3 properties and is about 27 1/2 acres in size with about 17 1/2 acres of buildable property. The proposed development will consist of about 60 single-family house sites along with associated streets, underground utilities, and stormwater features/ponds. A.1.a. Structural Loads We understand the construction will consist of 1- to 2-story wood-framed houses with pitched roofs and full or partial basements on poured concrete foundations. Based on the residential construction, we have based our analysis and recommendations on the assumption that footing pressures will not exceed 2,000 psf. Please contact us if this information is not correct. A.1.b. Pavement Traffic Loads We have assumed that bituminous pavements, typical of residential neighborhoods, will be subjected to normal traffic conditions over a design life of 20 years. Figure 1 below shows a concept plan of the proposed development. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 2 Figure 1. Concept Plan dated September 4, 2019 A.2. Site Conditions and History The site is located on the east side of Spring Road and south of the development located on the south side of Prospect Road in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The site consists of 3 parcels with the mailing addresses, from north to south, of 9875 Spring Road, 9XXX (no assigned address) Spring Road, and 9955 Spring Road. The site is located along the side of a small valley that generally slopes to the west to Riley Creek. The ground surface consists of rolling to rather steeply sloping terrain with current grades at the soil boring locations ranging from about elevation 764 feet to 859 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). The site is generally wooded with open grassy areas and cultivated fields. A house and barn are located in the west central portion of the site. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 3 The following recent aerial photograph shows the current site conditions, as obtained through Google Earth. Photograph 2. Aerial Photograph of the Site Photograph provided by Google Earth. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 4 A.3. Purpose The purpose of our geotechnical evaluation will be to characterize subsurface geologic conditions at selected exploration locations and evaluate their impact on the design and construction of the residential development. A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents We reviewed the following information: Available public aerial photographs showing the existing site conditions. A Concept Plan dated September 4, 2019 prepared by Alliant Engineering. Geologic atlas showing the general soil types present in this area. We have described our understanding of the proposed construction and site to the extent others reported it to us. Depending on the extent of available information, we may have made assumptions based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the project details, the project team should notify us. New or changed information could require additional evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations. A.5. Scope of Services We completed our services based on the Proposal for Geotechnical Evaluation, dated September 12, 2019 under Proposal QTB107565, to Gonyea Homes and Remodeling. The following list describes the geotechnical tasks completed in accordance with our authorized scope of services. Reviewing the background information and reference documents previously cited. Coordinating the clearing of the exploration locations of public underground utilities. The boring locations were chosen by Alliant Engineering. The boring locations were staked in the field by Braun Intertec. The ground surface elevations at the borings were obtained using our GPS locating system. Performing 4 standard penetration test (SPT) borings, denoted as ST-1 to ST-4, to nominal depths of 20 to 50 feet below grade across the site. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 5 Performing laboratory testing on select samples to aid in soil classification and engineering analysis. Preparing this report containing a boring location sketch, logs of the soil borings, a summary of the soils encountered by the current borings, results of laboratory tests, and recommendations for structure and pavement subgrade preparation and the design of foundations, floor slabs, exterior slabs and utilities. Our scope of services did not include any environmental services or testing, and we did not train the personnel performing this evaluation to provide environmental services or testing. We can provide these services or testing at your request. B. Results B.1. Geologic Overview We based the geologic origins used in this report on the soil types, in-situ and laboratory testing, and available common knowledge of the geological history of the site. Because of the complex depositional history, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain. We did not perform a detailed investigation of the geologic history for the site. B.2. Boring Results Table 1 provides a summary of the current soil boring results in the general order we encountered the strata. Please refer to the Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix for additional details. The Descriptive Terminology sheet in the Appendix includes definitions of abbreviations used in Table 1. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 6 Table 1. Subsurface Profile Summary* Strata Soil Type - ASTM Classification Range of Penetration Resistances Commentary and Details Topsoil SM --- Encountered at the surface of all 4 borings. Consisted of dark brown to black silty sand. Thickness ranged from about 1/2 to 2 feet. Moisture condition generally moist. Slopewash SC, SM 4 to 9 BPF Encountered below the topsoil at Boring ST4. Consisted of brown and dark brown clayey sand and silty sand with various levels of organics. Moisture condition generally moist. Alluvial Sand Deposits SP, SP-SM, SM 4 to 25 BPF Mostly poorly graded sand, poorly graded sand with silt, and silty sand. Seams of poorly graded sand, silty sand, clayey sand, and silt encountered in several borings Variable amounts of gravel. Moisture condition generally moist to wet. *Abbreviations defined in the attached Descriptive Terminology sheet. B.3. Groundwater While drilling the borings, groundwater was only observed in Boring ST-4 at a depth of about 19 1/2 feet, which corresponds to an elevation of about 744 feet MSL. The water level of Riley Creek west of the site is about 730 to 740 feet MSL. Groundwater may take days or longer to reach equilibrium in the boreholes and we immediately backfilled the boreholes, in accordance with our scope of work. If the project team identifies a need for more accurate determination of groundwater depth, we can install piezometers. Seasonal and annual fluctuations of groundwater should be anticipated. B.4. Laboratory Test Results The boring logs show the results of the laboratory testing we performed, next to the tested sample depths. The laboratory tests were all completed in general conformance with the applicable ASTM standards. The Log of Boring sheets and gradation curves are in the Appendix of this report. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 7 The moisture content (ASTM D 2216) tests performed on selected soil samples of alluvial sands showed moisture contents ranging from about 2 to 13 percent. The majority of the soils tested appeared to be near or slightly above the soil’s estimated optimum moisture content. The moisture content and organic content (ASTM D 2974) tests performed on selected soil samples of slopewash showed moisture contents ranging from about 17 to 19 percent and organic contents ranging from about 1.6 to 7.3 percent. The organic content tests indicate that the slopewash is non-organic to organic. Four soil samples were washed through a number 200 sieve (ASTM C 117) and gradations (ASTM D 6913) were performed on two soil samples to assist in classifying the soil samples. C. Recommendations C.1. Design and Construction Discussion C.1.a. Building Subgrade Preparation Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and evaluation, spread footing foundations bearing on engineered fill and/or native soils can support the proposed houses after performing typical subgrade preparation. Typical subgrade preparation includes removing existing vegetation, topsoil or organic soils, slopewash, fill soils, and any existing structures. We estimate that cuts and fills to reach building elevations could range from about 5 to 40 feet from existing grades. Any soil correction work to further remove unsuitable soft soils could add or subtract to these assumed cut and fill depths. The relatively steep slopes in some areas of the site need to be considered during the design and construction phases. C.1.b. Reuse of On-Site Soils Some of the soil samples appeared to be wet and will likely require drying to allow the recommended soil compaction levels to be achieved. Also, during dry weather, the soils may need to have water added. Observations could be performed during the site grading to further evaluate the suitability of the slopewash for use as engineered fill. Any materials to be used as engineered fill should be tested and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 8 C.1.c. Disturbance of On-Site Soils Any loose or disturbed sands should be moisture conditioned, if necessary, and surface compacted to increase their density and uniformity prior to engineered fill and/or footing placement. C.1.d. Effects of Groundwater Groundwater is anticipated to be below typical excavation depths at this site, although perched water could be present. The contractor should immediately remove any collected water within the excavations to facilitate construction and proper backfilling. C.1.e. Slope Stability The development will be constructed adjacent to areas of existing relatively steep slopes. In addition, the proposed stormwater ponds will be constructed in areas by removing soils along the toe of relatively steep slopes. As design progresses and proposed house pad and street grades are established, we recommend that a slope stability analysis be performed to estimate the safety factor of the proposed slopes to evaluate that the safety factor is adequate. Measures should also be taken to protect the slopes from erosion prior to establishment of vegetation. C.2. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation C.2.a. Building Subgrade Excavations We recommend removing unsuitable materials from beneath house pads and oversize areas. We define unsuitable materials as vegetation, topsoil, organic soils, slopewash, existing structures, existing utilities, and soft soils. Also, in agricultural fields there could be buried drain tiles which will need to be removed. Table 2 shows the anticipated excavation depths and bottom of soil correction excavation elevations at each of the current soil boring locations, assuming that structures, utilities or roads will be built at each location. Excavation depths could be reduced in areas that will not support future structures, utilities or roads. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 9 Table 2. Recommended Excavation Depths for Building Pads Location Approximate Surface Elevation (feet) Anticipated Excavation Depth (feet) Anticipated Bottom Elevation (feet) ST-1 813.7 1/2 813 ST-2 858.6 1/2 858 ST-3 814.1 1/2 813 1/2 ST-4 763.7 Pond Area --- Excavation depths will vary between the borings. Portions of the excavations may also extend deeper than indicated by the borings. A geotechnical representative should observe the excavations to make the necessary field judgments regarding the suitability of the exposed soils. The upper alluvial sand soils are generally in a loose relative density. Prior to the placement of engineered fill or footings, we recommend moisture conditioning, if necessary, and surface compacting the exposed soils in the bottoms of the excavations with a minimum of five passes by a large (minimum diameter of 3 1/2 feet), smooth-drum compactor. C.2.b. Excavation Oversizing When removing unsuitable materials below structures or pavements, we recommend the excavation extend outward and downward at a slope of 1H:1V (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. See Figure 2 for an illustration of excavation oversizing. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 10 Figure 2. Generalized Illustration of Oversizing C.2.c. Excavated Slopes Based on the borings, we anticipate on-site soils in excavations will consist of mostly sandy soils. The sandy soils are typically considered Type C Soil under OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) guidelines. OSHA guidelines indicate unsupported excavations in Type C soils should have a gradient no steeper than 1 1/2H:1V. OSHA requires an engineer to evaluate slopes or excavations over 20 feet in depth. An OSHA-approved qualified person should review the soil classification in the field. Excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations and Trenches.” This document states excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. The project specifications should reference these OSHA requirements. 1. Engineered fill as defined in C.2.i 2. Excavation oversizing minimum of 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) slope or flatter 3. Engineered fill as required to meet pavement support or landscaping requirements as defined in C.2.i 4. Excavation back-slope to OSHA requirements Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 11 C.2.d. Filling on Slopes Where existing or excavated grades are steeper than 4H:1V, we recommend placing fill from low to high elevations on horizontal benches cut into the native soils so that successive lifts are spread and compacted on level surfaces, and a potential failure surface is not created along the fill’s lower boundary. Depending on fill requirements, the contractor can construct benches by cutting into existing grades while placing fill (the composition of the exposed soils thus being in compliance with fill specifications), or by cutting the benches in advance of filling (to prevent mixing with soils not in compliance with fill specifications). The height of a given bench may vary but the width should consistently be great enough to accommodate large, self-propelled compaction equipment. C.2.e. Excavation Dewatering Groundwater is anticipated to be below typical excavation depths at this site, although perched water could be present. The contractor should immediately remove any collected water within the excavations to facilitate construction and proper backfilling. C.2.f. Selecting Excavation Backfill and Additional Required Fill On-site soils free of organic soil and debris can be considered for reuse as backfill and fill. However, the topsoil and the higher organic content slopewash soils should not be re-used as engineered fill under house pads or below streets. Observations could be performed during the site grading to further evaluate the suitability of the less organic slopewash for use as engineered fill. Unless a drainage composite is placed against the backs of the exterior perimeter basement walls, we recommend that backfill be placed within 2 horizontal feet of those walls consist of sand having less than 50 percent of the particles, by weight, passing a #40 sieve and less than 10 percent of the particles, by weight, passing a #200 sieve. Sand meeting this gradation may be able to be found on site. We recommend that the balance of the backfill placed against exterior perimeter walls also consist of sand; although it is our opinion that the sand may contain up to 20 percent of the particles, by weight, passing a #200 sieve. C.2.g. Pavement and Exterior Slab Subgrade Preparation We recommend the following steps for pavement and exterior slab subgrade preparation. Note that project planning may need to require additional subcuts to limit frost heave. 1. Strip unsuitable soils consisting of topsoil, organic soils, slopewash, vegetation, existing structures and pavements from the area, within 3 feet of the surface of the proposed pavement grade. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 12 2. Have a geotechnical representative observe the excavated subgrade to evaluate if additional subgrade improvements are necessary. 3. Slope subgrade soils to areas of sand or drain tile to allow the removal of accumulating water. 4. Scarify, moisture condition and surface compact the subgrade with at least 3 passes by a large roller with a minimum drum diameter of 3 1/2 feet. 5. Place pavement fill to grade and compact in accordance with Section C.2.i to bottom of pavement and exterior slab section. 6. Proofroll the pavement or exterior slab subgrade as described in Section C.2.h. C.2.h. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll After preparing the subgrade as described above and prior to the placement of the aggregate base, we recommend proofrolling the subgrade soils with a fully loaded tandem-axle truck. In areas of clean sands it will likely be necessary to proofroll the subgrade soils by observing the behavior of the subgrade when subjected to a large (minimum diameter of 3 1/2 feet), smooth-drum compactor. We also recommend having a geotechnical representative observe the proofroll. Areas that fail the proofroll likely indicate soft or weak areas that will require additional soil correction work to support pavements or slabs. The contractor should correct areas that display excessive yielding or rutting during the proofroll, as determined by the geotechnical representative. Possible options for subgrade correction include moisture conditioning and re-compaction, subcutting and replacement with soil or crushed aggregate, chemical stabilization and/or geotextiles. We recommend performing a second proofroll after the aggregate base material is in place, and prior to placing bituminous or concrete pavement/slabs. C.2.i. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction Requirements Table 3 that follows contains our recommendations for engineered fill materials. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 13 Table 3. Engineered Fill Materials Locations To Be Used Engineered Fill Classification Possible Soil Type Descriptions* Gradation Additional Requirements Below foundations Below interior slabs Structural fill SP, SP-SM, SM 100% passing 2-inch sieve < 2% Organic Content (OC) Plasticity Index (PI) < 15% Drainage layer Non-frost- susceptible Free-draining Non-frost- susceptible fill GP, GW, SP, SW 100% passing 1-inch sieve < 50% passing #40 sieve < 10% passing #200 sieve < 2% OC Behind below-grade walls, beyond drainage layer Retained fill SP, SW, SP-SM, SW-SM, SM 100% passing 3-inch sieve < 20% passing #200 sieve < 2% OC PI< 4% Pavements Pavement fill SP, SP-SM, SM 100% passing 3-inch sieve < 2% OC PI < 15% Below landscaped surfaces, where subsidence is not a concern Non-structural fill SP, SP-SM, SM 100% passing 6-inch sieve < 10% OC * More select soils comprised of coarse sands with < 5% passing #200 sieve may be needed to accommodate work occurring in periods of wet or freezing weather. Based on the sloping terrain, it is likely that some of the house pads will require more than 10 feet of compacted fill. At these lots where deep fills are needed, clean sand fill (less than 12 percent passing the number 200 sieve) should be used to construct these house pads. We recommend spreading fill in loose lifts of approximately 8 inches thick. We recommend compacting fill in accordance with the criteria presented below in Table 4. The project documents should specify relative compaction of fill, based on the structure located above the fill, and vertical proximity to that structure. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 14 Table 4. Compaction Recommendations Summary Reference Relative Compaction, percent (ASTM D698 – Standard Proctor) Moisture Content Variance from Optimum, percentage points Below foundations, less than 10 feet of fill 95 -1 to +3 for clay soils ±3 for sandy soils Below foundations, greater than 10 feet of fill 98 -1 to +2 for clay soils ±3 for sandy soils Below slabs 95 -1 to +3 for clay soils ±3 for sandy soils Below pavements, within 3 feet of top of subgrade elevations 100 -2 to +1 for clay soils ±3 for sandy soils Below pavements, more than 3 feet below subgrade elevations 95 -1 to +3 for clay soils ±3 for sandy soils Below landscaped surfaces 90 -1 to +5 for clay soils ±6 for sandy soils The project documents should not allow the contractor to use frozen material as fill or to place fill on frozen material. Frost should not penetrate under foundations during construction. We recommend performing density tests in fill to evaluate if the contractors are effectively compacting the soil and meeting project requirements. Refer to Section C.3.d below for additional remarks for thicker layers of fill soils. C.3. Spread Footings C.3.a. Embedment Depth For frost protection, we recommend embedding perimeter footings of the proposed houses, including attached garages, a minimum of 42 inches below the lowest exterior grade. Interior footings may be placed directly below floor slabs unless they will be subjected to freezing. We recommend embedding building footings not heated during winter construction, and other unheated footings associated with decks, porches, stoops or sidewalks 60 inches below the lowest exterior grade. C.3.b. Subgrade Improvement If a small amount of groundwater is present within the footing excavation, or if the footing subgrade soils become disturbed prior to placing forms or reinforcement, we recommend subcutting any soft or wet soil and placing a 6- to 12-inch layer of clear rock. The clear rock will provide a stable working surface, and will allow for the flow of water to a drain tile or sump pump. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 15 C.3.c. Net Allowable Bearing Pressure We recommend sizing spread footings to exert a net allowable bearing pressure of up to 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). This value includes a safety factor of at least 3.0 with regard to bearing capacity failure. C.3.d. Settlement We estimate that total and differential settlements among the footings will amount to less than 1 and 1/2 inch, respectively, under the assumed loads. If there are areas where more than 10 feet of fill is required, higher settlements could occur, unless the deeper fill areas are only filled with poorly graded sand (SP) or poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) fill. C.4. Below-Grade Walls The following sections address soil parameters for basement wall design. Although construction of retaining walls has not been specified for this project to date, the following recommendations can also be used for preliminary retaining wall design. We recommend that additional soil borings be completed for final retaining wall design. C.4.a. Drainage Control We recommend installing drain tile to remove water behind the below-grade walls at the location shown in Figure 3. The below-grade wall drainage system should also incorporate free-draining, engineered fill or a drainage board placed against the wall and connected to the drain tile. Even with the use of free-draining, engineered fill, we recommend general waterproofing of below-grade walls that surround occupied or potentially occupied areas because of the potential cost impacts related to seepage after construction is complete. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 16 Figure 3. Generalized Illustration of Wall Engineered Fill The materials listed in the sketch should meet the definitions in Section C.4.b. Low-permeability material is capable of directing water away from the wall, like clay, topsoil or pavement. The project documents should indicate if the contractor should brace the walls prior to filling, and the allowable unbalanced fill heights. As shown in Figure 2, we recommend Zone 2 consist of retained, engineered fill, and this material will control lateral pressures on the wall. However, we are also providing design parameters for using other engineered fill material. If final design uses non-sand material for engineered fill, project planning should account for the following items: Other engineered fill material may result in higher lateral pressure on the wall. Other engineered fill material may be more difficult to compact. 1. 2-foot wide area of Free- Draining Engineered Fill or Drainage Board 2. Retained Engineered Fill 3. 1 foot of Low-Permeability Soil or Pavement Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 17 Post-construction consolidation of other engineered fill material may result in settlement- related damage to the structures or slabs supported on the engineered fill. Post-construction settlement of other engineered fill material may also cause drainage towards the structure. The magnitude of consolidation could be up to about 3 percent of the wall fill thickness. C.4.b. Selection, Placement and Compaction of Backfill Unless a drainage composite is placed against the backs of the exterior perimeter basement walls, we recommend that backfill placed within 2 horizontal feet of those walls consist of sand having less than 50 percent of the particles, by weight, passing a #40 sieve and less than 10 percent of the particles, by weight, passing a #200 sieve. Sand meeting this gradation could be found on site. We recommend that the balance of the backfill placed against exterior perimeter walls also consist of sand, though it is our opinion that the sand may contain up to 20 percent of the particles, by weight, passing a #200 sieve. If clay must be considered for use to make up the balance of the below-grade wall backfill (assuming a drainage composite or sand is placed against the backs of the walls), post-compaction consolidation of the clay occurring under its own weight can be expected to continue beyond the end of construction. The magnitude of consolidation could amount to between 1 and 3 percent of the backfill thickness, or wall height, and if not accommodated, could cause slabs or pavements to settle unfavorably or be damaged. Should clay still be considered for use as backfill, however, we further recommend that: The bottoms of the excavations required for basement wall construction are wide enough to accommodate compaction equipment. Backfill is placed at moisture contents at least equal to, but not more than, 3 percentage points above its optimum moisture content. Backfill is placed in loose lifts no thicker than 6 inches prior to compaction. The relative compaction of the backfill is measured through density testing at intervals not exceeding 1 test per 50 horizontal feet for each 2 vertical feet of backfill placed. We recommend using a walk-behind compactor to compact the backfill placed within about 5 feet of the basement walls. Further away than that, a self-propelled compactor can be used. Compaction criteria for basement walls should be determined based on the compaction recommendations provided above in Section C.2. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 18 Exterior backfill not capped with slabs or pavement should be capped with a low-permeability soil to limit the infiltration of surface drainage into the backfill. The finished surface should also be sloped to divert water away from the walls. C.4.c. Configuring and Resisting Lateral Loads Below-grade wall design can use active earth pressure conditions, if the walls can rotate slightly. If the wall design cannot tolerate rotation, then design should use at-rest earth pressure conditions. Rotation up to 0.002 times the wall height is generally required for walls supporting sand. Rotation up to 0.02 times the wall height is required when wall supports clay. Table 5 presents our recommended lateral coefficients and equivalent fluid pressures for wall design of active, at-rest and passive earth pressure conditions. The table also provides recommended wet unit weights and internal friction angles. Designs should also consider the slope of any engineered fill and dead or live loads placed behind the walls within a horizontal distance that is equal to the height of the walls. Our recommended values assume the wall design provides drainage so water cannot accumulate behind the walls. The construction documents should clearly identify what soils the contractor should use for engineered fill of walls. Table 5. Recommended Below-Grade Wall Design Parameters – Drained Conditions Retained Soil Wet Unit Weight (pcf) Friction Angle (degrees) Equivalent Active Fluid Pressure* (pcf) Equivalent At-Rest Fluid Pressure* (pcf) Equivalent Passive Fluid Pressure* (pcf) Sand (SP, SP-SM) 120 33 35 55 400 Silty Sand (SM) 125 30 42 62 360 Clay (CL) 120 26 47 70 300 * Based on Rankine model for soils in a region behind the wall extending at least 2 horizontal feet beyond the bottom outer edges of the wall footings and then rising up and away from the wall at an angle no steeper than 60 degrees from horizontal. Sliding resistance between the bottom of the footing and the soil can also resist lateral pressures. We recommend assuming a sliding coefficient equal to 0.30 between the concrete and sand soil. The values presented in this section are un-factored. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 19 C.5. Interior Slabs C.5.a. Moisture Vapor Protection Excess transmission of water vapor could cause floor dampness, certain types of floor bonding agents to separate, or mold to form under floor coverings. If project planning includes using floor coverings or coatings, we recommend placing a vapor retarder or vapor barrier immediately beneath the slab. We also recommend consulting with floor covering manufacturers regarding the appropriate type, use and installation of the vapor retarder or barrier to preserve warranty assurances. C.5.b. Radon In preparation for radon mitigation systems, we recommend that slabs on grade be constructed over a layer of gas permeable material consisting of a minimum of 4 inches of either clean aggregate material or coarse sand. The aggregate material should consist of rock no larger than 2 inches and no smaller than 1/4 inch. Sand should have less than 50 percent of the particles by weight passing a #40 sieve and less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing a #200 sieve. Above the gas permeable aggregate or sand, a polyethylene sheeting (6-mil minimum) should be placed. The sheeting should be properly lapped and penetrations through the sheeting sealed. Penetrations through the slab and foundation walls should also be sealed. C.6. Frost Protection C.6.a. General Sandy soils will likely underlie all of the exterior slabs, as well as pavements. Most of these soils are considered to be non-frost susceptible. The fine-grained silty sand soils are considered low to moderately frost susceptible, and can retain moisture and heave upon freezing. In general, this characteristic is not an issue unless these soils become saturated, due to surface runoff or infiltration, or are excessively wet in situ. Once frozen, unfavorable amounts of general and isolated heaving of the soils and the surface structures supported on them could develop. This type of heaving could affect design drainage patterns and the performance of exterior slabs and pavements, as well as any isolated exterior footings and piers. Note that general runoff and infiltration from precipitation are not the only sources of water that can saturate subgrade soils and contribute to frost heave. Roof drainage and irrigation of landscaped areas in close proximity to exterior slabs, pavements, and isolated footings and piers, contribute as well. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 20 C.6.b. Frost Heave Mitigation To address most of the heave related issues, we recommend setting general site grades and grades for exterior surface features to direct surface drainage away from buildings, across large paved areas and away from walkways. Such grading will limit the potential for saturation of the subgrade and subsequent heaving. General grades should also have enough “slope” to tolerate potential larger areas of heave, which may not fully settle after thawing. Even small amounts of frost-related differential movement at walkway joints or cracks can create tripping hazards. Project planning can explore several subgrade improvement options to address this condition. One of the more conservative subgrade improvement options to mitigate potential heave is removing any frost-susceptible soils present below the exterior slab areas down to a minimum depth of 4 feet below subgrade elevations. We recommend filling the resulting excavation with non-frost-susceptible fill. We also recommend sloping the bottom of the excavation toward one or more collection points to remove any water entering the engineered fill. This approach will not be effective in controlling frost heave without removing the water. An important geometric aspect of the excavation and replacement approach described above is sloping the banks of the excavations to create a more gradual transition between the unexcavated soils considered frost susceptible and the engineered fill in the excavated area, which is not frost susceptible. The slope allows attenuation of differential movement that may occur along the excavation boundary. We recommend slopes that are 3H:1V, or flatter, along transitions between frost-susceptible and non- frost-susceptible soils. Figure 4 that follows shows an illustration summarizing some of the recommendations. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 21 Figure 4. Frost Protection Geometry Illustration Another option is to limit frost heave in critical areas, such as doorways and entrances, via frost-depth footings or localized excavations with sloped transitions between frost-susceptible and non-frost- susceptible soils, as described above. Over the life of slabs and pavements, cracks will develop and joints will open up, which will expose the subgrade and allow water to enter from the surface and either saturate or perch atop the subgrade soils. This water intrusion increases the potential for frost heave or moisture-related distress near the crack or joint. Therefore, we recommend implementing a detailed maintenance program to seal and/or fill any cracks and joints. The maintenance program should give special attention to areas where dissimilar materials abut one another, where construction joints occur and where shrinkage cracks develop. C.7. Pavements and Exterior Slabs C.7.a. Design Sections Our scope of services for this project did not include laboratory tests on subgrade soils to determine an R-value for pavement design. Since most of the soils on this site consist of poorly graded sand with silt to silty sand, we recommend that the pavements be designed for an assumed R-value of 50. Note the contractor may need to perform some removal of unsuitable or less suitable soils to achieve this value. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 22 We assumed that pavements for the residential development will be subject to a maximum of 50,000 ESALs over a 20-year design life. We assume the pavements will be designed in accordance with the City of Eden Prairie standard pavement section. C.7.b. Bituminous Pavement Materials Appropriate mix designs are critical to the performance of flexible pavements. We can provide recommendations for pavement material selection during final pavement design. C.7.c. Subgrade Drainage We recommend installing perforated drainpipes throughout pavement areas at low points, around catch basins, and behind curb in landscaped areas. We also recommend installing drainpipes along pavement and exterior slab edges where exterior grades promote drainage toward those edge areas. The contractor should place drainpipes in small trenches, extended at least 8 inches below the aggregate base material. C.7.d. Performance and Maintenance We based the above pavement designs on a 20-year performance life for bituminous. This is the amount of time before we anticipate the pavement will require reconstruction. This performance life assumes routine maintenance, such as seal coating and crack sealing. The actual pavement life will vary depending on variations in weather, traffic conditions and maintenance. It is common to place the non-wear course of bituminous and then delay placement of the wear course. For this situation, we recommend evaluating if the reduced pavement section will have sufficient structure to support construction traffic. Many conditions affect the overall performance of the exterior slabs and pavements. Some of these conditions include the environment, loading conditions and the level of ongoing maintenance. With regard to bituminous pavements in particular, it is common to have thermal cracking develop within the first few years of placement, and continue throughout the life of the pavement. We recommend developing a regular maintenance plan for filling cracks in exterior slabs and pavements to lessen the potential impacts for cold weather distress due to frost heave or warm weather distress due to wetting and softening of the subgrade. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 23 C.8. Utilities C.8.a. Subgrade Stabilization Earthwork activities associated with utility installations located inside building pad areas should adhere to the recommendations in Section C.2. For exterior utilities, we anticipate the soils at typical invert elevations will be suitable for utility support. However, if construction encounters unfavorable conditions such as soft clay, organic soils or perched water at invert grades, the unsuitable soils may require some additional subcutting and replacement with sand or crushed rock to prepare a proper subgrade for pipe support. Project design and construction should not place utilities within the 1H:1V oversizing of foundations. C.8.b. Selection, Placement, and Compaction of Backfill We recommend selecting, placing, and compacting utility backfill in accordance with the recommendations provided above in Section C.2.i. C.8.c. Corrosion Potential Based on our experience, the sandy soils encountered by the borings have a low corrosive potential to metallic conduits. We recommend specifying non-corrosive materials or providing corrosion protection, unless project planning chooses to perform additional tests to demonstrate the soils are not corrosive. C.9. Stormwater Based on laboratory tests run on selected samples from the borings we estimated infiltration rates for the soils we encountered, as listed in Table 6. These estimated infiltration rates represent the long-term infiltration capacity of a practice and not the capacity of the soils in their natural state. Field testing, such as with a double-ring infiltrometer (ASTM D3385), may justify the use of higher infiltration rates. However, we recommend adjusting field test rates by the appropriate correction factor, as provided for in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual or as allowed by the local watershed. We recommend consulting the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for stormwater design. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 24 Table 6. Estimated Design Infiltration Rates Based on Soil Classification Soil Type Infiltration Rate * (inches/hour) Sands with less than 12% fines, poorly graded or well graded sands 0.8 Silty sands, silty gravelly sands 0.45 * From Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Rates may differ at individual sites. Fine-grained soils (clays and silts), topsoil, or organic matter that mixes into or washes onto the soil will lower the permeability. The contractor should maintain and protect infiltration areas during construction. Furthermore, organic matter and silt washed into the system after construction can fill the soil pores and reduce permeability over time. Proper maintenance is important for long-term performance of infiltration systems. This geotechnical evaluation does not constitute a review of site suitability for stormwater infiltration or evaluate the potential impacts, if any, from infiltration of large amounts of stormwater. D. Procedures D.1. Penetration Test Borings We drilled the penetration test borings on September 19, 2019, with an off-road-mounted core and auger drill equipped with hollow-stem auger. We performed the borings in general accordance with ASTM D6151 taking penetration test samples at 2 1/2- or 5-foot intervals in general accordance to ASTM D1586. The boring logs show the actual sample intervals and corresponding depths. D.2. Exploration Logs D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets The Appendix includes Log of Boring sheets for our penetration test borings. The logs identify and describe the penetrated geologic materials, and present the results of penetration resistance and other in-situ tests performed. The logs also present the results of laboratory tests performed on penetration test samples, and groundwater measurements. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 25 We inferred strata boundaries from changes in the penetration test samples and the auger cuttings. Because we did not perform continuous sampling, the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions. D.2.b. Geologic Origins We assigned geologic origins to the materials shown on the logs and referenced within this report, based on: (1) a review of the background information and reference documents cited above, (2) visual classification of the various geologic material samples retrieved during the course of our subsurface exploration, (3) penetration resistance and other in-situ testing performed for the project, (4) laboratory test results, and (5) available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the site and surrounding area in the past. D.3. Material Classification and Testing D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification We visually and manually classified the geologic materials encountered based on ASTM D2488. When we performed laboratory classification tests, we used the results to classify the geologic materials in accordance with ASTM D2487. The Appendix includes a chart explaining the classification system we used. D.3.b. Laboratory Testing The exploration logs in the Appendix note the results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples. We performed the tests in general accordance with ASTM procedures. D.4. Groundwater Measurements The drillers checked for groundwater while advancing the penetration test borings, and again after auger withdrawal. We then immediately filled the boreholes. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 26 E. Qualifications E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions E.1.a. Material Strata We developed our evaluation, analyses and recommendations from a limited amount of site and subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from exploration locations continuously with depth. Therefore, we must infer strata boundaries and thicknesses to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and project planning should expect the strata to vary in depth, elevation and thickness, away from the exploration locations. Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until performing additional exploration work, or starting construction. If future activity for this project reveals any such variations, you should notify us so that we may reevaluate our recommendations. Such variations could increase construction costs, and we recommend including a contingency to accommodate them. E.1.b. Groundwater Levels We made groundwater measurements under the conditions reported herein and shown on the exploration logs, and interpreted in the text of this report. Note that the observation periods were relatively short, and project planning can expect groundwater levels to fluctuate in response to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal and annual factors. E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility E.2.a. Plan Review We based this report on a limited amount of information, and we made a number of assumptions to help us develop our recommendations. Braun Intertec should be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the designs and specifications. This review will allow us to evaluate whether we anticipated the design correctly, if any design changes affect the validity of our recommendations, and if the design and specifications correctly interpret and implement our recommendations. Braun Intertec should also be retained to complete the soil observations and testing as the site is being graded. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967 October 10, 2019 Page 27 E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing We recommend retaining us to perform the required observations and testing during construction as part of the ongoing geotechnical evaluation. This will allow us to correlate the subsurface conditions exposed during construction with those encountered by the borings and provide professional continuity from the design phase to the construction phase. If we do not perform observations and testing during construction, it becomes the responsibility of others to validate the assumption made during the preparation of this report and to accept the construction-related geotechnical engineer-of-record responsibilities. E.3. Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. Without written approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects. E.4. Standard of Care In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Appendix Elev./ Depth ft 813.2 0.5 806.7 7.0 794.7 19.0 792.7 21.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, black, moist (TOPSOIL) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, loose to medium dense (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, light gray, moist, medium dense (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 1-2-3 (5) 12" 3-4-4 (8) 18" 5-5-5 (10) 18" 4-4-5 (9) 18" 6-6-8 (14) 18" 6-7-7 (14) 18" 4-6-13 (19) 20" qₚtsf MC % 13 5 Tests or Remarks P200=4% Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967 Geotechnical EvaluationStandall PropertySpring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-1LOCATION: Offset 20 feet southwest. See attached sketch. NORTHING:112315 EASTING:475812 DRILLER:J. Tatro LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:09/19/19 END DATE:09/19/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:813.7 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Weeds on Slope WEATHER:Sunny B1909967 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-1 page 1 of 1 Elev./ Depth ft 858.1 0.5 855.6 3.0 851.6 7.0 844.6 14.0 829.6 29.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, dark brown, moist (TOPSOIL) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to coarse-grained Sand, with Gravel, brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to coarse- grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Silty Sand, light brown to brown, moist, loose to very loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), medium to coarse-grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Poorly Graded Sand, light brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Poorly Graded Sand, light brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) Continued on next page 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 3-2-3 (5) 14" 3-3-3 (6) 11" 3-3-3 (6) 14" 2-3-2 (5) 18" 3-2-2 (4) 12" 3-3-3 (6) 10" 2-3-4 (7) 17" 3-3-3 (6) 18" 4-4-5 (9) 16" qₚtsf MC % 6 Tests or Remarks See attached Gradation LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967 Geotechnical EvaluationStandall PropertySpring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-2LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:111835 EASTING:475523 DRILLER:J. Tatro LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:09/20/19 END DATE:09/19/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:858.6 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Field at Top of hill WEATHER:Sunny B1909967 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-2 page 1 of 2 Elev./ Depth ft 819.6 39.0 809.6 49.0 807.6 51.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Poorly Graded Sand, light brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Poorly Graded Sand, light brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, trace Silty Sand, light gray, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout 35 40 45 50 55 60 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 4-2-3 (5) 13" 4-5-5 (10) 12" 6-5-5 (10) 14" 4-4-5 (9) 14" qₚtsf MC % 2 Tests or Remarks P200=3% Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967 Geotechnical EvaluationStandall PropertySpring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-2LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:111835 EASTING:475523 DRILLER:J. Tatro LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:09/20/19 END DATE:09/19/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:858.6 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Field at Top of hill WEATHER:Sunny B1909967 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-2 page 2 of 2 Elev./ Depth ft 813.6 0.5 802.1 12.0 795.1 19.0 785.1 29.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, dark brown, moist (TOPSOIL) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, brown, moist, very loose to loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to coarse-grained Sand, with Gravel, contains seams of Silty Sand, brown, moist, loose to medium dense (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, medium dense (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, medium dense (ALLUVIUM) Continued on next page 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 2-2-2 (4) 18" 2-3-4 (7) 18" 2-3-2 (5) 18" 3-3-3 (6) 16" 5-5-5 (10) 8" 5-6-7 (13) 6" 6-12-13 (25) 10" 4-9-10 (19) 18" 5-10-14 (24) 18" qₚtsf MC % 13 6 Tests or Remarks See attached Gradation P200=5% LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967 Geotechnical EvaluationStandall PropertySpring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-3LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:111462 EASTING:475474 DRILLER:J. Tatro LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:09/20/19 END DATE:09/19/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:814.1 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Weeds on slope WEATHER:Sunny B1909967 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-3 page 1 of 2 Elev./ Depth ft 778.1 36.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, medium dense (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout 35 40 45 50 55 60 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 9-11-13 (24) 16" qₚtsf MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967 Geotechnical EvaluationStandall PropertySpring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-3LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:111462 EASTING:475474 DRILLER:J. Tatro LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:09/20/19 END DATE:09/19/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:814.1 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Weeds on slope WEATHER:Sunny B1909967 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-3 page 2 of 2 Elev./ Depth ft 761.8 2.0 756.8 7.0 754.8 9.0 751.8 12.0 744.8 19.0 737.8 26.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, black, moist (TOPSOIL) CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, organic, dark brown, moist (SLOPEWASH) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, with Clayey Sand, slightly organic, dark brown, moist (SLOPEWASH) CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, slightly organic, brown and dark brown, moist (SLOPEWASH) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Silt, contains seams of Clayey Sand, brown to grayish brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to coarse-grained Sand, trace to with Gravel, brown, wet, loose to medium dense (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 2-4-3 (7) 13" 2-2-2 (4) 18" 2-3-4 (7) 18" 3-3-6 (9) 18" 4-6-4 (10) 15" 4-3-4 (7) 18" 2-3-3 (6) 18" 3-7-6 (13) 18" qₚtsf MC % 17 19 12 Tests or Remarks OC=7.3% OC=1.6% P200=15% Water observed at 19.5 feet while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967 Geotechnical EvaluationStandall PropertySpring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-4LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:111467 EASTING:475112 DRILLER:J. Tatro LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:09/20/19 END DATE:09/19/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:763.8 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Partly cloudy B1909967 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-4 page 1 of 1 Sample Information Sample Number:273260 Boring Number:2 Depth (ft):20 Sampled By:Drill Crew Sample Date:09/30/2019 Received Date:09/30/2019 Lab:11001 Hampshire Ave S, Bloomington, MN Tested Date:09/30/2019 Tested By:Streier, Jim Laboratory Data Sieve Size Passing (%) Specification Result 4.75 mm (No. 4)100.0 2 mm (No. 10)100.0 850 µm (No. 20)99.4 425 µm (No. 40)89.8 250 µm (No. 60)49.3 150 µm (No. 100)13.1 75 µm (No. 200)3.1 Sand (%) 96.9 Silt & Clay (%) 3.1 D10 0.096 D30 0.197 D60 0.296 C 3.08 C 1.37 Classification:SP Poorly graded sand General U C Sieve Analysis Of Soil ASTM D6913 10/9/2019 11001 Hampshire Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55438 Phone: 9529952000 Client: Gonyea Homes & Remodeling 1000 Boone Avenue NorthSuite 400 Golden Valley, MN 55427 Project: B1909967 Standal Property Spring Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Page 1 of 2Page 1 of 1 Sample Information Sample Number:273262 Boring Number:3 Depth (ft):15 Sampled By:Drill Crew Sample Date:09/30/2019 Received Date:09/30/2019 Lab:11001 Hampshire Ave S, Bloomington, MN Tested Date:09/30/2019 Tested By:Streier, Jim Laboratory Data Sieve Size Passing (%) Specification Result 12.5 mm (1/2 inch)100.0 9.5 mm (3/8 inch)88.7 4.75 mm (No. 4)83.9 2 mm (No. 10)73.2 850 µm (No. 20)62.7 425 µm (No. 40)44.3 250 µm (No. 60)26.6 150 µm (No. 100)16.2 75 µm (No. 200)11.8 Gravel (%) 16.1 Sand (%) 72.1 Silt & Clay (%) 11.8 D30 0.284 D60 0.788 Classification:SPSM Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel General Sieve Analysis Of Soil ASTM D6913 10/9/2019 11001 Hampshire Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55438 Phone: 9529952000 Client: Gonyea Homes & Remodeling 1000 Boone Avenue NorthSuite 400 Golden Valley, MN 55427 Project: B1909967 Standal Property Spring Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Page 1 of 2Page 1 of 1 Descriptive Terminology of Soil Based on Standards ASTM D2487/2488 (Unified Soil Classification System) Group Symbol Group NameB Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D GW Well-graded gravelE Cu < 4 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D GP Poorly graded gravelE Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelE F G Fines Classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelE F G Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D SW Well-graded sandI Cu < 6 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D SP Poorly graded sandI Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandF G I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandF G I CL Lean clayK L M PI < 4 or plots below "A" lineJ ML SiltK L M Organic OL CH Fat clayK L M MH Elastic siltK L M Organic OH PT Peat Highly Organic Soils Silts and Clays (Liquid limit less than 50) Silts and Clays (Liquid limit 50 or more) Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor Inorganic Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" lineJ PI plots on or above "A" line PI plots below "A" line Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification Coarse-grained Soils (more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve)Fine-grained Soils (50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve) Sands (50% or more coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve) Clean Gravels (Less than 5% finesC) Gravels with Fines (More than 12% finesC) Clean Sands (Less than 5% finesH) Sands with Fines (More than 12% finesH) Gravels (More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve) Liquid Limit −oven dried LiquidLimit −notdried <0.75 Organic clayKLMN Organic siltKLMO Liquid Limit −ovendried Liquid Limit −notdried <0.75 Organicclay KLMP Organic siltKLMQ Particle Size Identification Boulders.............. over 12" Cobbles................ 3" to 12"Gravel Coarse............. 3/4" to 3" (19.00 mm to 75.00 mm)Fine................. No. 4 to 3/4" (4.75 mm to 19.00 mm)Sand Coarse.............. No. 10 to No. 4 (2.00 mm to 4.75 mm)Medium........... No. 40 to No. 10 (0.425 mm to 2.00 mm) Fine.................. No. 200 to No. 40 (0.075 mm to 0.425 mm) Silt........................ No. 200 (0.075 mm) to .005 mmClay...................... < .005 mm Relative ProportionsL, M trace............................. 0 to 5% little.............................. 6 to 14%with.............................. ≥ 15% Inclusion Thicknesseslens............................... 0 to 1/8" seam............................. 1/8" to 1"layer.............................. over 1" Apparent Relative Density of Cohesionless SoilsVery loose ..................... 0 to 4 BPF Loose ............................ 5 to 10 BPFMedium dense.............. 11 to 30 BPF Dense............................ 31 to 50 BPF Very dense.................... over 50 BPF A.Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve. B.If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name.C. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with siltGW-GC well-graded gravel with clayGP-GM poorly graded gravel with siltGP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay D.Cu= D60 / D10 Cc= 𝐷30 2 / (𝐷10 𝑥𝐷60) E.If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. F.If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM.G. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. H. Sands with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with claySP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clayI.If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. J. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is CL-ML, silty clay. K.If soil contains 15 to < 30% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel", whichever is predominant. L. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.M. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name. N. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.O. PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.P. PI plots on or above “A” line.Q.PI plots below “A” line. Laboratory Tests DD Dry density,pcf OC Organic content, %LL Liquid limit WD Wet density, pcf qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf PL Plastic limit P200 % Passing #200 sieve MC Moisture content, %PI Plasticity index qU Unconfined compression test, tsf Consistency of Blows Approximate Unconfined Cohesive Soils Per Foot Compressive Strength Very soft................... 0 to 1 BPF................... < 0.25 tsfSoft........................... 2 to 4 BPF................... 0.25 to 0.5 tsf Medium.................... 5 to 8 BPF .................. 0.5 to 1 tsf Stiff........................... 9 to 15 BPF................. 1 to 2 tsfVery Stiff................... 16 to 30 BPF............... 2 to 4 tsf Hard.......................... over 30 BPF................ > 4 tsf Drilling Notes: Blows/N-value: Blows indicate the driving resistance recorded for each 6-inch interval. The reported N-value is the blows per foot recorded by summing the second and third interval in accordance with the Standard Penetration Test, ASTM D1586. Partial Penetration:If the sampler could not be driven through a full 6-inch interval, the number of blows for that partial penetration is shown as #/x" (i.e. 50/2"). The N-value is reported as "REF" indicating refusal. Recovery: Indicates the inches of sample recovered from the sampled interval. For a standard penetration test, full recovery is 18", and is 24" for a thinwall/shelby tube sample. WOH: Indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone; driving not required. WOR: Indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods alone; hammer weight and driving not required. Water Level: Indicates the water level measured by the drillers either while drilling ( ), at the end of drilling ( ), or at some time after drilling ( ). Moisture Content: Dry:Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch. Moist: Damp but no visible water. Wet: Visible free water, usually soil is below water table. 3/2019 Hennepin County Transportation Project Delivery Public Works Facility, 1600 Prairie Drive, Medina, MN 55340 612-596-0300 | hennepin.us March 1, 2021 Ms. Beth Novak-Krebs Senior Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Preliminary Plat Review – Noble Hill (Received 01/22/21) County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 4 (Spring Road) Hennepin County Plat Review ID #3613B (Reviewed 02/02/21) Ms. Novak-Krebs: Please consider the following county comments for this preliminary plat proposal for 50 single-family homes. Access: A ¾-access with median and turn lanes is proposed on Spring Road. A detailed county review will be required to verify adequate sight distance is provided prior to county permit approval. This may require tree removal and guardrail replacement (preferably avoided). We strongly recommend further pursuing an internal street connection to June Grass Lane to allow more evenly distributed traffic and reduce the potential for illegal maneuvers at Spring Road. Right-of-way: Pending additional details for the proposed off-road trail and supporting slope needed, right-of-way dedication of 17 feet to match the county’s preferred 50-foot half section is sufficient along Spring Road. Additional dedication may be needed for the turn lanes at the proposed access. Bicycle and Pedestrian: With the city planned off-road trail on the east side of Spring Road along this site, the county supports the city in working with the developer to make the necessary slope changes to support this trail construction. Future trail extension to the enhanced pedestrian crossing at Prospect Road to the north would also be beneficial. A sidewalk or trail connection to June Grass Lane would also further support local connectivity. Storm Water/Drainage: The county supports the proposed drainage/utility easement over ‘Outlot D’ to accommodate the planned county culvert replacement project along Riley Creek (2022) in the southwest corner of the site. Please also ensure to maintain proper ditch drainage along Spring Road for the property length and under the proposed access. The site needs to internally capture any additional stormwater runoff as the County storm water system will not take water from new drainage areas. Additional treatment may be needed if flow rates cannot match existing. Contact: Drew McGovern at 612-596-0208 or drew.mcgovern@hennepin.us Hennepin County Transportation Project Delivery Public Works Facility, 1600 Prairie Drive, Medina, MN 55340 612-596-0300 | hennepin.us Permits: Please inform the developer that all construction within county right-of-way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact: Michael Olmstead, Permits Coordinator at 612-596-0336 or michael.olmstead@hennepin.us Please contact Jason Gottfried: 612-596-0394, jason.gottfried@hennepin.us for further discussion. Sincerely, Carla Stueve, PE, PTOE County Highway Engineer February 2020 Lower Minnesota River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Part II—Northern Watersheds: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek and Nine Mile Creek Watersheds Watershed wq-iw7-50e Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency i Authors and contributors: Barr Engineering Company—Greg Wilson, Jay Hawley, and Michael McKinney Minnesota Pollution Control Agency—Chris Zadak, John Erdmann, and Rachel Olmanson Cover Photo Credit: Nine Mile Creek, Barr Engineering Company photo Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ii Contents Contents ................................................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ vii Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................ x Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... xi 1. Project Overview............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Identification of Waterbodies .............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Priority Ranking .................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Applicable Water Quality Standards and Numeric Water Quality Targets ...................................... 7 3. Watershed and Waterbody Characterization .................................................................................. 8 3.1 RPBCWD Watershed and Waterbody Characterization ....................................................................... 8 3.2 NMCWD Watershed and Waterbody Characterization ....................................................................... 8 3.3 Lakes ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Streams .............................................................................................................................................. 10 3.5 Subwatersheds ................................................................................................................................... 10 3.6 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................. 25 3.7 Current/Historical Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 28 3.7.1 Lake Water Quality Data ........................................................................................ 28 3.7.2 Stream Water Quality Data .................................................................................... 29 3.7.2.1 Total Suspended Solids .......................................................................................... 29 3.7.2.2 Bacteria (E. coli) ..................................................................................................... 30 3.8 Pollutant Source Summary ................................................................................................................. 31 3.8.1 Total Phosphorus ................................................................................................... 31 3.8.1.1 Permitted .............................................................................................................. 31 3.8.1.2 Non-permitted ....................................................................................................... 31 3.8.2 Total Suspended Solids Source Summary ............................................................... 40 3.8.2.1 Permitted .............................................................................................................. 40 3.8.2.2 Non-permitted ....................................................................................................... 40 3.8.3 Bacteria (E. coli) Source Summary .......................................................................... 41 3.8.3.1 Permitted .............................................................................................................. 41 3.8.3.2 Non-permitted ....................................................................................................... 41 4. TMDL Development ...................................................................................................................... 42 4.1 Loading Allocation Methodology/Natural Background ..................................................................... 42 4.1.1 Natural Background Consideration ......................................................................... 42 4.2 Lakes, Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................................................... 43 4.2.1 TP Loading Capacity ............................................................................................... 43 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency iii 4.2.2 TP Load Allocation Methodology ............................................................................ 44 4.2.2.1 Atmospheric Deposition......................................................................................... 45 4.2.2.2 Erosion .................................................................................................................. 45 4.2.2.3 Internal Loading ..................................................................................................... 45 4.2.2.4 Groundwater ......................................................................................................... 45 4.2.2.5 Upstream Lakes ..................................................................................................... 45 4.2.3 TP Wasteload Allocation Methodology .................................................................. 46 4.2.3.1 Permitted Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Facilities ...................................... 46 4.2.3.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems: Individual WLAs ................................... 46 4.2.3.3 Construction/Industrial Stormwater: Categorical WLAs .......................................... 47 4.2.4 Margin of Safety .................................................................................................... 50 4.2.5 Seasonal Variation ................................................................................................. 50 4.2.6 TP TMDL Summary ................................................................................................. 50 4.2.6.1 Silver Lake .............................................................................................................. 50 4.2.6.2 Lotus Lake .............................................................................................................. 51 4.2.6.3 Staring Lake ........................................................................................................... 52 4.2.6.4 Lake Lucy ............................................................................................................... 53 4.2.6.5 Lake Susan ............................................................................................................. 53 4.2.6.6 Rice Marsh Lake ..................................................................................................... 54 4.2.6.7 Lake Riley ............................................................................................................... 55 4.2.6.8 Hyland Lake ........................................................................................................... 56 4.2.6.9 Wing Lake .............................................................................................................. 56 4.2.6.10 Lake Rose ............................................................................................................... 57 4.2.6.11 North Cornelia Lake ............................................................................................... 58 4.2.6.12 South Cornelia Lake ............................................................................................... 58 4.2.6.13 Lake Edina.............................................................................................................. 59 4.2.6.14 Penn Lake .............................................................................................................. 59 4.3 Streams, Total Suspended Solids ....................................................................................................... 60 4.3.1 TSS Loading Capacity Methodology ........................................................................ 60 4.3.2 TSS Load Allocation Methodology .......................................................................... 61 4.3.2.1 Upstream Lakes ..................................................................................................... 61 4.3.2.2 Non-regulated surface runoff and near-channel erosion ........................................ 62 4.3.2.3 Unallocated load .................................................................................................... 62 4.3.3 TSS Wasteload Allocation Methodology ................................................................. 62 4.3.3.1 Permitted Wastewater Sources .............................................................................. 62 4.3.3.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems: Individual WLAs ................................... 62 4.3.3.3 Construction/Industrial Stormwater: Categorical WLAs .......................................... 63 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency iv 4.3.4 Margin of Safety .................................................................................................... 63 4.3.5 Seasonal Variation ................................................................................................. 63 4.3.6 TSS TMDL Summary ............................................................................................... 63 4.4 Streams, E. coli ................................................................................................................................... 64 4.4.1 E. coli Loading Capacity Methodology .................................................................... 64 4.4.2 E. coli Load Allocation Methodology....................................................................... 68 4.4.2.1 Upstream Lakes ..................................................................................................... 68 4.4.2.2 Non-regulated surface runoff ................................................................................. 68 4.4.2.3 Unallocated load .................................................................................................... 68 4.4.3 E. coli Wasteload Allocation Methodology ............................................................. 68 4.4.3.1 Permitted Wastewater Sources .............................................................................. 68 4.4.3.2 Confined Animal Feeding Operations ..................................................................... 69 4.4.3.3 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems .............................................................. 69 4.4.3.4 Construction/Industrial Stormwater: Categorical WLAs .......................................... 69 4.4.4 Margin of Safety .................................................................................................... 70 4.4.5 Seasonal Variation ................................................................................................. 70 4.4.6 E. coli TMDL Summary ........................................................................................... 70 5. Future Growth Considerations ...................................................................................................... 73 5.1 New or Expanding Permitted MS4 WLA Transfer Process ................................................................. 73 5.2 New or Expanding Wastewater (TSS and E. coli TMDLs only) ............................................................ 73 6. Reasonable Assurance .................................................................................................................. 74 6.1 Regulatory approaches ...................................................................................................................... 74 6.2 Nonregulatory approaches ................................................................................................................ 75 7. Monitoring Overview .................................................................................................................... 78 8. Implementation Strategy Summary .............................................................................................. 79 8.1 Permitted Sources .............................................................................................................................. 79 8.1.1 Construction Stormwater ....................................................................................... 79 8.1.2 Industrial Stormwater ............................................................................................ 79 8.1.3 MS4 ....................................................................................................................... 79 8.2 Watershed District-Led Efforts ........................................................................................................... 80 8.3 Cost..................................................................................................................................................... 81 8.4 Adaptive Management ....................................................................................................................... 81 9. Public Participation ....................................................................................................................... 83 10. Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 84 Appendix A: Watershed and Lake Modeling Methodology ....................................................... 86 A.1 P8 Watershed Modeling..................................................................................................................... 86 A.1.1 Watershed boundaries........................................................................................... 86 A.1.1.1 Staring Lake Watersheds ........................................................................................ 86 A.1.2 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 87 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v A.1.3 Curve Numbers ...................................................................................................... 88 A.1.4 Drainage Patterns .................................................................................................. 89 A.1.5 Pollutant Removal Device Information ................................................................... 89 A.1.6 Other Model Parameters ....................................................................................... 89 A.2 In-Lake Water Quality Mass Balance Modeling ................................................................................. 90 A.2.1 Lake Model Water Balance .................................................................................... 91 A.2.2 Lake Model Total Phosphorus Balance ................................................................. 102 A.2.3 Lake Surface Model Concentration....................................................................... 104 A.2.4 Silver Model Calibration ....................................................................................... 104 A.2.5 Lotus Lake Model Calibration ............................................................................... 106 A.2.6 Staring Lake Model Calibration ............................................................................ 107 A.2.7 Lake Lucy Model Calibration ................................................................................ 109 A.2.8 Lake Susan Model Calibration .............................................................................. 110 A.2.9 Rice Marsh Lake Model Calibration ...................................................................... 112 A.2.10 Riley Lake Model Calibration ................................................................................ 114 A.2.11 Hyland Lake Model Calibration............................................................................. 115 A.2.12 Wing Lake Model Calibration ............................................................................... 119 A.2.13 Lake Rose Model Calibration ................................................................................ 120 A.2.14 North Cornelia Lake Model Calibration................................................................. 121 A.2.15 South Cornelia Lake Model Calibration................................................................. 123 A.2.16 Lake Edina Model Calibration ............................................................................... 124 A.2.17 Penn Lake Model Calibration ............................................................................... 126 List of Tables Table 1.1 List of 303(d) impaired lakes and streams in the RPBCWD ........................................................................................ 2 Table 1.2 List of 303(d) impaired lakes and streams in the NMCWD ........................................................................................ 3 Table 2.1 MPCA lake water quality standards for NCHF Ecoregion............................................................................................ 7 Table 2.2 MPCA water quality standards for TMDL parameters in streams for RPBCWD and NMCWD watersheds ... 7 Table 3.1 RPBCWD Lake morphology ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Table 3.2 NMCWD Lake morphology ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Table 3.3 Impaired RPBCWD and NMCWD streams, areas and impaired reach lengths. .................................................. 10 Table 3.4 Land use areas within the RPBCWD lake and stream watersheds including percent of total watershed area......................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Table 3.5 Land use areas within the NMCWD lake and stream watersheds including percent of total watershed area ................................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Table 3.6 Average Summer (June through September) water quality data comparison with applicable standards for analyzed lakes in the RPBCWD ........................................................................................................................ 28 Table 3.7 Average Summer (June through September) water quality data comparison with applicable standards for analyzed lakes in the NMCWD ........................................................................................................................ 29 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency vi Table 3.8 Stream bacteria (E. coli) monitoring summary ........................................................................................................... 30 Table 3.9 Chronic E. coli impairment summary ............................................................................................................................ 31 Table 3.10 Acute E. coli impairment summary ............................................................................................................................. 31 Table 4.1 Total phosphorus load under existing condition and proposed condition to meet water quality goals in the RPBCWD lakes ............................................................................................................................... 44 Table 4.2 Total phosphorus load under existing condition and proposed condition to meet water quality goals in the NMCWD lakes ............................................................................................................................... 44 Table 4.3 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Silver Lake (27- 0136-00) during 2015 water year. .................................................................................................................. 51 Table 4.4 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lotus Lake (10- 0006-00) during 2015 water year. .................................................................................................................. 51 Table 4.5 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Staring Lake (27-0078-00) during 2015 water year. ................................................................................................. 52 Table 4.6 Nutrient Budgets and Recommended Reductions for Lake Lucy (10-0007-00) during 2015 water year. ... 53 Table 4.7 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lake Susan (10- 0013-00) during 2015 water year. .................................................................................................................. 54 Table 4.8 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Rice Marsh Lake (10-0001-00) during 2014 water year. .......................................................................................................... 55 Table 4.9 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lake Riley (10- 0002-00) during 2014 water year. .................................................................................................................. 56 Table 4.10 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Hyland Lake (27- 0048-00) during 2015 water year. .................................................................................................................. 56 Table 4.11 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Wing Lake (27- 0091-00) during 2016 growing season. ......................................................................................................... 57 Table 4.12 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lake Rose (27- 0092-00) during 2016 growing season. ......................................................................................................... 57 Table 4.13 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for North Cornelia Lake (27-0028-01) during 2015 growing season. ........................................................................................ 58 Table 4.14 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for South Cornelia Lake (27-0028-02) during 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................ 59 Table 4.15 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Edina Lake (27- 0029-00) during 2015 growing season. ......................................................................................................... 59 Table 4.16 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Penn Lake (27- 0004-00) during 2016 growing season. ......................................................................................................... 60 Table 4.17 Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) TSS TMDL and Allocations ........................................................................... 64 Table 4.18 Stream flow rate data for E. coli TMDLs .................................................................................................................... 65 Table 4.19 MS4 Area Summary for E. coli TMDLs ........................................................................................................................ 69 Table 4.20 Nine Mile Creek (AUID# 07020012-809) E. coli TMDL and Allocations.............................................................. 71 Table 4.21 Purgatory Creek (AUID# 07020012-828) E. coli TMDL and Allocations ............................................................. 71 Table 4.22 Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) E. coli TMDL and Allocations ....................................................................... 72 Table A.1 Comparison between measured and modeled TP EMC values at Purgatory Creek Valley View Station .... 87 Table A.2 Impervious Assumption by 2010 Land Use Category ............................................................................................... 88 Table A.3: Pervious area curve number classification by HSG soil type ................................................................................. 88 Table A.4 Silver Lake Bathymetry and Outflow ............................................................................................................................ 92 Table A.5 Lotus Lake Bathymetry and Outflow ............................................................................................................................ 93 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency vii Table A.6 Staring Lake Bathymetry and Outflow ......................................................................................................................... 93 Table A.7 Lake Lucy Bathymetry and Outflow .............................................................................................................................. 94 Table A.8 Lake Susan Bathymetry and Outflow ........................................................................................................................... 95 Table A.9 Rice Marsh Bathymetry and Outflow ........................................................................................................................... 96 Table A.10 Lake Riley Bathymetry and Outflow ........................................................................................................................... 97 Table A.11 Hyland Lake Bathymetry and Outflow ....................................................................................................................... 98 Table A.12 Wing Lake Bathymetry and Outflow .......................................................................................................................... 99 Table A.13 Lake Rose Bathymetry and Outflow ......................................................................................................................... 100 Table A.14 North Cornelia Lake Bathymetry and Outflow ...................................................................................................... 101 Table A.15 South Cornelia Lake Bathymetry and Outflow....................................................................................................... 101 Table A.16 Lake Edina Bathymetry and Outflow ........................................................................................................................ 102 Table A.17 Penn Lake Bathymetry and Outflow......................................................................................................................... 102 Table A.18 Hyland Lake contributing and non-contributing areas, total phosphorus watershed loads and total phosphorus loads to the lake based on P8 modeled results for the 2015 water year. .................. 117 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Location of Riley Creek, Purgatory Creek, and RPBCWD Lake Watersheds .......................................................... 5 Figure 1.2 Location of Nine Mile Creek and NMCWD Lake Watersheds ................................................................................... 6 Figure 3.1 Silver Lake Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 3.2 Lotus Lake Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3.3 Staring Lake Subwatersheds .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3.4 Lake Lucy Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3.5 Lake Susan Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 3.6 Rice March Lake Subwatersheds .................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 3.7 Lake Riley Subwatersheds .............................................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 3.8 Hyland Lake Subwatersheds .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3.9 Wing Lake Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 3.10 Lake Rose Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 3.11 North Cornelia Lake Subwatersheds ......................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3.12 South Cornelia Lake Subwatersheds ......................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3.13 Lake Edina Subwatersheds .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 3.14 Penn Lake Subwatersheds ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3.15 Riley Creek TSS concentration cumulative frequency curve, 2006-2015......................................................... 29 Figure 3.16 Purgatory Creek TSS concentration cumulative frequency curve, 2006-2015 ............................................... 30 Figure 3.17 Silver Lake existing conditions loading breakdown for 2015 water year ......................................................... 33 Figure 3.18 Lotus Lake existing conditions loading breakdown for 2015 water year ......................................................... 34 Figure 3.19 Staring Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year ........................................................ 34 Figure 3.20 Lake Lucy existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year ............................................................ 35 Figure 3.21 Lake Susan existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year .......................................................... 35 Figure 3.22 Rice Marsh Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2014 water year ................................................ 36 Figure 3.23 Lake Riley existing condition loading breakdown for 2014 water year ............................................................ 36 Figure 3.24 Hyland Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year ........................................................ 37 Figure 3.25 Wing Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season .................................................. 37 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency viii Figure 3.26 Lake Rose existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season ................................................... 38 Figure 3.27 North Cornelia Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 growing season ................................ 38 Figure 3.28 South Cornelia Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season ................................ 39 Figure 3.29 Edina Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 growing season ................................................. 39 Figure 3.30 Penn Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season .................................................. 40 Figure 4.1 RPBCWD MS4 Boundaries .............................................................................................................................................. 48 Figure 4.2 NMCWD MS4 Boundaries .............................................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 4.3 Riley Creek TSS concentration cumulative frequency curve, 2006-2015 ........................................................... 61 Figure 4.4 Flow Duration Curve for Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek................................................... 65 Figure 4.5 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Nine Mile Creek (AUID# 07020012-809) .......................................................... 66 Figure 4.6 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Purgatory Creek (AUID# 07020012-828) .......................................................... 67 Figure 4.7 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) ................................................................... 67 Figure 8.1. Adaptive Management .................................................................................................................................................. 82 Figure A.1 Silver Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. .................................................................................................... 105 Figure A.2 Silver Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured whole lake TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. ........................................................................................................................................ 106 Figure A.3 Lotus Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. .................................................................................................... 107 Figure A.4 Lotus Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. ........................................................................................................................................ 107 Figure A.5 Staring Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. .................................................................................................... 108 Figure A.6 Staring Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. ................................................................................................................................. 109 Figure A.7 Lake Lucy comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. .................................................................................................... 110 Figure A.8 Lake Lucy time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. ........................................................................................................................................ 110 Figure A.9 Lake Susan comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year ..................................................................................................... 111 Figure A.10 Lake Susan time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure A.11 Rice Marsh Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2014 water year. .................................................................................................... 113 Figure A.12 Rice Marsh Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2014 water year. .................................................................................................... 113 Figure A.13 Lake Riley comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2014 water year. .................................................................................................... 114 Figure A.14 Lake Riley time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2014 water year. ................................................................................................................................. 115 Figure A.15 Hyland Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. .................................................................................................... 116 Figure A.16 Hyland Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. ................................................................................................................................. 116 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ix Figure A.17 Hyland Lake subwatersheds, flowpath directions, contributing areas and total phosphorus loads to the lake for the 2015 water year.......................................................................................................................... 118 Figure A.18 Wing Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................... 119 Figure A.19 Wing Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................................................ 120 Figure A.20 Lake Rose comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................... 121 Figure A.21 Lake Rose time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................................................ 121 Figure A.22 North Cornelia Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 growing season. ........................................................................................... 122 Figure A.23 North Cornelia Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 growing season. ........................................................................................... 123 Figure A.24 South Cornelia Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................... 124 Figure A.25 South Cornelia Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................... 124 Figure A.26 Lake Edina comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 growing season. ........................................................................................... 125 Figure A.27 Lake Edina time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 growing season. ........................................................................................................................ 126 Figure A.28 Penn Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................... 127 Figure A.29 Penn Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. ........................................................................................................................ 127 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency x Acronyms AGREETT Agriculture Research, Education and Extension Technology Transfer Program AUID Assessment Unit ID BMP best management practice Chl-a Chlorophyll-a DNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EQuIS Environmental Quality Information System LA load allocation lb pound lb/day pounds per day lb/yr pounds per year m meter mg/L milligrams per liter mL milliliter MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation MOS Margin of Safety MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems NCHF North Central Hardwood Forest NMCWD Nine Mile Creek Watershed District NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System RPBCWD Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District SSTS Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TP Total phosphorus UAA Use Attainability Analysis WLA wasteload allocation WOMP Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program WRAPS Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency xi Executive Summary This Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report is a part of a larger effort addressing impaired waters in the Lower Minnesota River Watershed. The focus of this report is on waters in the northern urban portion of the watershed in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area covering portions of Carver and Hennepin Counties, specifically the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD). Overall, this report provides TMDLs for 13 lakes impaired by excess nutrients (phosphorus), two streams impaired by bacteria (Escherichia coli (E. coli)) and one stream impaired by both total suspended solids (TSS) and having impaired biota (fish and macroinvertebrates). Nutrients and E. coli are parameters related to aquatic recreational use, and TSS is related to aquatic life use. RPBCWD Waterbodies There are seven phosphorus-impaired lakes in the RPBCWD: Rice Marsh, Susan, Riley, Hyland, Silver, Lotus, and Staring. The lower portion of Riley Creek is impaired by E. coli and TSS, and the lower portion of Purgatory Creek is impaired by E. coli. The lakes and streams are popular for various recreational uses and are the focus of considerable efforts by RPBCWD, cities and others for monitoring, evaluation and restoration. In addition to the impaired waterbodies, two waterbodies that are not impaired but that are close to water quality standards (Lake Lucy for phosphorus and Purgatory Creek for TSS are included in this report for the purpose of data analysis for protection purposes). For the lakes, the relative abundance of sources of phosphorus vary by lake, but they are predominantly urban stormwater runoff and internal loading from lake sediments. For some lakes, erosion from streambanks from inlet channels also is a source. The primary source of TSS in Riley Creek is likely streambank and near-channel erosion of sediment. Loading from urban stormwater is believed to be a much smaller source. A separate biological stressor identification process identified TSS as the primary stressor for the fish and macroinvertebrates impairments in Riley Creek. Thus, the TSS TMDL will address those biota impairments as well. The primary sources of E. coli are likely improperly managed pet waste and wildlife inputs (e.g., waterfowl, geese, etc.) directly to impervious surfaces and water features. As with runoff-derived phosphorus and TSS, bacteria are transported via overland flow paths or storm sewer systems to the impaired waterbodies. The overall phosphorus loading reduction needed for the lakes range from 17% to 50%. For TSS and E. coli in Riley Creek estimated reductions of 88% and 81%, respectively, are needed. For E. coli in Purgatory Creek an estimated reduction of 68% is needed. The primary implementation strategies that will be needed to restore these waters will be improved stormwater management to both capture/treat pollutants and reduce runoff volume. This reduced runoff volume will decrease peak flow levels in Riley Creek and thereby reduce streambank erosion. Also, for lakes, management of internal loading will be needed through continued invasive species management, as well as alum treatment to bind phosphorus. NMCWD Waterbodies There are six phosphorus-impaired lakes in the NMCWD: Wing, Rose, North Cornelia, South Cornelia, Edina, and Penn. In addition, the lower portion of Nine Mile Creek is impaired by E. coli. The lakes and Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency xii creek are popular for various recreational uses and are the focus of considerable efforts by NMCWD, cities, and others for monitoring, evaluation and restoration. For the lakes, the relative abundance of sources of phosphorus vary by lake, but they are predominantly urban stormwater runoff and internal loading from lake sediments. The primary sources of E. coli are likely improperly managed pet waste and wildlife inputs (e.g., waterfowl, geese, etc.) directly to impervious surfaces and water features. As with runoff-derived phosphorus, bacteria are transported via overland flow paths or storm sewer systems to the impaired waterbodies. The overall phosphorus loading reduction needed for the lakes range from 31% to 59%. For E. coli in Nine Mile Creek an estimated reduction of 41% is needed. The primary implementation strategies that will be needed to restore these waters will be improved stormwater management to capture/treat pollutants, plus control of internal loading through invasive species management as well as alum treatment to bind phosphorus. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1 1. Project Overview 1.1 Purpose The Clean Water Act Section 303(d) requires that states publish a list of surface waters that do not meet water quality standards and therefore, do not support their designated use(s). These waters are then classified as impaired, which dictates that a TMDL report be completed for them. The goal of this TMDL report is to calculate the maximum amount of a pollutant that certain impaired waterbodies can receive and still meet the state water quality standards. The passage of Minnesota’s Clean Water Legacy Act (CWLA) in 2006 provided a policy framework and resources to state and local governments to accelerate efforts to monitor, assess and restore impaired waters, and to protect unimpaired waters. The result has been a comprehensive “watershed approach” that integrates water resource management efforts by the state, local governments, and stakeholders to develop watershed-scale TMDLs, restoration and protection strategies, and plans for each of Minnesota’s 80 major watersheds. The waterbodies in the RPBCWD and NMCWD have been monitored for many years and studies locally referred to as “Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) reports” have been prepared for many of them to address known water quality issues, and present possible restoration and protection strategies. (Note: these are not intended as UAAs as defined in federal law.) The historical water quality data was also used to assess the whether any of these waterbodies were considered impaired for one or more water quality parameters and should be assigned TMDLs. Completed studies in these two watershed districts that were referenced and used during this TMDL analysis include: Lake Ann and Lake Lucy UAA Update (Barr 2013a) Lake Susan Use Attainability Assessment Update (Wenck 2013) Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley UAA Update (Barr 2016) Lotus, Silver, Duck, Round Mitchell, Red Rock UAA Update; Lake Idlewild, and Staring Lake UAA; and Lower Purgatory Creek Stabilization Study (Barr 2017c) Creek Restoration Action Strategy (Barr 2015) RPBCWD Watershed Management Plan-Draft (Barr 2017b) Lake Cornelia UAA Revised Draft (Barr 2010) NMCWD Water Management Plan (Barr 2017a) This document address RPBCWD and NMCWD waterbodies that have been identified as impaired by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that have not been addressed in prior TMDLs, have an approved water quality standard and have sufficient data for assessment. The findings of this study can be used in combination with the UAA reports, water management plans and other studies to develop watershed-wide restoration and protection strategies to aid in the planning of water quality improvement projects. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2 While not directly connected to any of the waterbodies discussed in this report, the previously completed TMDL implementation plan for Bluff Creek (Barr 2013b) should also be considered as part of the comprehensive plan to address water quality impairments in the RPBCWD. 1.2 Identification of Waterbodies This TMDL report applies to 10 separate impairment listings for 2 stream reaches and 7 lakes in the RPBCWD (Table 1.1). Locations of Riley and Purgatory Creeks are shown in Figure 1.1. Figure 1.1 also shows watersheds for the eight lakes (Lucy, Rice Marsh, Susan, Riley, Hyland, Silver, Lotus, and Staring) within the RPBCWD included in this TMDL report. Table 1.1 List of 303(d) impaired lakes and streams in the RPBCWD AUID Stream or Lake Name Affected Designated Use Impairment (Pollutant) Designated Use Class Listing Year Target Completion 07020012- 511 Riley Creek, Lake Riley to the Minnesota River Aquatic Life Turbidity (TSS) 2B, 3C 2002 2019 Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments a 2018 2019 Fishes bioassessments a 2018 2019 Aquatic Recreation Bacteria (E. coli) 2018 2019 07020012- 828 Purgatory Creek, Staring Lake to the Minnesota River Aquatic Life Turbidity (TSS)b NA NA Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments c 2018 2019 Aquatic Recreation Bacteria (E. coli) 2018 2019 10-0007-00 Lake Lucyd NA NA NA NA 10-0013-00 Lake Susan Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/ Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) 2010 2019 10-0001-00 Rice Marsh Lake 2018 2019 10-0002-00 Riley Lake 2002 2019 Aquatic Life Fishes bioassessments e 2018 2029 27-0136-00 Silver Lake Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/ Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) 2016 2019 10-0006-00 Lotus Lake 2002 2019 Aquatic Life Fishes bioassessments e 2018 2029 27-0078-00 Staring Lake Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/ Eutrophication 2002 2019 27-0048-00 Hyland Lake 2008 2019 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 3 AUID Stream or Lake Name Affected Designated Use Impairment (Pollutant) Designated Use Class Listing Year Target Completion Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) a: This impairment is addressed via completion of the TSS impairment. See Section 4.3. b: Analysis of the recent Purgatory Creek TSS data does not show impairment and it will be assigned protection status rather than a TMDL. See Section 3.7.2.1. c: This impairment is not due to a pollutant and is expected to be recategorized to EPA category 4C in the 2020 303(d) list. d: Lake Lucy was assigned protection status rather than inclusion on the impaired waters list. e: This listing is not addressed in this TMDL report. Any TMDL, if needed, will be deferred until a later date. This TMDL report also applies to seven separate impairment listings for one stream reach and six lakes in the NMCWD (Table 1.2). The location of Nine Mile Creek is shown in Figure 1.2. Figure 1.2 also highlights the watersheds for the six lakes (Wing, Rose, North Cornelia, South Cornelia, Edina, and Penn) within the NMCWD included in this TMDL Report. Table 1.2 List of 303(d) impaired lakes and streams in the NMCWD AUID Stream or Lake Name Affected Designated Use Impairment (Pollutant) Designated Use Class Listing Year Target Completion 07020012- 807 Nine Mile Creek, Headwaters to Metro Blvd Aquatic Life Fishes bioassessments a 2B, 3C 2004 2029 07020012- 808 Nine Mile Creek, Metro Blvd to end of unnamed wetland (Marsh Lake) Aquatic Life Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments b 2018 2029 Fishes bioassessments b 2018 2029 07020012- 809 Nine Mile Creek, Unnamed wetland (Marsh Lake) to the Minnesota River Aquatic Life Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments b 2018 2029 Fishes bioassessments b 2018 2029 Aquatic Recreation Bacteria (E. coli) 2018 2019 07020012- 723 South Fork Nine Mile Creek, Smetana Lk to Ninemile Cr Aquatic Life Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments b 2018 2029 Fishes bioassessments b 2018 2029 27-0091-00 Wing Lake Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/ Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) 2010 2019 27-0092-00 Lake Rose 2010 2019 27-0028-01 North Cornelia Lake 2008 2019 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 4 AUID Stream or Lake Name Affected Designated Use Impairment (Pollutant) Designated Use Class Listing Year Target Completion 27-0028-02 South Cornelia Lake 2018 2019 27-0029-00 Lake Edina 2008 2019 27-0004-00 Penn Lake 2018 2019 27-0067-00 Bryant Lake Aquatic Life Fishes bioassessments b 2018 2029 a: This impairment is not due to a pollutant and is expected to be recategorized to EPA category 4C in the 2020 303(d) list. b: This listing is not addressed in this TMDL report. Any TMDL, if needed, will be deferred until a later date. 1.3 Priority Ranking The MPCA’s schedule for TMDL completions, as indicated on Minnesota’s Section 303(d) impaired waters list, reflects Minnesota’s priority ranking of this TMDL. The MPCA has aligned its TMDL priorities with the watershed approach and its Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) cycle. The schedule for TMDL completion corresponds to the WRAPS report completion on the 10-year cycle. The MPCA developed a state plan Minnesota’s TMDL Priority Framework Report to meet the needs of United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA’s) national measure (WQ-27) under EPA’s Long- Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration and Protection under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Program. As part of these efforts, the MPCA identified water quality impaired segments that will be addressed by TMDLs by 2022. The RPBCWD and NMCWD waters addressed by this TMDL are part of that MPCA prioritization plan to meet EPA’s national measure. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 5 Figure 1.1 Location of Riley Creek, Purgatory Creek, and RPBCWD Lake Watersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 6 Figure 1.2 Location of Nine Mile Creek and NMCWD Lake Watersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 7 2. Applicable Water Quality Standards and Numeric Water Quality Targets For aquatic recreation uses, water quality in Minnesota lakes is evaluated using three parameters: total phosphorus (TP), chlorophyll-a (Chl-a,) and Secchi depth. Phosphorus is typically the limiting nutrient in Minnesota lakes, meaning that algal growth will increase with increased phosphorus. Chl-a is the primary pigment in aquatic algae and has been shown to have a direct correlation with algal biomass. Secchi depth is a physical measurement of water clarity taken by lowering a white or black-and-white disk until it can no longer be seen from the surface, then noting the depth where this occurs. Greater Secchi depths indicate less light-refracting particulates in the water column and better water quality; conversely, high TP, and Chl-a concentrations point to poor water quality. The protected beneficial use for all lakes is aquatic recreation, including body-contact activities such as swimming. Minnesota’s lake water quality standards vary primarily by ecoregion, and secondarily by lake depth. The lakes of this report are entirely within the North Central Hardwood Forest (NCHF) ecoregion. The standards define a “shallow” lake as one that has either a maximum depth less than 15 feet or a littoral area greater than 80% of the lake’s total area. The “littoral” area is defined in practice as the portion of the lake that is shallower than 15 feet. In addition to meeting phosphorus limits, Chl-a and Secchi transparency standards must be met. In developing the lake nutrient standards for Minnesota lakes (Minn. R. ch. 7050), the MPCA evaluated data from a large cross-section of lakes within each of the state’s ecoregions (MPCA 2005). Clear relationships were established between the causal factor TP and the response variables Chl-a and Secchi transparency. Based on these relationships it is expected that by meeting the phosphorus target in each lake, the Chl-a and Secchi standards will likewise be met. Table 2.1 MPCA lake water quality standards for NCHF Ecoregion Lake depth category TP concentration (µg/L) Chlorophyll-a conc. (µg/L) Minimum Secchi depth (meters) Deep 40 14 1.4 Shallow 60 20 1.0 Note: Values are summer averages (June 1 through September 30). For aquatic recreation uses of streams in Minnesota, E. coli is used as an indicator species of potential waterborne pathogens. The aquatic life use water quality standards for streams include TSS. These standards are described in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 MPCA water quality standards for TMDL parameters in streams for RPBCWD and NMCWD watersheds Parameter Water quality standard Applicable period E. coli Not to exceed 126 organisms per 100 milliliters (org/100 mL) as a geometric mean of not less than five samples representative of conditions within any calendar month, nor shall more than 10% of all samples taken during any calendar month individually exceed 1,260 org/100 mL. April 1 to October 31 TSS South region: 65 mg/L (milligrams per liter); TSS standards for class 2B may be exceeded for no more than 10% of the time. April 1 to September 30 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 8 3. Watershed and Waterbody Characterization 3.1 RPBCWD Watershed and Waterbody Characterization The Riley Creek Watershed encompasses an 11 square mile area. The headwaters of Riley Creek originate in Lake Lucy, then flow through a chain of lakes including Lake Ann, Lake Susan, Rice Marsh Lake, and finally Lake Riley. This portion of the watershed is characterized by mild topography. Upon exiting Lake Riley, Riley Creek flows down the steep north valley wall of the Minnesota River Valley Bluffs before entering the Minnesota River. Riley Creek is located entirely within the boundaries of two municipalities, the City of Chanhassen and the City of Eden Prairie. The Purgatory Creek Watershed encompasses a 30 square mile area. The headwaters of Purgatory Creek originate in Lotus and Silver Lakes. Purgatory Creek then flows through a series of wetland complexes before entering the Purgatory Creek Recreational Area, which was constructed in 2003. From the Recreational Area, Purgatory Creek continues into Staring Lake and then through the bluffs of the Minnesota River Valley on its way to its confluence with the Minnesota River. The Purgatory Creek watershed ranges in character from marshy with a number of wetlands that have poor drainage north of Highway 7, to a mix of marsh and forested upland areas in the middle of the watershed, to finally the steep valley walls of the Minnesota River Valley. In addition to the direct watershed of Purgatory Creek, a chain of lakes known as the Eden Prairie Chain of Lakes discharges into Staring Lake during high flow periods. This chain of lakes includes Duck Lake, Round Lake, Mitchell Lake, and Red Rock Lake. The four lakes were connected to each other, and then Staring Lake, through a series of pipes installed in 1998 to control lake water levels. Hyland Lake is located in the far eastern portion of the Purgatory Creek watershed. Under high water conditions, Hyland Lake will outflow to the west through the storm sewer systems of the cities of Bloomington and Eden Prairie before ultimately discharging into Purgatory Creek just upstream of River View Road. 3.2 NMCWD Watershed and Waterbody Characterization The Nine Mile Creek Watershed encompasses a 46.5 square mile area. The headwaters of Nine Mile Creek originate in Minnetoga Lake (South Fork) and the city of Hopkins (North Fork). The South Fork also flows through Bryant Lake before merging with the North Fork just upstream of Normandale Lake. From Normandale Lake, Nine Mile Creek flows into Marsh Lake and then through the bluffs of the Minnesota River Valley on its way to its confluence with the Minnesota River. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed is generally highly developed, with many small lakes and ponds. The watershed topography is generally mild except for the steep ravine between County Road 1 and the Minnesota River. 3.3 Lakes Lake morphology of the impaired RPBCWD lakes is listed in Table 3.1 and the impaired NMCWD lakes are listed in Table 3.2. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 9 Table 3.1 RPBCWD Lake morphology AUID Lake Surface Area (acres) Average Depth (ft) Maximum Depth (ft) Lake Volume (acre-ft) Littoral Area (acre) Lake Depth Class Direct Watershed Areaa (acre) 10-0007-00 Lake Lucy 88b 6.5 20 560 86 shallow 900 10-0013-00 Lake Susan 88b 10 17 890 83 shallow 1,137 10-0001-00 Rice Marsh Lake 83d 5 11 375 81 shallow 877e 10-0002-00 Lake Riley 297b 23 49 6,230 113 deep 1,491 27-0136-00 Silver Lake 71 5 14 190 71 shallow 350 10-0006-00 Lotus Lake 240 16 31 2,500 177 deep 1,168 27-0078-00 Staring Lake 164 7 16 1,200 155 shallow 10,038c 27-0048-00 Hyland Lake 84f 8f 12f 780f 84f shallow 838g a: Direct watershed area excludes lake surface area b: Surface area from DNR NWI lake data c: Excludes watershed areas from Red Rock, Mitchell, Round, Duck, Lotus, and Silver Lakes d: Open water area varies seasonally due to lake’s aquatic vegetative fringe area e: Excludes watershed areas from lakes Susan, Ann and Lucy. Includes approximately 101 acres of wetland surrounding the lake. f: According to data from the DNR LakeFinder website and 2011 LiDAR. Surface area, depth and volume can vary widely depending on climatic conditions. g: Includes the Colorado Pond watershed area. Table 3.2 NMCWD Lake morphology AUID Lake Surface Area (acres)b Average Depth (ft)b Maximum Depth (ft)b Lake Volume (acre-ft)b Littoral Area (acre)c Lake Depth Class Direct Watershed Areaa (acre) 27-0091-00 Wing Lake 14 4 8 49 14 shallow 113 27-0092-00 Rose Lake 30 4 14 120 30 shallow 227 27-0028-01 North Cornelia Lake 19 4 7 73 19 shallow 855 27-0028-02 South Cornelia Lake 33 5 8 163 33 shallow 80 27-0029-00 Lake Edina 25 3 5 68 25 shallow 368 27-0004-00 Penn Lake 32 4 6 105 32 shallow 1,284 a: Direct watershed area excludes lake surface area and the watershed area of any upstream lakes. b: Surface area, depth and volume at lake outlet control elevation, can change depending on climatic conditions. c: Littoral area assumed to be the same as surface area in these shallow lakes Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 10 3.4 Streams The total length of Riley Creek is eight miles, with the impaired reach of Riley Creek stretching from Riley Lake to the Minnesota River. The total length of Purgatory Creek starting at Silver Lake is 12 miles, with the impaired reach stretching from Staring Lake to the Minnesota River. The North Fork of Nine Mile Creek is 7.6 miles long, the South Fork is 8.6 miles long, and the lower portion of Nine Mile Creek is 7.4 miles long. The impaired reach of Nine Mile Creek stretches from Marsh Lake to the Minnesota River. The approximate impaired reach lengths and total watershed areas of the three impaired creeks are listed in Table 3.3. Table 3.3 Impaired RPBCWD and NMCWD streams, areas and impaired reach lengths. Impaired Reach AUID HUC08 Subwatershed Impaired Reach Location Impaired Reach Length (miles) Total Watershed Area (acres) 07020012-511 Riley Creek Lake Riley to the Minnesota River 4.98 8,180 07020012-828 Purgatory Creek Staring Lake to the Minnesota River 5.64 19,400 07020012-809 Nine Mile Creek Marsh Lake to the Minnesota River 4.82 29,740 3.5 Subwatersheds The RPBCWD Subwatershed delineations and conveyance networks are based on the subwatershed divides updated from topographic data (DNR 2011), storm sewer data, and other information from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and cities, as well as development plans submitted as part of the RPBCWD permit review process. Subwatersheds for all eight RPBCWD lakes are shown in Figure 3.1 to Figure 3.8. The NMCWD Subwatershed delineations and conveyance networks are based on the subwatershed divides updated from topographic data (DNR 2011), storm sewer data, and other information from MnDOT and cities. Subwatersheds for all six NMCWD lakes are shown in Figure 3.9 to Figure 3.14. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 11 Figure 3.1 Silver Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 12 Figure 3.2 Lotus Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 13 Figure 3.3 Staring Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 14 Figure 3.4 Lake Lucy Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 15 Figure 3.5 Lake Susan Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 16 Figure 3.6 Rice March Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 17 Figure 3.7 Lake Riley Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 18 Figure 3.8 Hyland Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 19 Figure 3.9 Wing Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 20 Figure 3.10 Lake Rose Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 21 Figure 3.11 North Cornelia Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 22 Figure 3.12 South Cornelia Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 23 Figure 3.13 Lake Edina Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 24 Figure 3.14 Penn Lake Subwatersheds Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 25 3.6 Land Use This TMDL analysis used the Metropolitan Council’s 2010 historical land use spatial data set (Metropolitan Council 2010) for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Land use data for all eight RPBCWD lakes, as well as Purgatory and Riley Creek, are displayed in Table 3.4. Land use data for all six NMCWD lakes, as well as Nine Mile Creek, are displayed in Table 3.5. There are no tribal lands within the project area. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 26 Table 3.4 Land use areas within the RPBCWD lake and stream watersheds including percent of total watershed area Land Use Land Use Area [Acres (Percent of Watershed)] Silver Lake Lotus Lake Staring Lakea Lake Lucy Lake Susanb Rice Marsh Lake Lake Riley Hyland Lakec Riley Creek Purgatory Creek Agricultural/ Farmstead 5.2, (0%) 2.1, (0.2%) 60.3, (4.1%) 0.6, (0.1%) 28.9, (1.6%) 218.8, (2.7%) 17.9, (0.1%) Airport 44.8, (0.3%) 383, (4.7%) 103.7, (0.5%) Retail and Other Commercial 447.3, (3.3%) 52.1, (3.5%) 117.7, (12.3%) 4.8, (0.3%) 2, (0.2%) 177.9, (2.2%) 683.1, (3.5%) Golf course 109.1, (0.8%) 189.6, (10.6%) 66.2, (7.2%) 189.7, (2.3%) 288.3, (1.5%) Major Highway 465.3, (3.5%) 75.2, (5.1%) 71, (7.4%) 78.8, (4.4%) 231.4, (2.8%) 612.8, (3.2%) Office 107.8, (0.8%) 12.8, (0.9%) 7.5, (0.8%) 7, (0.8%) 44.6, (0.5%) 162.4, (0.8%) Industrial and Utility 0.8, (0.1%) 436, (3.2%) 1.6, (0.2%) 171.6, (11.6%) 21.3, (2.2%) 4.8, (0.3%) 0.1, (0%) 206.2, (2.5%) 467.2, (2.4%) Mixed Use 10.9, (0.1%) 5.4, (0.4%) 5.4, (0.1%) 17.4, (0.1%) Institutional 8.2, (1.9%) 16.7, (1.2%) 530.7, (3.9%) 13.2, (1.3%) 21.7, (1.5%) 48.1, (5%) 1.8, (0.1%) 14.1, (1.5%) 127.6, (1.6%) 712.8, (3.7%) Single Family Detached 303.1, (71.9%) 852, (60.5%) 6,454.7, (48%) 443.9, (44.9%) 259.5, (17.5%) 262.5, (27.4%) 585.1, (32.7%) 314.0, (34.0%) 2,064.6, (25.2%) 9,298.7, (47.9%) Multifamily 4.2, (0.3%) 325.1, (2.4%) 2, (0.2%) 13.5, (0.9%) 27.3, (2.8%) 7, (0.4%) 16.4, (1.8%) 49.8, (0.6%) 506.6, (2.6%) Single Family Attached 64.9, (4.6%) 702, (5.2%) 41, (2.8%) 34, (3.5%) 64.8, (3.6%) 49.5, (5.4%) 254, (3.1%) 1,189.7, (6.1%) Seasonal/ Vacation 0.1, (0.1%) 0.1, (0%) 0.2, (0%) 1.7, (0.1%) 1.9, (0%) 0.1, (0%) Park/Preserve /Recreational 10 (2.4%) 112.2, (8%) 1,911.4, (14.2%) 59.7, (6%) 246.6, (16.6%) 139.5, (14.5%) 112.3, (6.3%) 352.9, (38.3%) 1,484.7, (18.2%) 2,632.7, (13.5%) Undeveloped 5.1 (1.2%) 97.5, (6.9%) 1,130.2, (8.4%) 327.9, (33.2%) 313, (21.1%) 121.2, (12.6%) 335.7, (18.8%) 1.7, (0.2%) 1,619, (19.8%) 1,623.6, (8.4%) Open Water 94.8 (22.5%) 259.3, (18.4%) 765.8, (5.7%) 137.5, (13.9%) 208.6, (14.1%) 109.5, (11.4%) 373, (20.8%) 97.8, (10.6%) 1,119.5, (13.7%) 1,109.4, (5.7%) a: Watershed area includes all areas upstream of Staring Lake except Lotus Lake watershed b: Watershed area includes Lake Ann watershed c: Only 483 acres of the 839 acre Hyland Lake watershed actually contributed loading to the lake during the 2015 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 27 Table 3.5 Land use areas within the NMCWD lake and stream watersheds including percent of total watershed area Land Use Land Use Area [Acres (Percent of Watershed)] Wing Lake Lake Rose North Cornelia Lake South Cornelia Lake Lake Edina Penn Lake Nine Mile Creek Agricultural/ Farmstead 57.9, (0.2%) Airport Retail and Other Commercial 6.1, (2.4%) 126.4, (14.5%) 5.2, (1.3%) 157.7, (12%) 1,075.3, (3.6%) Golf course 547.5, (1.8%) Manufactured Housing Parks 3.1, (0%) Major Highway 102.2, (11.7%) 13.8, (3.5%) 129.3, (9.8%) 1,466.4, (4.9%) Railway 31.3, (0.1%) Office 78.7, (9%) 7.5, (1.9%) 108.9, (8.3%) 1,342, (4.5%) Industrial and Utility 0.5, (0.2%) 0.3, (0%) 0.2, (0%) 31.5, (2.4%) 1,738.1, (5.8%) Mixed Use 8.5, (1%) 732.9, (2.5%) Institutional 11.3, (4.4%) 23.9, (2.7%) 22.2, (5.6%) 105.2, (8%) 1,210, (4.1%) Single Family Detached 107.9, (85.2%) 183.7, (71.4%) 342.9, (39.2%) 76.5, (67.9%) 280.3, (71.3%) 582.4, (44.3%) 11,594.4, (39%) Multifamily 0.8, (0.3%) 52.2, (6%) 7.6, (1.9%) 85.7, (6.5%) 1,247.9, (4.2%) Single Family Attached 0.9, (0.7%) 3.9, (1.5%) 23.5, (2.7%) 4.7, (1.2%) 9.8, (0.7%) 861.4, (2.9%) Seasonal/ Vacation Park/Preserve/ Recreational 9.2, (3.6%) 64.4, (7.4%) 2.9, (2.6%) 20.4, (5.2%) 30.5, (2.3%) 4,663.2, (15.7%) Undeveloped 3.1, (2.5%) 7, (2.7%) 6, (0.7%) 7.5, (1.9%) 22.4, (1.7%) 1,447.4, (4.9%) Open Water 14.7, (11.6%) 34.8, (13.5%) 44.5, (5.1%) 33.2, (29.5%) 23.9, (6.1%) 52.3, (4%) 1,718.1, (5.8%) Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 28 3.7 Current/Historical Water Quality Water quality data was compiled for each of the waterbodies from various sources, including the RPBCWD Environmental Quality Information System (EQuIS) database, the NMCWD EQuIS database, the MPCA environmental data access web site, the Metropolitan Council environmental database, electronic data obtained from CH2MHill, and data that was not available electronically but highlighted in various water quality reports. 3.7.1 Lake Water Quality Data Average summer (June through September) TP and Chl-a concentrations, as well as Secchi depths, were calculated for years available since 2006 for the RPBCWD lakes (Table 3.6). With the exception of Lake Lucy, all of the RPBCWD lakes had TP and Chl-a concentrations above the water quality standards. Average Secchi depths met the standards in all RPBCWD lakes except for Staring and Silver Lakes. Since Lake Lucy met the standards for average TP and Secchi depth, it is being considered in this study for lake water quality protection and will not be subject to TMDL development. Average summer (June through September) TP and Chl-a concentrations, as well as Secchi depths, were calculated for years available since 2007 for the NMCWD lakes included in this study (Table 3.7). All of the NMCWD lakes had TP and Chl-a concentrations above the water quality standards. All of the NMCWD lakes also had Secchi depths less than the standard, except for Lake Rose, which just met the standard of 1.0 meter. The sources of phosphorus entering the lakes—watershed runoff, internal loading, erosion sources, upstream lakes, and atmospheric deposition—are described in detail in Section 4.2.2, with specific breakdowns of loads to each lake by source shown in Figure 3.17 through Figure 3.30 in Section 3.8.1. Table 3.6 Average Summer (June through September) water quality data comparison with applicable standards for analyzed lakes in the RPBCWD AUID Lake TP (µg/L) Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) Secchi Depth (meters) Years Monitored Deep Lake Standards < 40 < 14 > 1.4 10-0006-00 Lotus Lake 55 39 1.5 2010-2015 10-0002-00 Lake Riley 48 26 1.5 2010, 2013-2015 Shallow Lake Standards < 60 < 20 > 1.0 27-0078-00 Staring Lake 94 41 0.8 2010-2015 10-0007-00 Lake Lucy 60 30 1.0 2006-2015 10-0013-00 Lake Susan 78 43 1.2 2010, 2013-2015 10-0001-00 Rice Marsh Lake 110 24 1.7 2010-2015 27-0048-00 Hyland Lake 95 72 1.3 2011-2015 27-0136-00 Silver Lake 93 48 0.7 2011-2015 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 29 Table 3.7 Average Summer (June through September) water quality data comparison with applicable standards for analyzed lakes in the NMCWD AUID Lake TP (µg/L) Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) Secchi Depth (meters) Years Monitored Shallow Lake Standards < 60 < 20 > 1.0 27-0091-00 Wing Lake 97 36 0.8 2007-2016 27-0092-00 Lake Rose 105 48 1.0 2007-2008, 2011,2016 27-0028-01 North Cornelia Lake 148 57 0.4 2008,2013, 2015-2016 27-0028-02 South Cornelia Lake 132 48 0.4 2007-2009, 2013-2016 27-0029-00 Lake Edina 117 39 0.4 2008,2012, 2015 27-0004-00 Penn Lake 148 66 0.4 2009-2016 3.7.2 Stream Water Quality Data 3.7.2.1 Total Suspended Solids According to the TSS standard for Class 2B waters, a stream reach is considered impaired if more than 10% of TSS samples collected April through September exceed 65 mg/L, based on the last 10 years of monitoring data. Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16 show the magnitude and frequency with which the TSS sample results have exceeded 65 mg/L for Riley and Purgatory Creeks, respectively. Figure 3.15 shows that 59% of the samples results exceeded the 65 mg/L TSS standard for Riley Creek and 10% or more of the samples exceeded a TSS concentration of 530 mg/L since 2006. Figure 3.15 Riley Creek TSS concentration cumulative frequency curve, 2006-2015 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 30 Figure 3.16 shows that the Purgatory Creek TSS sample results only exceeded a concentration of 51 mg/L 10% of the time. Since just 4% of the Purgatory Creek TSS samples exceeded the 65 mg/L, the standard is being met and Purgatory Creek will be considered for water quality protection in this study and will not be subject to TMDL development. While the available TSS data for Purgatory Creek meets the standard, the results are limited in that most of the historic sampling has occurred upstream of significant near-channel sources of erosion and mass wasting, including landslides. Figure 3.16 Purgatory Creek TSS concentration cumulative frequency curve, 2006-2015 3.7.2.2 Bacteria (E. coli) The E. coli standard for Class 2B waters states that a stream reach is impaired if the geometric mean of no less than five samples within a calendar month exceeds 126 organisms per 100 milliliters ([mL] chronic impairment standard), or 10% of samples taken within any calendar month individually exceed 1,260 organisms per 100 mLs (acute impairment standard). Based on data collected by the NMCWD, Metropolitan Council Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (WOMP), Scott County Stream and Lake Monitoring program, and the National Park Service (summarized in Table 3.8), the reach of Nine Mile Creek downstream of Marsh Lake, the reach of Purgatory Creek downstream of Staring Lake, and the reach of Riley Creek downstream of Riley Lake are impaired based on the Class 2B chronic impairment standard (Table 3.9) None of the stream reaches evaluated are impaired based on the Class 2B acute impairment standard (Table 3.10). Table 3.8 Stream bacteria (E. coli) monitoring summary Stream Station ID Years Collected Nine Mile Creek S007-901 2006-2017 ECU7A/N1 2010-2014 Purgatory Creek P1.6 2006 S007-907 2014-2017 Riley Creek S005-380 2006-2017 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 31 Table 3.9 Chronic E. coli impairment summary Month Stream Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nine Mile Creek Samples Per Month (#) 7 7 14 12 14 5 5 E. coli Geometric Mean (org/100 mL)a 67 151 149 127 181 212 164 Purgatory Creek Samples Per Month (#) 3 7 11 12 14 3 3 E. coli Geometric Mean (org/100 mL)a 73 26 126 104 166 392 32 Riley Creek Samples Per Month (#) 8 8 8 9 9 10 8 E. coli Geometric Mean (org/100 mL)a 51 62 308 654 351 296 113 a: Values highlighted in red indicate the geometric mean of samples collected exceeded the monthly geometric mean criterion (126 org/100 mL). Table 3.10 Acute E. coli impairment summary Stream Total Number of Samples Percent > 1,260 org/100 mL Nine Mile Creek 64 1.6% Purgatory Creek 53 1.9% Riley Creek 60 6.7% 3.8 Pollutant Source Summary 3.8.1 Total Phosphorus Loading of TP to the lakes is estimated for multiple sources, including watershed load from surface runoff into the lake, internal loading from the lake sediments, loading from upstream lakes, atmospheric deposition directly onto the lake’s water surface, groundwater seepage into the lake, and erosion of channel banks. Each of these sources were assessed for all lake studies in the calibration of the in-lake model. The detailed breakdown of loads to the lake by source is shown in Figure 3.17 through Figure 3.30, and detailed in Section 4.2. 3.8.1.1 Permitted The regulated sources of TP within the RPBCWD impaired waterbodies include National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) effluent, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) stormwater, construction site stormwater and industrial stormwater. The regulated sources of TP within the NMCWD impaired waterbodies include MS4 stormwater, construction sites and industrial sites. Runoff from urban areas contains phosphorus in the form of organic remains (primarily leaves, seeds, grass clippings, and other organic debris), lawn and garden fertilizer (where not phosphorus-restricted), and soil particles. 3.8.1.2 Non-permitted Non-permitted sources of TP loading within the RPBCWD and NMCWD include atmospheric deposition, streambank and hillside erosion, internal loading, groundwater inflows and upstream lake outflows. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 32 Atmospheric Deposition Atmospheric deposition of phosphorus represents the amount of phosphorus bound to particulates in the atmosphere that deposits directly onto the lake water surface. Erosion TP loads from streambank erosion were calculated for tributaries to Lake Susan, Staring Lake, and Lotus Lake based on estimates resulting from the CRAS report (Barr 2015) and associated documentation for the surveys of the stream reaches within the respective watersheds. Erosion TP loads from the steep slopes west of Silver Lake were also estimated based on slope instabilities detected through site surveys and aerial imagery. These TP loads associated with erosion are transported to downstream lakes via the creeks and overland flow paths. Internal Loading Internal loading represents the release of phosphorus in the water column from sources within the lake sediments or through decay of macrophytes. The internal release of phosphorus into the water column can occur through three methods: chemical release from the sediments, physical release from the sediments, and release through decaying plant matter. Chemical release of phosphorus from the bottom sediments occurs when anoxic conditions are present due to thermal stratification. When lakes are stratified oxygen is prevented from mixing into the lake hypolimnion. Anoxic conditions in the hypolimnion then occur resulting in the release of phosphorus bound to the sediment. Elevated sediment phosphorus release rates from in-situ sediment core experiments, and/or concentrations of mobile and organic bound fractions of sediment phosphorus, can be used as a surrogate or indicator of how much chemical release can potentially account for internal loading in each lake. Physical release of phosphorus can occur through the disturbance of sediment by bottom feeding fish such as carp or other rough fish (e.g., bullheads) causing sediment bound phosphorus to suspend in the water column. Wind can also suspend phosphorus by causing internal waves that mix the sediments into suspension releasing phosphorus back into the water column. Decaying plant matter, especially the invasive curly-leaf pondweed, is another potential source of internal phosphorus loading. Curly-leaf pondweed grows over the winter and tenaciously during early spring, crowding out native species. It releases a small reproductive pod (turion) that resembles a small pinecone during late June. After curly-leaf pondweed dies out, often in late-June and early-July, it may sink to the lake bottom and decay, releasing phosphorus and causing oxygen depletion and exacerbating internal sediment release of phosphorus. This potential increase in phosphorus concentration during early July can result in algal blooms during the peak of the recreational season. Hyland Lake in particular has had nuisance growth conditions of curly-leaf pondweed in the past that has inhibited recreational use and likely contributed to the lake’s impaired water quality. Three Rivers Park District conducted lake-wide endothall herbicide treatments in Hyland Lake to control curly-leaf pondweed from 2013 through 2016, followed by a spot treatment in 2017. These treatments have significantly reduced curly- leaf pondweed densities and Three Rivers Park District plans to continue spot treatments to maintain control of curly-leaf pondweed. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 33 The presence of an internal loading phosphorus release can be observed by examining the hypolimnetic phosphorus concentrations during the summer months when thermal stratification is strong. The presence of elevated concentrations in the hypolimnion compared to the epilimnion indicates internal loading is present. Groundwater Groundwater intrusions into the lakes can be a source of phosphorus. Groundwater flow into and out of each lake was determined through the lake water balance in the daily in-lake model. Upstream Lakes Upstream lakes contribute TP loading to Staring Lake, Lake Riley, Rice Marsh Lake, and Lake Susan in the RPBCWD. Staring Lake has multiple upstream lakes contributing to the overall TP load. The outfalls of Lotus Lake, Duck Lake, and Silver Lake flow into Purgatory Creek, which flows through the Purgatory Creek Recreational Area and into Staring Lake. The Eden Prairie Chain of Lakes (Round, Mitchell, and Red Rock Lake) flow from Red Rock Lake through a series of ponds into Lake McCoy, and finally into Staring Lake. Lake Riley, Rice Marsh Lake, and Lake Susan are located in series along Riley Creek, which carries flows from Lake Ann to Lake Susan, then Rice Marsh Lake, and finally Lake Riley. In the NMCWD, upstream lakes also contribute TP loading to Wing Lake (from Lake Holiday), Lake Rose (from Wing Lake), South Cornelia Lake (from North Cornelia Lake) and Lake Edina (from South Cornelia Lake). Figure 3.17 Silver Lake existing conditions loading breakdown for 2015 water year Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 34 Figure 3.18 Lotus Lake existing conditions loading breakdown for 2015 water year Figure 3.19 Staring Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 35 Figure 3.20 Lake Lucy existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year Figure 3.21 Lake Susan existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 36 Figure 3.22 Rice Marsh Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2014 water year Figure 3.23 Lake Riley existing condition loading breakdown for 2014 water year Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 37 Figure 3.24 Hyland Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 water year Figure 3.25 Wing Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 38 Figure 3.26 Lake Rose existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season Figure 3.27 North Cornelia Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 growing season Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 39 Figure 3.28 South Cornelia Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season Figure 3.29 Edina Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2015 growing season Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 40 Figure 3.30 Penn Lake existing condition loading breakdown for 2016 growing season 3.8.2 Total Suspended Solids Source Summary The following sections pertain to the TSS sources within the Riley Creek Watershed. The Purgatory and Nine Mile creeks are not currently impaired by TSS based on the analysis done for this TMDL. 3.8.2.1 Permitted The regulated sources of TSS within the Riley Creek Watershed include MS4 stormwater, construction sites, and industrial sites. There are no permitted WWTFs within the Riley Creek Watershed. 3.8.2.2 Non-permitted The non-permitted TSS sources are sources that are not subject to NPDES permit requirements, as well as “natural background” loads. “Natural background” includes the unknown portion of runoff/erosion that would occur in the absence of human influence (such as runoff from forested land). For Riley Creek these include erosional and background sources of TSS, as well as outflow from Lake Riley. Other non- permitted sources include runoff from agricultural land and non-regulated MS4 residential areas (such as direct runoff from parkland and backyard areas). Since the TSS concentration of flow discharging from Riley Lake is not normally expected to exceed 4 mg/L (as discussed in Section 4.3.2), it follows that the primary sources of TSS are likely entrained in the main flow of Riley Creek from streambank and near- channel sources of sediment. In addition, the RPBCWD Creek Restoration Action Strategy (CRAS) Report (Barr 2015), and associated documentation for the surveys of Riley Creek, indicated that seven of the nine reaches downstream of Lake Riley were rated as having high to severe levels of erosion and channel instability. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 41 3.8.3 Bacteria (E. coli) Source Summary The following paragraphs discuss sources of E. coli bacteria. Also, research in the last 15 years has found the persistence of E. coli in soil, beach sand, and sediments throughout the year in the north central United States, without the continuous presence of sewage or mammalian sources. An Alaskan study [Adhikari et al. 2007] found that total coliform bacteria in soil were able to survive for six months in subfreezing conditions. A study of cold water streams in southeastern Minnesota completed by the MPCA staff found the resuspension of E. coli in the stream water column due to stream sediment disturbance. A study near Duluth, Minnesota [Ishii et al. 2010] found that E. coli were able to grow in agricultural field soil. A study by Chandrasekaran et al. [2015] of ditch sediment in the Seven Mile Creek Watershed in southern Minnesota found that strains of E. coli had become naturalized to the water−sediment ecosystem. Survival and growth of fecal coliform has been documented in stormsewer sediment in Michigan [Marino and Gannon 1991]. 3.8.3.1 Permitted The primary source of bacteria loading within MS4s likely derives from typical urban sources - improperly managed pet waste and wildlife inputs (e.g., waterfowl, geese, etc.) directly to land and transported via stormwater conveyances to the impaired waterbodies. Construction and industrial stormwater sources of E. coli were not evaluated for the RPBCWD and NMCWD impaired waterbodies. E. coli is not a typical pollutant from construction sites, and there are no bacteria or E. coli benchmarks associated with any of the industrial stormwater permits in these watersheds. There are no permitted wastewater sources of E. coli in the Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, or Riley Creek watersheds. 3.8.3.2 Non-permitted Non-permitted sources of bacteria within the watersheds of Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek downstream of Marsh Lake, Staring Lake, and Riley Lake, respectively include runoff from shoreland or near-shoreland areas that are not tied into an MS4 conveyance. Loading from the upstream lakes (Marsh Lake, Staring Lake, and Riley Lake) is considered a boundary condition for the purposes of the TMDL, and is placed (as an aggregated value) into the load allocation (LA) or non- permitted portion (see Section 4.4.2.1 for further explanation). There are no known subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTSs) and no known livestock feedlots within the impaired reach watershed of the three streams. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 42 4. TMDL Development The TMDL process determines that maximum allowable amount of a pollutant a waterbody can receive and still meet the required water quality standards and designated uses. It is the sum of all the contributing point and nonpoint sources of a single pollutant to a waterbody. The TMDL process can be described by the following equation. TMDL = LC = ∑WLA + ∑LA + MOS + RC Where: LC = loading capacity: maximum pollutant loading amount a waterbody can receive and still meet the required water quality standards. WLA = wasteload allocations: portion of the TMDL loading capacity allocated to existing or future point (permitted) sources of the analyzed pollutant LA = load allocation: portion of the TMDL loading capacity allocated to existing or future nonpoint (non-permitted) and/or “natural background” sources of the analyzed pollutant. MOS = margin of safety: accounting of uncertainty in the relationship between pollutant loading and the water quality of the receiving waterbody. RC = reserve capacity: an allocation of future growth. This is an MPCA-required element if applicable. Not applicable in this TMDL. 4.1 Loading Allocation Methodology/Natural Background 4.1.1 Natural Background Consideration Natural background conditions refer to inputs that would be expected under natural, undisturbed conditions. Natural background sources can include inputs from natural geologic processes such as soil loss from upland erosion and stream development, atmospheric deposition, and loading from forested land, wildlife, etc. For each impairment, natural background levels are implicitly incorporated in the water quality standards used by the MPCA to determine/assess impairment, and therefore natural background is accounted for and addressed through the MPCA’s waterbody assessment process. Natural background conditions were also evaluated, where possible, within the modeling and source assessment portion of this study. These source assessment exercises indicate natural background inputs are generally low compared to the primary source in these watersheds, namely urban stormwater runoff. Based on the MPCA’s waterbody assessment process and the TMDL source assessment exercises, there is no evidence at this time to suggest that natural background sources are a major driver of any of the impairments and/or affect the waterbodies’ ability to meet state water quality standards. For all impairments addressed in this TMDL study, natural background sources are implicitly included in the LA portion of the TMDL allocation tables. Recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decisions have affirmed the MPCA is within its rights to not provide a separate allocation for natural background sources when not feasible (In re Little Rock Creek TMDL, No. A16-0123 (Minn. App. Nov. 28, 2016), review denied (Minn. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 43 Feb. 14, 2017; In re Crystal Lake TMDL, No. A18-0581 (Minn. App. April. 24, 2019)), review denied. TMDL reductions should focus on the major human sources identified in the source assessment. 4.2 Lakes, Total Phosphorus 4.2.1 TP Loading Capacity A daily time step, in-lake, TP mass balance model was developed for each lake, to quantify the existing load and the loading capacity of phosphorus to the lakes. The in-lake model tracks both water volume and phosphorus concentrations in the lake on a daily time step. The model was calibrated to both lake level data (to balance the water budget) and in-lake average TP concentrations for the TP budget. Methods used in the development of the in-lake model are found in Appendix A. The in-lake models were calibrated to the most recent year with observed lake level and water quality data that best represented the conditions that contributed to their impairment. Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley were calibrated to the 2014 water year (October 2013 through September 2014). Lakes Lucy, Susan, Lotus, Silver, and Staring were calibrated to the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). Lakes South Cornelia, Penn, Wing, and Rose were calibrated to the 2016 growing season (June 2016 through September 2016). Lake Edina and North Cornelia Lake were calibrated to the 2015 growing season (June 2015 through September 2015). The NMCWD lakes have short residence times (one to four months) and are located off the main creek channels (which could provide a significant phosphorus load year-round). For these reasons, the NMCWD lake allocations were evaluated based on the growing season time period when most of the loading (both internal and external) occurs. The loading capacities of the lakes, as well as the lake protection phosphorus loading goal for Lake Lucy, were determined using the existing conditions in-lake models. Phosphorus loads to the lake were adjusted until the average TP concentrations in the lake during the growing season (June through September) were equivalent to the water quality goal. The resulting total load received by the lake during the modeled year (2014, 2015, or 2016 depending on the lake) and time period (either water year or growing season) was defined as the lake’s loading capacity. Table 4.1 compares the modeled load to the lake under existing conditions to the modeled phosphorus loading required to meet the water quality goals for the RPBCWD lakes, while Table 4.2 does the same for the NMCWD lakes. Each of the lake models for this analysis simulated elevated loads above the required loading capacity (in the case of the impaired lakes) and the lake protection phosphorus loading goal (in the case of Lake Lucy). Reductions are needed to meet the water quality goals for all 14 lakes, based on the lakes baseline condition/year. These baseline years mean that, unless noted in this report, only wasteload reductions that occur during or after these years are creditable toward the overall needed reductions. Once the loading capacity was determined, the general approach for assigning reductions (and thereby arriving at the allocations for reducible sources) was to first reduce any upstream lakes to equal the loading of those lakes discharging at their respective water quality standard. Then streambank erosion sources, which are a high priority in the watershed and contribute to existing or potential TSS impairments, were reduced as described in Section 3.8.1.2. Next, the P8-modeled phosphorus removal efficiencies by MS4s were considered. In general, a moderate to high level of stormwater management is needed in order to prevent additional lake sediment enrichment, and otherwise achieve and maintain long-term lake water quality. Internal load, generally considered high for many of the watershed’s lakes, is also evaluated in this final step for appropriate reductions. In some cases, it is apparent that Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 44 reductions in external sources alone will not meet the TMDL, requiring reduction in internal loading. In these instances, where alum treatment is the most feasible internal load reduction method, it makes sense to apply an expected alum reduction percentage of 80% (Welch & Cooke 1999) first, and then determine the needed external source decrease for the remaining load reduction. The 80% load reduction assumes that the proper alum dosing has been calculated. Table 4.1 Total phosphorus load under existing condition and proposed condition to meet water quality goals in the RPBCWD lakes Lakes Baseline year Existing growing season average TP concentration (µg/L) TP loading rate under existing conditions (lbs/yr) Water quality goal TP concentration (µg/L) Loading Capacity to meet WQ goals/ standards (lbs/yr) Percent reduction need to meet goal (%) Silver Lake 2015 97 224 60 185 17% Lotus Lake 2015 69b 1,140 40 631 45% Staring Lake 2015 86a 2,339 60 1,624 31% Lake Lucy 2015 84b 697 60 488 30% Lake Susan 2015 82b 1,261 60 995 21% Rice Marsh Lake 2014 107a 1,642 60 961 41% Lake Riley 2014 52b 2,701 40 1,986 26% Hyland Lake 2015 115a,c 604 60 299 50% a. Volumetric average concentration for entire water column b. Volumetric average concentration for epilimnion only c. RPBCWD believes TP measurement on 9/9/15 of 304 µg/L to be an outlier, but lacking definitive evidence that it is inaccurate it is included in the summer average for now. Table 4.2 Total phosphorus load under existing condition and proposed condition to meet water quality goals in the NMCWD lakes Lakes Baseline year Existing growing season average TP concentration (µg/L) TP loading rate under existing conditions (lbs/gs) Water quality goal TP concentration (µg/L) Loading Capacity to meet WQ goals/ standards (lbs/gs) Percent reduction need to meet goal (%) Wing Lake 2016 92a 105 60 68 35 Lake Rose 2016 105a 75 60 46 39 North Cornelia Lake 2015 146a 360 60 154 57 South Cornelia Lake 2016 153a 410 60 169 59 Lake Edina 2015 87a 261 60 180 31 Penn Lake 2016 109a 446 60 247 45 a: Volumetric average concentration for entire water column 4.2.2 TP Load Allocation Methodology The LA includes nonpoint pollution sources that are not subject to NPDES permit requirements, as well as “natural background” loads. For the lake studies, LAs include atmospheric deposition, internal loading, tributary streambank and lakeshore erosion, upstream lakes and groundwater intrusions. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 45 4.2.2.1 Atmospheric Deposition Atmospheric deposition of phosphorus onto the lakes water surface was calculated by using the estimated statewide phosphorus atmospheric deposition rate of 0.42 kg/ha/year (Barr 2007) multiplied by the lakes surface area. Atmospheric deposition TP sources are minimal (less than 6% of existing load) in all lakes. 4.2.2.2 Erosion TP loads from streambank erosion were calculated for tributaries to Lake Susan, Staring Lake and Lotus Lake based on estimates resulting from the CRAS report (Barr 2015) and associated documentation for the surveys of the stream reaches within the respective watersheds. Since the CRAS methodology quantifies a range in the amount of material that is at-risk of eroding during a 20-year period, the streambank erosion estimates used for the TMDL analysis were based on the average of the highest and lowest annual sediment and phosphorus loading rate estimates, which were further reduced to account for a 20% delivery ratio to the respective lakes. Where applicable, the potential TP load reduction was estimated for the TMDL LAs by assuming that the respective stream reaches could be restored to the ‘slight’ CRAS erosion category, which is a condition in which little active erosion is apparent. Erosion TP loads from the steep slopes west of Silver Lake were also estimated based on slope instabilities detected through site surveys and aerial imagery. 4.2.2.3 Internal Loading The release of phosphorus was estimated using the daily time step phosphorus balance model. Internal loading rates were calibrated with measured water quality data for the entire lake water column, as well as concentration measured in the hypolimnion only. Sediment phosphorus had previously been evaluated for most of the study lakes. As a result, published estimates of sediment phosphorus release rates were compared to the values used in the lake water quality modeling to ensure that the calibrated values did not exceed the potential for chemical release, after accounting for the potential load from physical release and plant senescence. In addition, sediment phosphorus release rates were also compared with representative literature values (Pilgrim et al. 2007 and Huser et al. 2011) to evaluate how much the internal load would differ from other areas lakes before and after a chemical treatment (such as alum) to immobilize sediment phosphorus. 4.2.2.4 Groundwater Groundwater flow into and out of each lake was determined through the lake water balance in the daily in-lake model. A TP concentration of 0.035 was applied to any groundwater that entered the lake to determine the TP load. Groundwater sources of TP were minimal (less than 3% of existing load) and were applicable in Lakes Lucy, Susan, Silver, Lotus, Wing, South Cornelia, and Penn. 4.2.2.5 Upstream Lakes Upstream lakes contribute TP loading to Staring Lake, Lake Riley, Rice Marsh Lake, and Lake Susan in the RPBCWD. Staring Lake has multiple upstream lakes contributing to the overall TP load. The outfalls of Lotus Lake, Duck Lake, and Silver Lake flow into Purgatory Creek, which flows through the Recreational Area and into Staring Lake. The Eden Prairie Chain of Lakes (Round, Mitchell, and Red Rock Lake) flow from Red Rock Lake through a series of ponds into Lake McCoy and finally into Staring Lake. Lake Riley, Rice Marsh Lake, and Lake Susan are located in series along Riley Creek, which carries flows from Lake Ann to Lake Susan, then Rice Marsh Lake and finally Lake Riley. The in-lake TP model accounts for the Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 46 water and phosphorus loads from upstream waterbodies (that have not been modeled as part of the watershed model). For Staring Lake, all upstream lakes have a daily time step in-lake TP model that was created for year 2015. Flows and TP concentration from those lakes were added to Staring Lake model to determine the load. Rice Marsh Lake also has an existing daily time step lake water quality model that was used to determine the upstream lake loads into Lake Riley. For Rice Marsh Lake, lake level data, an outflow rating curve, and grab sample TP concentrations from Lake Susan were used to estimate loads. Likewise, Lake Ann lake level data, outflow rating curve, and grab sample TP concentrations were used to estimate the upstream lake loads to Lake Susan. The results of the Lake Susan in-lake model were not used as inputs to the Rice Marsh in-lake model because they were not modeled for the same water year. Upstream lakes also contribute TP loading to Wing Lake, Lake Rose, South Cornelia Lake, and Lake Edina in the NMCWD. A daily time step lake water quality model was created for Lake Holiday (a seven acre lake which falls below MPCA guidance criteria for assessment) and used to determine the upstream lake loads into Wing Lake. The modeled output from Wing Lake was then used as the upstream lake loads to Lake Rose. The output from the North Cornelia Lake in-lake model was used as the upstream lake inputs to South Cornelia Lake, which in turn was used as the upstream lake inputs to Lake Edina. TMDL allocations were determined based on the assumption that upstream lake concentrations meet the respective water quality goals. TP load reductions highlight the required load reduction from the upstream lakes that is needed to meet this assumption. 4.2.3 TP Wasteload Allocation Methodology WLA represent the portion of the TP load associated with permitted sources. WLAs include three sub- categories: permitted wastewater facilities, the MS4s permitted stormwater source category, and a construction plus industrial permitted stormwater category. 4.2.3.1 Permitted Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Facilities Staring Lake is the only lake with industrial or municipal WWTFs within the watershed. The discharge comes from two well houses (Eden Prairie Well houses 6 and 7; MNG250084) located along Purgatory Creek. This is an emergency back-up system that has never actually been used for its intended purpose. If it were needed, the city estimates that it would be used once per year and would run for one day before the primary system is back on line. The well houses are pumped into Purgatory Creek on a monthly basis to test equipment functionality. TP loads were estimated by summing the estimated daily maximum flow and the annual flow due to monthly testing (i.e., monthly average flow multiplied by 12 months). This total flow value was then multiplied by the average TP concentration from the well houses to determine annual load to the creek, which then enters Staring Lake. The resulting load was calculated as 0.7 lbs per year rounded to 1 lb/yr. 4.2.3.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems: Individual WLAs MS4 boundaries were defined for each lake watershed. Overall, 10 MS4s cover the watershed area for the eight RPBCWD lakes analyzed, and six MS4s cover the watershed area for the six NMCWD lakes analyzed. These MS4s include the cities of Bloomington, Chanhassen, Deephaven, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Richfield, and Shorewood, Hennepin and Carver Counties, MnDOT, and in the Staring Lake watershed, it included the Hennepin Technical College as an additional MS4. MS4 boundaries were also determined for the Riley, Purgatory, and Nine Mile Creek watersheds. Right of way boundaries were obtained from MnDOT. County MS4 boundaries were determined using parcel data and county road Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 47 locations. The parcel road boundaries were used as the cross section for the Hennepin and Carver County roads in the watershed. After MnDOT and county MS4 boundaries were accounted for, the remaining areas were assigned to cities based on municipal boundaries. Finally, in the Staring Lake Watershed the areas assigned to the Hennepin Technical College were separated from the city of Eden Prairie as an individual MS4. Figure 4.1 shows the RPBCWD MS4 boundaries and Figure 4.2 shows the NMCWD MS4 boundaries. The modeling results (Appendix A) were used to determine TP loads to the lakes for each MS4 for the TMDL time periods. First, the lake subwatersheds were further subdivided by MS4 boundaries. The total watershed TP loads from each MS4 subwatershed were extracted from the P8 modeling. From those loads, the mass of TP to reach the lake was calculated by applying the annual average removal efficiencies from each BMP in succession along the watershed flow path until the cumulative flow reached the lake. This calculation resulted in the amount of TP load from each MS4 that reached the lake without being removed by an existing BMP. Typically, P8 modeling indicates that watersheds with extensive implementation of structural BMPs with good pollutant settling will attain about 60% TP removal. Depending on when past development and BMP implementation has occurred and other constraints (such as the effect of natural wetlands, shoreland development and development density), moderate to high levels of stormwater management within a watershed would be expected to remove approximately 50% to 60% of the untreated TP in runoff on an annual basis. 4.2.3.3 Construction/Industrial Stormwater: Categorical WLAs Construction stormwater is regulated by NPDES permits for construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil, less than one acre of soil if the activity is part of a “larger common plan of development or sale” that is greater than one acre, or less than one acre of soil where the MPCA has determined that the activity poses a risk to water resources. If industrial activity has the potential to be exposed to stormwater discharges, it is required to be regulated by NPDES permits. The WLA for each lake includes an allocation for construction and industrial stormwater that is equal to 1% of the total WLA. This is a conservative value, as estimates of areas under construction at any one time in the metro area are typically less than half this value. This value includes room for any future industrial stormwater sources. There are no permitted industrial stormwater facilities currently within the Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, or Riley Creek watersheds that require a WLA. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 48 Figure 4.1 RPBCWD MS4 Boundaries Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 49 Figure 4.2 NMCWD MS4 Boundaries Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 50 4.2.4 Margin of Safety The purpose of the MOS in the TMDL is to provide capacity to allow for uncertainty. The federal guidance for TMDLs states that the MOS may be implicit, that is incorporated into the calculations by using conservative assumptions, or explicit by being expressed as loadings set aside for the MOS in the TMDL (MPCA 2007b). The MOS for all lakes was an explicit 5% of the total TP loading capacity. This MOS is considered sufficient, given each lake’s reasonably robust data set and the generally very solid lake response model performance. (Appendix A includes results of statistical comparisons between the modeled and measured volumetric averaged epilimnetic TP concentrations, as well as comparisons between the modeled and monitored epilimnetic volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the subject water years.) 4.2.5 Seasonal Variation The EPA states that the critical condition “…can be thought of as the “worst case” scenario of environmental conditions in the waterbody in which the loading expressed in the TMDL for the pollutant of concern will continue to meet water quality standards. Critical conditions are the combination of environmental factors (e.g., flow, temperature, etc.) that results in attaining and maintaining the water quality criterion and has an acceptably low frequency of occurrence” (EPA 1999). Algal growth in lakes peaks during the summer months. By applying the water quality standard to the average TP concentration during the algae growing season (June through September), this analysis becomes protective for the entire year. 4.2.6 TP TMDL Summary TP loads were allocated for each lake among the WLA, LA, and the MOS, or the lake protection reduction goals, as described in the previous sections and summarized in Table 4.3 through Table 4.10 for the RPBCWD lakes and Table 4.11 through Table 4.16 for the NMCWD lakes. Loads have been rounded to the nearest whole number. TMDL allocation tables include existing annual loading rate, the allocated annual and daily loading rates, as well as the percent reductions required to meet the allocations for the impaired lakes. For Lake Lucy, Table 4.6 shows existing and target TP loadings, as well as the load reduction goals for each phosphorus source. 4.2.6.1 Silver Lake Phosphorus load reductions in Silver Lake were divided among watershed and erosion sources. MS4 allocations were divided proportionally between the cities of Chanhassen and Shorewood. Erosion reduction estimates were based on stabilizing the steep slopes along the west bank of Silver Lake. A number of the erosion locations are on private property, therefore it is assumed that minimal erosion mitigation will be possible. Internal loading was applied to cover the final required reductions to meet the TMDL requirement. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 51 Table 4.3 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Silver Lake (27-0136-00) during 2015 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 224 0.614 185 0.507 48 21 Wasteload Total WLA 115 0.315 92 0.252 23 20 Chanhassen (MS400079) 27 0.074 21 0.058 6 22 Shorewood (MS400122) 87 0.238 70 0.192 17 20 Construction/Industrial SW 1 0.003 1 0.003 0 0 Load Total LA 109 0.299 84 0.230 25 23 Atmospheric deposition 26 0.071 26 0.071 0 0 Internal load 58 0.159 37 0.101 21 36 Erosion sources 20 0.055 16 0.044 4 20 Groundwater 5 0.014 5 0.014 0 0 MOS (5%) 9 0.025 4.2.6.2 Lotus Lake The Lotus Lake load reductions were divided among watershed, internal load, and erosion. Reduction percentages were based on balancing the removal between outside sources of phosphorus to the lake (erosion and watershed loads) and internal loading. Internal loading warrants a more substantial reduction given that it is a significant source in this lake. MS4 load reductions were allocated to Chanhassen as the only major contributor to the existing TP load. For this watershed, existing loads from the other MS4s are very small (each are about 1% or less of the overall existing loading) with limited opportunity for load reduction and are not assigned a reduction. Table 4.4 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lotus Lake (10-0006-00) during 2015 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 1,140 3.123 631 1.729 541 47 Wasteload Total WLA 306 0.838 256 0.701 50 16 MnDOT (MS400170) 3 0.008 3 0.008 0 0 Carver County (MS400070) 2 0.005 2 0.005 0 0 Chanhassen (MS400079) 291 0.797 241 0.660 50 17 Eden Prairie (MS400015) 7 0.019 7 0.019 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 3 0.008 3 0.008 0 0 Load Total LA 834 2.285 343 0.940 491 59 Atmospheric deposition 88 0.241 88 0.241 0 0 Internal load 732 2.005 247 0.677 485 66 Erosion sources 7 0.019 1 0.003 6 86 Groundwater 7 0.019 7 0.019 0 0 MOS (5%) 32 0.088 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 52 4.2.6.3 Staring Lake The Staring Lake load reductions were divided between watershed, internal load, upstream lakes and erosion. Reduction percentages were based on balancing the removal between outside sources of phosphorus to the lake (erosion and watershed loads) and internal loading. TP reduction percentages applied to upstream lakes are the reductions achieved if those lakes were to meet the water quality standards. As previously discussed, moderate to high levels of stormwater management within a watershed would be expected to remove approximately 50% to 60% of the untreated TP in runoff on an annual basis. As a result, MS4 allocations were applied based on current BMP removal efficiencies as an equitable method for distributing allocated TP load to the major contributors. For this watershed, existing loads from Hennepin County, Chanhassen, and Hennepin Technical College are very small (each are less than 1% of the overall existing loading) with limited opportunity for load reduction and are not assigned a reduction. MnDOT and Eden Prairie were found to have a current combined 41% and 44% removal efficiency, respectively, based on the P8 watershed modeling. BMPs in Minnetonka, Deephaven and Shorewood were found to have a combined removal efficiency of 57%. Therefore, WLAs applied to MnDOT and Eden Prairie were based on achieving TP load reductions that would increase overall BMP treatment efficiency above 50% for both MS4s. Finally, the allocations also included an internal load reduction, as the monitoring/modeling data indicated that carp and sediment phosphorus release/resuspension play a significant role in the observed summer water quality. Table 4.5 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Staring Lake (27-0078-00) during 2015 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 2,339 6.408 1,624 4.449 796 34 Wasteload Total WLA 972 2.663 769 2.107 203 21 MnDOT (MS400170) 88 0.241 63 0.173 25 28 Hennepin County (MS400138) 19 0.052 19 0.052 0 0 Chanhassen (MS400079) 1 0.003 1 0.003 0 0 Eden Prairie (MS400015) 627 1.718 449 1.230 178 28 Deephaven (MS400013) 21 0.058 21 0.058 0 0 Minnetonka (MS400035) 185 0.507 185 0.507 0 0 Shorewood (MS400122) 8 0.022 8 0.022 0 0 Hennepin Technical College (MS400199) 14 0.038 14 0.038 0 0 Eden Prairie well houses (MNG250084) 1 0.003 1 0.003 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 8 0.022 8 0.022 0 0 Load Total LA 1,367 3.745 774 2.121 593 43 Atmospheric deposition 61 0.167 61 0.167 0 0 Internal load 920 2.521 447 1.225 473 51 Upstream lakes 284 0.778 253 0.693 31 11a Erosion sources 102 0.279 13 0.036 89 87 MOS (5%) 81 0.222 a: percent reduction for upstream lakes represent reducing upstream lake concentrations to meet water quality standards. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 53 4.2.6.4 Lake Lucy Due to Lake Lucy's good water quality in the past 10 years (both TP and Secchi depth just meet state water quality standards), the lake was assigned protection status rather than including it on the impaired waters list. Understanding Lake Lucy's nutrient budget is still critical to developing a protection plan for the lake. The recommended reductions shown below were developed to help maintain or improve water quality in Lake Lucy. The TP load reduction goals were developed based on lake water quality monitoring and modeling of the 2015 water year, a year in which the average summer TP concentration exceeded the standard (as indicated in Table 2.1). Because this is not a TMDL, the reductions in this table are considered voluntary. The Lake Lucy total watershed load reduction was based on the estimated watershed load reductions from recommended BMPs identified in the Lake Lucy/Lake Ann UAA update (Barr 2013). The remainder of the load reduction was assigned to the internal load reduction. Table 4.6 Nutrient Budgets and Recommended Reductions for Lake Lucy (10-0007-00) during 2015 water year. LOAD SOURCEa Existing TP Load Target TP Load Load Reduction Goal lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 697 1.910 488 1.337 209 30 Chanhassen (MS400079) 225 0.616 191 0.523 34 15 Carver County (MS400070) 0.4 0.001 0.4 0.001 0 0 Atmospheric deposition 36 0.099 36 0.099 0 0 Internal load 427 1.170 252 0.690 175 41 Groundwater 9 0.025 9 0.025 0 0 a: Runoff from the MnDOT MS4 does not reach the lake under most conditions so it was not assigned a load reduction. 4.2.6.5 Lake Susan The load to Lake Susan is significantly impacted by phosphorus associated with streambank erosion, and thus needed reductions for this source are large. In addition, a major stormwater treatment system—a spent lime treatment system installed in the southwest portion of the watershed—was installed in 2016 (which is, of course, after the 2015 water year used for calculating the existing load). This treatment system reduces phosphorus loading from runoff by 52 pounds (lbs) per year, according to modeling estimates. Between the needed streambank erosion reduction and the recent stormwater reduction, the TMDL will be met. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 54 Table 4.7 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lake Susan (10-0013-00) during 2015 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 1,261 3.455 995 2.726 316 25 Wasteload Total WLA 279 0.764 229 0.627 50 18 MnDOT (MS400170) 27 0.074 27 0.074 0 0 Carver County (MS400070) 9 0.025 9 0.025 0 0 Chanhassen (MS400079) 241 0.660 191 0.523 50a 21 Construction/Industrial SW 2 0.005 2 0.005 0 0 Load Total LA 982 2.690 716 1.962 266 27 Atmospheric deposition 33 0.090 33 0.090 0 0 Internal load 496 1.359 496 1.359 0 0 Upstream lakes 20 0.055 20 0.055 0 0 Erosion sources 400 1.096 134 0.367 266 67 Groundwater 33 0.090 33 0.090 0 0 MOS (5%) 50 0.137 a: this load reduction is already being met as a result of project to implement spent lime treatment system in 2016. 4.2.6.6 Rice Marsh Lake The Rice Marsh Lake MS4 allocations were determined through an analysis of the P8 model results to determine the current, overall TP removal percentages from the MnDOT, Carver County, Chanhassen, and Eden Prairie areas. The Chanhassen, Carver County, and MnDOT areas are very interconnected, with Chanhassen BMPs treating a large portion of the MnDOT and Carver County areas. For this reason, Chanhassen, Carver County, and MnDOT were assigned the same load reduction based on their existing, combined BMP’s removal of 45% of the existing conditions watershed load from their combined watershed areas. Eden Prairie was assigned a lower load reduction than Chanhassen and MnDOT based on its existing BMP’s removal of 52% of the existing conditions watershed load from its watershed area. The upstream lakes LA was calculated based on the load reduction needed to bring Lake Susan’s average growing season TP concentration down to the shallow lake standard. The remainder of the load reduction needed for Rice Marsh Lake to meet the shallow lake water quality standard was assigned to the internal load, which is generally considered high. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 55 Table 4.8 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Rice Marsh Lake (10-0001- 00) during 2014 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 1,642 4.499 961 2.633 729 44 Wasteload Total WLA 711 1.948 506 1.386 205 29 MnDOT (MS400170) 97 0.266 68 0.186 29 30 Carver County (MS400070) 21 0.058 15 0.041 6 29 Chanhassen (MS400079) 504 1.381 353 0.967 151 30 Eden Prairie (MS400015) 83 0.227 64 0.175 19 23 Construction/Industrial SW 6 0.016 6 0.016 0 0 Load Total LA 931 2.551 407 1.115 524 56 Atmospheric deposition 69 0.189 69 0.189 0 0 Internal load 539 1.477 108 0.296 431 80 Upstream lakes 323 0.885 230 0.630 93 29 MOS (5%) 48 0.132 4.2.6.7 Lake Riley As previously discussed, moderate to high levels of stormwater management within this watershed would be expected to remove approximately 50% to 60% of the untreated TP in runoff on an annual basis. MS4 allocations were applied based on current BMP removal efficiencies as an equitable method for distributing allocated TP load to the major contributors. For this watershed, existing loads from Carver and Hennepin Counties are very small (combined they are less than 0.5% of the overall existing loading) with limited opportunity for load reduction, and are not assigned a reduction. As a result, the Lake Riley MS4 allocations were determined through an analysis of the P8 model results to determine the overall TP removal efficiency of the MnDOT, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie BMPs. The MnDOT BMPs had the greatest removal efficiency, approximately 54%. The Chanhassen and Eden Prairie WLAs were calculated based on the TP load reductions they would each need to match MnDOT’s treatment efficiency. This resulted in 69 lbs. of TP load reduction from stormwater sources, which is consistent with what was expected from BMP implementation within the direct watershed, as described in the Lake Riley UAA update (Barr 2016). The upstream lakes’ LA was calculated based on the load reduction need to bring Rice Marsh Lake’s average growing season TP concentration down to the shallow lake standard. The remainder of the load reduction needed for Lake Riley to meet the deep lake water quality standard was assigned to the internal load, which is generally considered high. The necessary load reduction to meet (or exceed) the allocation for internal sources is expected to be achieved through an in-lake alum treatment that was done in 2016; however, the effectiveness of the treatment will need to be evaluated over time. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 56 Table 4.9 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lake Riley (10-0002-00) during 2014 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 2,701 7.400 1,986 5.441 814 30 Wasteload Total WLA 843 2.310 774 2.121 69 8 MnDOT (MS400170) 75 0.205 75 0.205 0 0 Chanhassen (MS400079) 384 1.052 328 0.899 56 15 Eden Prairie (MS400015) 363 0.995 350 0.959 13 4 Carver County (MS400070) 8 0.022 8 0.022 0 0 Hennepin County (MS400138) 5 0.014 5 0.014 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 8 0.022 8 0.022 0 0 Load Total LA 1,858 5.090 1,113 3.049 745 40 Atmospheric deposition 110 0.301 110 0.301 0 0 Internal load 1,083 2.967 637 1.745 446a 41a Upstream lakes 665 1.822 366 1.003 299 45 MOS (5%) 99 0.271 a: this load reduction may be met as a result of an in-lake alum treatment in 2016 pending further evaluation. 4.2.6.8 Hyland Lake The Hyland Lake TMDL allocations considered the disproportionately high level of internal loading and relatively high level of stormwater treatment in the watershed. No watershed reductions were assigned based on the large number of stormwater ponds in the developed portions of the watershed, and the assumption that these ponds are performing as designed (including being maintained). The lake is also surrounded by mostly undeveloped parkland. Table 4.10 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Hyland Lake (27-0048-00) during 2015 water year. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr lbs/day lbs/yr % TOTAL LOAD 604 1.655 299 0.819 305 50 Wasteload Total WLA 90 0.247 90 0.247 0 0 Bloomington (MS400005) 90 0.247 90 0.247 0 0 Hennepin County (MS400138) 0.05 0.0001 0.05 0.0001 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 0.4 0.001 0.4 0.001 0 0 Load Total LA 514 1.408 194 0.532 320 62 Atmospheric deposition 30 0.082 30 0.082 0 0 Internal load 484 1.326 164 0.449 320 66 MOS (5%) 15 0.041 4.2.6.9 Wing Lake The Wing Lake load reductions were divided between upstream lake and internal load. The upstream lakes LA was calculated based on the load reduction needed to bring Lake Holiday’s average growing Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 57 season TP concentration down to the shallow lake standard. The remaining needed load reduction was assigned to the internal load reduction. No watershed reductions were assigned based on the large number of stormwater ponds in the developed portions of the watershed and the assumption that these ponds are performing as designed. Table 4.11 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Wing Lake (27-0091-00) during 2016 growing season. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs % TOTAL LOAD 105 0.861 68 0.557 40 38 Wasteload Total WLA 21 0.172 21 0.172 0 0 Minnetonka (MS400035) 20 0.164 20 0.164 0 0 Hennepin County (MS400138) 0.4 0.004 0.5 0.004 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 0.2 0.002 0.2 0.002 0 0 Load Total LA 84 0.689 44 0.361 40 48 Atmospheric deposition 2 0.016 2 0.016 0 0 Internal load 56 0.459 28 0.230 28 50 Upstream lakes 25 0.205 13 0.107 12 48 Groundwater 1 0.008 1 0.008 0 0 MOS (5%) 3 0.025 a: TMDL (lb/day) value calculated based on 122 day growing season. 4.2.6.10 Lake Rose The Lake Rose load reductions were divided among watershed, upstream lake and internal load. The upstream lakes LA was calculated based on the load reduction needed to bring Wing Lake’s average growing season TP concentration down to the shallow lake standard. The maximum internal load reduction of approximately 80% was assigned and the remaining needed load reduction allocated to the Minnetonka MS4. The Hennepin County MS4 was not assigned a reduction since its load contribution is very small and it has limited opportunity for load reduction. Table 4.12 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Lake Rose (27-0092-00) during 2016 growing season. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs % TOTAL LOAD 75 0.615 46 0.377 31 41 Wasteload Total WLA 28 0.230 21 0.172 7 25 Minnetonka (MS400035) 27 0.221 20 0.164 7 26 Hennepin County (MS400138) 1 0.008 1 0.008 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 0.2 0.002 0.2 0.002 0 0 Load Total LA 47 0.385 23 0.189 24 51 Atmospheric deposition 2 0.016 2 0.016 0 0 Internal load 19 0.156 4 0.033 15 79 Upstream lakes 26 0.213 17 0.139 9 35 MOS (5%) 2 0.016 a: TMDL (lb/day) value calculated based on 122 day growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 58 4.2.6.11 North Cornelia Lake The North Cornelia Lake load reductions were divided between watershed and internal load. Reduction percentages were based on balancing the removal between watershed sources of phosphorus to the lake and internal loading. The maximum internal load reduction of 80% was assigned first and the remaining needed reduction allocated evenly between the MS4s with the exception of Richfield, which was not assigned a reduction since its load contribution is very small and it has limited opportunity for load reduction. Table 4.13 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for North Cornelia Lake (27- 0028-01) during 2015 growing season. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs % TOTAL LOAD 360 2.951 154 1.262 214 59 Wasteload Total WLA 227 1.861 117 0.959 110 48 Edina (MS400016) 182 1.492 93 0.762 89 49 Richfield (MS400045)) 2 0.016 2 0.016 0 0 MnDOT (MS400170) 34 0.279 17 0.139 17 50 Hennepin County (MS400138) 8 0.066 4 0.033 4 50 Construction/Industrial SW 1 0.008 1 0.008 0 0 Load Total LA 133 1.090 29 0.238 104 78 Atmospheric deposition 3 0.025 3 0.025 0 0 Internal load 130 1.066 26 0.213 104 80 MOS (5%) 8 0.066 a: TMDL (lb/day) value calculated based on 122 day growing season. 4.2.6.12 South Cornelia Lake The South Cornelia Lake load reductions were divided between upstream lake and internal load. The upstream lakes LA was calculated based on the load reduction needed to bring North Cornelia Lake’s average growing season TP concentration down to the shallow lake standard. The remaining needed load reduction was assigned to the internal load reduction. No watershed reductions were assigned based on the relatively small contribution of the watershed loads and the assumption that the existing watershed BMPs are functioning as designed. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 59 Table 4.14 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for South Cornelia Lake (27- 0028-02) during 2016 growing season. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs % TOTAL LOAD 410 3.361 168 1.377 250 61 Wasteload Total WLA 26 0.213 26 0.213 0 0 Edina (MS400016) 26 0.213 26 0.213 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 0.3 0.002 0.3 0.002 0 0 Load Total LA 384 3.148 134 1.098 250 65 Atmospheric deposition 4 0.033 4 0.033 0 0 Upstream lakes 181 1.484 81 0.664 100 55 Internal load 199 1.631 49 0.402 150 75 MOS (5%) 8 0.066 a: TMDL (lb/day) value calculated based on 122 day growing season. 4.2.6.13 Lake Edina The Lake Edina load reductions were divided among watershed and upstream lake loads. The upstream lakes LA was calculated based on the load reduction needed to bring South Cornelia Lake’s average growing season TP concentration down to the shallow lake standard. The remaining needed load reduction was assigned to the Edina City MS4 watershed reduction. The MnDOT Metro MS4 was not assigned a reduction since its load contribution is very small and it has limited opportunity for load reduction. No internal load reductions were assigned due to its relatively small contribution to the total load. Table 4.15 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Edina Lake (27-0029-00) during 2015 growing season. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs % TOTAL LOAD 261 2.139 180 1.475 90 34 Wasteload Total WLA 117 0.959 79 0.648 38 32 Edina (MS400016) 112 0.918 74 0.607 38 34 MnDOT (MS400170) 4 0.033 4 0.033 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 1 0.008 1 0.008 0 0 Load Total LA 144 1.180 92 0.754 52 36 Atmospheric deposition 3 0.025 3 0.025 0 0 Upstream lakes 116 0.951 64 0.525 52 45 Internal load 25 0.205 25 0.205 0 0 MOS (5%) 9 0.074 a: TMDL (lb/day) value calculated based on 122 day growing season. 4.2.6.14 Penn Lake The Penn Lake load reductions were divided between watershed and internal load. Reduction percentages were based on balancing the removal between watershed sources of phosphorus to the lake and internal loading. The maximum internal load reduction of 80% was assigned first, and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 60 remaining needed reduction allocated as evenly as possible between the MS4s with the exception of Hennepin County, which was not assigned a reduction since its load contribution is very small and it has limited opportunity for load reduction. Table 4.16 Total Phosphorus Wasteload Allocations, Load Allocations, and Existing Conditions for Penn Lake (27-0004-00) during 2016 growing season. Existing TP Load Allowable TP Load Estimated Load Reduction lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs lbs/daya lbs/gs % TOTAL LOAD 446 3.656 247 2.025 211 47 Wasteload Total WLA 371 3.041 217 1.779 154 42 Bloomington (MS400005) 260 2.131 150 1.230 110 42 Richfield (MS400045)) 47 0.385 27 0.221 20 43 MnDOT (MS400170) 56 0.459 32 0.262 24 43 Hennepin County (MS400138) 6 0.049 6 0.049 0 0 Construction/Industrial SW 2 0.016 2 0.016 0 0 Load Total LA 75 0.615 18 0.148 57 76 Atmospheric deposition 4 0.033 4 0.033 0 0 Internal load 71 0.582 14 0.115 57 80 MOS (5%) 12 0.098 a: TMDL (lb/day) value calculated based on 122 day growing season. 4.3 Streams, Total Suspended Solids The data used for the development of the Riley Creek TSS TMDL (Assessment Unit ID [AUID] # 07020012-511) are based on continuous flow monitoring and TSS sample results (both grab and storm composite samples) collected by the Metropolitan Council at the Riley Creek WOMP station site, which is 1.3 miles from the confluence with the Minnesota River. The WOMP station location corresponds with MPCA Station ID S005-380. The monitoring station was out of commission from early 2005 through late 2006 due to equipment failure, but has otherwise operated continuously since 1999. This TSS TMDL also addresses the fishes and macroinvertebrates impairment listings for this reach. A separate report titled Lower Minnesota Watershed Stressor Identification Report (MPCA 2018) evaluated all of the biota impairments in this major watershed. Stressors evaluated for each reach included dissolved oxygen, eutrophication, nitrate, suspended sediment, chloride, habitat, and flow alteration/connectivity. The only pollutant among these candidate stressors to be conclusively contributing to the biota impairments for Riley Creek was suspended sediment (TSS). This was based on both the TSS levels observed to date and the assemblage of biota species present relative to their tolerance/sensitivity to TSS. The non-pollutant stressor flow alteration/connectivity was also identified as impacting aquatic life, but TMDLs are not done for flow alteration/connectivity. 4.3.1 TSS Loading Capacity Methodology The TSS loading capacity for the Riley Creek impaired reach was developed using a load duration curve approach (EPA 2007). Load duration curves incorporate flow and the TSS data across five stream flow zones, and provide a means to determine loading capacities and estimated load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards. Average daily flows from the Riley Creek WOMP station during the 2006 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 61 to 2015 time period were extrapolated for differences between the total and monitored watershed areas, and used in conjunction with the 65 mg/L TSS standard to develop a load duration curve that shows the daily loading capacity associated with the continuous flow duration data. The 10-year TSS load duration curve for the impaired reach of Riley Creek is shown in Figure 4.3. The curve represents the loading capacity of the stream for each daily flow and is divided into five flow zones including very high (0% to 10%), high (10% to 40%), mid (40% to 60%), low (60% to 90%) and very low (90% to 100%) flow conditions. For simplicity, only the median (or midpoint) load of each flow zone is used to show the TMDL equation components in the TMDL table. However, it should be understood that the entire curve represents the TMDL for Riley Creek. Also plotted in Figure 4.3 are the 90th percentile monitored TSS concentrations for each flow zone (solid green square). Figure 4.3 Riley Creek TSS concentration cumulative frequency curve, 2006-2015 4.3.2 TSS Load Allocation Methodology The LAs include nonpoint pollution sources that are not subject to NPDES permit requirements, as well as natural background loads. For Riley Creek, LAs include non-regulated surface runoff, near channel erosion and natural background sources of TSS, as well as outflow from Lake Riley. The LA is the remaining load after the MOS and WLAs are subtracted from the total load capacity of each flow zone. 4.3.2.1 Upstream Lakes For the purposes of this study, outflow from Lake Riley (referred to as the Lake Riley Boundary Condition) was included as a separate line item in the LA. Lake Riley is a natural sink for the TSS, and therefore contributes minimal TSS levels to Riley Creek. Allocations for the Lake Riley Boundary Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 62 Condition were based on an estimated TSS discharge for this lake in an unimpaired state. A discharge concentration of 4 mg/L is used, which is the midpoint of the range of TSS concentrations for lakes of the NCHF ecoregion, as reported by MPCA (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/quick-links/eda-guide-typical- minnesota-water-quality-conditions). 4.3.2.2 Non-regulated surface runoff and near-channel erosion The watershed LA includes all non-permitted sources such as runoff from agricultural land, forested land, and non-regulated MS4 residential areas (such as direct runoff from backyard areas). There are no available data or studies to partition natural background loads from the rest of the LA. 4.3.2.3 Unallocated load For some flow zones, the existing pollutant load (as denoted by 90th percentile monitored load) fell below the allowable pollutant load (see Figure 4.3). To adhere to antidegradation requirements, the difference between the existing load and allocated load for these flow zones was classified as “unallocated” load. (The remaining allowable load (i.e., what falls below the 90th percentile is what is divided up among WLA and other LA sources.) 4.3.3 TSS Wasteload Allocation Methodology WLAs represent the portion of the TSS load associated with permitted sources. WLAs include three sub- categories: permitted wastewater facilities, the MS4s permitted stormwater source category, and a construction plus industrial permitted stormwater category. 4.3.3.1 Permitted Wastewater Sources There are no permitted wastewater facilities in the Riley Creek Watershed. 4.3.3.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems: Individual WLAs MS4 boundaries were defined for the Riley Creek Watershed consistent with the discussion in Section 2.1.2. Figure 2.15 shows the Riley Creek MS4 boundaries. Overall, five MS4s cover the watershed area, including the cities of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Hennepin, and Carver Counties, and MnDOT. However, only Eden Prairie and Hennepin County manage developed land or MS4s downstream of Lake Riley, and as described in the following section, the watershed area tributary to Lake Riley was included as a boundary condition in the LA component. The WLAs for each MS4 were calculated based on their proportional drainage area applied to the loading capacity derived for each flow zone (as explained in the previous section). This assumes that stormwater runoff from each MS4 will not exceed the 65 mg/L TSS standard, which is reasonable because researchers report median event mean TSS concentrations for urban land uses that range from 52 to 101 mg/L for untreated stormwater runoff (EPA 1983; Lin 2004; Maestre and Pitt 2005). Since there are no stormwater monitoring data or modeling estimates specific to the urban runoff contributions in this watershed, a specific TSS load reduction could not be quantified for this component of the TMDL. However, Figure 1.17 shows that approximately half of the TSS sample results were between 65 and 530 mg/L, it is expected that a greater proportion of the required load reduction will necessitate BMPs that will stabilize near-channel sources of sediment and/or control the stormwater discharge rates/volumes to consistently meet the standard. Since many of the MS4 discharges to Riley Creek have varying levels of treatment and/or controls on discharge rate and volume, it is expected that MS4s will have a significant role in minimizing near-channel sources of sediment. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 63 4.3.3.3 Construction/Industrial Stormwater: Categorical WLAs The approach for allocating the construction plus industrial permitted stormwater category for the Riley Creek Watershed was based on the previous assumptions about these activities as a percentage of the watershed area. As a result, this component was assigned a WLA that is equal to 1% of the total WLA for each flow zone. 4.3.4 Margin of Safety The MOS accounts for uncertainties in both characterizing current conditions and the relationship between the load, wasteload, monitored flows, and in-stream water quality to ensure the TMDL allocations result in attainment of water quality standards. An explicit MOS equal to 5% of the total load was applied whereby 5% of the loading capacity for each flow regime was subtracted before allocations were made among the wasteload and watershed load. Five percent was considered an appropriate MOS since the load duration curve approach minimizes a great deal of uncertainty associated with the development of TMDLs, because the calculation of the loading capacity is the product of monitored flow and the TSS target concentration. Most of the uncertainty with this calculation is therefore associated with the flows in the impaired reach that were calculated based on monitored flows at the WOMP station, which is a well-established continuous flow monitoring station with a long flow record. 4.3.5 Seasonal Variation The EPA states that the critical condition “…can be thought of as the “worst case” scenario of environmental conditions in the waterbody in which the loading expressed in the TMDL for the pollutant of concern will continue to meet water quality standards. Critical conditions are the combination of environmental factors (e.g., flow, temperature, etc.) that results in attaining and maintaining the water quality criterion and has an acceptably low frequency of occurrence” (EPA 1999). As indicated in the load duration curve analysis, TSS loads vary significantly from high flow to low flow conditions. Most exceedances of the water quality standard for TSS occur at the very high- and high-range flow conditions during the seasons with highest precipitation. High-flow regimes are the critical condition for TMDL implementation. By using a duration curve approach in this TMDL the full range of flow conditions occurring over the year are fully captured and accounted for. 4.3.6 TSS TMDL Summary The LA components and individual MS4 allocations were calculated by multiplying the respective LA areas and each MS4’s percent watershed coverage area by the total watershed loading capacity (determined from the load duration curve), after the MOS and construction/industrial stormwater activities components were subtracted from the loading capacity for each flow zone. The TSS TMDL for Riley Creek was developed for a baseline year of 2011, which is the midpoint year for the date range of TSS data used for development of this TMDL (2006 through 2015). TSS load reductions that occur during or after the baseline year of 2011 are creditable toward the overall required load reduction. Table 4.17 presents the total loading capacity, the MOS, the WLAs and the remaining watershed LAs for the impaired reach of Riley Creek. Allocations for this TMDL were established using the 65 mg/L TSS standard for class 2B waters in the Minnesota River Basin. The 530 mg/L TSS concentration at the tenth percentile shown in Figure 3.15 provides an indication of the overall magnitude of the required load reduction to meet the 65 mg/L standard. This equates to a Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 64 (530 – 65)/530 = 88% overall reduction. This reduction percentage is only intended as a rough approximation, as it does not account for flow, and is not a required element of a TMDL. It serves to provide a starting point based on available water quality data for assessing the magnitude of the effort needed in the watershed to achieve the standard. This reduction percentage does not supersede the allocations provided in Table 4.17. In addition, because there is limited information or data available to estimate or quantitatively calculate the existing (current conditions) load contribution from each of the WLA and LA sources presented in Table 4.17, this reduction percentage is not intended to be applied uniformly across these sources. In fact, per the qualitative discussion of sources in Section 3.7.2.1, much of the reduction will need to come from near-channel sources (e.g., streambank erosion). However, these near-channel sources are often largely affected or driven by stormwater discharge rates/volume. Improvements in stormwater management should help to reduce sediment contributions from the near- channel sources. Table 4.17 Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) TSS TMDL and Allocations Flow Zones Very High High Mid Low Very Low (lbs/day) TOTAL LOAD (Baseline Year: 2011) 6,600 1,772 662 486 360 Wasteload Total WLA 2,227 598 223 32 23 Eden Prairie (MS400015) 2,059 553 206 29 21 Hennepin County (MS400138) 146 39 15 2 1 Construction/Industrial SW 22 6 2 1 1 Load Total LA 4,043 1,085 406 430 319 Lake Riley Boundary Condition 246 66 25 18 13 Watershed LA 3,797 1,019 381 54 40 Unallocated Load 358 266 MOS (5%) 330 89 33 24 18 Estimated existing load reduction (%) 88% 4.4 Streams, E. coli Bacteria (E. coli) TMDLs for Nine Mile Creek (AUID# 07020012-809), Purgatory Creek (AUID# 07020012- 828), and Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) were developed using the load duration curve approach (EPA 2007) as described in Section 4.3.1. Development of the three stream E. coli TMDLs is described in the following subsections. 4.4.1 E. coli Loading Capacity Methodology As described in Section 4.3.1, load duration curves describe the pollutant loading capacity of a stream over a variety of flow conditions. To develop a load duration curve, flow data must first be aggregated to create a flow duration curve for each reach. The flow duration curve describes how often a given flow rate is exceeded in a given stream reach (e.g., a flow rate of 10 cfs is exceeded 50% of the time within the Nine Mile Creek reach, see Figure 2.18). Flow duration curves for Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek were aggregated from the sources described in Table 4.18 and are shown together in Figure 4.4. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 65 Table 4.18 Stream flow rate data for E. coli TMDLs Stream Station ID Years Flow Collected Nine Mile Creek 05330900 1963-1973 S007-901 1989-2016 ECU7A/N1 1997-2014 ECU7B 1997-2010 ECU7C 1997-2010 S005-377 2007-2014 Station8 1987-2001 Purgatory Creek 5330800 1975-1980 445002093265701 1980 S007-907 2004-2016 NA 2004-2015 P1.6 2004-2006 Riley Creek 445023093305201 1981-1982 S005-380 1999-2016 Figure 4.4 Flow Duration Curve for Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek Using the flow duration curves shown in Figure 4.4, the load duration curve for each stream is calculated by multiplying the flow rate at each point along the flow duration curve by the chronic E. coli standard of 126 organisms per 100 mL. Load duration curves and observed E. coli loads for each stream reach are shown in Figure 4.5 through Figure 4.7. The load duration curve represents the loading capacity of the stream for each daily flow and is divided into five flow zones: very high (0% to 10%), high (10% to 40%), Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 66 mid (40% to 60%), low (60% to 90%) and very low (90% to 100%) flow conditions. For simplicity, the median value (or midpoint) of the load duration curve within each flow condition defines the TMDL for each flow condition. Because the chronic bacteria standard is developed based on the geometric mean of observed E. coli concentrations, the geometric mean of observed data within each flow condition defines the existing load for each flow condition. E. coli load reduction is required for stream reaches and flow zones for which the geometric mean load of observed data exceeds the median TMDL value. It is important to note that this depiction may not fully show all needed reductions. Specifically, in some cases the impairment was based on exceedances occurring during individual months (aggregated across years). For those cases, a separate reduction estimate is needed. Figure 4.5 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Nine Mile Creek (AUID# 07020012-809) Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 67 Figure 4.6 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Purgatory Creek (AUID# 07020012-828) Figure 4.7 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 68 4.4.2 E. coli Load Allocation Methodology Non-permitted sources of bacteria within the watersheds of Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek downstream of Marsh Lake, Staring Lake, and Riley Lake, respectively, include runoff from areas that have the potential to transport bacterial from wildlife and loading from the upstream lakes (Marsh Lake, Starting Lake, and Riley Lake). There are no known SSTSs or livestock feedlots within the impaired reach watershed of the three streams. 4.4.2.1 Upstream Lakes The LA applied to upstream lakes (Marsh Lake, Staring Lake, and Riley Lake) was determined by estimating the percentage of stream flow contributed by the upstream lakes and applying an estimated E. coli loading concentration to the lake outflow. A flow duration curve for each upstream lake was calculated by multiplying the stream flow duration curves shown in Figure 4.4 by the ratio of the drainage area of the impaired reach to the total drainage area of the entire stream. Because E. coli monitoring data at the lake outlets was not collected from the Riley-Purgatory Creek or Nine Mile Creek watersheds, a load duration curve was developed by multiplying the flow duration curve by an E. coli concentration of 11 organisms per 100 mLs. This value represents the average outflow concentration of Gray’s Bay Dam from the Minnehaha Creek E. coli TMDL (MPCA 2013). Because lakes often act as a sink for fecal bacteria and are not believed to contribute to elevated E. coli concentration in impaired streams, this value is considered a reasonable estimate of the lake outflow concentration. 4.4.2.2 Non-regulated surface runoff The remaining watershed LA applied to non-permitted sources, such as runoff from agricultural land, forested land, and non-regulated MS4 residential areas (such as direct runoff from backyard areas), was calculated as the remaining load after the MOS, WLAs and LA from upstream lakes was subtracted from the total load capacity of each flow zone. There are no available data or studies to partition natural background loads from the rest of the LA. 4.4.2.3 Unallocated load For some flow zones, the existing pollutant load (as denoted by the geomean of observed data) fell below the allowable pollutant load (see Figure 4.3). To adhere to antidegradation requirements, the difference between the existing load and allocated load for these flow zones was classified as “unallocated” load. (The remaining allowable load (i.e., what falls below the geomean of observed data) is what is divided up among WLA and other LA sources.) 4.4.3 E. coli Wasteload Allocation Methodology WLAs represent the portion of the E. coli load associated with permitted sources. WLAs are typically divided into three sub-categories: permitted wastewater sources, confined animal feeding operations, and MS4s. 4.4.3.1 Permitted Wastewater Sources There are no permitted wastewater sources of E. coli in the Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, or Riley Creek watersheds. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 69 4.4.3.2 Confined Animal Feeding Operations There are no confined animal feeding operations in the Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, or Riley Creek watersheds. 4.4.3.3 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems The primary source of bacteria loading within MS4s comes from improperly managed pet waste and wildlife inputs (e.g., waterfowl, geese, etc.) directly to impervious surfaces and water features. Permitted MS4s within the Nine Mile Creek downstream of Marsh Lake, Purgatory Creek downstream of Staring Lake and Riley Creek downstream of Riley Lake are summarized in Table 2.21. Individual MS4 allocations were calculated by multiplying the percent watershed coverage of each MS4 by the E. coli loading capacity (determined from the load duration curves) after the MOS and estimated loading from upstream waterbodies (see Section 4.4.2) was subtracted. As shown in Table 4.19, the Chanhassen area is completely pervious and is a very small percentage of the total drainage area to the impaired portion of Riley Creek. For this reason, Chanhassen will not be assigned a WLA for the Riley Creek E. coli TMDL. Table 4.19 MS4 Area Summary for E. coli TMDLs Stream MS4 Area (ac) Area (%) Nine Mile Creek Bloomington 2837 85% Hennepin County 62 2% MnDOT 53 2% Non-Permitteda 381 11% Purgatory Creek Bloomington 783 17% Eden Prairie 2303 51% Hennepin County 80 2% Hennepin Technical College 51 1% MnDOT 140 3% Non-Permitteda 1183 26% Riley Creek Chanhassenb 0.04 0.001% Eden Prairie 1264 43% Hennepin County 37 1% Non-Permitteda 1658 56% a: Non-permitted sources and non-regulated MS4 residential areas (e.g., direct runoff from backyard areas). See Section 4.4.2.2 b: Chanhassen area is completely pervious and is a very small percentage of the Riley Creek impairment reach drainage area. For this reason, it should not be assigned a WLA. 4.4.3.4 Construction/Industrial Stormwater: Categorical WLAs E. coli WLAs for regulated construction stormwater (permit # MNR100001) were not developed, since E. coli is not a typical pollutant from construction sites. WLAs for regulated industrial stormwater were also not developed. Industrial stormwater must receive a WLA only if the pollutant is part of benchmark monitoring for an industrial site in the watershed of an impaired waterbody. There are no bacteria or E. coli benchmarks associated with any of the industrial stormwater permit (Permit #MNR050000). Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 70 4.4.4 Margin of Safety MOS accounts for uncertainties in both characterizing current conditions and the relationship between the load, wasteload, monitored flows, and in-stream water quality to ensure the TMDL allocations result in attainment of water quality standards. An explicit MOS equal to 5% of the total load was applied, whereby 5% of the loading capacity for each flow regime was subtracted before allocations were made among the wasteload and watershed load. Five percent was considered an appropriate MOS since the load duration curve approach minimizes a great deal of uncertainty associated with the development of TMDLs, because the calculation of the loading capacity is the product of monitored flow and the E. coli target concentration (126 organism per 100 mLs). Most of the uncertainty with this calculation is associated with the flows in the impaired reaches. Because the majority of available flow data was collected from WOMP stations with well-established, continuous flow monitoring records, it is assumed that the level of uncertainty in the flow monitoring data and resulting TMDL load duration curves is low. 4.4.5 Seasonal Variation The EPA states that the critical condition “…can be thought of as the “worst case” scenario of environmental conditions in the waterbody in which the loading expressed in the TMDL for the pollutant of concern will continue to meet water quality standards. Critical conditions are the combination of environmental factors (e.g., flow, temperature, etc.) that results in attaining and maintaining the water quality criterion and has an acceptably low frequency of occurrence” (EPA 1999). As indicated in the load duration curve analysis, E. coli loads vary significantly from high flow to low flow conditions. Because the load duration curve approach covers a complete range of seasonal flow conditions, seasonal variation is inherently incorporated into the E. coli TMDLs. 4.4.6 E. coli TMDL Summary Bacteria (E. coli) TMDL allocations for the impaired reaches of Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek are shown in Table 4.20, Table 4.21, and Table 4.22, respectively. Allocations for these TMDLs were established using the 126 organisms/100 mL E. coli standard for class 2B waters in the Minnesota River Basin. As described in Section 4.4.2 and Section 4.4.3, allocations for each flow zone were calculated by first removing the MOS and the estimate of upstream lake loading from the total allocation, and then assigning the remaining allocation to MS4 WLA and watershed LA sources based on the percent contributing area in each impaired reach watershed (see Table 4.19). The E. coli TMDLs for Nine Mile Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Riley Creek were developed for a baseline year of 2012, which is the midpoint year for the date range of E. coli data used for development of this TMDL (2006 through 2017). E. coli load reductions that occur during or after the baseline year of 2012 are creditable toward the overall required load reduction. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 71 Table 4.20 Nine Mile Creek (AUID# 07020012-809) E. coli TMDL and Allocations Load Category Load Source Flow Zone Very High High Mid Low Very Low billion organisms per day (b-org/day) TOTAL LOAD (TMDL), Baseline Year: 2012 324.8 82.9 33.1 16.2 5.9 Waste- Load Total Wasteload Sources 251.0 31.6 24.7 8.1 2.9 Bloomington City MS4 (MS400005) 241.2 30.4 23.7 7.8 2.8 Hennepin County MS4 (MS400138) 5.2 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 MnDOT Metro District (MS400170) 4.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.05 Load Total Load Sources 57.6 47.1 6.8 7.3 2.7 Marsh Lake Boundary Condition 25.2 6.4 2.6 1.3 0.5 Watershed LA 32.4 4.1 3.2 1.0 0.4 Unallocated Load 0 36.6 1.1 5.0 1.8 Margin of Safety, 5% 16.2 4.1 1.7 0.8 0.3 Existing Concentration, Apr–Oct (org/100 mL) 116 Maximum Monthly Geometric Mean (org/100 mL) 212 Estimated Existing Load Reduction (%) 41% Table 4.21 Purgatory Creek (AUID# 07020012-828) E. coli TMDL and Allocations Load Category Load Source Flow Zone Very High High Mid Low Very Low billion organisms per day (b-org/day) TOTAL LOAD (TMDL) , Baseline Year: 2012 155.0 53.4 15.4 6.5 2.1 Waste- Load Total Wasteload Sources 40.4 34.1 9.8 3.8 1.4 Bloomington City MS4 (MS400005) 9.4 8.0 2.3 0.9 0.3 Eden Prairie City MS4 (MS400015) 27.7 23.4 6.7 2.6 0.9 Hennepin County MS4 (MS400138) 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.03 Hennepin Technical College MS4 (MS400199) 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.02 MnDOT Metro District (MS400170) 1.7 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 Load Total Load Sources 106.9 16.7 4.8 2.4 0.7 Staring Lake Boundary Condition 13.5 4.7 1.3 0.6 0.2 Watershed LA 14.2 12.0 3.5 1.3 0.5 Unallocated Load 79.1 0 0 0.5 0 Margin of Safety, 5% 7.8 2.7 0.8 0.3 0.1 Existing Concentration, Apr–Oct (org/100 mL) 55 Maximum Monthly Geometric Mean (org/100 mL) 392 Estimated Existing Load Reduction (%) 68% Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 72 Table 4.22 Riley Creek (AUID# 07020012-511) E. coli TMDL and Allocations Load Category Load Source Flow Zone Very High High Mid Low Very Low billion organisms per day (b-org/day) TOTAL LOAD (TMDL) , Baseline Year: 2012 50.6 13.3 4.9 3.6 2.6 Waste- Load1 Total Wasteload Sourcesa 6.1 5.1 1.9 1.4 1.0 Eden Prairie City MS4 (MS400015) 6.0 4.9 1.8 1.3 1.0 Hennepin County MS4 (MS400138) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.04 0.03 Load Total Load Sources 41.9 7.6 2.8 2.1 1.5 Riley Lake Boundary Condition 4.4 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 Watershed LA 7.8 6.4 2.4 1.7 1.3 Unallocated Load 29.7 0 0 0 0 Margin of Safety, 5% 2.5 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 Existing Concentration, Apr–Oct (org/100 mL) 123 Maximum Monthly Geometric Mean (org/100 mL) 654 Estimated Existing Load Reduction (%) 81% a: Chanhassen was not assigned a WLA for the Riley Creek E. coli TMDL as it represents less than 0.001% of the drainage area to the impaired portion of Riley Creek (Table 4.19). Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 73 5. Future Growth Considerations The increase in impervious areas in the form of roads, parking lots, buildings, and landscape changes due to development has the potential to contribute additional runoff and TP, TSS and E. coli loading to the system. The WLAs for this TMDL are for communities subject to MS4 NPDES requirements. 5.1 New or Expanding Permitted MS4 WLA Transfer Process Future transfer of watershed runoff loads in this TMDL may be necessary if any of the following scenarios occur within the project watershed boundaries. 1. New development occurs within a regulated MS4. Newly developed areas that are not already included in the WLA must be transferred from the LA to the WLA to account for the growth. 2. One regulated MS4 acquires land from another regulated MS4. Examples include annexation or highway expansions. In these cases, the transfer is WLA to WLA. 3. One or more non-regulated MS4s become regulated. If this has not been accounted for in the WLA, then a transfer must occur from the LA. 4. Expansion of a U.S. Census Bureau Urban Area encompasses new regulated areas for existing permittees. An example is existing state highways that were outside an Urban Area at the time the TMDL was completed, but are now inside a newly expanded Urban Area. This will require either a WLA to WLA transfer or a LA to WLA transfer. 5. A new MS4 or other stormwater-related point source is identified and is covered under a NPDES Permit. In this situation, a transfer must occur from the LA. Load transfers will be based on methods consistent with those used in setting the allocations in this TMDL. In cases where WLA is transferred from or to a regulated MS4, the permittees will be notified of the transfer and have an opportunity to comment. 5.2 New or Expanding Wastewater (TSS and E. coli TMDLs only) The MPCA, in coordination with the EPA Region 5, has developed a streamlined process for setting or revising WLAs for new or expanding wastewater discharges to waterbodies with an EPA approved TMDL (MPCA 2012). This procedure will be used to update WLAs in approved TMDLs for new or expanding wastewater dischargers whose permitted effluent limits are at or below the instream target, and will ensure that the effluent concentrations will not exceed applicable water quality standards or surrogate measures. The process for modifying any and all WLAs will be handled by the MPCA, with input and involvement by the EPA, once a permit request or reissuance is submitted. The overall process will use the permitting public notice process to allow for the public and EPA to comment on the permit changes based on the proposed WLA modification(s). Once any comments or concerns are addressed, and the MPCA determines that the new or expanded wastewater discharge is consistent with the applicable water quality standards, the permit will be issued and any updates to the TMDL WLA(s) will be made. For more information on the overall process, visit the MPCA’s TMDL Policy and Guidance webpage. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 74 6. Reasonable Assurance Needed elements are in place for both point sources and nonpoint sources to make progress toward needed pollutant reductions in this TMDL. A range of local partners are involved in water resource management and implementation, including the NMCWD, RPBCWD, Carver County Land, and Water Services Division, the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District, the Hennepin Conservation District, and cities. For these watersheds, the watershed districts are the primary drivers of action towards water quality improvement. The RPBCWD website and NMCWD website each contain much information on their roles and ongoing efforts. 6.1 Regulatory approaches MS4 permitted sources The MPCA is responsible for applying federal and state regulations to protect and enhance water quality in the state of Minnesota. The MPCA oversees stormwater management accounting activities for all MS4 entities previously listed in this TMDL study. The Small MS4 General Permit requires regulated municipalities to implement BMPs that reduce pollutants in stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). A critical component of permit compliance is the requirement for the owners or operators of a regulated MS4 conveyance to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). The SWPPP program addresses all permit requirements, including the following six measures: Public education and outreach Public participation Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Program Construction site runoff controls Post-construction runoff controls Pollution prevention and municipal good housekeeping measures A SWPPP is a management plan that describes the MS4 permittee’s activities for managing stormwater within their regulated area. In the event of a completed TMDL study, MS4 permittees must document the WLA in their future NPDES/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit application and provide an outline of the BMPs to be implemented that address any needed reductions. The MPCA requires MS4 owners or operators to submit their application and corresponding SWPPP document to the MPCA for their review. Once the application and SWPPP are deemed adequate by the MPCA, all application materials are placed on 30-day public notice, allowing the public an opportunity to review and comment on the prospective program. Once NPDES/SDS Permit coverage is granted, permittees must implement the activities described within their SWPPP, and submit an annual report to the MPCA documenting the implementation activities completed within the previous year, along with an estimate of the cumulative pollutant reduction achieved by those activities. For information on all requirements for annual reporting, please see the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 75 This TMDL assigns TSS, TP, and E. coli WLAs to all regulated MS4s in the study, and as previously discussed in Section 5. The Small MS4 General Permit requires permittees to develop compliance schedules for EPA approved TMDL WLAs not already being met at the time of permit application. A compliance schedule includes BMPs that will be implemented over the permit term, a timeline for their implementation, and a long term strategy for continuing progress towards assigned WLAs. For WLAs being met at the time of permit application, the same level of treatment must be maintained in the future. Regardless of WLA attainment, all permitted MS4s are still required to reduce pollutant loadings to the MEP. The MPCA’s stormwater program and its NPDES Permit program are regulatory activities providing reasonable assurance that implementation activities are initiated, maintained, and consistent with WLAs assigned in this study. Regulated Construction Stormwater Regulated stormwater was given a categorical TMDL in this study and includes construction discharges. However, construction activities disturbing one acre or more in size are still required to obtain NPDES Permit coverage through the MPCA. Compliance with TMDL requirements are assumed when a construction site owner/operator meets the conditions of the Construction General Permit, and properly selects, installs, and maintains all BMPs required under the permit, including any applicable additional BMPs required in Appendix A of the Construction General Permit for discharges to impaired waters, or compliance with local construction stormwater requirements if they are more restrictive than those in the State General Permit. Regulated Industrial Stormwater As with regulated construction stormwater, ISW was lumped into a categorical stormwater WLA in this study. Industrial activities still require permit coverage under the State's NPDES/SDS ISW Multi- Sector General Permit (MNR050000), or NPDES/SDS General Permit for Construction Sand & Gravel, Rock Quarrying and Hot Mix Asphalt Production facilities (MNG490000). If a facility owner/operator obtains stormwater coverage under the appropriate NPDES/SDS Permit and properly selects, installs and maintains all BMPs required under the permit, their discharges are considered compliant with WLAs set in this study. Watershed District rules Both NMCWD and RPBCWD have comprehensive and similar rules that address water quantity and quality. For example, RPBCWD’s rule components include: procedural requirements, floodplain management and drainage alterations, erosion and sediment control, wetland and creek buffers, dredging and sediment removal, shoreline and streambank stabilization, waterbody crossings and structures, appropriation of public surface waters, appropriation of groundwater, stormwater management, variances and exceptions, permit fees and financial assurances. 6.2 Nonregulatory approaches Local planning Minn. Stat. chs. 103B and 103D require watershed districts to prepare water management plans. Both NMCWD and RPBCWD have recently revised their plans and they include goals for several “major issues/program areas” including surface water management, impaired waters and TMDLs, urban Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 76 stormwater management, wetland management, agricultural practices (where applicable) and education. A major part of the plans is for implementation, which provides a range of activities and strategies for all of the major issues/program areas above. The plan further outlines specific planned projects to be done over the 10-year timeframe of the plan, detailing the project type, partners, timeframe and costs. Examples projects include stormwater treatment practices or upgrades, streambank stabilization, wetland restorations and in-lake management. Other components of the plan include efforts for additional study, monitoring, education and outreach, technical assistance and permitting inspection and enforcement. Successes by both watershed districts are outlined in their plans and websites. These efforts have included in-lake management (alum, invasive species management, lake drawdown), streambank stabilization and restoration, and various stormwater runoff improvement projects. Waterbodies in both districts have been delisted from the 303d list of impaired waters directly due to their efforts. Funding availability Both NMCWD and RPBCWD have established a stable source of funding through a watershed levies. These levies provide funding for significant water quality/quantity improvement projects, local grants, staff, monitoring, and engineering costs. In addition to local funding, potential state and federal funds available to the various watershed entities include grants from Clean Water, Land & Legacy funds, state Clean Water Partnership loans, EPA Clean Water Act Section 319 grants, and various NRCS programs. Education and outreach Both NMCWD and RPBCWD have active education and outreach efforts. These include education programs, volunteer opportunities, and useful web-based information and resources. Groundwater Protection Rule In June of 2019, the final Groundwater Protection Rule was finalized and published in the Minnesota State Register. This new rule will regulate nitrogen application in vulnerable groundwater areas. The rule will become effective January 1, 2020. The rule contains two parts and farmers may be subject to one part of the rule, both, or none at all depending on geographic location. Part one restricts fall application of nitrogen fertilizer if a farm is located in a vulnerable groundwater area where at least 50% or more of a quarter section is designated as vulnerable or a public water drinking supply management area (DWSMA) with nitrate-nitrogen testing at least 5.4 mg/L in the previous 10 years. Once the rule is effective, fall application restrictions will being in the fall of 2020. Part two will apply to farming operations in a DWSMA with elevated nitrate levels and farms will be subject to a sliding scale of voluntary and regulatory actions based on the concentration of nitrate in the well and the use of BMPs. In part two, no regulatory action will occur until after at least three growing seasons once a DWSMA is determined to meet the criteria for level two. Agriculture Research, Education and Extension Technology Transfer Program (AGREETT) The purpose of AGREETT is to support agricultural productivity growth through research, education and extension services. Since 2015, when the AGREETT program was established by the state legislature, significant progress has been made toward restoring and expanding capacity and research capabilities at the University of Minnesota in the College of Food, Agriculture and Natural Sciences, Extension and the College of Veterinary Medicine. As of February 2019, 21 faculty and extension educators have been Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 77 hired along with needed infrastructure upgrades in the areas of crop and livestock productivity, soil fertility, water quality and pest resistance. Researchers who have been hired are pursuing work in the areas of manure management including strip till of liquid manure and precision application of manure based on nutrient content rather than volume, precision agriculture, agricultural practices to ensure good water quality under irrigation and promotion of BMPs for nitrogen and phosphorus management in row crop production. This addition of capacity at the University of Minnesota for public research covering several areas related to restoration and protection strategies will benefit water quality in the Minnesota River Basin long-term. Drainage System Repair Cost Apportionment Option Minnesota drainage law, Minn. R. ch. 103E, was updated in 2019 to add a voluntary, alternative method for cost apportionment that better utilizes technology to more equitably apportion drainage system repair costs, based on relative runoff and sediment contributions to the system, thus providing an incentive to reduce runoff and sediment contributions to the drainage system. This voluntary option is available for drainage authorities to use and is limited to repair costs only. The option also includes applicable due process hearings, findings, orders and appeal provisions consistent with other aspects of drainage law. Tracking and monitoring progress Monitoring components outlined in Section 7 constitute a sufficient means for tracking progress and supporting adaptive management. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 78 7. Monitoring Overview The goals of follow-up monitoring are generally to both evaluate progress toward the water quality targets provided in the TMDL and to inform and guide implementation activities. The impaired waterbodies will remain listed until water quality standards are met. Monitoring will primarily be conducted by local and regional staff. Progress towards the achievement of TMDL goals will be tracked through regular monitoring of lake and stream water quality as well as BMP completion tracking. Continued monitoring of the lakes would include collection of water quality data, lake level data and biological data (such as macrophytes, zooplankton, and phytoplankton). Lake water quality monitoring should include depth profiles of TP, dissolved oxygen and temperature, surface concentration of Chl-a, and Secchi depth. Monitoring will occur during the open water with samples taken on a monthly basis at minimum. In addition to monitoring the lakes themselves, ponds and wetlands throughout the watershed should be examined to determine contributions of phosphorus to the lake. This monitoring has been conducted in the past by the cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Bloomington, and the RPBCWD. Stream monitoring for turbidity and flow is expected to continue at the WOMP sites on the Riley, Purgatory, and Nine Mile Creeks. This monitoring will occur during open water season and at a frequency and timing (15 minutes). These sites are currently being monitored by the Metropolitan Council, RPBCWD, and NMCWD through their respective WOMP programs. In addition to turbidity and flow, samples measuring TSS, total suspended volatile solids, E. coli, and Chl-a will continue to be analyzed at the monitoring stations to better target implementation efforts and conduct on-going assessment. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 79 8. Implementation Strategy Summary 8.1 Permitted Sources 8.1.1 Construction Stormwater The WLA for stormwater discharges from sites where there is construction activity reflects the number of construction sites greater than one acre expected to be active in the watershed at any one time, and the best management practices (BMPs) and other stormwater control measures that should be implemented at the sites to limit the discharge of pollutants of concern. The BMPs and other stormwater control measures that should be implemented at construction sites are defined in Minnesota’s NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (MNR100001). If a construction site owner/operator obtains coverage under the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit and properly selects, installs, and maintains all BMPs required under the permit, including those related to impaired waters discharges and any applicable additional requirements found in Appendix A of the Construction General Permit, the stormwater discharges would be expected to be consistent with the WLA in this TMDL. Construction activity must also meet all local government construction stormwater requirements. 8.1.2 Industrial Stormwater The WLA for stormwater discharges from sites where there is industrial activity reflects the number of sites in the watershed for which NPDES Industrial Stormwater Permit coverage is required, and the BMPs and other stormwater control measures that should be implemented at the sites to limit the discharge of pollutants of concern. The BMPs and other stormwater control measures that should be implemented at the industrial sites are defined in Minnesota’s NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Multi- Sector General Permit (MNR050000) or NPDES/SDS General Permit for Construction Sand & Gravel, Rock Quarrying and Hot Mix Asphalt Production facilities (MNG490000). If a facility owner/operator obtains stormwater coverage under the appropriate NPDES/SDS Permit and properly selects, installs, and maintains all BMPs required under the permit, the stormwater discharges would be expected to be consistent with the WLA in this TMDL. Industrial activity must also meet all local government construction stormwater requirements. 8.1.3 MS4 All regulated MS4s are required to reduce their pollutant loads to meet the WLAs presented in this TMDL report. MS4 permittees are required to make progress towards meeting their WLA(s) over time as part of their MS4 SWPPP. MS4s must determine if they are currently meeting their WLA(s), and if not must provide a narrative strategy and compliance schedule to meet the WLA(s). BMPs are provided that will be implemented over the current five-year permit term. Implementation strategies to improve urban stormwater management are detailed in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual and include filtration, infiltration, and sedimentation. Practices can be construction- related, post-construction, pre-treatment, non-structural, and structural. Implementation in the more urban areas will likely require retrofits, while practices in the more rural residential areas can target open areas and runoff from lawns and impervious surfaces associated with development. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 80 It is important to note that while some water quality improvement efforts will be done independently by MS4s, much will be done in partnership with the watershed districts as described in Section 8.2. 8.2 Watershed District-Led Efforts Locally produced lake studies (referred to as Lake Use Attainability Analyses or UAAs) for Lake Lucy, Lake Susan, and Lake Riley, as well as an updated management plan for all of Purgatory Creek, including Lotus and Staring Lakes, have been developed or are under development. UAA studies have also been conducted for Wing Lake, Lake Rose, Penn Lake, North and South Cornelia Lake, and Nine Mile Creek. These plans identify specific structural and nonstructural BMPs for the watershed of each of the lakes through the result of past studies, water quality monitoring, and the watershed and in-lake modeling performed. Similarly, the CRAS Report (Barr 2015) identified relative sources of erosion and prioritized areas for improvements along Riley and Purgatory Creeks, and will be used along with engineering feasibility studies to implement future projects. The NMCWD and RPBCWD have also developed water management plans (Barr 2017a and Barr 2017b) that describe water quality goals and potential BMP implementation strategies for improving the water quality in these lakes. Note: Pollutant reductions achieved for some implementation actions are creditable to the LAs in some cases and to WLAs in other cases. Examples of non-WLA-creditable projects include reductions in in-lake loading. For clarification on a particular project, the MPCA Stormwater Program staff should be contacted. A summary of the recommended BMPs are listed below. Structural BMPs o Implement BMPs at target locations to reduce flow, TP and TSS loading from the watershed to the lake, including iron-enhanced sand filters, stormwater ponds, and/or infiltration practices. o Prioritize and complete stormwater control and streambank stabilization projects at sites that are contributing inordinate sediment loads to the study lakes and stream reaches, including subreaches that are at high-risk of bank instability and excessive bedload. o Work with cities to identify potential redevelopment and road reconstruction projects that might provide the opportunity to retrofit additional BMPs into the watershed. Additionally, retrofit existing ponds as opportunities arise. In-Lake BMPs o Conduct alum treatment of the internal sediment phosphorus loading where internal reductions are required. o Continue or implement herbicidal treatments to control curly-leaf pondweed when applicable. o Continue carp management, including Staring Lake and the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area wetland. Lake Susan may also require more assessment of the carp population and control options. Nonstructural Measures and Programs Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 81 o Implement RPBCWD stormwater management rules to help minimize phosphorus load increase and degradation of water quality as future development occurs within the watersheds. o Evaluate opportunities to work with landowners in the direct untreated watersheds in the riparian zones of the lakes. These efforts should focus on implementing stormwater BMPs on private parcels and educating about shoreline/vegetation management (if applicable). The RPBCWD could target the promotion of the cost-share program to residents in the watersheds directly contributing to Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley. Additionally, this could also include preservation of the currently undeveloped shorelines surrounding the lakes. o Continue routine monitoring of the lakes. This would include the collection of water quality data, lake level data, and biological data (such as macrophytes, zooplankton, and phytoplankton). Based on the recommendations from the University of Minnesota aquatic plant study, conduct macrophyte surveys one to two times per year where applicable, in early June to capture the curly-leaf pondweed and again in late summer. Continue to monitor cyanobacteria levels within the lake. Conduct water quality monitoring in select ponds and wetlands throughout the watershed to determine if they are potential sources of phosphorus to the lakes and to help refine future watershed models. 8.3 Cost A TMDL is required to provide “a range of estimates” for implementation costs by the CWLA [Minn. Stat. 2007, § 114D.25]. Detailed analyses of costs were not completed for this TMDL study. A rough estimation of cost can be developed based on BMP cost studies. An EPA cost summary of BMPs developed in urban landscapes found a median cost of $2,200 per lb of phosphorus removed per year. Using that value with a total required reduction of 2,407 lbs of phosphorus would result in a cost of approximately $5.3 million. Based on the CRAS inventory, a rough estimate of costs associated with stabilizing the erosional areas of the lower valleys of Riley and Purgatory Creeks results in a cost of approximately $30 million. The costs to implement the activities to address E. coli impairments are approximately $4 million to $8 million dollars. This range reflects the level of uncertainty inherent in any fecal bacteria source assessment, and addresses the high priority sources identified in Section 3.8.3. 8.4 Adaptive Management The implementation elements described above will require an adaptive management approach (Figure 8.1). Continued monitoring and “course corrections” responding to monitoring results are the most appropriate strategy for attaining the water quality goals established in this TMDL. Management activities will be changed or refined to efficiently meet the TMDL and lay the groundwork for de-listing the impaired waterbodies. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 82 Figure 8.1. Adaptive Management Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 83 9. Public Participation Multiple meetings were held with MS4 representatives, watershed district staff and other stakeholders at various points during the project. Opportunities were given to provide feedback on the TMDL methodology (including allocation setting) and review draft versions of the TMDL report. The original Northern Watersheds: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek and Nine Mile Creek Watersheds TMDL subsequently was made a part of the Lower Minnesota River (HUC-8) TMDL/WRAPS project, which addresses dozens of additional impaired lakes and stream reaches. The MPCA conducted stakeholder meetings for the Lower Minnesota River project including coverage of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek and Nine Mile Creek Watersheds TMDL with local stakeholders including MS4s (the cities of Bloomington, Chanhassen, Deephaven, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Richfield, and Shorewood, Hennepin and Carver Counties, MnDOT, Hennepin Technical College) on August 27, 2017 and December 12, 2018. An opportunity for public comment on the draft TMDL report was provided via a public notice in the State Register from July 22, 2019, through September 20, 2019. There were 12 comment letters received and responded to as a result of the public comment period. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 84 10. Literature Cited Adhikari, Hrishikesh, David L. Barnes, Silke Schiewer, and Daniel M. White. “Total Coliform Survival Characteristics in Frozen Soils.” Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 12, pp: 1098– 1105, December 2007. Barr Engineering Company. 2007. Detailed Assessment of Phosphorus Sources to Minnesota Watersheds – Atmospheric Deposition: 2007 Update. Prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Barr Engineering Company. 2010. Lake Cornelia Use Attainability Analysis: Revised Draft. Prepared for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Barr Engineering Company. 2013a. Lake Lucy and Lake Ann Use Attainability Analysis Update. Prepared for Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Barr Engineering Company. 2013b. Bluff Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan: Turbidity and Fish Bioassessment Impairments. Prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Barr Engineering Company. 2015. Creek Restoration Action Strategy. Prepared for the Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Creek Watershed District. Barr Engineering Company. 2016. Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley: Use Attainability Analysis Update. Prepared for Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Barr Engineering Company. 2017a. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Water Management Plan. Prepared for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, October 2017. Barr Engineering Company. 2017b. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan-Draft. Prepared for Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Barr Engineering Company. 2017c. Lotus, Silver, Duck, Round Mitchell, Red Rock Use Attainability Analysis Update; Lake Idlewild and Staring Lake Use Attainability Analysis; and Lower Purgatory Creek Stabilization Study. Prepared for Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Chandrasekaran, Ramyavardhanee, Matthew J. Hamilton, Ping Wanga, Christopher Staley, Scott Matteson, Adam Birr, and Michael J. Sadowsky. “Geographic Isolation of Escherichia coli Genotypes in Sediments and Water of the Seven Mile Creek — A Constructed Riverine Watershed.” Science of the Total Environment 538:78–85, 2015. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program: Volume 1 - Final Report. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Protocol for Developing Nutrient TMDLs. First Edition. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. An Approach for Using Load Duration Curves in the Development of TMDLs. EPA 841-B-07-006. Washington, D.C. Huser, B.J., P.L. Brezonik and R.M. Newman. 2011. Effects of alum treatment on water quality and sediment in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes, Minnesota, U.S.A. Lake and Reservoir Management 27(3): 220-228. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 85 In re Little Rock Creek TMDL, No. A16-0123 (Minn. App. Nov. 28, 2016), review denied (Minn. Feb. 14, 2017; In re Crystal Lake TMDL, No. A18-0581 review denied (Minn. App. April. 24, 2019) Ishii, Satoshi, Tao Yan, Hung Vu, Dennis L. Hansen, Randall E. Hicks, and Michael J. Sadowsky. “Factors Controlling Long-Term Survival and Growth of Naturalized Escherichia coli Populations in Temperate Field Soils.” Microbes and Environments, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 8−14, 2010. Lin, J.P. 2004. Review of Published Export Coefficient and Event Mean Concentration (EMC) Data. WRAP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-WRAP-04-3), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Maestre, A. and R. Pitt. 2005. The National Stormwater Quality Database, Version 1.1, A Compilation and Analysis of NPDES Stormwater Monitoring Information. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water. Marino, Robert P, and John J. Gannon. “Survival of Fecal Coliforms and Fecal Streptococci in Storm Drain Sediments.” Water Research, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 1089–1098, 1991. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2011. LiDAR Data. Metropolitan Council. 2010. Generalized Land Use - Historical 2010 for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. MPCA. 2005. Minnesota Lake Water Quality Assessment Report: Developing Nutrient Criteria, 3rd Edition. September 2005. MPCA. 2013. Minnehaha Creek E. coli Bacteria / Lake Hiawatha Nutrients Total Maximum Daily Load. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. MPCA. 2018. Lower Minnesota Watershed Stressor Identification Report. Pilgrim, K.M., B.J. Huser and P. Brezonik. 2007. “A Method for Comparative Evaluation of Whole-Lake and Inflow Alum Treatment.” Water Research 41:1215-1224. Welch, E. B. & Cooke, G. D., 1999. Effectiveness and Longevity of Phosphorus Inactivation with Alum. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management, pp. 5-27. Wenck Associates, Inc. 2013. Lake Susan Use Attainability Assessment Update. Prepared for Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 86 Appendix A: Watershed and Lake Modeling Methodology A.1 P8 Watershed Modeling Water quality modeling was conducted using the P8 Urban Catchment Model (Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage thru Pits, Puddles, and Ponds). P8 is a model used for predicting the generation and transport of stormwater runoff and pollutants in urban watersheds. The model tracks the movement of particulate matter (fine sand, dust, soil particles, etc.) as it is carried along by stormwater runoff traveling over land and pavement. Particle deposition in ponds/infiltration practices are tracked in order to estimate the amount of pollutants that eventually reach a water body. P8 is a diagnostic tool used for evaluating and designing watershed improvements and BMPs. P8 version 3.4 or 3.5 was used for all model development and updates, except Wing Lake and Lake Rose, which did not need to be updated and used version 2.4. When evaluating the results of the modeling, it is important to consider that the results provided are more accurate in terms of relative differences than in absolute results. The model will predict the percent difference in phosphorus reduction between various BMP options in the watershed fairly accurately. It also provides a realistic estimate of the relative differences in phosphorus and water loadings from the various subwatersheds and major inflow points to the lake. However, since runoff quality is highly variable with time and location, the phosphorus loadings estimated by the model for a specific watershed may not necessarily reflect the actual loadings, in absolute terms. Various site-specific factors, such as lawn care practices, illicit point discharges, and erosion due to construction, are not accounted for in the model. The model provides values that are considered typical of the region, given the watershed’s respective land uses. A.1.1 Watershed boundaries Watershed boundaries were delineated for each lake. Watersheds were delineated to existing BMPs, wetlands, other waterbodies, or large section of stormsewer. Each BMP was delineated with its own subwatershed. Existing subwatersheds from the city of Eden Prairie and previous P8 models were reviewed and updated when appropriate based on 2011 DNR LiDAR topographic data, storm sewer data, record drawings, and other information provided by the RPBCWD and NMCWD as well as the cities. A.1.1.1 Staring Lake Watersheds The total watershed area of Staring Lake is over 10,000 acres. P8 has a limit of 76 devices that can be placed into one model. Therefore, the P8 model for Staring Lake was divided into two models. The first model covered areas contributing to the Purgatory Creek Recreational Wetland (PCR model). The second model covered areas directly contributing to Staring Lake. All upstream lakes (Duck Lake, Silver Lake, Lotus Lake, Round Lake, Mitchell Lake, and Red Rock Lake) were modeled independently from Staring Lake. The PCR model was divided into two sections above and below the intersection of Purgatory Creek and Valley View Road. A single watershed represents the contributing areas to Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 87 Purgatory Creek north of the Purgatory Creek Valley View Road intersection (Valley View Watershed). South of this intersection watershed are drawn to individual BMPs. Flow and TP from the Valley View Watershed were calibrated to flow and TP concentrations measured at the Valley View WOMP station. A single infiltration device was created to collect flow from the Valley View watershed. Parameters of the infiltration basin were calibrated to match the flows and TP loads leaving this watershed. Water infiltration through percolation from the watershed and the infiltration basin were accumulated in an aquifer device and rerouted back as an outflow to account for baseflow conditions of Purgatory Creek. Modeled flow and TP loads exiting the device were compared with flow measurement recorded and composite storm TP concentrations recorded at the Purgatory Creek Valley View station. The calibration was conducted between June 3, 2015 and September 30, 2015. Over the calibration period, the total measured flow was recorded as 1763 acre-ft. The modeled flows were calculated as 1773 acre-ft. Event mean TP concentrations (EMC) were also compared for six events. Table A.1 shows the comparison between the measured and modeled EMC values. Table A.1 Comparison between measured and modeled TP EMC values at Purgatory Creek Valley View Station date Measured TP EMC (mg/l) P8 modeled TP EMC (mg/l) 6/22/2015 0.244 0.228 6/30/2015 0.173 0.186 7/6/2015 0.233 0.203 7/13/2015 0.195 0.201 8/18/2015 0.254 0.178 9/17/2015 0.246 0.255 A.1.2 Land Use Land use data was obtained to estimate both the percentage of directly and indirectly connected imperviousness within each watershed. The directly connected impervious fraction consists of the impervious surfaces that are “connected” directly to stormwater conveyance systems, meaning that flows do not cross over pervious areas. The indirectly connected impervious fraction represents impervious areas that flow over pervious areas before reaching the stormwater conveyance system. Percent imperviousness was calculated 2010 land use data from the Metropolitan Council. Table A.2 shows the 2010 land use categories with the assigned percent impervious and percent directly connected impervious areas. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 88 Table A.2 Impervious Assumption by 2010 Land Use Category 2010 Land Use Categories Total Percent Impervious Percent Directly Connected Impervious Agricultural 5 1 Airport 5 1 Retail and Other Commercial 86 85 Mixed use commercial 86 85 Golf course 6 5 Manufactured Housing Parks 68 50 Major highway 50 50 Railway 65 65 Office 73 72 Industrial and Utility 73 72 Mixed use industrial 73 72 Mixed use residential 59 37 Institutional 49 40 Single family detached 35 20 Multifamily 59 37 Single family attached 50 30 Seasonal/Vacation 30 20 Park, Recreational, or Preserve 6 5 Undeveloped 3 0 Open Water 100 100 Extractive 60 50 Farmstead 25 12 A.1.3 Curve Numbers The pervious curve number (a measure of how easily water can percolate into the soil) was determined for each P8 drainage basin. Data from the 2015 gridded soil survey geographic (gSSURGO) database (Soil Survey Staff 2015) were used to determine the hydrologic soils group (HSG) in each watershed. The HSG serves as an indicatory of a soils infiltration capacity. HSG s range from type A soils that are well drained with high infiltration capacities to HSG type D soils that are poorly drained with the lowest infiltration capacities. Some areas in the county soil surveys are not defined. For these areas, a HSG of type B was assumed. Using the curve number classifications, a composite pervious area curve number was calculated for each of the subwatersheds. Curve numbers were assigned based on soil type (Table A.3) and an area weighted average curve number for each subwatershed was calculated. Table A.3: Pervious area curve number classification by HSG soil type HSG Soil Type Curve Number A 39 B 61 C 74 A/D 80 B/D 80 C/D 80 D 80 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 89 A.1.4 Drainage Patterns Drainage patterns were reviewed and updated from previous P8 models where appropriate or determined based on 2011 DNR LiDAR topographic data, storm sewer data, record drawings, and other information provided by the RPBCWD, the NMCWD and the cities. Development plans submitted as part of the RPBCWD permit review process for projects implemented after the original UAA was completed were also used as a data source. A.1.5 Pollutant Removal Device Information The P8 water quality model can predict pollutant removal efficiency for a variety of treatment practices such as detention ponds and infiltration basins. The model can also be used to simulate pollutant removal from alternative BMPs such as underground treatment devices. The modeled treatment practices are referred to in the P8 model as pollutant removal ‘devices’. Inputs for the ponds and wetlands included in the previously developed models were reviewed and adjusted if more current data were available. Pond outlets were checked against the GIS storm-sewer and as-built data from the cities of Bloomington, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Edina, and Richfield. The water volumes below the pond outlet (i.e., dead storage) were checked against field survey data and as- built plans when available. Pond live storage was adjusted using volumes calculated from the DNR’s 2011 LiDAR data. In some cases, there were existing ponds that were not included in the original P8 modeling without readily available data to develop the pond inputs. In these cases, the pond removal efficiencies were calculated using the ratio of the contributing watershed impervious area to the pond surface area and an assumed pond depth following the method described in the document Phosphorus Removal by Urban Runoff Detention Basins (Walker 1987). The watershed impervious-surface-to-pond- surface ratio curves are available in Appendix A. The new ponds and wetland areas included in the updated P8 model were developed using the same data sources listed above. In cases where no data was available, the new ponds, without available as-built or survey data, were assumed to be built to NURP specifications. A.1.6 Other Model Parameters Time Steps Per Hour (Integer) = 10 to 20. Modified as needed to eliminate continuity errors greater than 2%. Minimum Inter-Event Time (Hours) = 10. Use of this parameter resulted in a good fit between the observed and modeled lake volumes and has been used in a number of previous studies of these lakes. It should be noted that the average minimum inter-event time in the Minneapolis area is six hours. Snowmelt Melt Coef (Inches/Day-Deg-F) = 0.06. This selection was based on the snowmelt rate that provided the best match between observed and predicted snowmelt in previous studies. Snowmelt Scale Factor for Max Abstraction = 1. This factor controls the quantity of snowmelt runoff (i.e., controls losses due to infiltration). Selection was based upon the factor that resulted in the closest fit between modeled and observed runoff volumes, based on the original Lake Riley P8 model calibration from the 2004 Lake Riley UAA. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 90 Growing Season Antecedent Moisture Conditions AMC-II: 0, 0.50, or 1.4 and AMC-III 0, 1.10, or 2.10. This factor was adjusted to more accurately predicted runoff water volumes based on the runoff volumes needed to complete the water balance in the in-lake model spreadsheets. The P8 default values worked for many of the lakes; however, some of the lakes experienced more runoff and these values were then adjusted to extend AMC-III conditions. Particle Scale Factor for TP = 1. The particle scale factor determines the TP load generated by the particles predicted by the model in watershed runoff. Modified from the original UAA P8 model (1.42) in order to reduce the loading to the lakes and produce a better fit to observed lake data. Particle File = NURP50.PAR. The NURP 50 particle file was found to most accurately predict phosphorus loading to Round Lake. Preserved from the original UAA P8 model. Precipitation File Selection = MSP_FC4915_Corr.pcp and Msp4916.pcp. The RPBCWD lakes used the MSP_FC4915_Corr.pcp continuous hourly precipitation file that was developed based on data from the Flying Cloud Airport weather station. For any gaps in the airport record, the hourly data from the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport NWS station (MSP) was used and adjusted based on comparison of the daily precipitation amounts at MSP to the daily data collected at the Chanhassen NWS station. The NMCWD lakes used the Msp4916.pcp file developed from the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport NWS station (MSP). Air Temperature File Selection MSP_FC4915.tmp and Msp4916.tem. The RPBCWD lakes used the MSP_FC4915.tmp continuous daily average temperature file that was developed based on data from the Flying Cloud Airport weather station. The NMCWD lakes used the Msp4916.tem continuous daily average temperature file that was developed based on data from the MSP. Particle Removal Scale Factor. 0.3 for ponds less than 2 feet deep and 1 for all ponds 3 feet deep or greater. The particle removal factor for watershed devices determines particle removal by devices. The factor was selected to match observed phosphorus loads and modeled loads. Insufficient information was available to say with certainty the particle removal scale factor for ponds 2 to 3 feet deep. A factor of 0.6 was used for all ponds of this depth. Swept/Not Swept. = An “Unswept” assumption was made for the entire impervious watershed area. A Sweeping Frequency of 0 was selected. Selected parameters were placed in the “Swept” column since a sweeping frequency of 0 was selected. Impervious Depression Storage = 0.0065. Value used in previous models of these lakes. Impervious Runoff Coefficient = 1. Default P8 value and was used in previous models of these lakes. The Wing Lake and Lake Rose P8 models were developed for the 2010 Holiday-Wing-Rose Lake UAA report (Barr 2010) and the input parameters were not modified for this study. A.2 In-Lake Water Quality Mass Balance Modeling For the majority of Minnesota lakes, phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for algae, and an increase in phosphorus results in an increase in Chl-a concentrations and a decrease in water clarity. Eutrophic lakes can be restored by reducing phosphorus concentrations. An in-lake mass balance model for Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 91 phosphorus was developed for each lake in order to quantify phosphorus source loads to the lake. In- lake modeling for each lake was accomplished through the creation of a daily time-step mass balance model that tracked the flow of water and phosphorus through the lake over the range of observed climatic conditions. The following sections discuss the methodology used for the in-lake water quality mass balance modeling that first includes the development of a water balance model followed by the development of a phosphorus mass balance model. A.2.1 Lake Model Water Balance The first step of the in-lake water quality mass balance modeling is to develop and calibrate the water balance portion of the model. The water balance is a daily time-step model that tracks the inflows to and outflow from the lake system. Typical inflows of water to a lake include direct precipitation and watershed runoff (as generated by the watershed model), and can also include inflows from upstream lakes and/or inflows from groundwater (depending on the lake system). Losses from a lake include evaporation from the lake surface and discharge through the outlet (if applicable), and can also include losses to the groundwater (depending on the lake system). By estimating the change in storage in the lake on a daily time step, the model can be used to predict lake levels, which can then be compared to observed lake levels, which can then be used to estimate groundwater exchange and verify the estimated watershed model runoff volumes. The lake water balance calculated the total lake water volume through the simulated daily gains and losses into the lake. The water balance is represented by the following equation: 𝑉𝑖=𝑉𝑖−1 +(𝐼𝑊+𝐼𝐿𝐶)+𝑂∗𝐴𝑆−𝐸∗𝐴𝑆,(𝑖−1)−𝑂+𝐺 Where: V = Lake volume (acre-ft) i = Daily time step IW = Inflow from modeled lake’s direct watershed (acre-ft/day) ILC = Total daily inflow from upstream lake (acre-ft/day) P = Daily precipitation depth (ft/day) E = Daily evaporation depth (ft/day) AS = Lake surface area (acres) O = Outflow (acre-ft/day) G = Groundwater flow (acre-ft/day) Key input parameters into the lake models include lake depth recorded every 15 minutes while the level sensor is in place during ice free period, lake volume estimated using a relationship between lake elevation and lake cumulative volume (Table A.4 through Table A.17), daily inflow rate from the direct watershed calculated using the P8 watershed model, daily inflow rate from upstream lakes, daily outflow rates estimated using lake water elevation data with the creation of outflow rating curves (Table A.4 through Table A.17), daily precipitation data recorded at the Flying Cloud airport weather station over the lakes surface area, and evaporation calculated using the Lake Hefner equation (Marciano and Harbeck 1954) described below: Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 92 𝐸=0.00177𝑢(𝑒𝑛−𝑒𝑎) 𝑒0 =6.11 ∗10 7.5∗𝑆𝑊237.7+𝑆𝑊 𝑒𝑎=6.11 ∗10 7.5∗𝑆𝐴237.7+𝑆𝐴 Where: E = evaporation (inches) U = wind speed (mph) eo = vapor pressure of the saturates area at the temperature of the water surface ea = vapor pressure of the air TW = surface water temperature in (oC) TA = air temperature in (oC) Climate data (wind speed, air temperature, and relative humidity) were obtained from the Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport. Surface water temperatures (TW) were obtained from lake monitoring data. Groundwater flows were not available for the study lakes. Net groundwater flows were estimated for the study lakes such that model predicted changes in lake volume agreed with observed changes in lake volume. Table A.4 Silver Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 885.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 886.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 887.00 0.12 0.07 0.00 888.00 0.37 0.31 0.00 889.00 0.74 0.87 0.00 890.00 1.18 1.83 0.00 891.00 1.78 3.31 0.00 892.00 3.17 5.78 0.00 893.00 6.84 10.79 0.00 894.00 19.45 23.93 0.00 895.00 29.83 48.57 0.00 896.00 41.08 84.02 0.00 897.00 58.39 133.76 0.00 898.00 67.93 196.92 0.00 898.50 69.11 232.06 0.00 898.60 69.34 239.09 0.12 899.00 70.28 267.20 3.04 899.50 71.46 302.34 8.52 900.00 72.64 337.48 9.59 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 93 Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 900.50 74.11 375.28 10.10 901.00 75.58 413.07 10.53 902.00 78.52 488.65 11.35 Table A.5 Lotus Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 864.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 870.60 2.80 8.42 0.00 875.60 16.59 56.89 0.00 880.60 63.25 256.48 0.00 885.60 127.89 734.31 0.00 890.60 176.72 1,495.84 0.00 895.00 233.76 2,427.43 0.00 895.40 238.95 2,512.12 0.00 895.50 240.24 2,533.29 1.15 896.00 246.73 2,639.15 14.77 897.00 262.96 2,902.12 18.55 898.00 279.20 3,165.08 21.05 Table A.6 Staring Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 798.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 799.60 9.03 4.52 0.00 804.60 42.35 132.97 0.00 809.60 106.10 504.08 0.00 813.90 159.26 1,077.27 0.03 814.00 160.50 1,090.60 0.27 814.50 164.06 1,174.41 9.25 815.00 167.62 1,258.22 20.40 816.00 174.74 1,425.84 62.13 817.00 190.55 1,616.39 140.36 818.00 206.37 1,806.95 263.25 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 94 Table A.7 Lake Lucy Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow1, Lake Anne W.S.E. <955.45 (cfs) Outflow2, Lake Anne W.S.E. >956.1 (cfs) Outflow3, Lake Anne W.S.E. Between 955.45 & 956.1 (cfs) 935.30 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 941.60 6.80 21.42 0 0 0 946.60 24.80 100.42 0 0 0 951.60 50.80 289.42 0 0 0 955.20 86.20 536.02 0 0 0 955.45 87.98 558.01 0 0 0 955.50 88.33 562.41 0.006 0 0.003 955.60 89.04 571.21 0.04 0 0.02 955.70 89.75 580.01 0.11 0 0.05 955.80 90.86 589.09 0.19 0 0.09 955.90 91.97 598.18 0.31 0 0.16 956.00 93.31 607.45 0.43 0 0.22 956.10 94.50 617.06 0.62 0 0.31 956.20 95.69 626.68 0.96 0.02 0.49 957.00 105.72 706.76 8.04 1.41 4.72 957.11 107.15 718.79 9.76 4.46 7.11 957.50 112.34 761.94 17.86 13.15 15.51 957.80 116.31 794.97 25.44 25.07 25.25 958.00 118.96 816.98 33.01 33.01 33.01 Note: Lake Lucy outflows are dependent on the water surface elevations in Lake Ann. To account for this dependency, three rating curves were developed to model the Lake Lucy outflows based on a range of observed water surface elevations in Lake Ann. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 95 Table A.8 Lake Susan Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 865.00 0.00 0 0 867.00 16.52 16.52 0 872.00 51.87 187.51 0 877.00 67.91 486.95 0 880.73 86.46 774.85 0 880.90 87.31 789.62 0.25 881.00 87.81 798.37 0.62 881.20 88.07 815.96 1.86 881.50 88.46 842.44 4.61 881.70 88.72 860.16 6.95 882.00 89.11 886.83 11.09 882.50 90.38 931.70 19.50 883.00 91.65 977.21 30.77 883.50 93.62 1,023.53 43.62 884.00 95.58 1,070.82 56.44 884.50 97.35 1,119.06 68.10 885.00 99.11 1,168.17 78.73 885.50 100.37 1,218.04 86.92 886.00 101.63 1,268.54 94.76 887.00 103.60 1,371.15 107.87 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 96 Table A.9 Rice Marsh Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 865.00 0.62 0 0 866.00 1.24 0.93 0 867.00 3.09 3.09 0 868.00 7.41 8.34 0 869.00 11.74 17.91 0 870.00 25.33 36.45 0 871.00 48.18 73.20 0 872.00 67.95 131.27 0 873.00 80.92 205.71 0 874.00 87.10 289.72 0 875.00 87.45 376.99 0 875.20 88.10 394.55 0.09 875.40 90.97 412.46 0.17 875.60 95.58 431.11 0.26 875.79 101.30 450.11 0.38 875.80 101.53 450.82 0.39 875.90 104.89 461.14 0.66 876.00 108.44 471.81 1.32 876.10 112.16 482.84 2.04 876.20 116.00 494.24 2.82 876.30 119.94 506.04 3.49 876.40 123.93 518.23 4.34 876.50 127.96 530.83 5.56 876.60 132.00 543.83 6.75 876.80 140.02 571.03 9.46 877.00 147.82 599.81 14.61 877.20 155.28 630.12 19.94 877.40 162.32 661.88 25.93 877.60 168.86 695.00 32.62 878.00 180.29 764.83 54.51 878.50 191.49 857.78 88.77 879.00 199.63 955.56 125.79 879.50 205.46 1056.83 165.71 880.00 209.84 1160.65 208.33 880.50 213.43 1266.47 255.01 881.00 216.45 1373.94 304.86 881.50 218.37 1482.65 356.43 882.00 217.68 1591.66 410.23 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 97 Table A.10 Lake Riley Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 815.00 0.00 0.00 0 820.00 6.52 17.02 0 825.00 21.50 87.80 0 830.00 50.18 280.98 0 835.00 81.36 621.86 0 840.00 120.78 1144.68 0 845.00 162.20 1877.80 0 850.00 191.86 2781.46 0 855.00 216.34 3809.84 0 860.00 253.40 4995.00 0 864.50 296.57 6232.42 0 864.62 289.85 6258.45 0.82 864.70 290.30 6281.32 1.48 864.80 290.84 6309.60 2.40 864.90 291.39 6337.95 3.49 865.00 291.93 6366.35 4.97 865.10 292.47 6394.82 6.99 865.20 293.00 6423.34 9.35 865.30 293.54 6451.93 12.00 865.40 294.07 6480.57 15.20 865.50 294.60 6509.28 19.22 866.00 297.21 6653.74 45.86 866.50 299.76 6799.75 84.03 867.00 302.24 6947.32 126.13 867.50 304.65 7096.48 160.46 868.00 306.95 7244.23 183.08 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 98 Table A.11 Hyland Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 804.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 805.00 25.93 12.97 0.00 810.00 74.06 262.93 0.00 815.00 82.02 653.12 0.00 816.00 84.52 736.39 0.00 816.50 85.39 778.87 0.00 816.70 85.73 795.98 0.19 816.80 85.90 804.56 0.49 816.90 86.08 813.16 0.79 817.00 86.25 821.77 1.09 817.50 87.06 865.10 3.17 818.00 87.86 908.83 5.43 818.20 88.32 926.45 7.19 818.40 88.77 944.16 9.72 818.50 89.00 953.05 12.20 818.80 89.67 979.85 23.54 819.00 90.13 997.83 38.11 819.50 91.17 1,043.15 81.45 820.00 92.20 1,088.99 134.67 821.00 94.26 1,182.22 265.36 821.50 95.37 1,229.63 342.44 821.60 95.59 1,239.18 358.59 822.00 96.48 1,277.59 426.50 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 99 Table A.12 Wing Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 931.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 933.00 0.55 0.41 0.00 934.00 3.28 2.32 0.00 935.00 6.15 7.03 0.00 936.00 9.27 14.74 0.00 937.00 12.04 25.40 0.00 938.00 13.15 37.99 0.00 938.80 13.60 48.69 0.00 938.90 13.68 50.06 0.00 939.00 13.74 51.43 0.02 939.10 13.81 52.80 0.05 939.20 13.89 54.19 0.10 939.30 13.96 55.58 0.14 939.40 14.03 56.98 0.16 939.50 14.10 58.39 0.19 939.60 14.18 59.80 0.21 939.70 14.25 61.22 0.23 939.80 14.32 62.65 0.24 939.90 14.39 64.09 0.40 940.00 14.46 65.53 0.88 940.10 14.52 66.98 1.41 940.20 14.57 68.43 2.09 940.30 14.63 69.89 2.71 940.40 14.68 71.36 3.32 940.50 14.73 72.83 3.95 941.00 14.97 80.26 7.54 941.50 15.36 87.84 10.85 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 100 Table A.13 Lake Rose Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 912.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 912.60 0.06 0.01 0.00 913.60 0.19 0.13 0.00 914.60 0.34 0.40 0.00 915.60 0.55 0.84 0.00 916.60 0.83 1.53 0.00 917.60 1.18 2.53 0.00 918.60 1.89 4.07 0.00 919.60 3.39 6.71 0.00 920.60 4.91 10.86 0.00 921.60 9.23 17.93 0.00 922.60 16.42 30.76 0.00 923.60 19.69 48.81 0.00 924.60 22.16 69.74 0.00 925.60 25.98 93.80 0.00 926.50 29.54 118.79 0.00 926.60 29.72 121.75 0.40 926.70 29.87 124.73 1.37 926.80 30.01 127.72 2.61 926.90 30.16 130.73 4.01 927.00 30.30 133.75 5.35 927.10 30.44 136.79 6.56 927.20 30.59 139.84 7.98 927.30 30.73 142.91 9.21 927.40 30.88 145.99 10.44 928.00 31.90 164.82 17.81 928.60 33.02 184.30 21.40 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 101 Table A.14 North Cornelia Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 852.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 853.00 0.65 0.42 0.00 854.00 2.26 1.88 0.00 855.00 10.51 8.27 0.00 856.00 15.62 21.33 0.00 857.00 16.73 37.50 0.00 858.00 17.60 54.67 0.00 859.00 18.70 72.82 0.00 859.25 19.30 77.57 0.10 859.50 19.80 82.46 0.45 860.00 20.90 92.63 1.53 860.50 31.10 105.63 2.54 862.00 32.70 153.48 4.31 863.00 36.34 188.00 15.00 Table A.15 South Cornelia Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 851.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 852.00 4.22 2.29 0.00 853.00 11.45 10.13 0.00 854.00 17.92 24.81 0.00 855.00 23.36 45.45 0.00 856.00 27.72 70.99 0.00 857.00 29.92 99.81 0.00 858.00 31.31 130.43 0.00 859.00 33.15 162.74 0.00 859.10 33.21 166.05 0.30 859.25 33.31 171.04 2.20 859.50 33.46 179.39 6.50 859.75 33.62 187.77 10.00 860.00 33.78 196.20 10.77 861.00 34.67 230.42 23.53 861.10 35.01 233.91 23.92 862.10 36.73 269.78 27.82 863.10 39.03 307.66 31.73 864.00 40.15 343.29 35.24 865.80 41.23 416.53 60.37 868.00 49.46 516.28 92.09 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 102 Table A.16 Lake Edina Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 817.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 818.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 819.00 11.51 5.86 0.00 820.00 20.55 21.89 0.00 821.00 23.59 43.96 0.00 822.00 24.63 68.07 0.00 822.20 24.81 73.01 1.60 822.50 25.09 80.50 4.33 823.00 25.55 93.16 9.30 824.00 27.14 119.51 21.80 826.00 34.61 181.26 57.00 827.00 37.31 217.22 100.00 828.50 410.26 552.90 115.00 Table A.17 Penn Lake Bathymetry and Outflow Water Elevation (ft) Surface Area (acres) Cumulative Volume (acre-ft) Outflow (cfs) 801.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 802.00 2.74 1.37 0.00 803.00 9.27 7.38 0.00 804.00 19.54 21.79 0.00 805.00 26.23 44.67 0.00 806.00 30.57 73.07 0.00 806.62 31.69 92.38 0.00 806.65 31.74 93.33 0.00 807.00 32.38 104.55 0.00 807.10 32.47 107.79 0.40 807.30 32.65 114.30 1.40 807.50 32.84 120.85 2.92 807.80 33.12 130.75 6.07 808.00 33.30 137.39 8.35 809.00 34.58 171.33 19.99 810.00 36.70 206.97 29.00 811.00 38.66 244.65 33.00 812.00 40.59 284.28 35.00 A.2.2 Lake Model Total Phosphorus Balance While the watershed model is a useful tool for evaluating runoff volumes and pollutant concentrations from a watershed, another method is needed to predict the in-lake phosphorus concentrations that are likely to result from the various phosphorus loads. In-lake phosphorus modeling was accomplished through the creation of a daily time-step mass balance model that tracked the flow of water and Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 103 phosphorus through the lake over a range of climatic conditions. A daily time-step model was chosen because of the high variability in the nutrient-related water quality parameters. Using a daily time-step model (instead of an annual model, e.g., BATHTUB), allowed for the determination of the critical components (i.e., internal vs. external phosphorus sources), causing water quality standard exceedance as well as allowing for lake response modeling of management methods during the periods of standard exceedance. Once calibrated, the models could be used predictively to evaluate the lake phosphorus concentrations under a variety of scenarios, including future land use conditions, and following the implementation of remedial watershed BMPs and in-lake management strategies. The lake phosphorus budgets are based on the Vollenweider (1969) mass balance equation: 𝑇𝑂= (𝐿+𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑡)/(𝑍̅∗(𝜎+𝜌)) Where: 𝑍̅ = average lake depth in meters ρ = flushing rate in yr-1 σ = sedimentation rate in yr-1 L = areal loading rate in mg/(m2*yr) Lint = internal loading rate in mg/(m2*yr) A difference between Vollenweider’s equation and the model used for this study is that the parameters in the above equation were used on a daily timestep as opposed to an annual basis. Also, the magnitude of the net internal phosphorus load to the lake surface was determined by comparing the observed water quality in the lake to the water quality predicted by the in-lake model under existing conditions. The in-lake phosphorus mass balance model assumed a fully mixed lake volume, i.e. the phosphorus concentration is uniform throughout the lake volume. The change in the TP mass within the lake was calculated with the following mass balance equation: Δ Phosphorus Mass = Watershed Inputs + Direct Deposition to Lake Surface + Internal Loading – Surface Outflow – Groundwater Outflow – Settling of In-Lake Phosphorus Key input parameters in the lake phosphorus budget include phosphorus loads from upstream lakes, atmospheric deposition and from the direct watershed; internal loading from the lake sediments; loading or losses from groundwater depending if the groundwater is flowing into or out of the lake; and loses through settling and outflow. The loading from upstream lakes was calculated using existing daily in-lake models for the lake upstream if available. This method was used for Staring Lake, Lake Riley, Wing Lake, Lake Rose, South Cornelia Lake, and Lake Edina. If an existing model was not available upstream loads were calculated using inflow rates estimated from the upstream lake’s water surface elevation and rating curve combined with the surface phosphorus concentration recorded in the lake. This method was used for Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake (Lake Susan was calibrated to a different year than Rice Marsh Lake so the Susan output could not be used for the Rice Marsh upstream lake input). The phosphorus load from the lakes direct watersheds was calculated using the P8 modeling results. Atmospheric deposition of phosphorus onto the lakes water surfaces was calculated by using the estimated statewide phosphorus atmospheric deposition rate of 0.42 kg/ha/year (Barr 2007) combined with the lakes water surface areas based on the current water elevation. Groundwater loads were either a source or a sink for phosphorus depending on if water was flowing into or out of the lake respectively. If the net daily groundwater flow Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 104 was into the lake, the load of phosphorus was calculated using the groundwater flow rate and an estimate for groundwater phosphorus concentration of 0.035 mg/l. If the net flow was out of the lake then the loss of phosphorus was estimated using the flow rate and the average lake phosphorus concentration. The loss of phosphorus through outflow from the lakes was calculated using the measured surface concentrations of TP and the outflow rate calculated in the water balance. The final two parameters, settling and internal loading, were used to calibrate the model to the recorded lake concentrations. Lake mixing and anoxic conditions can create an environment in the lake that is conducive to internal loads at times. At other times, the lake does not experience a significant internal load (generally spring and fall). Monitoring data (phosphorus, temperature, and dissolved oxygen profiles) provided useful information in determining when the lake is susceptible to internal loading from the sediment. Dissolved oxygen data was used to determine when anoxic conditions were present what area was under anoxic conditions. When the dissolved oxygen concentration was below 1 mg/l the sediments at that depth were considered to be anoxic resulting in internal loading of iron- bound phosphorus. The rate of phosphorus loading was calibrated for each year to match the measured data. The sedimentation rates for the lakes were calibrated using in-lake TP monitoring data from well mixed periods without the conditions necessary for internal phosphorus loading. At these times (generally in spring and fall after turnover), phosphorus concentration in the surface waters of the lake is only affected by sedimentation, flushing, and incoming external loads of phosphorus from the watershed and atmosphere. This was accomplished by setting the internal loading rate (Lint) in the above equation by Vollenweider to zero and adjusting the settling rate so that the calculated, in-lake phosphorus concentration matched the monitored phosphorus during the spring period. A.2.3 Lake Surface Model Concentration Surface water phosphorus concentration are required to determine if a lake is meeting or exceeding the phosphorus standard. Therefore, the volumetric average lake models were further divided into two completely mixed models representing the lake epilimnion and hypolimnion for lakes that displayed persistent stratification throughout the summer (Lotus, Riley, Lucy, Susan). All parameters in the volumetric model remained the same in the lake surface models. The main change between the two approaches was the internal loading and groundwater sources were only applied to the hypolimnion and all other phosphorus sources (atmospheric, direct watershed, and Lake Calhoun inflow) were applied to the epilimnion. Mixing between the hypolimnion and the epilimnion were determined based on temperature profiles. The point of the maximum temperature gradient was used as the dividing depth between the two layers. Temperature profiles taken during open water periods were used to calculate the thermocline depth. As this depth moved up or down in the lake water was mixed between the two layers appropriately. The parameters were then applied to the whole lake volumetric model to check that they produced a reasonable result in this analysis as well. A.2.4 Silver Model Calibration The Silver Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). The Silver Lake daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater inflows were used to match the observed spring water surface elevation. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Silver Lake does Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 105 not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Silver Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Figure A.1 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged epilimnetic TP concentrations. Figure A.2 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored epilimnetic volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 water year. Figure A.1 Silver Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 106 Figure A.2 Silver Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured whole lake TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. A.2.5 Lotus Lake Model Calibration The Lotus Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). The Lotus Lake daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater inflows were used to match the observed spring water surface elevation. Both the epilimnion and hypolimnion TP concentrations were modeled in Lotus Lake due to its thermally stratifying during the growing season. Dividing the lake model into these separate layers enabled a more accurate estimate of internal loading. The Lotus Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Figure A.3 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged epilimnetic TP concentrations. Figure A.4 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored epilimnetic volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 107 Figure A.3 Lotus Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. Figure A.4 Lotus Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. A.2.6 Staring Lake Model Calibration The Staring Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). The Staring Lake daily water balance was adjusted using Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 108 the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the observed water surface elevation throughout the year. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Staring Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Staring Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Inflows from upstream lakes were entered based on in-lake models constructed for Red Rock Lake, Duck Lake, Lotus Lake, and Silver Lake as part of the ongoing Purgatory Creek Watershed Assessment. Inflows from Red Rock Lake were adjusted based on modeled removal efficiencies of downstream ponds including Lake McCoy before it enters Staring Lake. Figure A.5 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.6 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 water year. Figure A.5 Staring Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 109 Figure A.6 Staring Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. A.2.7 Lake Lucy Model Calibration The Lake Lucy water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). The Lake Lucy daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Daily groundwater adjustments were very small, less than ±1.0 cfs. Lake Lucy outflows are dependent on the water surface elevations in Lake Ann. To account for this dependency, three rating curves were developed to model the Lake Lucy outflows based on a range of observed water surface elevations in Lake Ann. Both the epilimnion and hypolimnion TP concentrations were modeled in Lake Lucy due to its thermally stratifying during the growing season. Dividing the lake model into these separate layers enabled a more accurate estimate of internal loading. The Lake Lucy model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Separate settling velocities were used in the hypolimnion and epilimnion and during the summer and winter periods to more accurately match the observed TP concentrations in these layers and during these time periods. Figure A.7 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged epilimnetic TP concentrations. Figure A.8 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored epilimnetic volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 110 Figure A.7 Lake Lucy comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. Figure A.8 Lake Lucy time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. A.2.8 Lake Susan Model Calibration The Lake Susan water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). The Lake Susan daily water balance was adjusted using Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 111 the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater inflows were used to match the observed spring water surface elevation. Both the epilimnion and hypolimnion TP concentrations were modeled in Lake Susan due to its thermally stratifying during the growing season. Dividing the lake model into these separate layers enabled a more accurate estimate of internal loading. The Lake Susan model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Separate settling velocities were used in the hypolimnion and epilimnion and during the summer and winter periods to more accurately match the observed TP concentrations in these layers and during these time periods. Inflow loads from Lake Ann were estimated using the Lake Ann outflow rating curve, observed water surface elevations and surface TP concentrations. The loading from Riley Creek stream bank erosion was estimated to be 400 lbs/year. This annual load was distributed on a daily basis based on the percentage of the annual creek inflow volume occurring on that day. Figure A.9 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged epilimnetic TP concentrations. Figure A.10 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored epilimnetic volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 water year. Figure A.9 Lake Susan comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 112 Figure A.10 Lake Susan time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations. A.2.9 Rice Marsh Lake Model Calibration The Rice Marsh Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2014 water year (October 2013 through September 2014). The Rice Marsh Lake daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the observed spring through fall water surface elevations. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Rice Marsh Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Rice Marsh Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Separate settling velocities were used during the summer and winter periods to more accurately match the observed TP concentrations in these layers and during these time periods. The inflow loads from Lake Susan were estimated using the Lake Susan outflow rating curve, observed water surface elevations and surface TP concentrations. Figure A.11 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2014 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.12 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2014 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 113 Figure A.11 Rice Marsh Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2014 water year. Figure A.12 Rice Marsh Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2014 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 114 A.2.10 Riley Lake Model Calibration The Lake Riley water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2014 water year (October 2013 through September 2014). The Lake Riley daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the observed fall water surface elevations. Both the epilimnion and hypolimnion TP concentrations were modeled in Lake Riley due to its thermally stratifying during the growing season. Dividing the lake model into these separate layers enabled a more accurate estimate of internal loading. The Lake Riley model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Separate settling velocities were used in the hypolimnion and epilimnion and during the summer and winter periods to more accurately match the observed TP concentrations in these layers and during these time periods. The inflow loads from Rice Marsh Lake were estimated from the Rice Marsh Lake in-lake model. Figure A.13 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2014 modeled and measured volumetric averaged epilimnetic TP concentrations. Figure A.14 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored epilimnetic volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2014 water year. Figure A.13 Lake Riley comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2014 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 115 Figure A.14 Lake Riley time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2014 water year. A.2.11 Hyland Lake Model Calibration The Hyland Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 water year (October 2014 through September 2015). The Hyland Lake daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the observed water surface elevation throughout the year. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Hyland Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Hyland Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Separate settling velocities were used during the summer and winter periods to more accurately match the observed TP concentrations during these time periods. Figure A.15 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.16 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 water year. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 116 Figure A.15 Hyland Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 water year. Figure A.16 Hyland Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 water year. Large portions of the Hyland Lake Watershed did not contribute loading to the lake during the 2015 water year based on the P8 model results. These areas include the areas draining to Colorado Pond as well as large portions of the parkland around the lake. The Hyland lake Subwatershed boundaries, flow Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 117 path directions, 2015 water year contributing areas and TP loadings to the lake from the various potential inflow points are shown in Figure A.17 and summarized in Table A.18. Table A.18 Hyland Lake contributing and non-contributing areas, total phosphorus watershed loads and total phosphorus loads to the lake based on P8 modeled results for the 2015 water year. Contributing Areas Inflow Point Upstream Area (ac) Watershed TP Load (lbs) Watershed TP Load (lbs/ac) TP Load to the Lake (lbs) TP Load to the Lake (lbs/ac) Direct Watershed 95.1 31.0 0.33 31.0 0.33 68D32_O 121.0 18.7 0.15 5.5 0.05 68-04 269.1 132.4 0.49 53.9 0.20 Total 485.3 182.1 0.38 90.4 0.19 Non-contributing Areas Inflow Point Upstream Area (ac) Watershed TP Load (lbs) Watershed TP Load (lbs/ac) TP Load to the Lake (lbs) TP Load to the Lake (lbs/ac) Colorado Pond 233.9 88.0 0.38 0 0 HYL001 7.1 0.8 0.11 0 0 HYL002 9.2 2.2 0.23 0 0 HYL005 66.5 7.3 0.11 0 0 HYL007 10.0 2.8 0.28 0 0 HYL008 27.2 3.0 0.11 0 0 Total 353.8 104.1 0.29 0 0 Overall Total 839.1 286.2 0.34 90.4 0.11 Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 118 Figure A.17 Hyland Lake subwatersheds, flowpath directions, contributing areas and total phosphorus loads to the lake for the 2015 water year Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 119 A.2.12 Wing Lake Model Calibration The Wing Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2016 growing season (June 2016 through September 2016). The Wing Lake daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater inflows were used to match the spring water surface elevations while outflows were used to match the observed water surface elevations in later in the growing season. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Wing Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Wing Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. The upstream lake inflow loads from Lake Holiday were estimated from a water quality model developed for Lake Holiday. Figure A.18 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2016 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.19 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2016 growing season. Figure A.18 Wing Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 120 Figure A.19 Wing Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. A.2.13 Lake Rose Model Calibration The Lake Rose water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2016 growing season (June 2016 through September 2016). The Lake Rose daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the observed water surface elevations throughout the growing season. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Lake Rose does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Lake Rose model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. The upstream lake inflow loads from Wing Lake were estimated from the Wing Lake in-lake model output. Figure A.20 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2016 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.21 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2016 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 121 Figure A.20 Lake Rose comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. Figure A.21 Lake Rose time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. A.2.14 North Cornelia Lake Model Calibration The North Cornelia Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 growing season (June 2015 through September 2015). The North Cornelia Lake daily water balance did Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 122 not need to be adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter during the 2015 growing season. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since North Cornelia Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The North Cornelia Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Figure A.22 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.23 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 growing season. Figure A.22 North Cornelia Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 123 Figure A.23 North Cornelia Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 growing season. A.2.15 South Cornelia Lake Model Calibration The South Cornelia Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2016 growing season (June 2016 through September 2016). The South Cornelia Lake daily water balance did not need to be adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter during the 2016 growing season. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since South Cornelia Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The South Cornelia Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. The upstream lake inflow loads from North Cornelia Lake were estimated from the North Cornelia Lake in-lake model output. Figure A.24 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2016 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.25 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2016 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 124 Figure A.24 South Cornelia Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. Figure A.25 South Cornelia Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. A.2.16 Lake Edina Model Calibration The Lake Edina water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2015 growing season (June 2015 through September 2015). The Lake Edina daily water balance was adjusted using the Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 125 “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the spring water surface elevations. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Lake Edina does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Lake Edina model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. The upstream lake inflow loads from South Cornelia Lake were estimated from the South Cornelia Lake in-lake model output. Figure A.26Figure A.24 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2015 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.27 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2015 growing season. Figure A.26 Lake Edina comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2015 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 126 Figure A.27 Lake Edina time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2015 growing season. A.2.17 Penn Lake Model Calibration The Penn Lake water and TP balance portion of the in lake model were calibrated for the 2016 growing season (June 2016 through September 2016). The Penn Lake daily water balance was adjusted using the “groundwater” calibration parameter. Groundwater outflows were used to match the spring water surface elevations. TP concentrations were balanced on a whole lake basis since Penn Lake does not have a stable thermal stratification during the growing season. The Penn Lake model was calibrated by adjusting the sediment phosphorus release rate and phosphorus settling velocity. Figure A.28 shows the results of the Nash Sutcliffe statistical comparison between the 2016 modeled and measured volumetric averaged TP concentrations for the entire water column. Figure A.29 shows the comparison between the modeled and monitored volumetric averaged TP concentrations over the course of the 2016 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 127 Figure A.28 Penn Lake comparison between modeled volumetric average TP concentration and measured concentrations for the 2016 growing season. Figure A.29 Penn Lake time series comparison between modeled and measured surface water TP concentrations for the 2016 growing season. Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDLs: Part II Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 128 References Barr Engineering Company. 2007. Detailed Assessment of Phosphorus Sources to Minnesota Watersheds – Atmospheric Deposition: 2007 Update. Prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Barr Engineering Company. 2010. Use Attainability Analysis for Lake Holiday, Wing Lake and Lake Rose. Prepared for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Barr Engineering Company. 2010. Use Attainability Analysis for Lake Holiday, Wing Lake and Lake Rose. Prepared for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Marciano, J.J. and Harbeck, G.E., 1954. Mass-transfer studies. In: USGS (Editor), Water-Loss Investigations: Lake Hefner Studies, Technical Report. United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., pp. 46-70. Nash, J. E. and J. V. Sutcliffe. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles, Journal of Hydrology, 10 (3), 282–290. Soil Survey Staff. (2015) Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) Database for Minnesota. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/. (FY2015 official release). Vollenweider, R.A. 1969. “Possibilities and Limits of Elementary Models Concerning the Budget of Substances in Lakes.” Archiv fur Hydrobiologie., 66, 1-36. 4/29/2021 Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater - Minnesota Stormwater Manual https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_and_management_strategies_for_bacteria_in_stormwater 1/12 Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater In water quality monitoring, specific disease-producing (pathogenic) organisms are not easily identified. Testing for them is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. Instead, fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli (E. coli), two closely related bacteria groups, can indicate the presence of pathogens. Fecal coliform and E. coli found in Minnesota rivers and streams may come from human, pet, livestock, and wildlife waste and are more common in heavily populated or farmed areas. Bacteria may reach surface water through malfunctioning or illicit septic system connections, urban stormwater, manure spills or runoff, and more (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency website (https://www.pca.state.mn.u s/water/bacteria), accessed January 25, 2018). This page provides information on bacteria in urban stormwater, including a discussion of sources of bacteria and management strategies for minimizing bacteria loading from urban stormwater runoff to surface water. Note that the focus is on bacteria because bacteria are used as a surrogate for assessing potential contamination by pathogenic microorganisms. A short section on this page specifically discusses pathogens and their relationship to indicator bacteria. Contents 1 Source and concentrations of bacteria in urbanstormwater 2 Relationship between bacteria and pathogens instormwater 3 Meeting bacteria water quality targets3.1 Antidegradation 3.2 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)4 Stormwater management for bacteria Dog waste sign 4/29/2021 Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater - Minnesota Stormwater Manual https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_and_management_strategies_for_bacteria_in_stormwater 2/12 4.1 Construction stormwater4.2 Education and outreach4.3 Repair of aging infrastructure andcorrecting illicit connections4.4 Pollution prevention4.4.1 Prevention practices for residentialareas4.4.2 Prevention practices formunicipalities4.4.3 Prevention practices for industrialsources4.5 Street sweeping4.6 Bird and mammal control4.7 Pretreatment4.8 Maintenance4.9 Infiltration4.10 Settling practices4.11 Filtration practices5 References Source and concentrations of bacteria in urban stormwater Ultimately the source of bacteria in urban stormwater is animal waste. Identifying the specific source is more challenging and likely varies with location and land use. Typical sources include domestic pets and wildlife, particularly birds. Sources of bacteria to receiving waters include urban stormwater runoff, leaking sewer lines, sewer overflows, septic systems, landfills, marinas and pumpout facilities, poorly operating packing plants, and other illicit discharges. Some general observations from the literature are summarized below. Fecal coliform levels are considerably lower (about 90 percent lower) in runoff that occurs in wintercompared to summer months (Selvakumar and Borst (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16604843),2006)Bacteria levels can increase sharply during snowmelt eventsBacteria concentrations in runoff increase as percent imperviousness increases up to about 20 percentimpervious, but are unaffected by further increases in impervious surfacesResidential lawns, driveways, and streets are the major source areas for bacteria, while rooftops and parkinglots are usually smaller source areas. Irrigated lawns, in particular, are high contributorsSartor and Gaboury (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bacteria_in_stormwater#References) (1984) reported nearly 92 percent of the bacteria originated from streets in the residential-institutionalland-use site, whereas only about 33 and 19 percent of the bacteria originated from streets in the industrialand commercial land-use sitesBannerman et al. (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bacteria_in_stormwater#References)(1993) reported that 78 percent of the fecal coliform bacteria load for one of the same residential land-usestudy subbasins studied by Waschbusch et al. (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bacteria_in_stormwater#References) (1999) originated from streetsIn areas with pet waste ordinances and education, pet wastes are likely to be a minor contributor to bacteria(Burnhart (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bacteria_in_stormwater#References)) Sewage typically contains fecal coliform concentrations in excess of one million most probable number per 100 milliliter (MPN/100 ml). This is about two orders of magnitude greater than urban stormwater concentrations. General indicators of bacteria sources include the following. 4/29/2021 Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater - Minnesota Stormwater Manual https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_and_management_strategies_for_bacteria_in_stormwater 3/12 Land use Median (MPN/ml)Maximum (MPN/ml) Commercial 6900 350000 Industrial 9700 290000 Residential 20000 600000 Rooftop 1250 Open space 4500 Forested < 100 Higher concentrations inbaseflow compared tostormwater runoff indicatesewage or other illicitdischargesElevated concentrations inwinter indicate sewage orother illicit dischargesElevated concentrationsduring dry weatherconditions indicate sewage orother illicit discharges orrunoff from lawn irrigationVery high concentrations indicate sewage or other illicit discharges A complicating factor is that bacteria can survive and grow both within the storm sewer system and within receiving waters. Growth within the storm sewer systems includes both the surface and subsurface conveyances. For example, coliform bacteria have been found to survive and grow in moist soils and leaf piles. A recent study in Minneapolis indicated that catch basins are an important source, largely as a result of growth within the catchbasin. The following table provides a summary of data from the literature. Maximum concentrations are included to illustrate the tremendous variability that may occur in bacteria concentrations. The values represent a compilation of data from several sources (see references at the bottom of this page (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.ph p?title=Bacteria_in_stormwater#References)). Relationship between bacteria and pathogens in stormwater Although pathogens are the primary concern in stormwater, they are difficult and expensive to sample. Thus, as stated above, indicator bacteria are used as a surrogate for the presence of pathogens. Pathogens are typically found in stormwater runoff, but at relatively low concentrations. Geometric mean densities for some pathogens in urban stormwater runoff and urban streams are summarized below (https://www.epa.gov/site s/production/files/2015-10/documents/usw_b.pdf). Enterovirus: 6.9 and 170 plaque-forming units per 10 litersSalmonella sp.: 30 and 5.7 most probable number per 10 liters Pseudomonas aeruginosa: 2000 and 590 most probable number per 10 litersStaphylococcus aureus: 120 and 12 most probable number per 100 milliliters Epidemiological studies show mixed results (http://www.asce-pgh.org/Resources/EWRI/Pathogens%20Paper%20 August%202014.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A680%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A% 22XYZ%22%7D%2C70%2C720%2C0%5D), ranging from no observed impacts to significant impacts for people exposed to water receiving urban stormwater runoff. Wu et al. (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bacteria_in_stormwater#References) (2011) studied the correlation between several microbial indicators and pathogens in water samples. Some conclusions include the following. Indicator organisms are possibly correlated with pathogens if sufficient data are availableIndicator organisms cannot signal the presence of pathogenic contamination for a given water sample 4/29/2021 Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater - Minnesota Stormwater Manual https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_and_management_strategies_for_bacteria_in_stormwater 4/12 Specific coliphages are better indicators for viral pathogensC. perfringens, total and fecal coliforms are likely useful indicators for all three biotypes of pathogensE. coli and enterococci did not show any greater likelihood of correlating with pathogens than otherindicatorsThe presence of E. coli and enterococci in water generally indicates fecal contamination and thus ahealth risk, regardless of whether or not specific pathogens are observed Meeting bacteria water quality targets Information on this page can be used to help meet water quality targets. Water quality targets are established for various purposes including meeting Clean Water Act (https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water- act) (CWA) requirements, meeting local water quality goals or requirements, and meeting non-regulatory targets.CWA requirements include antidegradation, TMDL limits, and NPDES permit requirements. Each of these are described below. Information: Note that information presented in the Stormwater Manual can be used to meet NPDES permitrequirements. This includes information on all BMPs discussed in the Manual unless otherwise noted. Check withMPCA's Stormwater Program for applicability of information not contained in the Manual, including BMPs andBMP credits. Antidegradation Water quality standards include an antidegradation policy and implementation method. The water quality standardsregulation requires States and Tribes to establish a three-tiered antidegradation program to protect existing water quality and water uses in receiving waters (see [1] (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/adeg.cfm)). There are no specific antidegradation requirements applicable to bacteria. Compliance with Minimum Control Measure (MCM) 5 (http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/MS4_PART_III.STORMWATER_POLLUTION_PREVENTION_PROGRAM_%28SWPPP%29#5._Post-Construction_Stormwater_Management) of the MS4 permit constitutes compliance with antidegradation requirements. The permit requires no net increase in discharges of volume, total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) for new development, while a reduction in these are required for redevelopment projects covered under the permit. Practices that infiltrate (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=BMPs_for_stormwater_infiltration) or capture and reuse stormwater runoff (https://stor mwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Stormwater_and_rainwater_harvest_and_use/reuse) are typically used to meet these permit requirements because they help meet the volume requirements. Reductions in volume and/or TSS loads would typically be associated with reductions in bacteria loads. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) The 2018 impaired water list includes 7 beach impairments for e coli, 304 river or stream stretches impaired for e coli, and 53 river or stream stretches impaired for fecal coliforms. Click here (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/m innesotas-impaired-waters-list) to link to MPCA's impaired waters website. A map illustrating U.S. EPA-approved listings for e coli and fecal coliforms is shown on the right. The MS4 permit (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Stormwater_Program_for_Municipal_Separat e_Storm_Sewer_Systems_(MS4)) requires permittees to demonstrate progress toward meeting applicable Wasteload Allocations in U.S. EPA-approved TMDLs. General information on meeting TMDL requirements in NPDES permits is found here (http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/MS4_PART_III.STORMWATER_POL LUTION_PREVENTION_PROGRAM_%28SWPPP%29#E._Discharges_to_Impaired_Waters_with_a_USEPA-A pproved_TMDL_that_Includes_an_Applicable_WLA), while reporting requirements are found here (http://stormw 4/29/2021 Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater - Minnesota Stormwater Manual https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_and_management_strategies_for_bacteria_in_stormwater 5/12 ater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Guidance_for_completing_the_ TMDL_reporting_form#TMDL_requirements_in_stormwater_ permits). Below is additional information that may be useful. Forms and guidance for TMDLs (http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Forms_and_guidance_for_TMDLs): includes information on completing the TMDLAnnual Report form and other guidance documents.Information on modeling, including Availablestormwater models and selecting a model and Detailedinformation on specific models.Information on pollutant removal by BMPs. Pollutantremoval information is limited to structural BMPs. EachBMP included in the manual also has a section oncredits (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Category:Calculating_credits), which provides usefulinformation for determining pollutant removal for TP forthat BMP. Permittees with required reductions in bacteria loading should consider implementing a treatment train approach, which is discussed in greater detail below. Stormwater management for bacteria Management of urban stormwater to control or reduce bacteria concentrations and loading should focus on identifying the most important sources and employing specific practices to address those sources. If significant reductions in bacteria loading are required or desired, a treatment train approach (htt p://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Using_the_treatment _train_approach_to_BMP_selection) should be utilized. The treatment train approach for bacteria focuses on implementing the following hierarchy of practices: pollution prevention (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Pollution_prevention) and sourcecontrolpretreatment for structural BMPsinfiltrationsettling (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Stormwater_sedimentation_Best_Management_Practices)filtration Construction stormwater Limited data exists on bacteria loads associated with construction site runoff. The Minnesota Construction Stormwater General Permit (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.u s/index.php?title=Construction_stormwater_program) does not have specific requirements for bacteria, but requires control of sediment. Sawyer et al. (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bacteria_in_stormwater#Ref erences) (2010) found Escherichia coli (E. coli) concentrations from construction site runoff (mean = 771 Most Map showing 2018 U.S. EPA-approved stream and river stretches impaired for either e coli or fecal coliform. Watershed scale stormwater management approach using a multi-BMP approach to managing the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff. The BMP sequence starts with pollution prevention and progresses through source control, on-site treatment, and regional treatment before the runoff water is discharged to a receiving water. On-site and regional practices treat stormwater runoff and can be incorporated into a stormwater treatment train. 4/29/2021 Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater - Minnesota Stormwater Manual https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_and_management_strategies_for_bacteria_in_stormwater 6/12 Probable Number per 100 milliliters (MPN/100 ml) were consistently and significantly higher than water quality criteria established by the US Environmental Protection Agency for recreational waters. Results, however, were variable. Basin discharges showed significantly higher bacterial concentrations (mean = 1,368 MPN/ 100 ml) than flows coming directly from construction sites. Within sediment basins, both mean water column (877 MPN/100ml) and mean sediment (188,828 MPN/100 ml) E. coli densities were higher than recommended EPA criteria, with mean concentrations in sediments significantly exceeding the corresponding overlying water column. Practices that control sediment will reduce bacterial loads. For information on construction site best management practices, link here (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Construction_stormwater_program#Best_Management_Practices). Education and outreach Education and outreach activities may include brochures, posters, websites, event attendance, utility bill inserts, television advertisements, articles in homeowner association newsletters and other approaches that reach citizensand promote behavioral changes. Campaigns to reduce water waste by reducing over-irrigation help communities to meet both conservation and water quality objectives (Urban Water Resources Research Council (http://www.asc e-pgh.org/Resources/EWRI/Pathogens%20Paper%20August%202014.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A468%2C% 22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C70%2C720%2C0%5D), 2014). Repair of aging infrastructure and correcting illicit connections The Urban Water Resources Research Council (http://www.asce-pgh.org/Resources/EWRI/Pathogens%20Paper%2 0August%202014.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A468%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3 A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C70%2C720%2C0%5D) (2014) states "Aging and leaking sanitary sewer and stormwater conveyance pipes can introduce pollutants to the MS4 through SSOs caused by blockages, line breaks, or othersewer defects; exfiltration of sewage from sanitary sewers; and infiltration of groundwater when the MS4 lies below the water table (Sercu et al. 2011). Upgrading, repairing, or slip-lining faulty sanitary sewer pipes will reduce pollutant loads by eliminating the leaks in those pipes. Additionally, upgrading or repairing storm drain pipes can minimize the infiltration of contaminated groundwater into the MS4 (Geosyntec 2012)." More detailedinformation on the effects and management of aging infrastructure and illicit discharges can be found in Section 7.2 (pages 145-148) of the Urban Water Resources Research Council report. Pollution prevention These practices reduce the amount of bacteria generated, remove bacteria prior to it being entrained in runoff.These are summarized below for residential, municipal, and industrial sources. Prevention practices for residential areas The following table summarizes residential prevention practices that are effective at reducing bacteria concentrations. The table indicates the relative effectiveness of each practice and provides a short description of the practice. Bacteria removal efficiencies are not established for these BMPs. Residential pollution prevention methods effective for controlling or reducing bacteria. Source: modifiedfrom the Center for Watershed Protection (http://www.cwp.org/). Link to this table Practice Relativeeffectiveness Method Image1 4/29/2021 Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater - Minnesota Stormwater Manual https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_and_management_strategies_for_bacteria_in_stormwater 7/12 Practice Relativeeffectiveness Method Image1 Litter andAnimalWasteControl High Properly dispose of pet waste and litter in a timely manner andaccording to local ordinance requirements. Yard WasteManagement Low Prevent yard waste from entering storm sewer systems and waterbodies by either composting or using curbside pickup services andavoiding accumulation of yard waste on impervious surfaces; keepgrass clippings and leaves out of the street. Septic TankMaintenance High ExposedSoil Repair Low Use native vegetation or grass to cover and stabilize exposed soilon lawns to prevent sediment wash off. NativeLandscaping Low Reduce turf areas by planting native species to reduce and filter pollutant-laden runoff and prevent the spread of invasive, non-native plant species into the storm sewer system. HealthyLawns Low Maintain thick grass planted in organic-rich soil to a height of atleast 3 inches to prevent soil erosion, filter stormwatercontaminants, and absorb airborne pollutants; limit or eliminatechemical use and water and repair lawn as needed Proper lawn irrigationand watering2 Medium-high Over-watering lawns has been shown to be an important source ofbacteria to streets and sidewalks. Implement appropriate watering practices to avoid runoff from pervious surfaces where animals(e.g. birds, mammals) are active.3 1 Photo credits 2For tips on proper watering, see this page (http://mjslawn.com/proper-watering-taking-care-of-your-lawn/) 3Image courtesy Chesapeake Lawn Service (http://mjslawn.com/proper-watering-taking-care-of-your-lawn/) Prevention practices for municipalities The following table summarizes municipal prevention practices that are effective at reducing bacteria concentrations. The table indicates the relative effectiveness of each practice and provides a short description of the practice. Bacteria removal efficiencies are not established for these BMPs. Municipal pollution prevention methods effective for controlling or reducing bacteria. (Source: modifiedfrom the Center for Watershed Protection). Link to this table Practice Effectiveness Method Image1 4/29/2021 Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater - Minnesota Stormwater Manual https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_and_management_strategies_for_bacteria_in_stormwater 8/12 Practice Effectiveness Method Image1 Dumpster and LandfillManagement High Ensure that contaminated material is contained to prevent solid and/or liquid waste from being washed into storm sewersystems or water bodies. Sanitary SewerSystemMaintenance High Regularly inspect and flush sanitary pipes to ensure that thereare no leaks in the system and that the system is properlyfunctioning. Litter andAnimal Waste Control High Mandate litter and pet waste cleanup within the community andcontrol waste-generating wildlife, such as geese; provide waste containers for litter and pet waste in public areas. PublicEducations Moderate Label storm drains to indicate that no dumping is allowed andinstitute pollution prevention programs to educate andimplement needed community practices. Staff andEmployee Educations Moderate Provide internal training for staff and provide direction to hiredemployees or volunteers regarding pollution prevention techniques to be used during work activites. 1 Photo credits Prevention practices for industrial sources The following table summarizes industrial prevention practices that are effective at reducing bacteria concentrations. The table indicates the relative effectiveness of each practice and provides a short description of the practice. Bacteria removal efficiencies are not established for these BMPs. Industrial & commercial pollution prevention practices for bacteria. Link to this table Practice Effectiveness Method Image Dumpster and LandfillManagement High Ensure that contaminated material is contained to prevent solid and/or liquid waste from being washed into storm sewersystems or water bodies. Sanitary SewerSystemMaintenance High Regularly inspect and flush sanitary pipes to ensure that thereare no leaks in the system and that the system is properlyfunctioning. Street sweeping Several articles in the literature present results from street sweeping studies. Examples include the following. 4/29/2021 Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater - Minnesota Stormwater Manual https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_and_management_strategies_for_bacteria_in_stormwater 9/12 Zarriello et al. (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024220/pdfs/wrir024220.pdf) (2002) estimated street sweepingreduced bacteria loads to the Lower Charles River in Massachusetts by 7 to 17 percent. Removal rates were 5 percent for wet vacuum, 20 percent for regenerative air, and 50 percent for dry vacuum sweepers.Selbig and Bannerman (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5156/#a) (2007) discuss changes in debris loading for regenerative-air, vacuum-assist, high-frequency broom, and low-frequency broom sweeping practices.However, bacteria is not discussed. Law et al. (https://www.worldsweeper.com/Street/Studies/CWPStudy/CBStreetSweeping.pdf) (2008) foundfor a given set of assumptions and sweeping frequencies, it is expected that the range in pollutant removal rates from street sweeping for total solids was 3 to 8 percent, with the lower end representing monthly streetsweeping by a mechanical street sweeper and the upper end the pollutant removal efficiencies using regenerative air/vacuum street sweeper at weekly frequencies. However, bacteria is not discussed.Sutherland (http://digital.stormh20.com/publication/?i=58245&article_id=611555&view=articleBrowser&ve r=html5#{%22issue_id%22:58245,%22page%22:%2222%22}) (2011) provides a comprehensive summaryof street sweeping, including information on effectiveness of different sweepers and factors affecting the performance of street sweeping. However, bacteria is not discussed. Bird and mammal control Birds are an important source of bacteria, particularly if roof runoff or runoff from irrigated lawns is routed to the stormwater conveyance system. Table 7.2 (page 152) of the Urban Water resources Research Report (http://www.as ce-pgh.org/Resources/EWRI/Pathogens%20Paper%20August%202014.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A468%2 C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C70%2C720%2C0%5D) (2014) provides a summary of methods for controlling waterfowl populations. Table 7.3 (page 156) in the same report (htt p://www.asce-pgh.org/Resources/EWRI/Pathogens%20Paper%20August%202014.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3 A468%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C70%2C720%2C0%5D) provides a summary of control practices for pigeons. For mammals, the Urban Water resources Research Report (http://www.asce-pgh.org/Resources/EWRI/Pathogen s%20Paper%20August%202014.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A468%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22n ame%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C70%2C720%2C0%5D) (2014, see Section 7.8, page 157)) includes the following recommendations. Develop a wildlife management plan, working with city wildlife conservation staff and/or state division ofwildlifeModify habitat and reduce urban food sourcesInstall storm drain inlet/outlet controls through grates and trash rackClean out storm drains to remove animal waste. When storm drains are power-washed (“jetted”), it isimportant the discharge be collected by a vacuum truck, otherwise, pollutants are simply flushed into thereceiving water.Relocate wildlife by trapping Pretreatment Pretreatment is needed to protect infiltration and filtration BMPs from the build-up of trash, gross solids, and particulate matter. When the velocity of stormwater decreases, sediment and solids drop out. If pretreatment is not provided, this process will occur in the infiltration or filtration cell, resulting in long-term clogging and poor aesthetics. Therefore, pretreatment is a required part of the design for infiltration and filtration BMPs. There are three typical methods for pretreatment: vegetated filter strips (VFS), forebays, and vegetated swales. Vegetated swales and filter strips are typically not effective at reducing bacteria loads. Properly constructed and maintained forebays can effectively reduce bacteria loading as a result of sediment retention. 4/29/2021 Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater - Minnesota Stormwater Manual https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_and_management_strategies_for_bacteria_in_stormwater 10/12 Maintenance Maintenance of the storm sewer system and structural BMPs removes trash and other debris that may containbacteria and pathogens and removes sediments that can act as sources for microbial growth. Maintenance should be targeted in areas where bacteria loads are likely or known to be greatest, such as residential areas. Maintenance includes more frequent cleaning and use of more efficient technology, such as vacuum cleaning. Some maintenance activities include the following. Storm sewer cleaningCatch basin cleaningMaintenance of structural BMPs Infiltration Infiltration practices are structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to capture stormwater runoff andallow the captured water to infiltrate into soils underlying the BMP. Infiltration BMPs are designed to capture a particular amount of runoff. For example, the construction stormwater permit requires that post-construction BMPs capture the first inch of runoff from new impervious surfaces, assuming there are no constraints to infiltration. BMPs designed to meet the construction stormwater permit are required to infiltrate captured water within 48hours, with 24 hours recommended when discharges are to a trout stream. Bacteria removal is assumed to be 100 percent for all water that infiltrates. Any water bypassing the BMP does not receive treatment. Examples of infiltration BMPs, with links to appropriate sections in the Manual, include the following. Infiltration (infiltration basin, infiltration trench, dry well, underground infiltration)Bioinfiltration (rain garden or bioretention with no underdrain)Permeable pavementTree trench/tree boxSwales with a bioinfiltration base Additional BMPs that result in infiltration include stormwater and rainwater harvest with irrigation (https://stormw ater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Stormwater_and_rainwater_harvest_and_use/reuse) and impervious surfacedisconnection (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Turf#Recommended_credits_for_impervious_su rface_disconnection). For these BMPs infiltration typically occurs into turf or other vegetated areas. Disconnection of impervious surface does not qualify for credits for meeting the Construction Stormwater permit (https://stormwa ter.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Construction_stormwater_permit). Harvest BMPs do qualify for credit because theycapture an instantaneous volume of water. The links above take you to the main page for each BMP. Each BMP section has a page on pollutant credits. These credit pages (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Category:Calculating_credits) provide information on runoff volume and pollutant removal for the BMP, including credits that can be applied to meet a performancegoal such as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). In soils where there are constraints on infiltration, BMPs may be designed with underdrains. Unless the BMP is lined, some water will infiltrate through the bottom and sides of the BMP. Bacteria removal for the portion of captured runoff that infiltrates is 100 percent. Water draining to the underdrain undergoes some treatment. These BMPs are discussed in more detail in the filtration section below. Settling practices 4/29/2021 Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater - Minnesota Stormwater Manual https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_and_management_strategies_for_bacteria_in_stormwater 11/12 Information: Note that we refer to constructed ponds and constructed wetlands in this section. Natural ponds andwetlands are not stormwater treatment practices and are therefore not included in this discussion. If prevention, source control and infiltration practices cannot fully meet protection or restoration targets for stormwater, settling and filtration practices may be used. Settling practices include constructed stormwater ponds, including variants, and constructed stormwater wetlands, including variants. Manufactured devices (http://stormwa ter.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Flow-through_structures_for_pre-treatment) and forebays are both settling practicesbut are primarily used for pretreatment. Information on design, construction, operation and maintenance, credits, and other characteristics of these BMPs can be found on the main pages for constructed stormwater ponds and constructed stormwater wetlands. Filtration practices Filtration practices are typically used when infiltration practices are not feasible, such as areas with low infiltration soils or shallow bedrock (see section on infiltration constraints (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title= Stormwater_infiltration). Filtration practices include bioretention with underdrains, media filters, and swales (http s://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Dry_swale_(Grass_swale)). Vegetated filter strips are often used asa pretreatment practice. Information on design, construction, operation and maintenance, credits, and other characteristics of these BMPs can be found on the main pages for media filters and swales, green roofs, and bioretention. References Bannerman, R.T., Owens, D.W., Dodds, R.B., and Hornewer, N.J.. 1993. Sources of pollutants in Wisconsinstormwater (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70157531). Water Science Technology, v. 28, no. 3-5, p.241–259.Burnhart, Matt, (undated). Sources of bacteria in Wisconsin stormwater: Madison, WI. WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources. 34 p.Law, N.L., DiBlasi, K., and U. Ghosh 2008. Deriving Reliable Pollutant Removal Rates for Municipal StreetSweeping and Storm Drain Cleanout Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin (https://www.worldsweeper.com/Street/Studies/CWPStudy/CBStreetSweeping.pdf). Center for Watershed Protection.McLellan, S.L., E. Jensen Hollis. 2006. Bacteria Sources and Fate Report (https://www.mmsd.com/application/files/9614/8475/4276/BSTF_PhaseI_Volume3_report.pdf). Bacteria Source, Transport and Fate Study -Phase 1, Volume 3.122 p.Sartor, J.D., and Gaboury, D.R.. 1984. Street sweeping as a pollution control measure—Lessons learned overthe past ten years. Science of the Total Environment. v. 33, p. 171–183.Sawyer, C.B., J.C. Hayes, and W.R. English. 2010. Characterization of Escherichia Coli for Sediment BasinSystems at Construction Sites (https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41114%28371%29329?src=recsys&).World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2010, May 16-20, 2010 | Providence, Rhode Island,United States.Schueler, T. 2000. Microbes and Urban Watersheds: Concentrations, Sources, & Pathways (http://www.myxyz.org/phmurphy/dog/Article17Microbes.pdf). Watershed Protection Techniques. 3(1): 554-565Selbig, W.R. and R. T. Bannerman. 2007. Evaluation of Street Sweeping as a Stormwater-Quality-Management Tool in Three Residential Basins in Madison, Wisconsin (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5156/#a). USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5156.A. Selvakumar, and M. Borst. 2006. Variation of microorganism concentrations in urban stormwater runoffwith land use and seasons. J Water Health, 4, 109-124.Sutherland, R. 2011. Street Sweeping 101 (http://digital.stormh20.com/publication/?i=58245&article_id=611555&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5#{%22issue_id%22:58245,%22page%22:%2222%22}). Stormwater. January-February 2011. 4/29/2021 Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater - Minnesota Stormwater Manual https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_and_management_strategies_for_bacteria_in_stormwater 12/12 Tiefenthaler, L., E. D. Stein, and K.C. Schiff. 2011. Levels and patterns of fecal indicator bacteria instormwater runoff from homogenous land use sites and urban watersheds (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c9cb/762a7c1091d658bea1240dc92b2153a3e668.pdf). Journal of Water and Health. Vol 09.2:279-290.United States Geological Survey. 1998. Urban Stormwater Quality, Event-Mean Concentrations, andEstimates of Stormwater Pollutant Loads, Dallas-Fort Worth Area, Texas, 1992–93 (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri984158/pdf/wri98-4158.pdf). Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4158.Urban Water Research Council. 2014. Pathogens in Urban Stormwater Systems (http://www.asce-pgh.org/Resources/EWRI/Pathogens%20Paper%20August%202014.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A680%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C70%2C720%2C0%5D). UWRRCTechnical Committee Report. 289 p.Waschbusch, R.J., Selbig, W.R., and Bannerman, R.T.. 1999. Sources of phosphorus from two urbanresidential basins in Madison, Wisconsin, 1994–95. (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri994021) U.S.Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4021, 47 p.Wu, J., S. C. Long, D. Das, and S. M. Dorner. 2011. Are microbial indicators and pathogens correlated? Astatistical analysis of 40 years of research (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0a3c/772b3e250b21a66668ef012206a32a0d0d07.pdf). Journal of Water and Health. 09.2:265-278.Zarriello, P. J., R. F. Breault, and P. K. Weiskel. 2002. Potential Effects of Structural Controls and StreetSweeping on Stormwater Loads to the Lower Charles River, Massachusetts (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024220/pdfs/wrir024220.pdf). Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4220. 50 p. Retrieved from "https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_and_management_strategies_for_bacteria_in_stormwater&oldid=50105" Search This page was last edited on 7 December 2020, at 22:15. Template:Footer © 2021 by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • Powered by MediaWiki One SE Main St #204, Minneapolis, MN 55414 888.859.9425 www.SpackSolutions.com Technical Memorandum To: Carter Schulze, PE, City of Eden Prairie Assistant City Engineer From: Jonah Finkelstein, PE Date: November 7, 2019 Re: Traffic Assessment – Standal Concept Purpose of Report and Study Objectives A new 59-unit single family housing development is proposed west of Flying Cloud Airport, directly west of the residential development located off Charlson Road in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. This technical memorandum presents a high-level traffic analysis of the proposed development. The primary purpose is to review the proposed access points onto Spring Road and June Grass Lane, to determine the amount of traffic to be generated by this development, and to forecast the anticipated traffic impacts to the adjacent roadways and developments. A site plan dated September 4, 2019 is attached for reference. Conclusions Using standard trip generation data for the proposed 59-unit housing development, the expected weekday changes in traffic volumes are: • An increase in total daily trips by 558 trips. • An increase in total AM peak hour trips by 44 trips. • An increase in total PM peak hour trips by 58 trips. Additional review of the proposed Spring Road access found: • Sufficient sight distance is provided for passenger vehicles and single-unit trucks to safely complete both left and right turning movements from the proposed access. • The proposed development generates a relatively low number of daily trips with less than 600 total daily trips and 60 PM Peak hour trips. • Hennepin County access spacing guidelines are not met for full access onto undivided arterials. However, minor shifting of the access can result in the required one-eighth mile spacing. • Minor to no impacts are expected in the adjacent development due to the additional site related traffic. Based on the results of this analysis full access to June Grass Lane, and a three-quarter access with dedicated turn lanes, guiding medians, and signage should be provided at the proposed access on Spring Road. This intersection should have outbound movements restricted to passenger vehicles and single unit trucks based on sight distance requirements. This means any combination trucks accessing the development would need to utilize June Grass Lane. Combination trucks are not expected onsite except for in rare occasions and initial construction. Spack Solutions 2 of 10 Standal Site Concept Technical Memorandum One SE Main St #204, Minneapolis, MN 55414 888.859.9425 www.SpackSolutions.com Site Characteristics The site is located west of the existing residential houses off Charlson Road and east of Spring Road. Access to this development will be via the adjacent residential development, with a connection to June Grass Lane, which is currently a private roadway until it reaches the intersection with Pincherry Lane. A secondary access is proposed onto Spring Road which will be reviewed in this memorandum. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the key roadway corridors around this site and within the study area. Table 1 – Study Corridor Characteristics Name Designation1 Classification2 Speed Limit Lanes Transit Peds/ Bicycles Spring Road CSAH 4 A Minor Expander 40 mph 2 undivided None None Charlson Road - Local 35 mph 3 undivided None Trail on South Side June Grass Lane3 - Local 30 mph 2 undivided None Sidewalks on Both Sides Pincherry Lane - Local 30 mph 2 undivided None Sidewalk West Side, Trail East Side 1 CSAH = County State Aid Highway 2 Source: Hennepin County Comprehensive Plan 3 Private Street The proposed development will add 59 single family units to the area. Sight Distance Review Proper sight distance can reduce the possibilty of conflicts at intersections. As a tool to evaluate the proposed site access on Spring Road, the sight distances were evaluated at the proposed access location. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition (commonly referred to as the Green Book), intersection sight distance is the distance provided at intersections and driveways to allow drivers to perceive the presence of potentially conflicting vehicles and, when the appropriate gap in traffic is provided, to safely perform their movement. Intersection sight distance requirements are provided in terms of both a physical distance and a time gap in the mainline traffic related to the speed of approaching vehicles. For approaching vehicles at any speed, per Table 9-6 of the AASHTO Green Book, a passenger car stopped at an intersection requires a minimum time gap of 7.5 seconds when looking to the right to complete a left turn movement. When looking to the left, less time is needed to complete a safe left turn movement as the vehicle passes this lane first when completing the vehicle movement. Based on this, the values from Table 9-8 (discussed next) are used for sight distance to the right for left turning movements. To complete a right turn movement, per Table 9-8 of the AASHTO Green Book, the time gap is reduced to 6.5 seconds for a passenger car and applicable only to Spack Solutions 3 of 10 Standal Site Concept Technical Memorandum One SE Main St #204, Minneapolis, MN 55414 888.859.9425 www.SpackSolutions.com vehicles approaching from the left of the stopped driver. For single-unit trucks, the time gaps are 9.5 seconds for a left turn when looking to the right and 8.5 seconds for a right turn and left turn when looking to the left. For combination trucks, the time gaps are 11.5 seconds for a left turn when looking to the right and 10.5 seconds for a right turn and left turn when looking to the left. A minimum of ten vehicle time measurements were made for northbound traveling vehicles. Only seven southbound vehicles where measured as only seven total vehicles passed the proposed intersection location over the hour field visit. Table 2 shows those results based on measurements made in a passenger vehicle. The times may be longer for single-unit or combination trucks as the driver is seated higher in those vehicles increasing the field of view. Table 2 – Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) As shown in Table 2, the proposed site access has, on average, adequate sight distance based on AASHTO standards for passenger vehicles and single-unit trucks. The lowest average sight distance provided is to the south (sight distance to the left) and was measured at 8.56 seconds. This is sufficient sight distance for right turning movements as well as sight distance to the left for left turning movements of passenger vehicles and single-unit trucks. The larger sight distance requirement (sight distance to the right for left turning movements) is also fulfilled for these two vehicle classifications with both the minimum recorded and averaged site distance times exceeding the sight distance time required. Tree-trimming along Spring Road will provide more sight distance to drivers, specifically to the south. Crash Analysis Spack Solutions was provided basic crash data from the City for crashes along Spring Road. The crashes between Charlson Road and 9995 Spring Road (Fredrick Miller Spring Access) were reviewed in this analysis. Between July 2015 and July 2019, eight (8) total crashes occurred along this 0.5 mile corridor. Of these crashes six (6) were property damage crashes. The two (2) remaining crashes resulted in personal injury. Additional review of these eight crashes showed that a maxium four crashes Location Direction Looking Lowest Measured ISD Highest Measured ISD Averaged ISD Proposed Access on Spring Road Left (to the south) 7.40 sec 10.48 sec 8.56 sec Right (to the north) 11.73 sec 18.38 sec 15.68 sec Spack Solutions 4 of 10 Standal Site Concept Technical Memorandum One SE Main St #204, Minneapolis, MN 55414 888.859.9425 www.SpackSolutions.com in one year occurred along this corridor which happened in 2015. and the years 2016 through 2019 each experienced only one crash each. This magnitude of crashes does not raise any red flags for crash related concerns along Spring Road. Trip Generation The traffic forecasts for the site are based on the data and methods published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The ITE Trip Generation Manual is a compilation of traffic data for various land uses from existing developments throughout the United States. Locally collected data was also reviewed. Table 3 presents the weekday trip generation. Table 3 – Weekday Trip Generation Description (source) Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Single Family Detached Housing - 59 Units (ITE 210) 558 279 279 44 11 33 59 37 22 Single Family Detached Housing - 59 Units (Local) 546 273 273 41 11 30 54 31 23 It can be seen in Table 1 that the forecasted trip generation for the proposed development has both ITE and local data projecting less than 600 daily trips generated. The maximum peak hour trips associated with the development occur during the PM peak hour with less than 60 trips generated. This equates to approximately one vehicle per minute entering or exiting the development. It is worth mentioning that if an access onto Spring Road is opened, some existing traffic from the adjacent residential Developments will begin to utilize the access. Trip Distribution To see the impact of site trips on surrounding intersections, vehicles need to be distributed from the development throughout the roadway network. A trip distribution pattern for trips going to/from the proposed development was created based on location, access to the surrounding region, and current roadway volumes. This pattern assumes the Spring Road access is a full movement access: • 45% of the generated traffic to/from the north on Spring Road via Charlson Road and Spring Road • 25% of the generated traffic to/from the south on Spring Road • 30% of the generated traffic to/from the east on Charlson Road As the Spring Road access may be restricted for certain movements or approaches, additional trip distribution patterns need to be reviewed as well. Potential access restrictions include: Spack Solutions 5 of 10 Standal Site Concept Technical Memorandum One SE Main St #204, Minneapolis, MN 55414 888.859.9425 www.SpackSolutions.com • Three Quarter Access (outbound lefts restricted) • Right-In Right-Out Access (inbound/outbound lefts restricted) • In-Only Access • No Access at Spring Road • No Access at June Grass Lane The main differences in trip distribution with these configurations can be summarized as follows: Inbound Traffic: • When southbound Spring Road traffic cannot utilize this access (Right-In Right Out, Right-In Only, No Access) inbound traffic from the north on Spring Road will enter the development via southbound Spring Road to Charlson Road. • When Northbound Spring Road traffic cannot utilize this access (No Access) inbound traffic will shift to westbound Charlson Road. Outbound Traffic: • When traffic cannot exit onto southbound Spring Road (all potential access restrictions) some traffic will shift to eastbound Charlson Road, while some will shift to westbound Charlson to southbound Spring Road. • When traffic cannot exit to northbound Spring Road (In Only, Right-In Only, No Access) outbound traffic will utilize eastbound Charlson Road and westbound Charlson Road to northbound Spring Road. These shifts in traffic were accounted for in the Daily Volume Analysis section which follows. Daily Volume Analysis Using the trip generation and trip distribution, new trips for the residential development were routed through the following intersections: • Charlson Road and Pincherry Lane. • Spring Road and Charlson Road. • Spring Road and Proposed Access. This routing was used to determine the new daily volumes expected along the corridors and whether meaningful impact is expected due to the site traffic. The ITE data was used in this analysis as it projects slightly larger trip generation than the locally collected data resulting in a conservatively high estimate for associated impacts. The new trips associated with the full access and no access Spring Road condition were reviewed for this analysis. These two options were chosen as they show the maximum and minimum potential impacts to the adjacent development and roadways as all other restricted access types will result in distributions and volumes that fall within these bounds. As mentioned previously, some additional trips will be drawn to the Spring Road intersection from the adjacent residential development. Additionally, some new trips will route through the adjacent development to use the existing accesses on Charlson Road. Based on this condition and the Spack Solutions 6 of 10 Standal Site Concept Technical Memorandum One SE Main St #204, Minneapolis, MN 55414 888.859.9425 www.SpackSolutions.com routing percentages it was determine these volumes roughly offset each other and no modification to trip generation was required. Figure 1 shows the resulting new volumes along the study corridors associated with the new development. Both the daily and PM peak hour are provided. Spack Solutions 7 of 10 Standal Site Concept Technical Memorandum One SE Main St #204, Minneapolis, MN 55414 888.859.9425 www.SpackSolutions.com Figure 1 – New Site Trips New Trips - Full Access Daily Volumes PM Peak Volumes New Trips – No Access Spring Road Daily Volumes PM Peak Volumes New Trips – No Access June Grass Lane Daily Volumes PM Peak Volumes 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 Spack Solutions 8 of 10 Standal Site Concept Technical Memorandum One SE Main St #204, Minneapolis, MN 55414 888.859.9425 www.SpackSolutions.com As seen in Figure 1, the proposed Spring Road access is projected to experience 356 trips over the course of the day assuming the full access scenario. Under this scenario, the adjacent eastern development would see an additional 202 trips per day, with a majority of those utilizing the Charlson Road and Pincherry Lane intersection. If no access is provided on Spring Road all 558 new trips would route through the eastern residential development and vice-versa if no access is provided along June Grass Road. During the PM peak hour, which is the highest peak period of the day, the new Spring Road access is expected to be utilized by 38 vehicles while the Charlson Road and Pincherry Lane intersection will be utilized by 21 new vehicles assuming full access. Assuming no access on Spring Road, all 59 vehicles will utilize the Charlson Road and Pincherry Lane intersection. which equates to approximately one vehicle per minute entering or exiting the development. This magnitude of new daily and peak hour trips does not raise any red flags with respect to roadway congestion or intersection. Therefore, none of the surrounding intersections or corridors are anticipated to be significantly impacted by site related traffic. Access Spacing Review The access spacing for Spring Road was reviewed against Hennepin County guidelines. As shown in Table 1, Spring Road is classified as an A Minor Expander, which is a sub-set of Minor Arterials. According to Hennepin County guidelines, access spacing on arterials is dependent on the volume of the minor street access and whether the mainline is undivided or divided. The proposed Spring Road connection would classify as a Low Volume Public Street as the projected ADT is below 2,500 vehicles per day. Based on current access spacing regulations, a minimum of one-quarter mile spacing of all access points, such as cross streets and driveways, onto an undivided minor arterial roadway is required. Based on the most recent site plan, approximately 650 feet between intersections is proposed (less than 1/4 of a mile), which means Hennepin County standards are not met. Limited access intersections shorten the spacing requirements from one-quarter mile to one- eighth mile or roughly 660 feet. This access spacing is very close to what is proposed, however without providing a median along Spring Road a true limited access cannot be enforced. Access Type Recommendations Based on the above analysis the following conditions were noted: • Sufficient sight distance is provided for passenger vehicles and single-unit trucks to safely complete both left and right turning movements from the proposed Spring Road access. Sufficient sight distance is not provided for combination trucks, which are not expected on site except for rare occasions and during initial site construction. • The proposed development generates a rather low number of daily trips with less than 600 total daily trips and 60 PM Peak hour trips associated with the development. • Hennepin County access spacing guidelines are not met for full access onto undivided arterials. Spack Solutions 9 of 10 Standal Site Concept Technical Memorandum One SE Main St #204, Minneapolis, MN 55414 888.859.9425 www.SpackSolutions.com Utilizing this information, a full access to June Grass Lane, and three-quarter access for the Spring Road intersection (left turns prohibited onto Spring Road) is recomendded. The outbound traffic at Spring Road should be restricted to passenger vehicles and single-unit trucks as sight distance times for combination trucks is not fulfilled. These access recommendations are based on the following: • Only minor shifting of the proposed access would be needed to reach the one-eighth mile access spacing from the Prospect Road intersection onto Spring Road. • Restriction of the outbound left turning movements can be completed through signage. Even if vehicles do not adhere to the restriction, sufficient sight distance is provided to complete a safe left turn movement for passenger vehicles and single-unit trucks. If additional control is desired a guiding right turn median can be provided. • Spring Road experiences relatively low daily volumes with only 3,400 vehicles per day (based on counts completed in 2017). • Providing two accesses for the development provides users additional choices in routing and prevents blockages due to vehicle malfunction or roadway blockages. • Minor to no impacts are expected in the adjacent development due to the additional site related traffic. Based on communication with the County, the following treatments would be required to provide access onto Spring Road: • A northbound right turn lane and southbound left turn lane into the development. • A level landing area for the new access of approximately 50 feet. These additions, plus the desire for pedestrian improvements (discussed next), would likely require right-of-way purchasing and significant slope stability work due to the access’s placement along Spring Road. Site Plan Review The proposed site plan was reviewed for traffic related elements. These include both internal elements as well as how the site connects to the larger transportation network. The following was noted: • Sidewalks should be provided on site. At a minimum, one sidewalk per street should be provided with connections to the existing sidewalks along the northern side of June Grass Lane as well as the existing trail system to the south. This southern trail section is shown in the most updated site plan. • A trail connection along the east side of Spring Road, connecting to the RRFB system at Spring Road and Prospect Road is recommended. This sidewalk would also help improve sight distance along Spring Road for outbound vehicles. • Restrict and monitor vegetation and plants within the boulevard to ensure they do not reduce sight distance along Spring Road. • Heavy vehicle turning movements should be verified on site ensuring trash or large delivery trucks can enter and exit the site safely. These vehicles should enter the site via the Spring Road access and exit utilizing the June Grass Lane connection allowing utilization of the onsite cul-de-sac to turn around. • Trash operations should occur outside of peak periods. Spack Solutions 10 of 10 Standal Site Concept Technical Memorandum One SE Main St #204, Minneapolis, MN 55414 888.859.9425 www.SpackSolutions.com Attachments 1. Site Plan BLOCK 1ROAD ABLOCK 3 ROAD BOUTLOT A OUTLOT D 22 21 20 19 18 17 161514 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 OUTLOT CBLOCK 2OUTLO T B BLOCK 3 ROA D A 1 28 2726 25 24 23 BLOCK 1 1 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 23456789 10 11 12 13 14 18 19 20 31 - 57' WIDE LOTS (BLOCK 1 & 2)28 - 65' WIDE LOTS (BLOCK 3)59 TOTAL LOTS7.5' SIDE SETBACK17 16 15 11 Attachment 1 - Site PlanSpack SolutionsA1 Standal Site Concept Technical Memorandum Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. ∙ 5608 International Parkway ∙ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 www.summite.com April 9, 2021 Mr. Dean Lotter PulteGroup, Inc. 7500 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite 670 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Mr. Mark Rausch Alliant Engineering, Inc. 733 Marquette Avenue Suite 700 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2340 Subject: Results of Impact Assessment Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Messrs. Lotter and Rausch: Summit Envirosolutions Inc. (Summit) was retained to evaluate whether there would be an impact to the Fredrick-Miller Spring (Spring) located at 9995 Spring Road in Eden Prairie, Minnesota as a result of the Noble Hill development. This letter presents the results and conclusions regarding our assessment of impacts from the proposed development activities. Summit performed the following Scope of Services: •Compiled published geologic information in the area within a Geographic Information System (GIS); •Performed field reconnaissance to evaluate the current conditions and hydrogeologic setting of the Spring; •Obtained surveyed elevations of pertinent Spring and proposed development features; and, •Prepared this letter report that summarize our findings and conclusions. Figure 1 shows the location of the outlet structure for the Spring. Figure 2 presents the topography of the area with the proposed project limits, the possible recharge area of the Spring, and the potential area of the original seep before the water was piped beneath Spring Road. The topography is characterized by steep hills on both sides of Spring Road and a valley that contains Riley Creek. Fredrick-Miller Spring Impact Assessment April 9, 2021 Page 2 The Geologic atlas of Hennepin County (Balaban, N.H., 1989) was consulted to obtain geologic information in the vicinity of the Spring. As shown on Figure 3, the surficial geology of the area is comprised of alluvium, colluvium, outwash, and till. The alluvium and colluvium are Holocene-age deposits that represent reworking of older glacial sediments. The outwash and till deposits are Pleistocene- age glacial deposits and are part of the New Ulm Formation. The outwash deposits are comprised of sand and gravel and the till deposits are comprised of clay. Summit obtained well logs from the Minnesota Well Index to obtain more information regarding subsurface geology. Four wells were identified within the potential recharge area as shown on Figure 4. The well logs are attached and the information is summarized below: Well ID Elevation Top of Clay Depth Top of Clay Elevation 437574 899 91 808 407642 855 110 745 205960 910 125 785 194925 901 135 766 Average 776 The subsurface geology is characterized by 91 to 135 feet of sandy outwash underlain by clay till. The presence of the clay at each well location may explain why groundwater seeped out of the side of the east- facing hill above the Spring until the water was piped down the hill to the Spring outlet structure. The precipitation that infiltrates vertically through the sand cannot penetrate the clay, hence the horizontal movement toward the Spring. The general interpreted hydrogeologic setting is depicted on Figure 5. Based on the published data, the field reconnaissance, and our experience in similar geologic terrains, it is our opinion that the entire recharge area for the Fredrick-Miller Spring is located west of Spring Road and that activities associated with the proposed development will have no impact on the quantity or quality of the water recharging the Spring. Please contact us if you have questions regarding the contents of this letter or the project in general. Sincerely, Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. ____________________ Bruce D. Johnson, PG Principal ___________________ John E. Dustman, PG Principal Figure 1 Fredrick-Miller Spring Location File: 20210407_FMSSummit Proj. No.: 2265-0001Plot Date: 4/8/2021Arc Operator: JEDReviewed by: BDJ Pioneer Park RileyCre ekBl u f f Cr e ekRice Lake Spring RdShetlandRdEden PrairieRdP ros pect RdSky LnSpri n g RdDellRdP io nee r T r l PioneerTrl Flying C loud D r Prairie BluffConservationArea The Landing S taringLake P k wy Grass Lake Riverview R d Charlson R d Pioneer T r l Flying CloudAthletic Fields Staring LakePark Flying CloudAirport Minnesota R iver Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA Fredrick Miller Spring & µ 0 10.5 Miles Figure 2 Area Topography File: 20210407_FMSSummit Proj. No.: 2265-0001Plot Date: 4/9/2021Arc Operator: JEDReviewed by: BDJ 00437574 00205960 00194925 00407642 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Fredrick Miller Spring Outlet Structure &µ 0 1,000500 Feet Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, Minnesota Well Possible Spring Recharge Area & Potential Seep Location Figure 3 Surficial Geology File: 20210407_FMSSummit Proj. No.: 2265-0001Plot Date: 4/8/2021Arc Operator: JEDReviewed by: BDJ Ql Ql Qc Qc Qts Qht Qts Qas Qht Qht Qht Qht 00437574 00205960 00194925 00407642 Fredrick Miller Spring & µ 0 500250 Feet Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, Minnesota Qts, New Ulm Fm, TC outwash Qht, New Ulm Fm, Heiberg till Qas, Alluvium, fine-grained Qc, Loamy sand and gravel Surficial geology Possible Spring Recharge Area Balaban, N.H.. (1989). C-04 Geologic atlas of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey. Figure 4 Wells Within Spring Recharge Area File: 20210407_FMSSummit Proj. No.: 2265-0001Plot Date: 4/8/2021Arc Operator: JEDReviewed by: BDJ 00437574 00205960 00194925 00407642 Fredrick Miller Spring &µ 0 500250 Feet Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, Minnesota Balaban, N.H.. (1989). C-04 Geologic atlas of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey. Well Possible Spring Recharge Area 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 Distance (feet) 740 760 780 800 820 840 860 880 Elevation (Feet AMSL)&&Clay Sand &&& &Perched Water Table Precipitation Infiltrates &&Riley Creek Pipe Seep West East &Fredrick- Miller Spring Outlet Structure &Figure 5 Interpreted Hydrogeologic Setting File: 20210407_FMSSummit Proj. No.: 2265-0001Plot Date: 4/9/2021Arc Operator: JEDReviewed by: BDJ Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, Minnesota 300 450 600 750 950150 1,050 1,200 1,350 1,500 1,650 1,800 1,950 2,100 2,250 2,400 Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031437574 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Eden Update Date 10/16/2019 Quad ID 104C Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed OLSON, BRUCE 116 22 W 29 DBABBD 290 ft.290 ft.02/04/1988 Elevation 899 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Sealed Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 16540 BEVERLY DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness GRAVEL & SAND 0 21 SANDY CLAY 21 91 CLAY 91 238 LIMEROCK 238 290 Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 253in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 4 290in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 253Open Hole From ft. To ft.290 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) SOUTH 0.5 SECT. SEALED 08-14-2019 BY 1445 Material FromAmount To well grouted, type unknown ft. 253 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 437574 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/07/2021 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade AERMOTOR X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.128 Measureland surface 02/04/1988 ft. hrs. Pumping at 25 g.p.m. feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 02/10/1988 0 189 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Torgerson Well Co.27056 TORGERSON, R. Remarks Prairie Du Chien Group Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Minnesota Geological Survey Prairie Du Chien 238 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y461472 4963701 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 06/02/2000Information from Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031407642 County Hennepin Entry Date 12/18/2012 Quad Eden Update Date 01/06/2015 Quad ID 104C Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed THONE, MARK 116 22 W 29 ACDDBC 220 ft.220 ft.10/15/1991 Elevation 855 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 9700 EDEN PRAIRIE RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness DIRT 0 2 MEDIUMBLACK SAND 2 100 MEDIUMBROWN COARSE SAND 100 110 MEDIUMBROWN SILTY CLAY 110 190 MEDIUMGRAY BROKEN ROCK,190 205 HARDBLK/YEL SHAKOPEE ROCK 205 220 HARDYELLOW Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 205 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.7 205in. To ft. 4 220in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 205Open Hole From ft. To ft.220 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft. 205 ft.1 Cubic yards Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 407642 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/07/2021 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade FLINT 7 WALLING X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.102 Measureland surface 10/16/1991 ft.102 hrs.3 Pumping at 30 g.p.m. 125 feet Northeas Direction Sewer Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 1 230 147 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Associated Well Co.27259 SCHULTZ, M. Remarks Pr.du Chien/Shakopee Fm Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Pr.du Chien/Shakopee Fm Minnesota Geological Survey Shakopee Fm 205 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y461543 4963794 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 05/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031205960 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Eden Update Date 09/09/2015 Quad ID 104C Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed CLUBO, BILL 116 22 W 29 DBDDCD 274 ft.274 ft.06/28/1968 Elevation 910 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 9990 EDEN PRAIRIE RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness YELLOW CLAY AND 0 85 SAND 85 125 CLAY 125 256 BLUE SHAKOPEE ROCK 256 274 Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 256in. To ft. lbs./ft. Screen?MakeType 256Open Hole From ft. To ft.274 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 205960 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/07/2021 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.145 Measureland surface 06/28/1968 ft. hrs. Pumping at 25 g.p.m. feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion?Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 0 Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Rogers Well Co.27014 Remarks Prairie Du Chien Group Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Minnesota Geological Survey Prairie Du Chien 256 Digitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger (Digitizing Table) System X Y461573 4963341 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 01/01/1990Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031194925 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Eden Update Date 09/09/2015 Quad ID 104C Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed SMALL, 116 22 W 29 DBDBDD 285 ft.285 ft.11/06/1986 Elevation 901 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Sealed Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 7 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 16525 BEVERLY DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness SAND & GRAVEL 0 45 SOFTBROWN SAND 45 135 SOFTBROWN CLAY 135 258 SOFTBLUE BROKEN LIMESTONE 258 260 MEDIUMTAN DOLOMITE 260 264 HARDRED BROKEN LIMESTONE 264 268 MEDIUMRED DOLOMITE 268 285 HARDTAN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 261 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 7 261in. To ft. 4 285in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 261Open Hole From ft. To ft.285 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) SOUTH 0.5 SECT. SEALED 05-15-2006 BY 1480; PREVIOUS USE: DO Material FromAmount To bentonite ft.7 261 ft.0 Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 194925 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/07/2021 MONITORPitless adapter manufacturer Model 6P54BNS4C1 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX FLINT & WALLING X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.150 Measureland surface 11/06/1986 ft.158 hrs.3 Pumping at 30 g.p.m. 30 feet NorthDirection Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 4F19A15 1.5 230 15180 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Rogers Well Co.27014 ROGERS, W. Remarks Prairie Du Chien Group Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Minnesota Geological Survey Prairie Du Chien 258 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y461534 4963447 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 06/02/2000Address verification Angled Drill Hole John E. Dustman Principal Mr. Dustman is a Principal Geologist with more than 35 years of experience per- forming geologic, hydrogeologic, and environmental assessments. He has exten- sive experience in groundwater supply, soil and groundwater remediation, environmental review, compliance, and management. He serves as a Principal Project Manager for water supply assessments, aquifer tests, wellhead protection plans, soil and groundwater contamination assessments, brownfields redevelop- ment projects, remedial investigations, feasibility studies, hazardous waste as- sessments, aboveground and underground storage tanks, and environmental review documents. Other responsibilities include overall company financial ac- countability, developing company strategic plans, client, program, and employee management, project planning and management, and technical consultation. Mr. Dustman has held the position of President and CEO of Summit Envirosolutions for 24 years. In addition to founding Summit Envirosolutions in 1991 to provide high quality environmental, water, and cultural resource consulting services, Mr. Dustman has focused on the integration of evolving technologies to increase the quality and de- crease the cost of geologic, hydrogeologic, and environmental assessments and compliance. As a leader in the collection, storage, analysis, reporting, and visual- ization of environmental data, he has successfully furnished data management products and services for clients, consultants, regulators, attorneys, and other en- vironmental professionals. In recent years, Mr. Dustman has focused on integrat- ing technologies for projects involving water supply and natural resource extraction. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Led the design of EPIPHINY®, a database tool for the storage and mining of geo- logic, hydrogeologic, and environmental data. Led the design of AQUIMETRICS™, a software as a service (SAS) tool that ena- bles real-time and continuous monitoring and visualization of water level data. The invention received a U.S. Patent. Principal-in-Charge of hundreds of projects requiring subsurface characterization for the purpose of soil and groundwater remediation. Clients include BP, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Cenex, Southwest Gas, Federated Insurance, Bur- lington Northern, and Signature Flight Support. Led the field investigations and development of a process for integrating teleme- try, GIS, GPS, database, and internet technologies for data management/analysis for cities, food processing industries, mines, ethanol plants, parks, brownfields, airports, and petroleum refining/storage facilities. Education B.S., Geology, Montana State University, 1983 Undergraduate Studies, Uni- versity of Delaware, 1978-79 Registrations/Certifications Professional Geologist, MN (#51589) 40-Hour OSHA Hazardous Waste Safety Training and Annual Refreshers Good Laboratory Practices-- The Basics, Minneapolis Min- nesota Good Laboratory Practic- es/Small Scale Prospective Groundwater Monitoring Studies Professional Affiliations National Ground Water Asso- ciation Minnesota Ground Water Association Patents U.S. Patent 5,553,492 - Meas- uring System for Measuring Real Time Groundwater Data U.S. Patent 8,244,499 - Meth- ods and Systems for Managing Aquifer Operation Committees Member – Technical Advisory Committee – Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee JOHN E. DUSTMAN PRESENTATIONS/PUBLICATIONS “Source Water Aquifer Visualization”, Minnesota Chapter American Water Works Association, Waterworks Operators School, April 2016. “Tools and Resources for Developing Smart Wellfields”, 31st Annual Minnesota Rural Water Associ- ation Water and Wastewater Technical Conference, St. Cloud, Minnesota, March 2015. “Cleaning Up the Past in the Future”, The Waterfront Center’s 27th Annual International Conference, Seattle, Washington, October, 2009. “Technology Integration for Sustainable Ground Water Management and Water Resource Protec- tion”, National Ground Water Association 2009 Ground Water Summit, Tucson, Arizona, April, 2009. “Groundwater Information Management and Data Visualization for Enhanced Aquifer Utilization in Water Supply”, 7th Washington Hydrogeology Symposium, Tacoma, Washington, April, 2009. “Ethanol Production Plant Monitors Impacts to Water Supply and Stays in Compliance”, Mid- Atlantic Regional Water Resources Research Institutes Regional Water Conference, The Water- Energy Nexus: A Necessary Synergy for the 21st Century, National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, November, 2008. “Integrating Technologies for Mine Water Management and Monitoring”, National Ground Water Association, 2008 U.S. EPA/NGWA Remediation of Abandoned Mine Lands Conference, Denver, Colorado, October 2008. “Integration of Continuous Data Streams in Geographic Information Systems and Neural Network Technologies”, Geological Society of America, North Central Section, 39th Annual Meeting, Minne- apolis, Minnesota, May 2005. “RealFlow - Continuous Data Collection for Groundwater Management”, Minnesota Air, Water, and Waste Conference, Bloomington, Minnesota, February 2005. “Management and Analysis of Groundwater Data”, Minnesota Groundwater Association Conference, Brainerd, Minnesota, November 2004. “Application of Artificial Neural Networks to Complex Groundwater Management Problems” (co- author), Natural Resources Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2003. JOHN E. DUSTMAN “Integration of Real Time, Continuous Data Streams into Groundwater Modeling and Neural Net- work Technologies”, International Society of Environmental Forensics Conference, Virginia Beach, VA. September, 2003. . “Optimizing Wellfield Efficiency using an Automatic Data Collection System and Artificial Neural Network Technology”, Frontiers in Assessment Methods for the Environment, Association of Envi- ronmental Engineering and Science Professors Symposium, University of Minnesota, August 2003 (co-author). “Databases and GIS for Airport Environmental Management”, American Association of Airport Ex- ecutives, Spring Conference, Dayton, Ohio, March, 2002. “The Future of Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems for Environmental Manage- ment in the Aviation Industry”, American Association of Airport Executives and National Air Trans- portation Association Symposium, Orlando, Florida, November 2000. “A Case Study: Using Remote data Acquisition and GIS to Optimize Ground Water Remediation”, Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection, and Re- mediation Conference and Exposition, Anaheim, California, November, 2000 (co-author). . “The Future of GIS Applications: Building Self-Calibrating Environmental Models”, Irish Organiza- tion for Geographic Information, GIS Ireland 2000, Dublin, Ireland, October 2000. “Using GIS, GPS, Geophysics, and Continuous Real-time Data to Remediate Petroleum Hydrocar- bons at Airports”, American Association of Airport Executives, Spring Conference, Columbus, Ohio, March, 1999. “Environmental Issues for the Safety Professional”, National Safety Council Annual Convention, Dallas, Texas, November, 1995. “Soil, Bedrock, and Groundwater Sampling Using Rota-Sonic Drilling Techniques”, NGWA Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1992. “Remedial Investigation/Clean Up of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contamination in Complex Aquifer Systems”, NGWA Outdoor Action Conference, Orlando, Florida, 1989. “Geology and Hydrogeology for Lay Persons”, presented seminars and civic meetings. “Wellhead Protection and Aquifer Resource Management”, Numerous seminars and state well drill- ing BRUCE D. JOHNSON, PG, CPG Principal Geologist Mr. Johnson is a Principal Geologist with more than 34 years of experience per- forming geologic, hydrogeologic, and contaminant assessment studies. He has extensive experience in environmental remediation, compliance, and manage-ment obtained through various technical and management positions within the engineering/scientific consulting firms. He also serves as a Principal Geologist for soil and groundwater contamination assessments, brownfields redevelopment projects, remedial investigations, feasibility studies, hazardous waste assess- ments, aboveground and underground storage tanks, Environmental Assessment Worksheets, mine prospecting, siting and permitting and regulatory compliance assistance. Other responsibilities include developing company strategic plans, program and client management, project planning and management, and tech-nical consultation and overview for development and legal review projects. Mr. Johnson has held the position of Secretary of the Summit Board of Directors for over 10 years and is the current Corporate Health and Safety Officer. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE REPRESENTATIVE WATER RESOURCE EXPERIENCE Groundwater Pump Test and Water Appropriation; Dundas, Minnesota Mr. Johnson conducted the installation of pressure transducers and monitored and evaluated the data collected during a 14-day pump test. The 12-inch produc- tion well was pumped at a rate of 1,247 gallons per minute (gpm) for 7-days and allowed to recover for 7-days. The groundwater elevation data was continuously monitored in the production well and five on-site monitoring wells (completed in the bedrock and local quaternary deposits) along with seventeen domestic wells. Dataloggers were downloaded daily during the test. The data were imported into Summit’s Geographic Environmental Management System (GEMS), which is a data platform developed to enable an efficient method to reduce aquifer test da-ta. Import routines for In-Situ and Campbell Scientific electronic files are avail-able in GEMS to populate a Microsoft® Access® database. The database is then linked to ESRI ArcGIS® products for spatial analysis and visualization. Graphs and potentiometric surface contour maps were generated throughout the aquifer test to visualize the development of the cone-of-depression in the field. Based on analysis of the aquifer test, we concluded that there appeared to be an adequate groundwater supply for the proposed ethanol plant. The aquifer testing data indicate that the source aquifer was capable of provide the requested rate and volume for the life span of the project. Based on the aquifer test results, it was also determined that the confined nature of the source aquifer, the depth of the aquifer, and the presence of clay layers above the aquifer, that no adverse impacts to nearby surface water features, including wetlands were anticipated as a result of the pumping at this site. Well interference with domestic wells was determined to be minimal based on the aquifer test data collected at the sur-rounding domestic wells. EDUCATION B.A., Geology, University of Minnesota, 1985 REGISTRATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS Professional Geologist, TN (1992), WI (1995), MN (1998), UT (2003) Certified Groundwater Professional, IA (1998) Certified Professional Geologist, American Insti-tute of Professional Geolo-gists (1994) Minnesota Department of Health – Monitoring Well Contractor (2001) 40-Hour OSHA Hazardous Waste Safety Training (Annual 8-Hour Refreshers) MSHA Training (Annual Refresher) CPR and First Aid PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Institute of Professional Geologists PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS Minnesota State Board of AELSLAGID - Board mem-ber (2007-2014) - Chair of the Complaint Committee 2012 and 2013 - Executive Committee - Secretary 2014. National Association of State Boards of Geology (ASBOG) - Subject Matter Expert / State Representative (2007-2014) - Member At Large Subject Matter Expert (2015 to Present). BRUCE D. JOHNSON, PG, CPG REPRESENTATIVE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE Brownfields Redevelopment of a Bike and Recreation Pathway Site; South St. Paul, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as senior project manager/senior geologist for the investiga-tion and remediation of a 1.5-mile-long bike and recreation pathway along a railroad line in South St. Paul, Minnesota. The investigation was conducted us-ing a Geoprobe and soil samples were screened in the field for organic vapors. The investigative activities did not indicate highly impacted soil or groundwater although fill material was denoted along the trail boundary. The fill was reported as possible foundry sand that was also found on the adjacent property to the south. A response action plan (RAP) was prepared and submitted to the Minne- sota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program for the removal and disposal of some the fill material to occur at the time of development. During the construction activities, several areas of po- tential impacted soil were observed and disposal. Summit completed the RAP Implementation Report and received a No Further Action and No Association Determination Letters from the MPCA VIC program and the recreational trail has been constructed and is currently in use. Brownfields Redevelopment of a Former Automobile Salvage Operation Site; Blaine, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as senior project manager/senior geologist for the investiga-tion and remediation of a 20-acre former salvage operation site in Blaine, Min- nesota. The initial investigation was completed after a large fire which consumed nearly the complete operation. The investigative activities did not in-dicate highly impacted soil or groundwater although fill material was denoted along the western property line. The fill was reported as concrete blocks, slabs, and curbs. A pre-development response action plan was prepared and submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program for the removal and disposal of the fill material pri-or to completion of a detailed development design. The initial excavation activi- ties indicated the presence of solid waste other than concrete. Based on the results of the investigation and the screening of excavated soil, the focus of the cleanup was to separate the solid waste from the soil. This was completed in an effort to return the excavated soil from this process back to the excavation to re-store the grade of the property and recycle the usable soil and reduce the overall disposal costs. During the remediation activities, several areas of potential im- pacted soil were observed, and disposal of the soil was being coordinated. Summit has prepared documents to negotiated site-specific clean-up concentra-tions with the MPCA. Summit has prepared an Excavated Soil Re-Use and Dis- posal Plan associated with the excavated soil and will prepare a full DRAP for the project that will include the development of the property as a city mainte-nance facility. Minnesota Department of Health Advisory Council on Wells and Boring, Monitor-ing Well Contractor - Mem-ber (2017 to present) PROFESSIONAL HONORS & AWARDS Minnesota Section of the American Institute of Professional Geologists Certificate of Merit, January 1998 President of the Minnesota Section of the American Institute of Professional Geologists, 2000 Distinguished Service Award Minnesota Section of the American Institute of Professional Geologists, 2005 American Institute of Professional Geologists Na-tional Section Leadership Award, 2016 BRUCE D. JOHNSON, PG, CPG Brownfields Redevelopment of a Former Greenhouse Facility; Roseville, Minnesota Mr. Johnson provided senior project manager for a multi-phase project that con-sisted of performing the investigation and completion of a development response action plan (DRAP) necessary to receive the required liability assurances and allow the redevelopment of the former greenhouse property as a complex that included a senior housing facility and green space. The former greenhouse was built in the 1950s and modified in several phases. The investigation performed at the site identified limited on-site petroleum and limited agricultural chemical and pesticide impacts to the underlying soil. A DRAP was developed based on the development plan and the investigation results. The areas containing impacts above the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Soil Reference Values (SRVs) for Tier 1 Residential sites were addressed by: (1) comparing the layout for the buildings with the extent of impacts and making adjustments to excava-tion work as needed; (2) determining areas where limited impacted soil could be re-used on the property; (3) conducting the removal and off-site disposal of the impacted soil to a depth of approximately 10 feet below grade to eliminate di-rect-contact risk; and, (4) replacing the excavated soil with clean fill. The re-quired liability assurance letters were granted by the MPCA and the property received a No Further Action letter. Brownfields Redevelopment of a Petroleum and Hazardous Material Con-taminated Site; St. Paul, Minnesota Mr. Johnson provided senior project manager for a multi-phase project that con-sisted of performing the investigation and completion of a development response action plan (DRAP) necessary to receive the required liability assurances and allow the redevelopment of the former residential and commercial development area into a complex that included low-income housing and a branch library for Ramsey County. The site area included a residential and commercial area devel- oped in the early 1900s. The investigation performed at the site identified lim-ited on-site petroleum and lead impacts to the soil. A DRAP was developed based on the development plan and the investigation results. The areas contain- ing impacts above the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Soil Refer-ence Values (SRVs) for Tier 2 Industrial sites were addressed by: (1) comparing the layout for the buildings with the extent of impacts and making adjustments to excavation work as needed; (2) conducting the removal and off-site disposal of the impacted soil to a depth of approximately 12 feet below grade to eliminate direct-contact risk; and, (3) removing and stabilizing lead impacted soil for dis-posal. The required liability assurance letters were granted by the MPCA and a No Further Action letter was secured. Brownfields Redevelopment of a Commercial Mall and Former Gasoline Station; Falcon Heights, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as a senior project manager for a multi-phase project that consisted of performing the investigation and completion of a development re-sponse action plan (DRAP) necessary to receive the required liability assurances and allow the redevelopment of the former shopping mall and restaurant proper-ty as a complex that included a senior housing facility, multi-family apartment building and townhome complex. The former shopping mall was a facility was built in the 1950s on the previous location of a regional airport that dated back to at least the 1920s. The investigation performed at the site identified that lim- BRUCE D. JOHNSON, PG, CPG ited on-site petroleum impacts to the underlying soil. A DRAP was developed based on the development plan and the investigation results. The areas contain-ing impacts above the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Soil Refer-ence Values (SRVs) for Tier 2 Industrial sites were addressed by: (1) comparing the layout for the buildings with the extent of impacts and making as many ad-justments to excavation work as needed; (2) determining areas where limited impacted soil could be re-used on the property; (3) conducting the removal and off-site disposal of the impacted soil to a depth of approximately 10 feet below grade to eliminate direct-contact risk; and, (4) replacing the excavated soil with clean fill. The required liability assurance letters were granted by the MPCA and the property received a No Further Action letter. Brownfields Redevelopment of a Petroleum Contaminated Site; West Saint Paul, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as senior project manager/senior geologist and a regulatory liaison for the commercial development at the location of a former service sta-tion in West Saint Paul, Minnesota. Mr. Johnson provided an opinion associated with the prior investigation activities at a former service station property and the potential impacts associated with the proposed development. Mr. Johnson com-pleted additional site investigation to determine the magnitude and extent of the petroleum release and the potential impacts to the development. The investiga-tion revealed that the impacts were limited vertically to a depth of 15 feet below grade and that the impacts had not appeared to have impacted groundwater. A development design change was discussed based on the results of the investiga-tion and the building location was shifted slightly to reduce the volume of im-pacted soil required to be removed. Mr. Johnson subsequently calculated the volume of impacted soil and negotiated the removal criteria with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Petroleum Brownfield section. It was deter-mined that the development would require the removal of the petroleum impact- ed soil to the negotiated clean-up levels. Based on the observations during excavation activities completed by Summit, the remediation was limited to the removal and disposal of approximately 850 tons of petroleum impacted soil. Confirmation sampling indicated that the excavation activities were complete and the MPCA was satisfied that the petroleum impacts were fully remediated. The MPCA provided a no further action letter. Brownfields Redevelopment of a Petroleum Contaminated Site; Shoreview, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as senior project manager to review and provide an opinion associated with the prior investigation of a petroleum release at a former service station property, and the potential impacts associated with the proposed devel-opment. Additional site investigation was preformed to determine the magnitude and extent of the petroleum release and the potential impacts to the develop- ment. The investigation revealed that the impacts were limited vertically to a depth of 25 feet below grade and that the impacts had not appeared to have im-pacted groundwater. Mr. Johnson subsequently calculated the volume of im- pacted soil and negotiated removal criteria with the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) agency which provided funding on the project. It was de-termined that the development would require the removal of the petroleum im- pacted soil. Summit completed “real-time on-site analysis of soil during the excavation activities and was able to expedite the excavation activities along BRUCE D. JOHNSON, PG, CPG with limit the extent of the excavation based on real data. The real-time on-site analytical testing completed by Summit limited the remediation to the removal and disposal of approximately 1,600 cubic yards of petroleum impacted soil. Confirmation sampling confirmed the accuracy of Summit’s on-site analytical results were accurate. HUD and the MPCA were satisfied that the petroleum impacts were fully remediated and the MPCA provided a no further action letter. REPRESENTATIVE LEGAL SERVICE EXPERIENCE Legal Support Commercial Property; Moorhead, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as Principal Geologist of the review of previous and recent petroleum data and preparation of a professional opinion and expert testimony as part of a suit associated with petroleum impact to the subject property from an off-site leaking underground storage tank (LUST) issue. Mr. Johnson review previous consultant reports for four adjacent LUST sites and pertinent surround-ing site records at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and provided his re- view and opinions in an Environmental Summary report and representation in court. Legal Support Former Office Park Property; Moorhead, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as Principal Geologist of the review of existing environmen-tal data and preparation of a successful professional opinion of the environmen- tal activities performed as part of a high profile Quick-Take Eminent Domain case. Mr. Johnson review over 3,000 pages of court documents, consultant re-ports, and pertinent surrounding site records at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and provided his review and opinions in a Site Review Report. The re-port was part of the successful defense of the property owner and resulted in a large savings associated with the property value. Legal Support Mining Property; Beltrami County, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as Principal Geologist of the review of deed language and other expert reports and prepared a technical memorandum in response to a dis-pute associated with mineral rights. Mr. Johnson outlining a successful profes- sional opinion associated with previous site documentation and provided and opinion on the geologic language included in the deed and the potential geologic understanding of the deed author. Legal Support Petroleum Impacted Property; LaPorte, Minnesota Mr. Johnson served as Principal Geologist of the review of existing documenta- tion of a large petroleum spill associated with a pipeline. He provided a scope of work for assessing the remaining petroleum spill on the private property and a potential course of action for the request to the MPCA to re-open the petroleum release. PRESENTATIONS/PUBLICATIONS “Professional Ethics,” Presentation to the American Institute of Professional Geologist, Roseville, Minnesota. “Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience and Interior Design Legislative Updates and Board Activities,” BRUCE D. JOHNSON, PG, CPG Presentation to the American Institute of Professional Geologist, Roseville, Minnesota. “Alternative Remediation Methods: Phytoremediation or Vegetative Remedia-tion of Agricultural Chemicals,” Presentation to Cenex Harvest States Dis-trict Managers Association, Black River Falls, Wisconsin. “Wellhead Protection and Aquifer Resource Management,” Numerous seminars and state well drilling conventions. “Landspreading of Petroleum Contaminated Soil,” Presentation to Planning Commission, Town of Columbus, Minnesota. "Soil Identification and Drilling Techniques,” Twin City Testing Training Presentation. 5608 International Parkway, New Hope, Minnesota 55428 www.summite.com MEMORANDUM TO: Dean Lotter, PulteGroup FROM: John Dustman, Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. SUBJECT: Review of Dr. Calvin Alexander’s submittal I reviewed Dr. Alexander’s “Steps to Protect Water Quality of Fredrick-Miller Spring”. Unfortunately, I do not think Dr. Alexander was given all the information we have regarding the recharge area of the spring. The oral history is clear that the original seep location is located up the east-facing hill west of the current location and was outfitted with an old bathtub and piping to convey the water first to an area west of Spring Road and then under the road to the current location. I do not believe Dr. Alexander was given that information, since he suggests that the initial recharge area should be “…all of the land and surface water bodies at elevation above the Fredrick-Miller Spring…”. If he knew the original seep location is located on the east-facing hill west of Spring Road on what is an isolated topographical feature, he would likely not suggest a 2-mile area for further study. The other key pieces of information that are not referenced in his document are the surficial geology map (Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County Balaban, N.H., 1989) that shows outwash surrounded (and underlain) by till and the 18 drilling logs (obtained from the Minnesota Well Index) that enabled us to interpolate a clay surface that is the likely mechanism for the Spring recharge. I think if Dr. Alexander had this same information, he would likely not use the term “artesian spring”, because the flow produced at the Spring discharge outlet is gravity drainage from a “perched” water table that is unconfined. Although unnecessary for the proposed project, the City could excavate down to the pipe west of Spring Road and trace the route back to the origin if additional proof beyond the oral history is required. It is likely that the bathtub was buried near the sand/clay interface indicated on the 18 drilling logs in the area. Received by Planning 1-19-2021 Table of Contents Description Page A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 A.1. Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1 A.1.a. Structural Loads ...................................................................................................... 1 A.1.b. Pavement Traffic Loads .......................................................................................... 1 A.2. Site Conditions and History ................................................................................................. 3 A.3. Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 4 A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents .......................................................... 5 A.5. Scope of Services ................................................................................................................. 5 B. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 6 B.1. Geologic Overview .............................................................................................................. 6 B.2. Boring Results ...................................................................................................................... 6 B.3. Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 7 B.4. Laboratory Test Results ....................................................................................................... 7 C. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 8 C.1. Design and Construction Discussion ................................................................................... 8 C.1.a. Building Subgrade Preparation .............................................................................. 8 C.1.b. Reuse of On-Site Soils ............................................................................................. 8 C.1.c. Disturbance of On-Site Soils ................................................................................... 9 C.1.d. Effects of Groundwater .......................................................................................... 9 C.2. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation .............................................................................. 9 C.2.a. Building Subgrade Excavations ............................................................................... 9 C.2.b. Excavation Oversizing ........................................................................................... 10 C.2.c. Excavated Slopes .................................................................................................. 11 C.2.d. Filling on Slopes .................................................................................................... 12 C.2.e. Excavation Dewatering ......................................................................................... 12 C.2.f. Selecting Excavation Backfill and Additional Required Fill ................................... 12 C.2.g. Pavement and Exterior Slab Subgrade Preparation ............................................. 12 C.2.h. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll .............................................................................. 13 C.2.i. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction Requirements ................................... 13 C.3. Spread Footings ................................................................................................................. 15 C.3.a. Embedment Depth ............................................................................................... 15 C.3.b. Subgrade Improvement ....................................................................................... 15 C.3.c. Net Allowable Bearing Pressure ........................................................................... 16 C.3.d. Settlement ............................................................................................................ 16 C.4. Below-Grade Walls ............................................................................................................ 16 C.4.a. Drainage Control .................................................................................................. 16 C.4.b. Selection, Placement and Compaction of Backfill ................................................ 18 C.4.c. Configuring and Resisting Lateral Loads............................................................... 19 C.5. Interior Slabs ..................................................................................................................... 20 C.5.a. Moisture Vapor Protection .................................................................................. 20 C.5.b. Radon ................................................................................................................... 20 C.6. Frost Protection ................................................................................................................. 20 C.6.a. General ................................................................................................................. 20 C.6.b. Frost Heave Mitigation ......................................................................................... 21 Table of Contents (continued) Description Page C.7. Pavements and Exterior Slabs ........................................................................................... 22 C.7.a. Design Sections .................................................................................................... 22 C.7.b. Bituminous Pavement Materials .......................................................................... 23 C.7.c. Subgrade Drainage ............................................................................................... 23 C.7.d. Performance and Maintenance ........................................................................... 23 C.8. Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 23 C.8.a. Subgrade Stabilization .......................................................................................... 23 C.8.b. Selection, Placement, and Compaction of Backfill ............................................... 24 C.8.c. Corrosion Potential .............................................................................................. 24 D. Procedures...................................................................................................................................... 25 D.1. Penetration Test Borings ................................................................................................... 25 D.2. Exploration Logs ................................................................................................................ 25 D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets ............................................................................................. 25 D.2.b. Geologic Origins ................................................................................................... 25 D.3. Material Classification and Testing ................................................................................... 26 D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification .......................................................................... 26 D.3.b. Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................... 26 D.4. Groundwater Measurements ............................................................................................ 26 E. Qualifications .................................................................................................................................. 26 E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................. 26 E.1.a. Material Strata ..................................................................................................... 26 E.1.b. Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................. 27 E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility .......................................................................... 27 E.2.a. Plan Review .......................................................................................................... 27 E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing ............................................................... 27 E.3. Use of Report..................................................................................................................... 27 E.4. Standard of Care ................................................................................................................ 27 Appendix Soil Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring Sheets ST-1 through ST-11 Descriptive Terminology of Soil Gradations (2 Reports) A. Introduction A.1. Project Description Gonyea Homes and Remodeling is planning to develop a single-family housing development (The Overlook) at the Standal Property at 9875 Spring Road in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The development is a collection of 3 properties and is about 27 1/2 acres in size with about 17 1/2 acres of buildable property. The proposed development will consist of 59 single-family house sites along with associated streets, underground utilities, and stormwater features/ponds. A.1.a. Structural Loads We understand the residential construction will consist of 1- to 2-story wood-framed houses with pitched roofs and full or partial basements on poured concrete foundations. Based on the residential construction, we have based our analysis and recommendations on the assumption that footing pressures will not exceed 2,000 psf. Please contact us if this information is not correct. A.1.b. Pavement Traffic Loads We have assumed that bituminous pavements, typical of residential neighborhoods, will be subjected to normal traffic conditions over a design life of 20 years. Figure 1 shows a concept plan of the proposed development. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 2 Figure 1. Concept Plan last revised December 23, 2019 Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 3 A.2. Site Conditions and History The site is located on the east side of Spring Road and south of the development, located on the south side of Prospect Road in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The site consists of 3 parcels with the mailing addresses, from north to south, of 9875 Spring Road, 9XXX (no assigned address) Spring Road, and 9955 Spring Road. The site is located along the side of a small valley that generally slopes to the west to Riley Creek. The ground surface consists of rolling to relatively steeply sloping terrain with current grades at the soil boring locations ranging from about elevation 764 feet to 859 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). The site is generally wooded with open grassy areas and cultivated fields. A house and barn are located in the west central portion of the site. The following recent aerial photograph shows the current site conditions, as obtained through Google Earth. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 4 Photograph 1. Aerial Photograph of the Site Photograph provided by Google Earth. A.3. Purpose The purpose of our geotechnical evaluation will be to characterize subsurface geologic conditions at selected exploration locations and evaluate their impact on the design and construction of the residential development. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 5 A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents We reviewed the following information: Available public aerial photographs showing the existing site conditions. Construction plans last revised December 23, 2019, prepared by Alliant Engineering. Geologic atlas showing the general soil types present in this area. The previous four soil borings performed at this site in 2019 by Braun Intertec. We have described our understanding of the proposed construction and site to the extent others reported it to us. Depending on the extent of available information, we may have made assumptions based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the project details, the project team should notify us. New or changed information could require additional evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations. A.5. Scope of Services We completed our services based on the Proposal for Additional Borings, dated January 23, 2020 under Proposal QTB114087, to Gonyea Homes and Remodeling. The following list describes the geotechnical tasks completed in accordance with our authorized scope of services. Reviewing the background information and reference documents previously cited. Coordinating the clearing of the exploration locations of public underground utilities. The boring locations (except for boring ST-11) were chosen by Alliant Engineering. The boring locations and elevations were staked in the field and provided by Alliant Engineering. Braun Intertec staked Boring ST-11 and the ground surface elevation at the boring was obtained using our GPS locating system. Performing seven supplemental standard penetration test (SPT) borings, denoted as ST-5 to ST-11, to nominal depths of 10 to 35 feet below grade across the site. These borings complement the initial four borings at this site. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 6 Performing laboratory testing on selected samples to aid in soil classification and engineering analysis. Preparing this report containing a boring location sketch, logs of the soil borings, a summary of the soils encountered by the current borings, results of laboratory tests, and recommendations for structure and pavement subgrade preparation and the design of foundations, floor slabs, exterior slabs and utilities. Our scope of services did not include any environmental services or testing, and we did not train the personnel performing this evaluation to provide environmental services or testing. We can provide these services or testing at your request. As noted previously, a separate report will be issued regarding the geotechnical aspects of some of the steeper slopes to be graded at this site. B. Results B.1. Geologic Overview We based the geologic origins used in this report on the soil types, in-situ and laboratory testing, and available common knowledge of the geological history of the site. Because of the complex depositional history, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain. We did not perform a detailed investigation of the geologic history for the site. B.2. Boring Results Table 1 provides a summary of the current soil boring results in the general order we encountered the strata. Please refer to the Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix for additional details. The Descriptive Terminology sheet in the Appendix includes definitions of abbreviations used in Table 1. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 7 Table 1. Subsurface Profile Summary* Strata Soil Type - ASTM Classification Range of Penetration Resistances Commentary and Details Topsoil SM --- Encountered at the surface of all 11 borings. Consisted of dark brown to black silty sand. Thickness ranged from about 1/2 to 2 feet. Moisture condition generally moist. Slopewash SC, SM 3 to 9 BPF Encountered below the topsoil at Borings ST-4 and ST-11. Consisted of brown and dark brown clayey sand and silty sand with various levels of organics. Moisture condition generally moist. Alluvial Sand Deposits SP, SP-SM, SM 4 to 25 BPF Mostly poorly graded sand, poorly graded sand with silt, and silty sand. Seams of poorly graded sand, silty sand, clayey sand, and silt encountered in several borings Variable amounts of gravel. Moisture condition generally moist to wet. *Abbreviations defined in the attached Descriptive Terminology sheet. B.3. Groundwater While drilling the borings, groundwater was only observed in Boring ST-4 at a depth of about 19 1/2 feet, which corresponds to an elevation of about 744 feet MSL. The water level of Riley Creek located to the west of the site is about 730 to 740 feet MSL. Groundwater may take days or longer to reach equilibrium in the boreholes and we immediately backfilled the boreholes, in accordance with our scope of work. If the project team identifies a need for more accurate determination of groundwater depth, we can install piezometers. Seasonal and annual fluctuations of groundwater should be anticipated. B.4. Laboratory Test Results The boring logs show the results of the laboratory testing we performed, next to the tested sample depths. The laboratory tests were all completed in general conformance with the applicable ASTM standards. The Log of Boring sheets and gradation curves are in the Appendix of this report. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 8 The moisture content (ASTM D 2216) tests performed on selected soil samples of alluvial sands showed moisture contents ranging from about 2 to 13 percent. The majority of the soils tested appeared to be near or slightly above the soil’s estimated optimum moisture content. The moisture content and organic content (ASTM D 2974) tests performed on selected soil samples of slopewash showed moisture contents ranging from about 17 to 19 percent and organic contents ranging from about 1.6 to 7.3 percent. The organic content tests indicate that the slopewash is classified as non- organic to organic. Four soil samples were washed through a number 200 sieve (ASTM C 117) and gradations (ASTM D 6913) were performed on two soil samples to assist in classifying the soil samples. C. Recommendations C.1. Design and Construction Discussion C.1.a. Building Subgrade Preparation Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and evaluation, spread footing foundations bearing on engineered fill and/or native soils can support the proposed houses after performing typical subgrade preparation. Typical subgrade preparation includes removing existing vegetation, topsoil or organic soils, slopewash, fill soils, and any existing structures. We estimate that cuts and fills to reach building elevations could range from about 5 to 40 feet from existing grades. Any soil correction work to further remove unsuitable soft soils could add or subtract to these assumed cut and fill depths. The relatively steep slopes in some areas of the site need to be considered during the design and construction phases. C.1.b. Reuse of On-Site Soils Some of the soil samples appeared to be wet and will likely require drying to allow the recommended soil compaction levels to be achieved. Also, during dry weather, the soils may need to have water added in order to facilitate proper compaction. Observations could be performed during the site grading to further evaluate the suitability of the slopewash for use as engineered fill. Any materials to be used as engineered fill should be tested and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 9 C.1.c. Disturbance of On-Site Soils Any loose or disturbed sands should be moisture conditioned, if necessary, and surface compacted to increase their density and uniformity prior to engineered fill and/or footing placement. C.1.d. Effects of Groundwater Groundwater is anticipated to be below typical excavation depths at this site, although perched water could be present. The contractor should immediately remove any collected water within the excavations to facilitate construction and proper backfilling. C.1.e. Slope Stability The development will be constructed adjacent to areas of existing relatively steep slopes. In addition, the proposed stormwater ponds will be constructed in areas by removing soils along the toe of relatively steep slopes. As design progresses and proposed house pad and street grades are established, we recommend that a slope stability analysis be performed to estimate the safety factor of the proposed slopes to evaluate that the safety factor is adequate. Measures should also be taken to protect the slopes from erosion prior to establishment of vegetation. C.2. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation C.2.a. Building Subgrade Excavations We recommend removing unsuitable materials from beneath house pads and oversize areas. We define unsuitable materials as vegetation, topsoil, organic soils, slopewash, existing structures, existing utilities, and soft soils. Also, in agricultural fields there could be buried drain tiles which will need to be removed. Table 2 shows the anticipated excavation depths and bottom of soil correction excavation elevations at each of the current soil boring locations, assuming that structures, utilities or roads will be built at each location. Excavation depths could be reduced in areas that will not support future structures, utilities or roads. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 10 Table 2. Recommended Excavation Depths for Building Pads Location Approximate Surface Elevation (feet) Anticipated Excavation Depth (feet) Anticipated Bottom Elevation (feet) ST-1 813.7 1/2 813 ST-2 858.6 1/2 858 ST-3 814.1 1/2 813 1/2 ST-4 763.7 Pond Area --- ST-5 807.7 2 805 1/2 ST-6 820.5 2 818 1/2 ST-7 848.8 2 846 1/2 ST-8 865.5 1 1/2 864 ST-9 836.6 2 834 1/2 ST-10 839.3 1 1/2 838 ST-11 790.7 Green Area --- Excavation depths will vary between the borings. Portions of the excavations may also extend deeper than indicated by the borings. A geotechnical representative should observe the excavations to make the necessary field judgments regarding the suitability of the exposed soils. The upper alluvial sand soils are generally in a loose relative density. Prior to the placement of engineered fill or footings, we recommend moisture conditioning, if necessary, and surface compacting the exposed soils in the bottoms of the excavations with a minimum of five passes by a large (minimum diameter of 3 1/2 feet), smooth-drum compactor. C.2.b. Excavation Oversizing When removing unsuitable materials below structures or pavements, we recommend the excavation extend outward and downward at a slope of 1H:1V (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. See Figure 2 for an illustration of excavation oversizing. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 11 Figure 2. Generalized Illustration of Oversizing C.2.c. Excavated Slopes Based on the borings, we anticipate on-site soils in excavations will consist of mostly sandy soils. The sandy soils are typically considered Type C Soil under OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) guidelines. OSHA guidelines indicate unsupported excavations in Type C soils should have a gradient no steeper than 1 1/2H:1V. OSHA requires an engineer to evaluate slopes or excavations over 20 feet in depth. An OSHA-approved qualified person should review the soil classification in the field. Excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations and Trenches.” This document states excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. The project specifications should reference these OSHA requirements. 1. Engineered fill as defined in C.2.i 2. Excavation oversizing minimum of 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) slope or flatter 3. Engineered fill as required to meet pavement support or landscaping requirements as defined in C.2.i 4. Excavation back-slope to OSHA requirements Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 12 C.2.d. Filling on Slopes Where existing or excavated grades are steeper than 4H:1V, we recommend placing fill from low to high elevations on horizontal benches cut into the native soils so that successive lifts are spread and compacted on level surfaces, and a potential failure surface is not created along the fill’s lower boundary. Depending on fill requirements, the contractor can construct benches by cutting into existing grades while placing fill (the composition of the exposed soils thus being in compliance with fill specifications), or by cutting the benches in advance of filling (to prevent mixing with soils not in compliance with fill specifications). The height of a given bench may vary but the width should consistently be great enough to accommodate large, self-propelled compaction equipment. C.2.e. Excavation Dewatering Groundwater is anticipated to be below typical excavation depths at this site, although perched water could be present. The contractor should immediately remove any collected water within the excavations to facilitate construction and proper backfilling. C.2.f. Selecting Excavation Backfill and Additional Required Fill On-site soils free of organic soil and debris can be considered for reuse as backfill and fill. However, the topsoil and the higher organic content slopewash soils should not be re-used as engineered fill under house pads or below streets. Observations could be performed during the site grading to further evaluate the suitability of the less organic slopewash for use as engineered fill. Unless a drainage composite is placed against the backs of the exterior perimeter basement walls, we recommend that backfill be placed within 2 horizontal feet of those walls consist of sand having less than 50 percent of the particles, by weight, passing a #40 sieve and less than 10 percent of the particles, by weight, passing a #200 sieve. Sand meeting this gradation may be able to be found on site. We recommend that the balance of the backfill placed against exterior perimeter walls also consist of sand; although it is our opinion that the sand may contain up to 20 percent of the particles, by weight, passing a #200 sieve. C.2.g. Pavement and Exterior Slab Subgrade Preparation We recommend the following steps for pavement and exterior slab subgrade preparation. Note that project planning may need to require additional subcuts to limit frost heave. 1. Strip unsuitable soils consisting of topsoil, organic soils, slopewash, vegetation, existing structures and pavements from the area, within 3 feet of the surface of the proposed pavement grade. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 13 2. Have a geotechnical representative observe the excavated subgrade to evaluate if additional subgrade improvements are necessary. 3. Slope subgrade soils to areas of sand or drain tile to allow the removal of accumulating water. 4. Scarify, moisture condition and surface compact the subgrade with at least 3 passes by a large roller with a minimum drum diameter of 3 1/2 feet. 5. Place pavement fill to grade and compact in accordance with Section C.2.i to bottom of pavement and exterior slab section. 6. Proofroll the pavement or exterior slab subgrade as described in Section C.2.h. C.2.h. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll After preparing the subgrade as described above and prior to the placement of the aggregate base, we recommend proofrolling the subgrade soils with a fully loaded tandem-axle truck. In areas of clean sands it will likely be necessary to proofroll the subgrade soils by observing the behavior of the subgrade when subjected to a large (minimum diameter of 3 1/2 feet), smooth-drum compactor. We also recommend having a geotechnical representative observe the proofroll. Areas that fail the proofroll likely indicate soft or weak areas that will require additional soil correction work to support pavements or slabs. The contractor should correct areas that display excessive yielding or rutting during the proofroll, as determined by the geotechnical representative. Possible options for subgrade correction include moisture conditioning and re-compaction, subcutting and replacement with soil or crushed aggregate, chemical stabilization and/or geotextiles. We recommend performing a second proofroll after the aggregate base material is in place, and prior to placing bituminous or concrete pavement/slabs. C.2.i. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction Requirements Table 3 that follows contains our recommendations for engineered fill materials. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 14 Table 3. Engineered Fill Materials Locations To Be Used Engineered Fill Classification Possible Soil Type Descriptions* Gradation Additional Requirements Below foundations Below interior slabs Structural fill SP, SP-SM, SM 100% passing 2-inch sieve < 2% Organic Content (OC) Plasticity Index (PI) < 15% Drainage layer Non-frost- susceptible Free-draining Non-frost- susceptible fill GP, GW, SP, SW 100% passing 1-inch sieve < 50% passing #40 sieve < 10% passing #200 sieve < 2% OC Behind below-grade walls, beyond drainage layer Retained fill SP, SW, SP-SM, SW-SM, SM 100% passing 3-inch sieve < 20% passing #200 sieve < 2% OC PI< 4% Pavements Pavement fill SP, SP-SM, SM 100% passing 3-inch sieve < 2% OC PI < 15% Below landscaped surfaces, where subsidence is not a concern Non-structural fill SP, SP-SM, SM 100% passing 6-inch sieve < 10% OC * More select soils comprised of coarse sands with < 5% passing #200 sieve may be needed to accommodate work occurring in periods of wet or freezing weather. Based on the sloping terrain, it is likely that some of the house pads will require more than 10 feet of compacted fill. At these lots where deep fills are needed, clean sand fill (less than 12 percent passing the number 200 sieve) should be used to construct these house pads. We recommend spreading fill in loose lifts of approximately 8 inches thick. We recommend compacting fill in accordance with the criteria presented below in Table 4. The project documents should specify relative compaction of fill, based on the structure located above the fill, and vertical proximity to that structure. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 15 Table 4. Compaction Recommendations Summary Reference Relative Compaction, percent (ASTM D698 – Standard Proctor) Moisture Content Variance from Optimum, percentage points Below foundations, less than 10 feet of fill 95 -1 to +3 for clay soils ±3 for sandy soils Below foundations, greater than 10 feet of fill 98 -1 to +2 for clay soils ±3 for sandy soils Below slabs 95 -1 to +3 for clay soils ±3 for sandy soils Below pavements, within 3 feet of top of subgrade elevations 100 -2 to +1 for clay soils ±3 for sandy soils Below pavements, more than 3 feet below subgrade elevations 95 -1 to +3 for clay soils ±3 for sandy soils Below landscaped surfaces 90 -1 to +5 for clay soils ±6 for sandy soils The project documents should not allow the contractor to use frozen material as fill or to place fill on frozen material. Frost should not penetrate under foundations during construction. We recommend performing density tests in fill to evaluate if the contractors are effectively compacting the soil and meeting project requirements. Refer to Section C.3.d below for additional remarks for thicker layers of fill soils. C.3. Spread Footings C.3.a. Embedment Depth For frost protection, we recommend embedding perimeter footings of the proposed houses, including attached garages, a minimum of 42 inches below the lowest exterior grade. Interior footings may be placed directly below floor slabs unless they will be subjected to freezing. We recommend embedding building footings not heated during winter construction, and other unheated footings associated with decks, porches, stoops or sidewalks 60 inches below the lowest exterior grade. C.3.b. Subgrade Improvement If a small amount of groundwater is present within the footing excavation, or if the footing subgrade soils become disturbed prior to placing forms or reinforcement, we recommend subcutting any soft or wet soil and placing a 6- to 12-inch layer of clear rock. The clear rock will provide a stable working surface, and will allow for the flow of water to a drain tile or sump pump. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 16 C.3.c. Net Allowable Bearing Pressure We recommend sizing spread footings to exert a net allowable bearing pressure of up to 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). This value includes a safety factor of at least 3.0 with regard to bearing capacity failure. C.3.d. Settlement We estimate that total and differential settlements among the footings will amount to less than 1 and 1/2 inch, respectively, under the assumed loads. If there are areas where more than 10 feet of fill is required, higher settlements could occur, unless the deeper fill areas are only filled with poorly graded sand (SP) or poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) fill. C.4. Below-Grade Walls The following sections address soil parameters for basement wall design. Although construction of retaining walls has not been specified for this project to date, the following recommendations can also be used for preliminary retaining wall design. We recommend that additional soil borings be completed for final retaining wall design. C.4.a. Drainage Control We recommend installing drain tile to remove water behind the below-grade walls at the location shown in Figure 3. The below-grade wall drainage system should also incorporate free-draining, engineered fill or a drainage board placed against the wall and connected to the drain tile. Even with the use of free-draining, engineered fill, we recommend general waterproofing of below-grade walls that surround occupied or potentially occupied areas because of the potential cost impacts related to seepage after construction is complete. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 17 Figure 3. Generalized Illustration of Wall Engineered Fill The materials listed in the sketch should meet the definitions in Section C.4.b. Low-permeability material is capable of directing water away from the wall, like clay, topsoil or pavement. The project documents should indicate if the contractor should brace the walls prior to filling, and the allowable unbalanced fill heights. As shown in Figure 2, we recommend Zone 2 consist of retained, engineered fill, and this material will control lateral pressures on the wall. However, we are also providing design parameters for using other engineered fill material. If final design uses non-sand material for engineered fill, project planning should account for the following items: Other engineered fill material may result in higher lateral pressure on the wall. Other engineered fill material may be more difficult to compact. 1. 2-foot wide area of Free- Draining Engineered Fill or Drainage Board 2. Retained Engineered Fill 3. 1 foot of Low-Permeability Soil or Pavement Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 18 Post-construction consolidation of other engineered fill material may result in settlement- related damage to the structures or slabs supported on the engineered fill. Post-construction settlement of other engineered fill material may also cause drainage towards the structure. The magnitude of consolidation could be up to about 3 percent of the wall fill thickness. C.4.b. Selection, Placement and Compaction of Backfill Unless a drainage composite is placed against the backs of the exterior perimeter basement walls, we recommend that backfill placed within 2 horizontal feet of those walls consist of sand having less than 50 percent of the particles, by weight, passing a #40 sieve and less than 10 percent of the particles, by weight, passing a #200 sieve. Sand meeting this gradation could be found on site. We recommend that the balance of the backfill placed against exterior perimeter walls also consist of sand, though it is our opinion that the sand may contain up to 20 percent of the particles, by weight, passing a #200 sieve. If clay must be considered for use to make up the balance of the below-grade wall backfill (assuming a drainage composite or sand is placed against the backs of the walls), post-compaction consolidation of the clay occurring under its own weight can be expected to continue beyond the end of construction. The magnitude of consolidation could amount to between 1 and 3 percent of the backfill thickness, or wall height, and if not accommodated, could cause slabs or pavements to settle unfavorably or be damaged. Should clay still be considered for use as backfill, however, we further recommend that: The bottoms of the excavations required for basement wall construction are wide enough to accommodate compaction equipment. Backfill is placed at moisture contents at least equal to, but not more than, 3 percentage points above its optimum moisture content. Backfill is placed in loose lifts no thicker than 6 inches prior to compaction. The relative compaction of the backfill is measured through density testing at intervals not exceeding 1 test per 50 horizontal feet for each 2 vertical feet of backfill placed. We recommend using a walk-behind compactor to compact the backfill placed within about 5 feet of the basement walls. Further away than that, a self-propelled compactor can be used. Compaction criteria for basement walls should be determined based on the compaction recommendations provided above in Section C.2. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 19 Exterior backfill not capped with slabs or pavement should be capped with a low-permeability soil to limit the infiltration of surface drainage into the backfill. The finished surface should also be sloped to divert water away from the walls. C.4.c. Configuring and Resisting Lateral Loads Below-grade wall design can use active earth pressure conditions, if the walls can rotate slightly. If the wall design cannot tolerate rotation, then design should use at-rest earth pressure conditions. Rotation up to 0.002 times the wall height is generally required for walls supporting sand. Rotation up to 0.02 times the wall height is required when wall supports clay. Table 5 presents our recommended lateral coefficients and equivalent fluid pressures for wall design of active, at-rest and passive earth pressure conditions. The table also provides recommended wet unit weights and internal friction angles. Designs should also consider the slope of any engineered fill and dead or live loads placed behind the walls within a horizontal distance that is equal to the height of the walls. Our recommended values assume the wall design provides drainage so water cannot accumulate behind the walls. The construction documents should clearly identify what soils the contractor should use for engineered fill of walls. Table 5. Recommended Below-Grade Wall Design Parameters – Drained Conditions Retained Soil Wet Unit Weight (pcf) Friction Angle (degrees) Equivalent Active Fluid Pressure* (pcf) Equivalent At-Rest Fluid Pressure* (pcf) Equivalent Passive Fluid Pressure* (pcf) Sand (SP, SP-SM) 120 33 35 55 400 Silty Sand (SM) 125 30 42 62 360 Clay (CL) 120 26 47 70 300 * Based on Rankine model for soils in a region behind the wall extending at least 2 horizontal feet beyond the bottom outer edges of the wall footings and then rising up and away from the wall at an angle no steeper than 60 degrees from horizontal. Sliding resistance between the bottom of the footing and the soil can also resist lateral pressures. We recommend assuming a sliding coefficient equal to 0.30 between the concrete and sand soil. The values presented in this section are un-factored. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 20 C.5. Interior Slabs C.5.a. Moisture Vapor Protection Excess transmission of water vapor could cause floor dampness, certain types of floor bonding agents to separate, or mold to form under floor coverings. If project planning includes using floor coverings or coatings, we recommend placing a vapor retarder or vapor barrier immediately beneath the slab. We also recommend consulting with floor covering manufacturers regarding the appropriate type, use and installation of the vapor retarder or barrier to preserve warranty assurances. C.5.b. Radon In preparation for radon mitigation systems, we recommend that slabs on grade be constructed over a layer of gas permeable material consisting of a minimum of 4 inches of either clean aggregate material or coarse sand. The aggregate material should consist of rock no larger than 2 inches and no smaller than 1/4 inch. Sand should have less than 50 percent of the particles by weight passing a #40 sieve and less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing a #200 sieve. Above the gas permeable aggregate or sand, a polyethylene sheeting (6-mil minimum) should be placed. The sheeting should be properly lapped and penetrations through the sheeting sealed. Penetrations through the slab and foundation walls should also be sealed. C.6. Frost Protection C.6.a. General Sandy soils will likely underlie all of the exterior slabs, as well as pavements. Most of these soils are considered to be non-frost susceptible. However, any fine-grained silty sand soils are considered low to moderately frost susceptible, and can retain moisture and heave upon freezing. In general, this characteristic is not an issue unless these soils become saturated, due to surface runoff or infiltration, or are excessively wet in situ. Once frozen, unfavorable amounts of general and isolated heaving of the soils and the surface structures supported on them could develop. This type of heaving could affect design drainage patterns and the performance of exterior slabs and pavements, as well as any isolated exterior footings and piers. Note that general runoff and infiltration from precipitation are not the only sources of water that can saturate subgrade soils and contribute to frost heave. Roof drainage and irrigation of landscaped areas in close proximity to exterior slabs, pavements, and isolated footings and piers, contribute as well. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 21 C.6.b. Frost Heave Mitigation To address most of the heave related issues, we recommend setting general site grades and grades for exterior surface features to direct surface drainage away from buildings, across large paved areas and away from walkways. Such grading will limit the potential for saturation of the subgrade and subsequent heaving. General grades should also have enough “slope” to tolerate potential larger areas of heave, which may not fully settle after thawing. Even small amounts of frost-related differential movement at walkway joints or cracks can create tripping hazards. Project planning can explore several subgrade improvement options to address this condition. One of the more conservative subgrade improvement options to mitigate potential heave is removing any frost-susceptible soils present below the exterior slab areas down to a minimum depth of 4 feet below subgrade elevations. We recommend filling the resulting excavation with non-frost-susceptible fill. We also recommend sloping the bottom of the excavation toward one or more collection points to remove any water entering the engineered fill. This approach will not be effective in controlling frost heave without removing the water. An important geometric aspect of the excavation and replacement approach described above is sloping the banks of the excavations to create a more gradual transition between the unexcavated soils considered frost susceptible and the engineered fill in the excavated area, which is not frost susceptible. The slope allows attenuation of differential movement that may occur along the excavation boundary. We recommend slopes that are 3H:1V, or flatter, along transitions between frost-susceptible and non- frost-susceptible soils. Figure 4 that follows shows an illustration summarizing some of the recommendations. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 22 Figure 4. Frost Protection Geometry Illustration Another option is to limit frost heave in critical areas, such as doorways and entrances, via frost-depth footings or localized excavations with sloped transitions between frost-susceptible and non-frost- susceptible soils, as described above. Over the life of slabs and pavements, cracks will develop and joints will open up, which will expose the subgrade and allow water to enter from the surface and either saturate or perch atop the subgrade soils. This water intrusion increases the potential for frost heave or moisture-related distress near the crack or joint. Therefore, we recommend implementing a detailed maintenance program to seal and/or fill any cracks and joints. The maintenance program should give special attention to areas where dissimilar materials abut one another, where construction joints occur and where shrinkage cracks develop. C.7. Pavements and Exterior Slabs C.7.a. Design Sections Our scope of services for this project did not include laboratory tests on subgrade soils to determine an R-value for pavement design. Since most of the soils on this site consist of poorly graded sand with silt to silty sand, we recommend that the pavements be designed for an assumed R-value of 50. Note the contractor may need to perform some removal of unsuitable or less suitable soils to achieve this value. We assumed that pavements for the residential development will be subject to a maximum of 50,000 ESALs over a 20-year design life. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 23 We assume the pavements will be designed in accordance with the City of Eden Prairie standard pavement section. C.7.b. Bituminous Pavement Materials Appropriate mix designs are critical to the performance of flexible pavements. We can provide recommendations for pavement material selection during final pavement design. C.7.c. Subgrade Drainage We recommend installing perforated drainpipes throughout pavement areas at low points, around catch basins, and behind curb in landscaped areas. We also recommend installing drainpipes along pavement and exterior slab edges where exterior grades promote drainage toward those edge areas. The contractor should place drainpipes in small trenches, extended at least 8 inches below the aggregate base material. C.7.d. Performance and Maintenance We based the above pavement designs on a 20-year performance life for bituminous. This is the amount of time before we anticipate the pavement will require reconstruction. This performance life assumes routine maintenance, such as seal coating and crack sealing. The actual pavement life will vary depending on variations in weather, traffic conditions and maintenance. It is common to place the non-wear course of bituminous and then delay placement of the wear course. For this situation, we recommend evaluating if the reduced pavement section will have sufficient structure to support construction traffic. Many conditions affect the overall performance of the exterior slabs and pavements. Some of these conditions include the environment, loading conditions and the level of ongoing maintenance. With regard to bituminous pavements in particular, it is common to have thermal cracking develop within the first few years of placement, and continue throughout the life of the pavement. We recommend developing a regular maintenance plan for filling cracks in exterior slabs and pavements to lessen the potential impacts for cold weather distress due to frost heave or warm weather distress due to wetting and softening of the subgrade. C.8. Utilities C.8.a. Subgrade Stabilization Earthwork activities associated with utility installations located inside building pad areas should adhere to the recommendations in Section C.2. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 24 For exterior utilities, we anticipate the soils at typical invert elevations will be suitable for utility support. However, if construction encounters unfavorable conditions such as soft clay, organic soils or perched water at invert grades, the unsuitable soils may require some additional subcutting and replacement with sand or crushed rock to prepare a proper subgrade for pipe support. Project design and construction should not place utilities within the 1H:1V oversizing of foundations. C.8.b. Selection, Placement, and Compaction of Backfill We recommend selecting, placing, and compacting utility backfill in accordance with the recommendations provided above in Section C.2.i. C.8.c. Corrosion Potential Based on our experience, the sandy soils encountered by the borings have a low corrosive potential to metallic conduits. We recommend specifying non-corrosive materials or providing corrosion protection, unless project planning chooses to perform additional tests to demonstrate the soils are not corrosive. C.9. Stormwater Based on laboratory tests run on selected samples from the borings we estimated infiltration rates for the soils we encountered, as listed in Table 6. These estimated infiltration rates represent the long-term infiltration capacity of a practice and not the capacity of the soils in their natural state. Field testing, such as with a double-ring infiltrometer (ASTM D3385), may justify the use of higher infiltration rates. However, we recommend adjusting field test rates by the appropriate correction factor, as provided for in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual or as allowed by the local watershed. We recommend consulting the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for stormwater design. Table 6. Estimated Design Infiltration Rates Based on Soil Classification Soil Type Infiltration Rate * (inches/hour) Sands with less than 12% fines, poorly graded or well graded sands 0.8 Silty sands, silty gravelly sands 0.45 *From Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Rates may differ at individual sites. Fine-grained soils (clays and silts), topsoil, or organic matter that mixes into or washes onto the soil will lower the permeability. The contractor should maintain and protect infiltration areas during construction. Furthermore, organic matter and silt washed into the system after construction can fill the soil pores and reduce permeability over time. Proper maintenance is important for long-term performance of infiltration systems. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 25 This geotechnical evaluation does not constitute a review of site suitability for stormwater infiltration or evaluate the potential impacts, if any, from infiltration of large amounts of stormwater. D. Procedures D.1. Penetration Test Borings We drilled the penetration test borings on September 19, 2019 and January 30, 2020, with an off-road- mounted core and auger drill equipped with hollow-stem auger. We performed the borings in general accordance with ASTM D6151 taking penetration test samples at 2 1/2- or 5-foot intervals in general accordance to ASTM D1586. The boring logs show the actual sample intervals and corresponding depths. D.2. Exploration Logs D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets The Appendix includes Log of Boring sheets for our penetration test borings. The logs identify and describe the penetrated geologic materials, and present the results of penetration resistance and other in-situ tests performed. The logs also present the results of laboratory tests performed on penetration test samples, and groundwater measurements. We inferred strata boundaries from changes in the penetration test samples and the auger cuttings. Because we did not perform continuous sampling, the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions. D.2.b. Geologic Origins We assigned geologic origins to the materials shown on the logs and referenced within this report, based on: (1) a review of the background information and reference documents cited above, (2) visual classification of the various geologic material samples retrieved during the course of our subsurface exploration, (3) penetration resistance and other in-situ testing performed for the project, (4) laboratory test results, and (5) available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the site and surrounding area in the past. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 26 D.3. Material Classification and Testing D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification We visually and manually classified the geologic materials encountered based on ASTM D2488. When we performed laboratory classification tests, we used the results to classify the geologic materials in accordance with ASTM D2487. The Appendix includes a chart explaining the classification system we used. D.3.b. Laboratory Testing The exploration logs in the Appendix note the results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples. We performed the tests in general accordance with ASTM procedures. D.4. Groundwater Measurements The drillers checked for groundwater while advancing the penetration test borings, and again after auger withdrawal. We then immediately filled the boreholes. E. Qualifications E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions E.1.a. Material Strata We developed our evaluation, analyses and recommendations from a limited amount of site and subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from exploration locations continuously with depth. Therefore, we must infer strata boundaries and thicknesses to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and project planning should expect the strata to vary in depth, elevation and thickness, away from the exploration locations. Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until performing additional exploration work, or starting construction. If future activity for this project reveals any such variations, you should notify us so that we may reevaluate our recommendations. Such variations could increase construction costs, and we recommend including a contingency to accommodate them. Gonyea Homes and Remodeling Project B1909967.00 March 5, 2020 Page 27 E.1.b. Groundwater Levels We made groundwater measurements under the conditions reported herein and shown on the exploration logs, and interpreted in the text of this report. Note that the observation periods were relatively short, and project planning can expect groundwater levels to fluctuate in response to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal and annual factors. E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility E.2.a. Plan Review We based this report on a limited amount of information, and we made a number of assumptions to help us develop our recommendations. Braun Intertec should be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the designs and specifications. This review will allow us to evaluate whether we anticipated the design correctly, if any design changes affect the validity of our recommendations, and if the design and specifications correctly interpret and implement our recommendations. Braun Intertec should also be retained to complete the soil observations and testing as the site is being graded. E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing We recommend retaining us to perform the required observations and testing during construction as part of the ongoing geotechnical evaluation. This will allow us to correlate the subsurface conditions exposed during construction with those encountered by the borings and provide professional continuity from the design phase to the construction phase. If we do not perform observations and testing during construction, it becomes the responsibility of others to validate the assumption made during the preparation of this report and to accept the construction-related geotechnical engineer-of-record responsibilities. E.3. Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. Without written approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects. E.4. Standard of Care In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Appendix Elev./ Depth ft 813.2 0.5 806.7 7.0 794.7 19.0 792.7 21.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, black, moist (TOPSOIL) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, loose to medium dense (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, light gray, moist, medium dense (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 1-2-3 (5) 12" 3-4-4 (8) 18" 5-5-5 (10) 18" 4-4-5 (9) 18" 6-6-8 (14) 18" 6-7-7 (14) 18" 4-6-13 (19) 20" qₚtsf MC % 13 5 Tests or Remarks P200=4% Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967 Geotechnical EvaluationStandall PropertySpring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-1LOCATION: Offset 20 feet southwest. See attached sketch. NORTHING:112315 EASTING:475812 DRILLER:J. Tatro LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:09/19/19 END DATE:09/19/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:813.7 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Weeds on Slope WEATHER:Sunny B1909967 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-1 page 1 of 1 Elev./ Depth ft 858.1 0.5 855.6 3.0 851.6 7.0 844.6 14.0 829.6 29.0 819.6 39.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, dark brown, moist (TOPSOIL) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to coarse-grained Sand, with Gravel, brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to coarse- grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Silty Sand, light brown to brown, moist, loose to very loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), medium to coarse-grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Poorly Graded Sand, light brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Poorly Graded Sand, light brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), Continued on next page 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 3-2-3 (5) 14" 3-3-3 (6) 11" 3-3-3 (6) 14" 2-3-2 (5) 18" 3-2-2 (4) 12" 3-3-3 (6) 10" 2-3-4 (7) 17" 3-3-3 (6) 18" 4-4-5 (9) 16" 4-2-3 (5) 13" qₚtsf MC % 6 2 Tests or Remarks See attached Gradation P200=3% LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967 Geotechnical EvaluationStandall PropertySpring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-2LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:111835 EASTING:475523 DRILLER:J. Tatro LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:09/19/19 END DATE:09/19/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:858.6 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Field at Top of hill WEATHER:Sunny B1909967 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-2 page 1 of 2 Elev./ Depth ft 809.6 49.0 807.6 51.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Poorly Graded Sand, light brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, trace Silty Sand, light gray, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 4-5-5 (10) 12" 6-5-5 (10) 14" 4-4-5 (9) 14" qₚtsf MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967 Geotechnical EvaluationStandall PropertySpring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-2LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:111835 EASTING:475523 DRILLER:J. Tatro LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:09/19/19 END DATE:09/19/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:858.6 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Field at Top of hill WEATHER:Sunny B1909967 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-2 page 2 of 2 Elev./ Depth ft 813.6 0.5 802.1 12.0 795.1 19.0 785.1 29.0 778.1 36.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, dark brown, moist (TOPSOIL) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, brown, moist, very loose to loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to coarse-grained Sand, with Gravel, contains seams of Silty Sand, brown, moist, loose to medium dense (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, medium dense (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, medium dense (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 2-2-2 (4) 18" 2-3-4 (7) 18" 2-3-2 (5) 18" 3-3-3 (6) 16" 5-5-5 (10) 8" 5-6-7 (13) 6" 6-12-13 (25) 10" 4-9-10 (19) 18" 5-10-14 (24) 18" 9-11-13 (24) 16" qₚtsf MC % 13 6 Tests or Remarks See attached Gradation P200=5% Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967 Geotechnical EvaluationStandall PropertySpring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-3LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:111462 EASTING:475474 DRILLER:J. Tatro LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:09/19/19 END DATE:09/19/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:814.1 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Weeds on slope WEATHER:Sunny B1909967 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-3 page 1 of 1 Elev./ Depth ft 761.8 2.0 756.8 7.0 754.8 9.0 751.8 12.0 744.8 19.0 737.8 26.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, black, moist (TOPSOIL) CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, organic, dark brown, moist (SLOPEWASH) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, with Clayey Sand, slightly organic, dark brown, moist (SLOPEWASH) CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, slightly organic, brown and dark brown, moist (SLOPEWASH) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Silt, contains seams of Clayey Sand, brown to grayish brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to coarse-grained Sand, trace to with Gravel, brown, wet, loose to medium dense (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 2-4-3 (7) 13" 2-2-2 (4) 18" 2-3-4 (7) 18" 3-3-6 (9) 18" 4-6-4 (10) 15" 4-3-4 (7) 18" 2-3-3 (6) 18" 3-7-6 (13) 18" qₚtsf MC % 17 19 12 Tests or Remarks OC=7% OC=2% P200=15% Water observed at 19.5 feet while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967 Geotechnical EvaluationStandall PropertySpring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-4LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:111467 EASTING:475112 DRILLER:J. Tatro LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:09/19/19 END DATE:09/19/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:763.8 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Partly cloudy B1909967 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-4 page 1 of 1 Elev./ Depth ft 805.7 2.0 798.7 9.0 793.7 14.0 776.7 31.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, black to dark brown, frozen (moist when thawed) (TOPSOIL) CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, light brown, moist, loose to medium dense (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 3-4-4 (8) 14" 2-3-4 (7) 14" 4-7-7 (14) 14" 6-7-6 (13) 14" 3-4-5 (9) 16" 5-6-7 (13) 16" qₚtsf MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 9.0 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967.00 Geotechnical EvaluationThe Overlook9875 Spring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-5LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:01/30/20 END DATE:01/30/20 SURFACE ELEVATION:807.7 ft RIG:8505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Snow/Dirt WEATHER:30° & Overcast B1909967.00 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-5 page 1 of 1 Elev./ Depth ft 818.5 2.0 796.5 24.0 791.5 29.0 789.5 31.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained Sand, trace roots, dark brown, frozen (moist when thawed) (TOPSOIL) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, light brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained Sand, light brown, moist, medium dense (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, light brown, moist, medium dense (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 2-2-3 (5) 12" 2-3-3 (6) 14" 4-5-4 (9) 12" 4-4-5 (9) 14" 4-5-6 (11) 14" 9-10-13 (23) 16" qₚtsf MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 20.0 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967.00 Geotechnical EvaluationThe Overlook9875 Spring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-6LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:01/30/20 END DATE:01/30/20 SURFACE ELEVATION:820.5 ft RIG:8505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Snow/Dirt WEATHER:30° & Overcast B1909967.00 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-6 page 1 of 1 Elev./ Depth ft 846.8 2.0 834.8 14.0 827.8 21.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, black, frozen (moist when thawed) (TOPSOIL) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, very loose to loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, loose to medium dense (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 1-2-2 (4) 12" 2-2-4 (6) 14" 3-3-3 (6) 12" 3-5-6 (11) 14" qₚtsf MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 14.0 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967.00 Geotechnical EvaluationThe Overlook9875 Spring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-7LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:01/30/20 END DATE:01/30/20 SURFACE ELEVATION:848.8 ft RIG:8505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Snow/Dirt WEATHER:30° & Overcast B1909967.00 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-7 page 1 of 1 Elev./ Depth ft 863.8 1.7 846.5 19.0 829.5 36.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, black, frozen (moist when thawed) (TOPSOIL) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained Sand, light brown, moist, loose to medium dense (ALLUVIUM) Trace Gravel at 25 feet END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 3-3-4 (7) 12" 3-4-3 (7) 12" 3-5-5 (10) 12" 4-4-4 (8) 12" 3-3-3 (6) 14" 3-5-9 (14) 14" 6-6-7 (13) 16" qₚtsf MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967.00 Geotechnical EvaluationThe Overlook9875 Spring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-8LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:01/30/20 END DATE:01/30/20 SURFACE ELEVATION:865.5 ft RIG:8505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Snow/Dirt WEATHER:30° & Overcast B1909967.00 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-8 page 1 of 1 Elev./ Depth ft 834.6 2.0 827.6 9.0 822.6 14.0 810.6 26.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, black, frozen (moist when thawed) (TOPSOIL) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained Sand, with Gravel, contains seams of Sandy Silt, brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, light brown, moist, loose to medium dense (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 2-3-2 (5) 10" 3-3-3 (6) 12" 3-4-4 (8) 14" 4-6-6 (12) 14" 7-8-8 (16) 16" qₚtsf MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 14.0 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967.00 Geotechnical EvaluationThe Overlook9875 Spring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-9LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:01/30/20 END DATE:01/30/20 SURFACE ELEVATION:836.6 ft RIG:8505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Snow/Dirt WEATHER:30° & Overcast B1909967.00 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-9 page 1 of 1 Elev./ Depth ft 838.0 1.3 828.3 11.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, dark brown, frozen (moist when thawed) (TOPSOIL) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose to medium dense (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 3-4-5 (9) 10" 4-5-6 (11) 10" qₚtsf MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 8.0 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967.00 Geotechnical EvaluationThe Overlook9875 Spring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-10LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:01/30/20 END DATE:01/30/20 SURFACE ELEVATION:839.3 ft RIG:8505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Snow/Dirt WEATHER:30° & Overcast B1909967.00 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-10 page 1 of 1 Elev./ Depth ft 788.7 2.0 783.7 7.0 781.7 9.0 771.7 19.0 761.7 29.0 759.7 31.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace roots, dark brown, frozen (moist when thawed) (TOPSOIL) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, dark brown and brown, moist (SLOPEWASH) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains seams of Silty Sand, brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, light brown, moist, loose (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace to with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, grayish brown, moist, medium dense (ALLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 2-1-2 (3) 12" 2-2-3 (5) 14" 2-4-4 (8) 12" 3-4-4 (8) 12" 3-3-3 (6) 14" 2-3-3 (6) 14" 4-4-6 (10) 12" 5-6-7 (13) 14" 7-8-10 (18) 12" 8-10-8 (18) 10" 7-10-11 (21) 14" 8-10-11 (21) 14" qₚtsf MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 18.0 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1909967.00 Geotechnical EvaluationThe Overlook9875 Spring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota BORING:ST-11LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:111927 EASTING:475171 DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:J. Carlson START DATE:01/30/20 END DATE:01/30/20 SURFACE ELEVATION:790.7 ft RIG:8505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Snow/Dirt WEATHER:30° & Overcast B1909967.00 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-11 page 1 of 1 Descriptive Terminology of Soil Based on Standards ASTM D2487/2488 (Unified Soil Classification System) Group Symbol Group NameB Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D GW Well-graded gravelE Cu < 4 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D GP Poorly graded gravelE Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelE F G Fines Classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelE F G Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D SW Well-graded sandI Cu < 6 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D SP Poorly graded sandI Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandF G I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandF G I CL Lean clayK L M PI < 4 or plots below "A" lineJ ML SiltK L M Organic OL CH Fat clayK L M MH Elastic siltK L M Organic OH PT Peat Highly Organic Soils Silts and Clays (Liquid limit less than 50) Silts and Clays (Liquid limit 50 or more) Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor Inorganic Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" lineJ PI plots on or above "A" line PI plots below "A" line Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification Coarse-grained Soils (more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve)Fine-grained Soils (50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve) Sands (50% or more coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve) Clean Gravels (Less than 5% finesC) Gravels with Fines (More than 12% finesC) Clean Sands (Less than 5% finesH) Sands with Fines (More than 12% finesH) Gravels (More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve) Liquid Limit −oven dried LiquidLimit −notdried <0.75 Organic clayKLMN Organic siltKLMO Liquid Limit −ovendried Liquid Limit −notdried <0.75 Organicclay KLMP Organic siltKLMQ Particle Size Identification Boulders.............. over 12" Cobbles................ 3" to 12"Gravel Coarse............. 3/4" to 3" (19.00 mm to 75.00 mm)Fine................. No. 4 to 3/4" (4.75 mm to 19.00 mm)Sand Coarse.............. No. 10 to No. 4 (2.00 mm to 4.75 mm)Medium........... No. 40 to No. 10 (0.425 mm to 2.00 mm) Fine.................. No. 200 to No. 40 (0.075 mm to 0.425 mm) Silt........................ No. 200 (0.075 mm) to .005 mmClay...................... < .005 mm Relative ProportionsL, M trace............................. 0 to 5% little.............................. 6 to 14%with.............................. ≥ 15% Inclusion Thicknesseslens............................... 0 to 1/8" seam............................. 1/8" to 1"layer.............................. over 1" Apparent Relative Density of Cohesionless SoilsVery loose ..................... 0 to 4 BPF Loose ............................ 5 to 10 BPFMedium dense.............. 11 to 30 BPF Dense............................ 31 to 50 BPF Very dense.................... over 50 BPF A.Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve. B.If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name.C. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with siltGW-GC well-graded gravel with clayGP-GM poorly graded gravel with siltGP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay D.Cu= D60 / D10 Cc= 𝐷30 2 / (𝐷10 𝑥𝐷60) E.If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. F.If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM.G. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. H. Sands with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with claySP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clayI.If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. J. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is CL-ML, silty clay. K.If soil contains 15 to < 30% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel", whichever is predominant. L. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.M. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name. N. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.O. PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.P. PI plots on or above “A” line.Q.PI plots below “A” line. Laboratory Tests DD Dry density,pcf OC Organic content, %LL Liquid limit WD Wet density, pcf qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf PL Plastic limit P200 % Passing #200 sieve MC Moisture content, %PI Plasticity index qU Unconfined compression test, tsf Consistency of Blows Approximate Unconfined Cohesive Soils Per Foot Compressive Strength Very soft................... 0 to 1 BPF................... < 0.25 tsfSoft........................... 2 to 4 BPF................... 0.25 to 0.5 tsf Medium.................... 5 to 8 BPF .................. 0.5 to 1 tsf Stiff........................... 9 to 15 BPF................. 1 to 2 tsfVery Stiff................... 16 to 30 BPF............... 2 to 4 tsf Hard.......................... over 30 BPF................ > 4 tsf Drilling Notes: Blows/N-value: Blows indicate the driving resistance recorded for each 6-inch interval. The reported N-value is the blows per foot recorded by summing the second and third interval in accordance with the Standard Penetration Test, ASTM D1586. Partial Penetration:If the sampler could not be driven through a full 6-inch interval, the number of blows for that partial penetration is shown as #/x" (i.e. 50/2"). The N-value is reported as "REF" indicating refusal. Recovery: Indicates the inches of sample recovered from the sampled interval. For a standard penetration test, full recovery is 18", and is 24" for a thinwall/shelby tube sample. WOH: Indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone; driving not required. WOR: Indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods alone; hammer weight and driving not required. Water Level: Indicates the water level measured by the drillers either while drilling ( ), at the end of drilling ( ), or at some time after drilling ( ). Moisture Content: Dry:Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch. Moist: Damp but no visible water. Wet: Visible free water, usually soil is below water table. 3/2019 Sample Information Sample Number:273260 Boring Number:2 Depth (ft):20 Sampled By:Drill Crew Sample Date:09/30/2019 Received Date:09/30/2019 Lab:11001 Hampshire Ave S, Bloomington, MN Tested Date:09/30/2019 Tested By:Streier, Jim Laboratory Data Sieve Size Passing (%) Specification Result 4.75 mm (No. 4)100.0 2 mm (No. 10)100.0 850 µm (No. 20)99.4 425 µm (No. 40)89.8 250 µm (No. 60)49.3 150 µm (No. 100)13.1 75 µm (No. 200)3.1 Sand (%) 96.9 Silt & Clay (%) 3.1 D10 0.096 D30 0.197 D60 0.296 C 3.08 C 1.37 Classification:SP Poorly graded sand General U C Sieve Analysis Of Soil ASTM D6913 10/9/2019 11001 Hampshire Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55438 Phone: 9529952000 Client: Gonyea Homes & Remodeling 1000 Boone Avenue NorthSuite 400 Golden Valley, MN 55427 Project: B1909967 Standal Property Spring Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Page 1 of 2Page 1 of 1 Sample Information Sample Number:273262 Boring Number:3 Depth (ft):15 Sampled By:Drill Crew Sample Date:09/30/2019 Received Date:09/30/2019 Lab:11001 Hampshire Ave S, Bloomington, MN Tested Date:09/30/2019 Tested By:Streier, Jim Laboratory Data Sieve Size Passing (%) Specification Result 12.5 mm (1/2 inch)100.0 9.5 mm (3/8 inch)88.7 4.75 mm (No. 4)83.9 2 mm (No. 10)73.2 850 µm (No. 20)62.7 425 µm (No. 40)44.3 250 µm (No. 60)26.6 150 µm (No. 100)16.2 75 µm (No. 200)11.8 Gravel (%) 16.1 Sand (%) 72.1 Silt & Clay (%) 11.8 D30 0.284 D60 0.788 Classification:SPSM Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel General Sieve Analysis Of Soil ASTM D6913 10/9/2019 11001 Hampshire Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55438 Phone: 9529952000 Client: Gonyea Homes & Remodeling 1000 Boone Avenue NorthSuite 400 Golden Valley, MN 55427 Project: B1909967 Standal Property Spring Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Page 1 of 2Page 1 of 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__ RESOLUTION DENYING CITIZEN PETITION FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE PROPOSED NOBLE HILL PROJECT WHEREAS, on April 23, 2021, the City of Eden Prairie received from the Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”) a petition requesting that the City Council require an environmental assessment worksheet (“EAW”) for the proposed project known as Noble Hill, to be located at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the petition was signed by 221 individuals, more than half of which are Eden Prairie residents; and WHEREAS, the EQB has designated the City as the responsible governmental unit (“RGU”) for the Project; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a petition from the EQB, the City must review the evidence presented by the petitioners, evidence provided by the Project proposer, and other evidence otherwise known to the City and determine whether, because of the nature or location of the Project, the Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, the EQB Rule requires the City to take into account the following factors in considering the evidence: A. The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. The cumulative potential effects, including the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project; C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies 2 undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other environmental impact statements. WHEREAS, the City Council considered the petition for an EAW at its meeting on May 4, 2021. The petitioners and the Project proposer were provided the opportunity to present information and comment. The City Council considered all of the evidence and information presented as well as the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that the following Findings of Fact and Decision are hereby adopted: FINDINGS OF FACT Nature and Location of Project 1. The Project involves the construction of 50 single-family homes on 27.51 acres of land. The proposed Project has a density of 1.8 dwelling units per acre. 2. The current land use on the site includes agricultural use for a tree farm with a home, barn, shed, and dirt field paths. The property is located within the City’s Metropolitan Urban Service Area and is guided for Low Density Residential development in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Low Density Residential land use category allows a density of 5 units per acre. 3. The Project site has a significant amount of topographic relief. There is a nearly 150-foot grade change from east to west. Riley Creek runs through a portion of the west side of the Property. There are floodplains and wetlands along the creek corridor. There is also a bluff on the southwest corner of the site. There are significant wooded areas along the creek and on the bluff. In addition, the northeast corner of the property is wooded and there is a line of mature trees along the east property line. 4. Adjacent land uses to the Project site include conservation land to the south, a residential development to the east, one residential building to the west, and conservation land to the north. 5. City-owned property to the west of the Project site contains access to a natural spring known as the Fredrick-Miller Spring. The spring is designated as a local Heritage Preservation Site that carries with it local protections through City Code. Biodiversity of Project Site 6. The petition alleges that the Project site is ecologically significant and that the Project will negatively impact the biodiversity of the site, including negative impacts to migratory birds, the Rusty Patch Bumblebee, the Kitten-Tail plant, the Petala Evening Primrose, significant and heritage trees, and wildlife habitat. 3 Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects 7. The vast majority of the area identified on the Hennepin County Natural Resources Inventory Map as “DNR Sites of Biodiversity Significance” will remain undisturbed by the Project. This area is contained within Outlot D of the Project site and is proposed to be deeded to the City for preservation. These lands, when combined with the current Prairie Bluff Conservation Area, provide a natural buffer between developed areas and existing water bodies. Preserving this area of the Project site minimizes any potential effects to biodiversity. 8. The Project area is included in the Minnesota River Valley Important Bird Area (“MRVIBA”). The MRVIBA is a corridor extending a certain distance from the Minnesota River that migratory birds use as a flyway. The MRVIBA includes a wide variety of both developed and undeveloped areas. 9. Inclusion in the MRVIBA does not mean that the Project site has been surveyed and identified as an Important Bird Area. Petitioners have presented no evidence that any birds will be particularly impacted by the Project. 10. Species included on Minnesota’s List of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Species have been found in the area surrounding the Project site. The City will require a survey to be completed prior to the issuance of a Land Alteration Permit to identify any endangered, rare, and threatened species on the site, including but not limited to Kitten-Tails, Petala Evening Primrose, and the Rusty Patch Bumble Bee, and provide findings to the City. Any impacts to such species that are found within the grading limits of the Project must be mitigated. 11. The Project proposer has provided a Rare Plant Survey report prepared by Stantec dated April 27, 2021. The survey found no kitten-tails or other rare plants at the Project site within the proposed limits for tree clearing or grading or within the proposed Outlot D. 12. 445 significant trees will be removed from the Project site. Most of these trees will be removed from the northern parts of the property in an effort to save the trees on the more environmentally sensitive property on the southwest of the Project site. The developer will undertake tree replacement efforts as required by City Code, both in the form of actual replacement and payment-in-lieu of replacement that will provide funds for the City to plant trees throughout the City. Cumulative potential effects 13. There are no significant cumulative potential effects related to biodiversity. 14. Past developments surrounding the Project site have been subject to the same review process as this Project, which takes into account biodiversity concerns. 15. There are no other known proposed projects in the Project area to be considered for potential cumulative effects related to biodiversity. 4 Mitigation by ongoing regulatory authority 16. Because the majority of the portion of the Project site identified as having biodiversity significance will be deeded to the City for conservation, the City will be able to monitor and mitigate any biodiversity concerns. Other studies 17. Studies that describe how environmental effects the biodiversity of the Project site can be anticipated and controlled include the following, which have been considered by the Council and are incorporated herein by reference: Rare Plant Survey report prepared by Stantec dated April 27, 2021. Riley Creek Impairment 18. The petitioners assert that Riley Creek (the “Creek”) will become further or irreversibly impaired by the Project. They cite increased impervious area in the Creek watershed, stresses from existing developments, decreased forest cover, and landslide potential as negative impacts to the Creek. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects 19. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (“MPCA”) Lower Minnesota River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Study (February 2020) (“TMDL Study”), states that the Creek is impaired for Total Suspended Solids (“TSS”) and Escherichia Coli (“E. coli”) bacteria. Further impairments for aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments and macroinvertebrate bioassessments are a result of the TSS impairment and would be considered addressed through the TSS impairment by the MPCA. 20. The TMDL Study states that the primary cause of the TSS impairment is “likely streambank and near-channel erosion of sediment.” Much of Riley Creek has an incised channel with relatively little floodplain and sparse riparian vegetation due to the dense forest canopy cover. The lack of vegetation along the Creek, minimal floodplain, sandy native soils, and steep gradient of the creek all contribute to bank and bed erosion that facilitates sediment transport. Regarding TSS, the study further explains that, “much of the reduction will need to come from near-channel sources (e.g., streambank erosion).” 21. Over the past 10 years, the City and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (“RPBCWD”) have participated in several streambank stabilization and creek restoration projects along Riley Creek. The TSS data from the Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (“WOMP”) station managed by the Metropolitan Council and the City have shown that the TSS concentrations in the Creek have decreased as streambank stabilization and creek restoration projects have occurred in the watershed. This is despite additional residential development in the watershed. More recent projects, such as Reeder Ridge and the realignment of Eden Prairie Road, have also employed similar infiltration stormwater management best management practices (“BMPs”) to reduce runoff to the Creek and treat 5 for pollutants. The WOMP sampling has not shown increasing TSS trends in the Creek since these projects were completed. 22. The TMDL Study acknowledges that reductions in runoff volume from municipal storm sewer will result in lesser peak flows and potential for erosion in the Creek. The Project proposes to use stormwater BMPs to retain stormwater on-site for infiltration and remove stormwater pollutants including TSS. The proposed infiltration basins for the Project are sized to retain an equivalent volume of 1.1-inches multiplied by the proposed impervious surfaces. Based on the Minimal Impact Design Standards (“MIDS”) program from the MPCA, this volume will result in on-site retention of 90 percent of annual rain events. Additionally, MIDS Calculator modeling submitted in the Stormwater Management Report has shown that the annual runoff volume and TSS loading from the Project site will not exceed that of its existing condition. Lastly, RPBCWD Rules stipulate that the rate of runoff cannot increase at all discharge points on the site. These factors demonstrate that although the Project will have a net increase in impervious surface, the BMPs will reduce runoff volumes and TSS loading to the Creek and make it unlikely to contribute to the high flow conditions that lead to erosion in the Creek. 23. Based on WOMP sampling data, the E. coli levels in the Creek have been variable over time, but have recently shown a slight upward trend. E. Coli concentrations in the Creek have been linked to wildlife, congregations of waterfowl, and improper management of pet waste. The MPCA Stormwater Manual states, “Bacteria removal is assumed to be 100 percent for all water that infiltrates.” Given the Project’s runoff from 90 percent of storms will be retained within the basins for infiltration, the majority of E. coli loading from the Project’s storm sewer systems will be treated and not reach the Creek. Additionally, the MPCA Stormwater Manual identifies pet waste management ordinances and education as highly effective methods in controlling or reducing bacterial pollution. The City has a pet waste ordinance in place and is the process of expanding educational programs on this subject. The Project’s proposed basins are also designed to draw down within 48 hours, making them unlikely to become frequented by large congregations of waterfowl. 24. While landslides are a potential risk in any environment where there are sandy soils (or other susceptible soils) together with the presence of water that could saturate the soils, the City requires a geotechnical analysis for any development to provide engineered solutions for soil conditions, site grading, retaining wall construction, and drainage control for retaining walls. Based on Braun Intertec’s Geotechnical Evaluation Report for this Project, recommendations were made for various site conditions such as overall site grading, reuse of on-site soils, effects of groundwater, excavated slopes, filling on slopes, dewatering, retaining walls (drainage control; selection, placement, and compaction of backfill; and configuring and resisting lateral loads), as well as structure and pavement recommendations. In addition to these geotechnical recommendations, the City is requiring that surface drainage near retaining walls be routed away or designed to capture and direct runoff from a 100-year storm event toward storm drainage structures (which will reduce the risk of drainage overtopping the retaining walls). A drain tile system will also be installed behind the retaining walls to release any water that collects behind the walls. All retaining walls over four feet in height will require a building permit from the City’s Building Inspection Division. 6 25. Since this Project site is within a Shoreland Management Zone, City Code 11.50 requires a bluff determination, consistent with DNR regulations. A “bluff” is defined as a rise in elevation of at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level and with a grade of slope at or over 30%. A bluff was identified on the Project site, which means that any structures must be setback at least 20 feet beyond the top of the bluff. The entire bluff and bluff setback zone is located with Outlot D, which will be deeded to the City to be preserved in perpetuity. 26. The trees and native vegetation preserved within Outlot D and the wetland buffer will continue to provide protection to adjacent water resources. These buffers help filter out stormwater pollutants and prevent erosion. The natural buffers provided by the Project are in excess of those required by City Code. Additionally, the proposed stormwater BMPs will serve to provide additional treatment of stormwater on the site. Monuments will demarcate areas to be preserved as buffers to prevent them from being encroached upon. 27. Based on the combination of these facts, the Project’s environmental effect on Riley Creek is not significant and may in fact improve some conditions beyond where they exist today. Cumulative potential effects 28. There is no evidence of significant cumulative potential effects relating to impairment of Riley Creek. Despite additional residential development in the Creek watershed since the WOMP sampling began in 1999, the majority of stormwater pollutants have been stable or decreased over this time. The decrease in TSS in the Creek is likely resultant of on-going creek restoration and stabilization practices. Furthermore, the WOMP report has noted that pollutants commonly associated with fertilizer use (orthophosphates, nitrates, ammonia, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen) have decreased as land use has transitioned from agricultural to residential. Mitigation by ongoing regulatory authority 29. The permanent stormwater management BMPs associated with the Project will be maintained by the City. The City has watershed district-wide Maintenance Agreement with the RPBCWD that stipulates that the BMPs must be kept in working order through routine and major maintenance activities. 30. The City, in partnership with RPBCWD, will also continue to work on Creek restoration and streambank stabilization projects that will work toward bringing TSS concentrations in the Creek into compliance with the standards identified in the TMDL Study. As part of the most recent 2020 MS4 Permit Application, the City is working toward establishing a compliance schedule for the TSS TDML for the Creek. As such, the City will also continue to implement BMPs throughout the Creek watershed to minimize stormwater pollution. This includes but is not limited to pet waste management education programs, waterfowl management, retrofitting of existing structural stormwater BMPs, and cleaning of existing stormwater ponds in the watershed. 7 31. City and RPBCWD rules and regulations regarding stormwater management will continue to apply to this Project and to future development or redevelopment within the Creek’s watershed. Other studies 32. Studies that describe how environmental effects on Riley Creek can be anticipated and controlled include the following, which have been considered by the Council and are incorporated herein by reference: 2020 WOMP Riley Creek Monitoring Results; Lower Minnesota River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load; MPCA Stormwater Manual; Braun Intertec’s Geotechnical Evaluation Report for the Standal Property dated October 10, 2019; and Braun Intertec’s Supplemental Soil Borings – Standal Property dated March 5, 2020. Fredrick-Miller Spring 33. The petition alleges that the Project will have a direct negative effect on the water quality of the Fredrick-Miller Spring (the “Spring”) and may potentially lead to the elimination of the Spring. The petition cites heritage, testing, and water quality degradation as evidence demonstrating potential for significant environmental effects. 34. As a locally designated Historic Preservation Site, the Spring is governed by Section 11.05 of the City Code. This portion of the City Code seeks to safeguard the heritage of the City, promote the preservation and continued use of historic sites, and foster civic pride. Section 11.05 outlines the process of public review and the criteria that must be met if alterations, buildings, or demolition are proposed for a Historic Preservation Site. The Fredrick-Miller Spring Historic Preservation Site is not located within the Project boundaries. No changes are proposed to the Historic Preservation Site. 35. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 116D establishes a statewide environmental policy that is intended, among other things, to preserve natural resources. The statewide definition of “natural resources” includes “historical resources.” Minn. Stat. § 116B.02, subd. 4. The petition alleges that this reference endorses the request for the preparation of an EAW. The Council finds that this general definition that applies statewide does not provide evidence that this Project will cause significant environmental impact to the Spring. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects: 36. According to the Summit Envirosolutions Report titled “Results of Impact Assessment Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, MN” dated April 9, 2021 (“Summit Report”), Frederick-Miller Spring is a seep, not an artesian spring, that emerges from the side of a bluff on the west side of County State Aid Highway 4 (“Spring Road”) which is west of Riley Creek and west of the Project. Water from the seep is collected in an underground cistern and is then piped down the remaining bluff and under Spring Road to a trough in a parking lot on City-owned property west of Riley Creek. 37. The Summit Report identified the Spring’s recharge area by compiling published geologic information in the area within a Geographic Information System (GIS), performing field 8 reconnaissance to evaluate the current conditions and hydrogeologic setting of the Spring, obtaining surveyed elevations of the Spring and proposed Project features, and preparing a summary of findings and conclusions. Based on the published data, the field reconnaissance, and Summit Envirosolutions’ experience in similar geologic terrains, the Summit Report concluded that the entire recharge area for the Fredrick-Miller Spring is located west of Spring Road and that activities associated with the Project will have no impact on the quantity or quality of the water recharging the Spring. 38. The Summit Report also reviewed Dr. E. Calvin Alexander’s “Steps to Protect Water Quality of Fredrick-Miller Spring,” which was included with the petition. Summit Envirosolutions disagreed with Dr. Alexander’s analysis by stating: I do not think Dr. Alexander was given all the information we have regarding the recharge area of the spring. The oral history is clear that the original seep location is located up the east-facing hill west of the current location and was outfitted with an old bathtub and piping to convey the water first to an area west of Spring Road and then under the road to the current location. I do not believe Dr. Alexander was given that information, since he suggests that the initial recharge area should be ‘…all of the land and surface water bodies at elevation above the Fredrick-Miller Spring…’. If he knew the original seep location is located on the east-facing hill west of Spring Road on what is an isolated topographical feature, he would likely not suggest a 2-mile area for further study. The other key pieces of information that are not referenced in his document are the surficial geology map (Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County Balaban, N.H., 1989) that shows outwash surrounded (and underlain) by till and the 18 drilling logs (obtained from the Minnesota Well Index) that enabled us to interpolate a clay surface that is the likely mechanism for the Spring recharge. I think if Dr. Alexander had this same information, he would likely not use the term “artesian spring”, because the flow produced at the Spring discharge outlet is gravity drainage from a “perched” water table that is unconfined. 39. In 2005, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“2005 EAW”) was completed by the City for its Hennepin Village Roadway Alternative project. The 2005 EAW evaluated a number of alternatives for the layout and construction of a new collector roadway servicing several residential neighborhoods in the southcentral portion of Eden Prairie. The 2005 EAW considered a number of the roadway alternatives that had potentially significant irreversible environmental impacts because the proposed roadway crossed environmentally sensitive lands such as bluffs, Riley Creek, wetlands, the Frederick-Miller Spring recharge area, known archeological sites, recorded burial areas, and other unique resources. The EAW concluded that the Spring “originates in the bluff area directly west across Spring Road from the current spring trough location. It is likely that the Miller Spring ground watershed is west and northwest of the spring.” This conclusion is consistent with the Summit Envirosolutions report and indicates the Project will not impact the Spring recharge area. 9 40. The Council finds the Summit Report and the 2005 EAW to be more credible than the opinion of Dr. Alexander as to the type and nature of any environmental effects that the Project may have on the Spring. 41. Historical City monthly testing of Nitrates at the Spring shows a decrease in average Nitrates as agricultural properties have developed into residential single-family housing. This is likely due to stormwater runoff management facilities being constructed during development and the reduction in Nitrates from farm animal confinements, manure spreading, and agricultural fertilizer use. The polynomial trendline of Nitrate values between July 2009 and April 2021, the period for which testing results exist, shows a decrease from highs of approximately 3.8 parts per million (ppm) in 2009 through 2011 to lows of 1.8 ppm in 2020 through 2021. The United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health list Nitrate concentrations of 10.0 ppm or lower as safe for potable drinking water sources. Nitrate is a naturally occurring compound and levels around 3.0 ppm are considered safe and customary for well water sources. For comparison purposes, the City tested several types of store-bought bottled water on April 8, 2021. These results found Nitrate levels of 3.9 ppm, 4.0 ppm, and 6.4 ppm for three popular bottled water brands, which were all still below federal and state maximum contaminant levels. Because the Spring’s Nitrate test results are consistently well within safe drinking water standards, and in fact seem to suggest an improvement over time as residential development has displaced agricultural uses, and because the recharge area for the Spring has no relation to the Project, there is no potential for significant environmental effects related to the water quality of the Spring from the Project. 42. Historical City monthly testing of total Coliform at the Spring from July 2009 to April 2021 shows two instances of a positive sample. Those tests detected the presence of Coliform on August 1, 2016 and again on August 2, 2016. Because the samples are taken directly from the spigot of the communal-use Spring discharge pipe, it is very possible the bacterial Coliform came from a user of the Spring as a hand, used bottle, jug, or other object touched the end of the pipe while collecting water. These are the only two records from the past twelve years of testing at the Spring where the presence of Coliform was detected. Because the Project will not impact the recharge area or the distribution point of the Spring there does not appear to be a correlation between the two and no environmental impacts are expected. Cumulative potential effects 43. There is no evidence of significant cumulative potential effects relating to impairment or the potential elimination of the Spring. To the contrary, data is showing Spring water quality is improving as land use changes from agricultural use to residential use. All analysis done on the Spring and its recharge area has demonstrated that the Project will not have an environmental effect on the Spring, significant or otherwise. 44. The Project nonetheless proposes to take steps to protect nearby water resources by deeding sensitive lands that harbor Riley Creek, a wooded forest, wetland, creek buffers, and bluffs into an outlot to be deeded to the City for preservation as a natural landscape environment. This naturally preserved outlot is 8.79 acres, which comprises 31% of the total Project area. 10 This outlot serves as a buffer between the Spring discharge point and the homes proposed within the Project. The Project is also proposing to meet all City and watershed district requirements for water resource protection during and after construction. Mitigation by ongoing regulatory authority 45. The City anticipates future development that is within the Spring recharge area to the west, and will take necessary steps to ensure this water resource is protected through our various environmental controls. RPBCWD will do the same as development and land disturbing activity applications are submitted and reviewed for appropriateness. 46. The City plans to continue testing the Spring on a monthly basis for Nitrates and total Coliform. Other studies 47. Studies that describe how environmental effects on the Spring can be anticipated and controlled include the following, which have been considered by the Council and are incorporated herein by reference: Summit Envirosolutions Report titled “Results of Impact Assessment Fredrick-Miller Spring Eden Prairie, MN” dated April 9, 2021, and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives dated February 2005. Health, Safety and Quality of Life 48. The petition alleges that the Project will have a general negative impact on health, safety, and quality of life. Specifically, the petition cites the potential negative impact on surrounding developments to the north and east, increased traffic, noise, and air quality impacts, and road safety and sight distance risks on Spring Road. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects 49. As is mentioned in the findings of fact above under the Biodiversity of Project Site, Riley Creek, and Frederick-Miller Spring categories, the extent of the Project’s environmental effects are minimal and even show potential for improving existing conditions. 50. The addition of 50 residential homes within the 27.51 acre Project area will result in minimal increases in noise and air pollution above current conditions. The proposed density of homes in the Project area is 1.8 dwelling units per acre, which is well below the allowable density of 5 units per acre for the zoning district. This density also is much lower than the existing densities in nearby residential neighborhoods to the east and north. Also, according to the Project proposer, the energy efficiency of the homes being proposed in the Project area are 77–83% more energy efficient than typical resale homes which will result in lower building emissions. Overall, the Project will generate very minimal increases in noise and air pollution. 51. Flying Cloud Airport is situated 825 feet from the property line of the Project. Flying Cloud Airport is a reliever airport for the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport and serves as 11 a popular hub for corporate business jets, turbo-props, and helicopters. The airport has an FAA-operated control tower and an instrument landing system. The tower operates daily in the winter from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., staying open an extra hour until 10 p.m. in summer. In 2018 there were 364 aircraft based at Flying Cloud Airport resulting in 88,762 landings and takeoffs. Traffic, noise, and emissions generated from the Project will be a fraction of those generated from the adjacent airport. 52. The adjacent roadways have been designed and constructed to anticipate the increased traffic that would be generated by the Project. The Project is expected to generate 472 average daily trips (“ADT”). The adjacent roadway, Spring Road, is classified by the City’s Comprehensive Plan as an A-Minor Expander and has the capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the Project. The roadway was designed and constructed for 10,000 ADT. With left turn lanes, the capacity increases to 17,000 ADT. Current average daily trips on Spring Road are 4400 ADT north of Charlson Road and 1800 ADT south of Charlson Road. The roadway classifications in the Project area and any associated impacts are consistent with the development levels identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The petition provides general information regarding traffic impacts on a national level. It provides no evidence of significant environmental effects resulting from the traffic that the Project will generate. 53. Spack Solutions evaluated existing sightlines at the Project’s access point to Spring Road under current conditions. According Spack Solutions, “sufficient sight distance is provided for passenger vehicles and single-unit trucks to safely complete both left and right-turning movements from the proposed access.” Spack Solutions used national standards adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in performing this sight-light analysis. AASHTO is a nonprofit, nonpartisan association representing highway and transportation departments across the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and is a standards setting body which publishes specifications, test protocols, and guidelines that are used in highway design and construction throughout the United States. Spack Solutions goes on to say, “Tree-trimming along Spring Road will provide more sight distance to drivers, specifically to the south.” Because the Project proposes to construction a 15-foot wide boulevard area on the east side of Spring Road for a future pedestrian and bicycle trail, the sight lines will be dramatically improved over the conditions that exist today. Additionally, improvements along Spring Road made by the Project will be overseen by Hennepin County’s Transportation Department to ensure all applicable safety standards are met (see Hennepin County comment letter). 54. Considering all these factors collectively, there is no potential for significant environmental effects related to traffic, safety, noise, or air pollution as a result of the Project. Cumulative potential effects 55. There is no evidence of significant cumulative potential effects relating to traffic, safety, noise, or air pollution as a result of the Project. 12 Mitigation by ongoing regulatory authority 56. Spring Road roadway safety, intersection design, and sightline requirements will be approved through Hennepin County’s Transportation Department permitting process. The County will evaluate access design and post construction sightlines to ensure conformance with adopted performance standards. Other studies 57. Studies that describe how environmental effects relating to traffic, safety, noise, or air pollution can be anticipated and controlled include the following, which have been considered by the Council and are incorporated herein by reference: Spack Solutions – Technical Memorandum – Traffic Assessment – Standal Concept dated November 7, 2019; Alliant Memorandum – Noble Hill Development dated February 10, 2021; and Hennepin County – Preliminary Plat Review Letter dated March 1, 2021. Summary 58. The evidence presented to and considered by the Council does not demonstrate that, because of the nature or location of the Project, the Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Any environmental effects that may result from the Project are not significant. Areas of potential concern will be monitored and negative effects mitigated. 59. Any cumulative potential effects of the Project are not significant as demonstrated in these findings of fact. The potential effects of the project when reviewed in connection with the other potential effects in the environmentally relevant area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources are not significant. Existing developments within the vicinity of the Project have been reviewed and constructed consistent with City and Watershed District requirements in effect at the time of development. The developer of the Project will be required to obtain and comply with all necessary permitting and approval processes required by the City and Watershed District that will address mitigation measures as appropriate. The Project minimizes any potential effects by preserving natural resources areas in Outlot D of the Project area. 60. The petition alleges that the Project is part of a connected and phased action that requires individual environmental review. Specifically, the petition alleges that the Project “is collectively part of a large existing or planned network . . . for which the City has attempted to separate the approvals in order to make a determinate that no environmental review is needed.” In determining whether a project meets the threshold for a mandatory EAW, Minnesota Administrative Rule 4410.4300, subpart 1, requires consideration in total of “[m]ultiple projects and multiple stages of a single project that are connected actions or phased actions.” Beyond these unsupported allegations, Petitioners provide no evidence that the Project is part of a connected action or phased action that is subject to a mandatory EAW. 13 DECISION Based upon the above findings of fact, the Council hereby concludes that the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that the Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The petition for preparation of an EAW for the Project is therefore DENIED. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this 4th day of May, 2021. __________________________ Ronald A. Case, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__ RESOLUTION GRANTING CITIZEN PETITION FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE PROPOSED NOBLE HILL PROJECT WHEREAS, on April 23, 2021, the City of Eden Prairie received from the Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”) a citizen petition requesting that the City Council require an environmental assessment worksheet (“EAW”) for the proposed project known as Noble Hill, to be located at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the petition was signed by 221 individuals, more than half of which are Eden Prairie residents; and WHEREAS, the EQB has designated the City as the responsible governmental unit (“RGU”) for the Project; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a petition from the EQB, the City must review the evidence presented by the petitioners, evidence provided by the Project proposer, and other evidence otherwise known to the City and determine whether, because of the nature or location of the Project, the Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, the EQB rules requires the City to take into account the following factors in considering the evidence: A. The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. The cumulative potential effects, including the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project; C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other environmental impact statements. WHEREAS, the City Council considered the petition for an EAW at its meeting on May 4, 2021. The petitioners and the Project proposer were provided the opportunity to present information and comment. The City Council considered all of the evidence and information presented as well as the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that the evidence presented demonstrates that the Noble Hill Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The Citizen Petition for preparation of an EAW for the Project is GRANTED. City staff is directed to prepare findings of fact supporting this decision and present them for approval at the Council’s next meeting. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this 4th day of May, 2021. ______________________________ Ronald A. Case, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__ RESOLUTION GRANTING CITIZEN PETITION FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE PROPOSED NOBLE HILL PROJECT WHEREAS, on April 23, 2021, the City of Eden Prairie received from the Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”) a citizen petition requesting that the City Council require an environmental assessment worksheet (“EAW”) for the proposed project known as Noble Hill, to be located at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the petition was signed by 221 individuals, more than half of which are Eden Prairie residents; and WHEREAS, the EQB has designated the City as the responsible governmental unit (“RGU”) for the Project; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a petition from the EQB, the City must review the evidence presented by the petitioners, evidence provided by the Project proposer, and other evidence otherwise known to the City and determine whether, because of the nature or location of the Project, the Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, the EQB rules requires the City to take into account the following factors in considering the evidence: A. The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. The cumulative potential effects, including the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project; C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other environmental impact statements. WHEREAS, the City Council considered the petition for an EAW at its meeting on May 4, 2021. The petitioners and the Project proposer were provided the opportunity to present information and comment. The City Council considered all of the evidence and information presented as well as the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that the evidence presented demonstrates that the Noble Hill Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The Citizen Petition for preparation of an EAW for the Project is GRANTED. City staff is directed to prepare findings of fact supporting this decision and present them for approval at the Council’s next meeting. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this 4th day of May, 2021. ______________________________ Ronald A. Case, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk NOBLE HILL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. -2021-PUD-_-2021 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AMENDING THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN LAND WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the “land”) is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural Zoning District and be placed in the R1-9.5 Zoning District. Section 3. That action was duly initiated proposing that the designation of the land be amended within the R1-9.5 Zoning District as -2021-PUD-_-2021 (hereinafter "PUD-_-2021”). Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-_-2021 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-_-2021 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD-_-2021 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-_-2021 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural Zoning District and placed in the R1-9.5 Zoning District as noted in Exhibit A and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-_-2021 and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Development Agreement dated as of entered into between Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC, and the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter “Development Agreement”). The Development Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-_-2021, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 7. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation” and Section 11.99 entitled “Violation a Misdemeanor” are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 8. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 4th day of May, 2021, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the ____ day of ________, 2021. ATTEST: __________________________________ ___________________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Ronald A. Case, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Sun Sailor on__________________, 2021. EXHIBIT A Legal Description: Rezone entire property from Rural to R1-9.5. Legal Description Before Final Plat Legal Description Document No. 5460951(Parcel 1) That part of the South 1/2 of Section 28, Township 116, Range 22 described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 28; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the west line of said southwest quarter a distance of 981.40 feet to the point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence continuing on a bearing of North along said west line a distance of 627.80 feet to the southeasterly right of way line of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 4, Plat 60 as recorded in Document No. 5060347; thence North 33 degrees 34 minutes 37 seconds East along said right of way line, a distance of 240.00 feet; thence South 56 degrees 25 minutes 23 seconds East, a distance of 616.21 feet; thence on a bearing of South a distance of 491.65 feet to an intersection with a line which bears South 89 degrees, 35 minutes 00 seconds East from the point of beginning; thence North 89 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 646.14 feet to the point of beginning. (Abstract Property) Legal Description Document No. 64749999 (Parcel 2) All that part of the South 1/2 of Section 28, Township 116 North, Range 22, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the West line of said Section 28, distant 1674.4 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Section 28; thence South 693 feet along the West line of said section; thence South 89 degrees, 35 minutes East 1000.5 feet; thence North 3 degrees and 50 minutes East 909.3 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as point "A"; thence North 59 degrees and 50 minutes West 672.6 feet, more or less, to a point described as follows: Commencing at aforesaid point "A"; thence North 1 degree, 31 minutes and 30 seconds East 560 feet; thence South 54 degrees and 31 minutes and 30 seconds West 343 feet; thence South 87 degrees and 35 minutes and 30 seconds West 311.6 feet to said point to be described; thence South 55 degrees and 27 minutes and 30 seconds West 248 feet; thence South 34 degrees West 150 feet; thence South 34 degrees West 350 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. For the purposes of this description the West line of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28 is assumed to be true North and South line. Subject to easement for County Road No. 4. Except for the following property: That part of the South 1/2 of Section 28, Township 116, Range 22 described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 28, thence on an assumed bearing of North along the west line of said southwest quarter a distance of 981.40 feet to the point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence continuing on a bearing of North along said west line a distance of 627.80 feet to the southeasterly right of way line of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 4, Plat 60 as recorded in Document No. 5060347; thence North 33 degrees 34 minutes 37 seconds East along said right of way line, a distance of 240.00 feet; thence South 56 degrees 25 minutes 23 seconds East, a distance of 616.21 feet; thence on a bearing of South a distance of 491.65 feet to an intersection with a line which bears South 89 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds East from the point of beginning; thence North 89 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 646.14 feet to the point of beginning (Abstract Property) Legal Description Document No. T05131200 (Parcel 3) That part of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 28, Township 116, Range 22, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said Section 28 distant 981.4 feet North from the Southwest corner thereof; thence South 89 degrees 35 minutes East 1000.5 feet; thence North 3 degrees 50 minutes East 909.3 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North 1 degree 31 minutes 30 seconds East 560 feet; thence 54 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds West 343 feet; thence South 87 degrees 35 minutes 3 seconds West 311.6 feet; thence South 59 degrees 50 minutes East 672.6 feet to the actual point of beginning. For the purpose of this description, the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 28 is assumed to be a North and South line. (Torrens Certificate No. 1106739) Legal Description After Final Plat Lots 1-16 Block 1, Lots 1-8, Block 2, and Lots 1-26, Block 3, Noble Hill, Hennepin County CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-___ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF NOBLE HILL FOR PULTE HOMES WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on March 22, 2021, on Noble Hill by Pulte Homes and considered their request for approval of the PUD Concept Plan and recommended approval of the request to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on May 4, 2021. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Noble Hill, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof (“Property”). 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans stamp dated April 27, 2021 subject to approval of the 2nd reading of the Ordinance for the Planned Development District Review with waivers and a Zoning District change and approval of the Development Agreement. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated March 22, 2021. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 4th day of May, 2021. ___________________________ Ronald A. Case, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk EXHIBIT A PUD Concept Legal Description: Legal Description Before Final Plat Legal Description Document No. 5460951(Parcel 1) That part of the South 1/2 of Section 28, Township 116, Range 22 described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 28; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the west line of said southwest quarter a distance of 981.40 feet to the point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence continuing on a bearing of North along said west line a distance of 627.80 feet to the southeasterly right of way line of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 4, Plat 60 as recorded in Document No. 5060347; thence North 33 degrees 34 minutes 37 seconds East along said right of way line, a distance of 240.00 feet; thence South 56 degrees 25 minutes 23 seconds East, a distance of 616.21 feet; thence on a bearing of South a distance of 491.65 feet to an intersection with a line which bears South 89 degrees, 35 minutes 00 seconds East from the point of beginning; thence North 89 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 646.14 feet to the point of beginning. (Abstract Property) Legal Description Document No. 64749999 (Parcel 2) All that part of the South 1/2 of Section 28, Township 116 North, Range 22, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the West line of said Section 28, distant 1674.4 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Section 28; thence South 693 feet along the West line of said section; thence South 89 degrees, 35 minutes East 1000.5 feet; thence North 3 degrees and 50 minutes East 909.3 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as point "A"; thence North 59 degrees and 50 minutes West 672.6 feet, more or less, to a point described as follows: Commencing at aforesaid point "A"; thence North 1 degree, 31 minutes and 30 seconds East 560 feet; thence South 54 degrees and 31 minutes and 30 seconds West 343 feet; thence South 87 degrees and 35 minutes and 30 seconds West 311.6 feet to said point to be described; thence South 55 degrees and 27 minutes and 30 seconds West 248 feet; thence South 34 degrees West 150 feet; thence South 34 degrees West 350 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. For the purposes of this description the West line of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28 is assumed to be true North and South line. Subject to easement for County Road No. 4. Except for the following property: That part of the South 1/2 of Section 28, Township 116, Range 22 described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 28, thence on an assumed bearing of North along the west line of said southwest quarter a distance of 981.40 feet to the point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence continuing on a bearing of North along said west line a distance of 627.80 feet to the southeasterly right of way line of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 4, Plat 60 as recorded in Document No. 5060347; thence North 33 degrees 34 minutes 37 seconds East along said right of way line, a distance of 240.00 feet; thence South 56 degrees 25 minutes 23 seconds East, a distance of 616.21 feet; thence on a bearing of South a distance of 491.65 feet to an intersection with a line which bears South 89 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds East from the point of beginning; thence North 89 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 646.14 feet to the point of beginning (Abstract Property) Legal Description Document No. T05131200 (Parcel 3) That part of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 28, Township 116, Range 22, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said Section 28 distant 981.4 feet North from the Southwest corner thereof; thence South 89 degrees 35 minutes East 1000.5 feet; thence North 3 degrees 50 minutes East 909.3 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North 1 degree 31 minutes 30 seconds East 560 feet; thence 54 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds West 343 feet; thence South 87 degrees 35 minutes 3 seconds West 311.6 feet; thence South 59 degrees 50 minutes East 672.6 feet to the actual point of beginning. For the purpose of this description, the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 28 is assumed to be a North and South line. (Torrens Certificate No. 1106739) Legal Description After Final Plat Lots 1-16 Block 1, Lots 1-8, Block 2, and Lots 1-26, Block 3, Noble Hill, Hennepin County CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-___ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NOBLE HILL FOR PULTE HOMES BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Noble Hill for Pulte Homes stamp dated April 27, 2021, and consisting of 27.51 acres into 50 lots and 4 outlots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved subject to approval of the 2nd reading of the Ordinance for the Planned Development District Review with waivers and a Zoning District change and approval of the Development Agreement. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 4th day of May, 2021. _______________________________ Ronald A. Case, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Project Site STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Beth Novak-Krebs, Senior Planner DATE: March 18, 2021 SUBJECT: Noble Hill LOCATION: 9955 and 9875 Spring Road OWNERS: John and Carol Standal APPLICANT: Pulte Homes REQUEST: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres • Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 50 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval to develop 50 single-family lots on 27.51 acres located at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road. The property is located approximately 600 feet south of Prospect Road on the east side of Spring Road. There is currently a single- family home on the property and a portion of the property was used as a Christmas tree farm at one time. The property has a significant amount of topographic relief. There is nearly 150 feet of grade change from east to west. Riley Creek runs through a portion of the west side of the property. There are floodplains and wetlands along the creek corridor. There is also a bluff in the southwest corner of the site. There are significant wooded areas along the creek and on the bluff. In addition, the northeast corner of the property is wooded and there is a line of mature trees along the east property line. Staff Report – Noble Hill Page 2 2 The adjacent land uses include conservation land to the south, residential to the east, conservation land and one residential building to the west and conservation land to the north. In 2020, Gonyea Homes proposed a 59-lot single family subdivision called The Overlook on this property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project, but the application was withdrawn before it was scheduled to be heard by the Council. The proposed layout of Noble Hill is very similar to The Overlook, but has 50 lots. According to the applicant, the current application differs from the Gonyea development in that there are 9 fewer lots, tree removal is reduced by 14%, the square footage of retaining walls is reduced by 35%, the impervious surface is reduced by 5% and the applicant has made multiple minor grading modifications to minimize the impact on the land. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING The property is currently guided Low Density Residential, which allows a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project has a density of 1.8 dwelling units per acre. The property is currently zoned Rural. The applicant has requested to rezone the property from Rural to R1-9.5, which would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning around the property includes: Rural, Park and Open Space, RM6.5, and R1- 9.5. PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary plat includes 50 single family lots and 4 outlots. The applicant is proposing the main access to the neighborhood from Spring Road with cul-de-sacs near the east property line and near the south property line. Given the topography of the site, the location of the environmental features and the adjacent land uses, there are limited options to make street connections and the cul-de-sac streets allow for development of the property. The proposed lots range in size from 9,075 square feet to 22,410 square feet. The average lot size is 13,477 square feet. The majority of the lots meet the minimum lot size with only Staff Report – Noble Hill Page 3 3 5 out of 50 lots at less than 9,500 square feet. The minimum lot width requirement in the R1-9.5 zoning district is 70 feet along the street and 55 feet for lots completely on the bulb of the cul-de-sac. The majority of the lots are between 60 and 75 feet wide with the narrowest being 61.15 feet. The lots around the cul-de-sac bulb average 47 feet wide with the narrowest being 46.37 feet. Proposed Outlots A and C will be used for stormwater management and a monument sign. These Outlots will be privately owned and maintained with drainage and utility easements over the stormwater management facilities. Outlot B is proposed to include a trail connection to the trail in the City-owned conservancy land to the south. The Outlot is proposed to be deeded to the City and the City will maintain the trail. Proposed Outlot D will be used for open space, stormwater management, and the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas. The 8.25 acre Outlot will be deeded to the City. This enables the City to protect and preserve the creek, the floodplain wetlands, wetland buffers, the floodplain, and bluff in this corner of the property. In order to get a sense for the topography of the property and how it compares to Hennepin Village, the applicant prepared a number of cross sections to illustrate the relationship between the two neighborhoods. The following are examples of the cross sections provided at the neighborhood meeting. Staff Report – Noble Hill Page 4 4 HOME PRODUCT The applicant will also be the home builder for this neighborhood. The applicant provided 5 different home floor plan layouts that will fit this neighborhood. The proposed single family homes are 2-story homes between 3,169 square feet and 3,539 square feet. The homes will have 3-car garages. The homes will range in price from the high $600 thousands to the $800 thousands. The applicant is proposing to use LP engineered wood siding on the homes. Some of the homes will include stone and other details. The home buyer can choose a different style (i.e. Craftsman, Northern Craftsman, Euro Country, Prairie, Heartland) with the chosen floor plan layout, which changes the exterior appearance. This provides for variety in the homes as seen from the street. Below are some examples of some of the home styles. ACCESS The primary access point is from Spring Road, which is a County Road. Based on discussions with the County, the applicant is proposing a ¾ access from Spring Road. A ¾ access allows all traffic movements with the exception of turning left out of the neighborhood onto Spring Road. The design of the intersection of Spring Road and the proposed road will be reviewed and approved by the County. Staff Report – Noble Hill Page 5 5 The streets within the neighborhood will be public streets and designed and built to City standards. The applicant is not currently proposing a street connection to Junegrass Lane in the adjacent Hennepin Village development. The section of Junegrass Lane between Lilac Drive and the west property line of Hennepin Village is a private property. The connection would require approval of an easement from the Hennepin Village Homeowners Association as well as temporary easements for grading from the two property owners adjacent to this area. The proposed plan shows the street terminating with a cul-de-sac just west of the Hennepin Village property line. The cul-de-sac is designed such that the street could be connected to Hennepin Village in the future. A street connection to Junegrass Lane within Hennepin Village is desirable as it would provide connectivity for residents as well as emergency and fire access. If the Hennepin Village Homeowners Association were to grant approval for the street connection and grading, the applicant should revise the plans to provide the street connection. If the street is connected, the street name should be revised to Junegrass Lane from Spring Road to the current end of Junegrass Lane. If the Homeowners Association does not approve the street connection, the City is comfortable with the cul-de-sac whether it is permanent or temporary. The Fire Department is comfortable with the cul-de-sac provided the cul-de-sac is designed to allow for a future connection and there is emergency access to Junegrass Lane. The proposed plans include a 10’ wide paved trail connection to the end of Junegrass Lane for emergency access and pedestrian access between neighborhoods. The developer and the Hennepin Village Homeowners Association are still discussing the connection between the neighborhoods. The Development Agreement will address the design, and timing of any connection that is agreed to by the Hennepin Village Homeowners Association. TRAFFIC A traffic study was conducted on the previously proposed 59-unit single-family housing development called The Overlook. The trip generation section of the study has been revised based on the new proposal with 50 single-family lots. With the proposed development generating approximately 460 total daily trips and under 50 pm peak hour trips, the impact to adjacent Spring Road is low in terms of capacity. The 2016 traffic counts for Spring Road north of Charlson were 4400 vehicles per day and south of Charlson were 1800 vehicles per day. These sections of road are similar and have similar capacities. Spring Road can accommodate the proposed development and still have available capacity. Trail grading, by the developer, along Spring Road will allow the City to install a future trail and will also improve site distance for vehicles entering and exiting the development. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as stated in the City Code is to provide for a more creative and efficient approach to the use of land within the City; to allow variety in the types of environment available to people and distribution of overall density of population and intensity of land use where desirable and feasible; and provide for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design. The requested waivers seem reasonable because the waivers allow for a design that meets the Staff Report – Noble Hill Page 6 6 density requirements, a layout that respects the topography of the site, a design that protects and preserves the natural features on the site, and provides trail connections to a broader existing trail system. As a part of the PUD process, the applicant is seeking waivers to City Code requirements as outlined below. Minimum Lot Size City Code requires a minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet in the R1-9.5 zoning district. Five of the lots are under 9,500 square feet. These lots are 9,075 square feet in size. The waiver would allow Lots 2-6, Block 2, to be under the minimum lot size as depicted on the plans. Minimum Lot Width City Code requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet along the street, 55 feet on the bulb of the cul-de sac and 85 feet on corner lots. Twenty-three of the lots are narrower than the minimum lot width requirement. These lots along the street range in width from 61.15 feet to 68.74 feet. The lots on the bulb of the cul-de- sac have an average width of 44 feet with the narrowest being 46.37. The waiver would allow Lots 1-5 and 15 and 16, Block 1, Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, and Lots 4-6, 13-23, Block 3 to be narrower than required as depicted on the plans. Front Yard Setback City Code requires a front yard setback of 30 feet. The applicant is proposing a front yard setback of a minimum 25 feet. This provides more flexibility on home placement to deal with potential issues with grades. Homes on individual lots can have a setback deeper than 25 feet based on lot conditions and preferences. The waiver would allow all of the lots to have a 25 foot minimum front yard setback. Over length Cul-de-Sac. City Code states that a cul-de-sac shall not exceed 500 feet in length. Both of the cul-de-sac streets exceed 500 feet. With limited opportunities for street connections, the cul-de-sac streets provide for development of the site. The cul-de-sac terminating at the east property line is designed so that it could be connected in the future if conditions change. If the street is connected to Hennepin Village, a waiver would only be needed for the Osprey Point cul-de-sac. TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN Although the applicant is proposing to protect several stands of existing trees, the grading on the site will result in significant tree loss. The project requires 2,522 caliper inches of tree replacement. The Tree Replacement Plan includes 866 caliper inches of trees leaving a deficit of 1,656 caliper inches. The proposed plan includes the installation of trees along the east property line to provide screening between the homes in Hennepin Village and the proposed project, in the front yards of the lots, along Spring Road and in the outlots. The plans shall be revised to include additional caliper inches of trees. These additional trees shall be added as follows: add a second row of trees inside of the current row between Spring Rd and Lots 19-26 (possibly alternating both rows between deciduous and coniferous); push the trees below the Staff Report – Noble Hill Page 7 7 retaining wall of Lots 4-6, Block 3 closer to the base of the wall onto private property and add bare root trees on the slope of outlot D; add trees along Lark Sparrow Lane. In lieu of planting the required caliper inches to comply with Tree Replacement, the applicant is proposing to comply with the Tree Replacement requirements by making a cash payment for the deficit as allowed by City Code. The Development Agreement will include language regarding the payment in lieu based on the final Tree Replacement Plan. The applicant has provided a phasing plan for the installation of the trees. The majority of the trees will be planted in the first phase. These trees are located around the perimeter of the property and in the outlots. The trees located on the individual lots will be installed during phase 2 after homes are constructed. The phased approach is being implemented so that the trees on the individual lots are not damaged during the construction of the home. The landscape security will be held by the City consistent with City Code to ensure the trees survive. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS The proposed project includes a sidewalk on the east side of proposed Larksparrow Lane and on Osprey Point. The current conservancy area to the south of the subject property contains a trail. The applicant is proposing to provide an 8’ wide paved trail connection through Outlot B to the existing trail on the City- owned land. The applicant is also proposing to construct an 8’ wide paved trail on the east side of Spring Road from the entrance to the development going north to the property line. This section will ultimately be extended to the existing trail that terminates just south of Prospect Road. Furthermore, the applicant will grade a pad for a trail along the east side of Spring Road from the main entrance into the development south to just beyond the creek. In the future, the City will install the paved trail on this pad. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The applicant is proposing stormwater management in Outlots A, C and D. The stormwater management facilities include infiltration basins, swales, storm sewer piping, and inlets. The applicant is required to comply with Watershed District and City of Eden Prairie requirements prior to issuance of a Land Alteration Permit. WETLAND, SHORELAND AND BLUFF The southwest corner of the property includes wetlands, Riley Creek, and bluffs, which are proposed to be encompassed by Outlot D. Due to Riley Creek running through the property, a portion of the property is located within the Shoreland District. The majority of the shoreland is located within Outlot D. However, the district boundary does extend onto proposed Lots 16-19, Block 3. Within the shoreland district, the maximum impervious surface on a lot is 30%. The Development Agreement will include language requiring the applicant to notify the owners of proposed Lots 16-19, Block 3 that these lots are located within the shoreland and the 30% maximum impervious surface limit is in effect. Staff Report – Noble Hill Page 8 8 ENDANGERED SPECIES The Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System was queried by the MnDNR and they indicated there is a potential for the presence of the following on the site: a Dry Sand-Gravel Prairie native plant community, Kitten-tail plants, the Lark Sparrow, the Gopher Snake, and the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee. The Dry Sand-Gravel Prairie is located within Outlot D, which post development will be owned by the City. The Development Agreement will include language requiring a field assessment in the spring and what appropriate measures the applicant will be required to follow should any of these endangered species be found on the site. The City will follow up on any necessary mitigation through the Land Alteration Permit or other permitting. RETAINING WALLS Due to the topography of the site, a number of retaining walls are being proposed in order to develop the property. Some of the retaining walls will reach heights of near 15 feet. The applicant is proposing modular block retaining walls. The walls will be installed by the applicant and maintained by the Homeowners Association. PARK DEDICATION FEES Park dedication fees are required for each unit. These fees are paid at time of building permit issuance. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS This property is subject to trunk sewer and watermain assessments with this project in the amount of $165,120.27. Deferred assessments of $252,391.60 and connection fees of $178,416 are also applicable. A special assessment agreement will be required. SIGNS The site plan includes a proposed monument sign in Outlot C near the entrance into the subdivision. The applicant is required to obtain a sign permit for the sign prior to its installation. The sign shall comply with City Code requirements. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING No affordability or inclusionary housing requirements are recommended to be applied to the project. SUSTAINABLE FEATURES The homes Pulte will be constructing will have high energy efficiency. Each home is tested using the Home Energy Rating System (HERS) index. The lower the number the more energy efficient. A home built to the 2004 International Energy Conservation Code has a rating of 100. The average HERS score for a Pulte Home is 47 to 53. The applicant is proposing to incorporate the following sustainable features into the development: • Homes have an average HERS score of 47 to 53 • All light bulbs are LED or CFL • All faucets and toilets are low flow designs Staff Report – Noble Hill Page 9 9 • All windows are Energy Star compliant • Native trees will be used AIRPORT The property is located within the Safety Zone C as designated in the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance adopted by the Flying Cloud Airport Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) on April 10, 2019. The allowable construction height limits of the JAZB far exceed the proposed structure heights and the construction equipment heights of this project, but the applicant will be required to submit an application for an Airport Zoning Permit documenting the necessary information. The property is also located within the airport buffer zone requiring noise attenuation. The Development Agreement will address disclosure of information regarding Flying Cloud Airport, noise mitigation, and the airport zoning permit. ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT In 2005, a very similar development was proposed for the Standal property and the developer at that time had a report prepared entitled “Report on Archaeological Reconnaissance-Level Survey Within the Standal Property, City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota” dated June 2005. The conclusion from the report was that the proposal at that time could proceed without any risk of adverse impact on significant archaeological resources. As part The Overlook project, which was proposed in 2020, the report was sent to the State Archaeologist’s Office. On March 6, 2020, staff received an email from the State Archeologist who concurred with staff that the study is still relevant and acceptable for this proposed development. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on February 10, 2021. Approximately 16 residents attended the meeting. General topics discussed or asked about at the neighborhood meeting were about height of homes/cross section view, tree removal/planting, trail access (specifically Outlot B), trail between the two properties over by Junegrass Lane (grade, hydrant in the way, safety barriers so a car cannot travel down the trail). Staff has received a number of emails and letters from residents in Hennepin Village Copies of the letters and emails are attached. Many of the comments include concerns about the Frederick Miller Spring located just south of the proposed project. The spring is in a small tributary valley of the Minnesota River and is located outside of the proposed project area. No changes are proposed to the spring as a part of this project. The spring is located on property owned by the City of Eden Prairie. The spring has been in continuous use since 1890 according to local documentation and as such has become a well-known landmark in the area. In 1997, the City designated the spring as a local Heritage Preservation Site which carries with it local protections through City Code. Staff Report – Noble Hill Page 10 10 The public collects and uses water from the spring. The parking lot and collection site is located on the east side of Spring Road. In 2007, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for several potential roadway connections west of Spring Road including the extension of Prospect Road to Eden Prairie Road. The Prospect Road extension was constructed and is located north and west of Miller Spring. The EAW found that the Prospect Road extension was not likely to impact Miller Spring. A pipe from the spring carries the spring water under Spring Road to the collection location. The EAW also found that it is likely that the Miller Spring groundwatershed is west and northwest of the spring. Based on available evidence, further hydraulic evaluation of the spring for the proposed development does not appear warranted at this time. Some of the comments received suggest that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be completed for the project area. Minnesota State Statutes includes minimum thresholds which require environmental review. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is required for a single family detached project that includes 250 or more residential units. An EIS is required for single family detached projects that include 1,000 or more residential units. Noble Hill falls below these thresholds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the following requests: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres • Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 50 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres This is based on plans stamp dated February 19, 2021, staff report dated March 18, 2021 and the following conditions: 1. Prior to the 1st reading before the City Council, the applicant shall: A. Revise the street name Larksparrow Lane to avoid duplication with an existing street name. B. Revise the Tree Replacement Phasing Plan to be consistent with the changes made to the Tree Replacement Plan. C. Revise the Typical Lot Detail on sheet 9 to show that there is typically a 10 foot wide Drainage and Utility Easement along the rear lot line. D. Revise the Proposed Zoning in the Site Plan Data on sheet 9 to say Proposed Zoning: R1-9.5 PUD. E. Revise the Lot Data in the Site Plan Data on sheet 9 to include the requirements for Min. Lot Width, Min. Lot Depth, etc. This will clearly show where the plan complies and where it does not comply and waivers are needed. F. Revise the plan by removing the retaining wall from the Drainage and Utility Easement on Lot 26, Block 3. Staff Report – Noble Hill Page 11 11 G. Revise the Rendered Site Plan to include the trees added in Outlot D and in Block 1. H. Revise the Tree Replacement Plan to reduce the size of the trees being planted on the steep slopes in Outlot D. Smaller size trees will be easier to plant and establish on steep slopes. I. Revise the Tree Replacement Plan to include additional caliper inches, These additional trees shall be added as follows: add a second row of trees inside of the current row between Spring Rd and Lots 19-26 (possibly alternating both rows between deciduous and coniferous); push the trees below the retaining wall of Lots 4-6, Block 3 closer to the base of the wall onto private property and add bare root trees on the slope of outlot D; add trees along Lark Sparrow Lane. 2. Prior to release of the Final Plat, the applicant shall A. Sign special assessment agreement for City trunk sewer and water assessment fees and connection fees and pay deferred assessments. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. C. Meet the tree replacement requirements by making a cash payment for the caliper inch deficit from the plan. The exact number will be determined based on the revised plan. D. Provide copies of legal documents, either in Homeowners Association format or private covenant and agreement format to be approved by the City that shall address the following: • Describe the long term private maintenance or replacement agreement for the retaining walls. • Insertion of language in the documents that relinquishes the City of Eden Prairie from maintenance or replacement of the retaining walls. E. Submit a bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit (“security”) that guarantees completion of all public improvements equivalent to 125% of the cost of the improvements. 3. Prior to land alteration permit issuance, the applicant shall: A. Conduct a survey for endangered, rare and threatened species on the site and provide findings to the City. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, wetland, utility, street and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer that address drainage issues identified in the Engineering DRC memo. C. Submit a tree replacement letter of credit or escrow surety equivalent to 150% of the cost of the tree replacement. A surety will be required for each phase of tree replacement as shown on the Exhibit B Plans. D. Obtain and provide documentation of Watershed District approval. E. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. F. Install erosion control at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City. Staff Report – Noble Hill Page 12 12 G. Submit a land alteration bond, letter of credit, or escrow surety equivalent to 125% of the cost of the land alteration. H. Submit a wetland protection bond, letter of credit, or escrow surety equivalent to 150% of the wetland plan requirements included in the Development Agreement. 4. Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the applicant shall: A. Obtain an Airport Zoning Permit. B. Pay the appropriate cash park fees. C. Provide recorded copies of any Home Owner Association documents or private covenants and agreements to the City following recording of the final plat. D. Submit construction plans and project specifications for public infrastructure for review and approval by the City Engineer. Construction plans must include either the cul-de- sac option or the street connection through Hennepin Village; dependent on Hennepin Village providing authorization for work within their property. 5. The following waivers have been granted through the PUD District Review for the project as indicated in the plans stamp dated February 19, 2021. Minimum Lot Size City Code requires a minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet in the R1-9.5 zoning district. Five of the lots are under 9,500 square feet. These lots are 9,075 square feet in size. The waiver would allow Lots 2-6, Block 2, to be under the minimum lot size as depicted on the plans. Minimum Lot Width City Code requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet along the street, 55 feet on the bulb of the cul- de sac and 85 feet on corner lots. Twenty-three of the lots are narrower than the minimum lot width requirement. These lots along the street range in width from 61.15 feet to 68.74 feet. The lots on the bulb of the cul-de-sac have an average width of 44 feet with the narrowest being 46.37. The waiver would allow Lots 1-5 and 15 and 16, Block 1, Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, and Lots 4-6, 13-23, Block 3 to be narrower than required as depicted on the plans Front Yard Setback City Code requires a front yard setback of 30 feet. The applicant is proposing a front yard setback of a minimum 25 feet. This provides more flexibility on home placement to deal with potential issues with grades. Homes on individual lots can have a setback deeper than 25 feet based on lot conditions and preferences. The waiver would allow all of the lots to have a 25 foot minimum front yard setback. Over length Cul-de-Sac. City Code states that a cul-de-sac shall not exceed 500 feet in length. Both of the cul-de-sac streets exceed 500 feet. With limited opportunities for street connections, the cul-de-sac streets provide for development of the site. The cul-de-sac terminating at the east Staff Report – Noble Hill Page 13 13 property line is designed so that it could be connected in the future if conditions change. If the street is connected to Hennepin Village, a waiver would only be needed for the Osprey Point cul- de-sac. 6. All signage shall require review and approval of a sign permit and shall comply with Section 11.70. 7. A Steep Slope Permit is authorized through the approval of this project and plans stamp dated February 19, 2021. From:Andrew Henley To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:9955 Spring Road Date:Saturday, March 13, 2021 8:27:41 PM Hello Eden Prarie council, I am writing to express strong opposition to approving the building development proposed for 9955 Spring Road. For many decades, the spring and connected wildlife refuge area has been a great access to both the City of Eden Prarie and the greater metropolitan community. It is more apparent now that ever the great necessity to protect these wildlife habitats, especially when connected to historic spring water facilities. Commercialization of prime real estate may have great profits, but they are often at the expense of our future generations. Please do not approve this development. Our City needs To keep this beautiful asset intact. Thank you for you time, -Andrew Henley Andrew Henley Principal High Grade Systems, LLC andrew@henleyaudio.com 10250 Crosstown Highway Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Office: 612-584-3054 Cell: 612-250-0771 www.henleyaudio.com www.hgs-llc.com From:bbnoter1 To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Noble Hill Project Date:Friday, March 19, 2021 10:33:59 AM In regards to the Noble Hills/Standal project being developed by Pulte Homes, we are supportive of the development as proposed. We have been neighbors to the Standals for over40 years and feel that they have the right to do anything with their property in accordance to the regulations of the City of Eden Prairie. Bert and Bonnie Notermann Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS From:Daryl Horak To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Frederick Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 1:49:59 PM Attachments:image001.png Importance:High Hi, I'm writing to request that the City of EP delay the approval of development plans that could affect the Frederick Miller Spring. My family has been utilizing this natural spring for over 30 years now. We should do whatever we can to preserve this wonderful and vital natural resource to not only EP residents but to the thousands of MN residents that travel to this natural spring from all over the 7 county metro area. So many people depend on this source of clean and mineral-rich water every day for their overall pursuit of health and wellness. We are NOT against this development if it will NOT impact the quality of the spring’s water. But if it will now or in the future… we ask that you reconsider moving forward with this development as it could disrupt this WONDERFUL and HEALTY resource to so many. Thank you for your time and consideration. In good health, Daryl HorakOwner/Club DirectorMaster Certified Personal Trainer and Nutritional Coach – NPTI, ACPT Anytime Fitness of Bloomington 5107 W. 98th Street (Normandale Village Center) Bloomington, MN 55437 Club: (952) 303-3864 Cell: (952) 292-7496 Link to Anytime Fitness - West Bloomington website Staffed hours for tours and sign-ups: Mon – Thurs: 10:30 AM – 6:30 PM Fri: 9 AM – 2 PM Sat: 9 AM – 12 PM March 16, 2021 Eden Prairie Planning Commission C/O Beth Novak-Krebs 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344 Dear Ms. Novak-Krebs: Re: Noble Hill proposed development I am writing to you today as the owner of the property at 10006 Indigo Drive, and on behalf of myself and the property owners at 10002 and 10012 Indigo Dr. We want to make the planning commission aware of several important concerns we share about the planned Pulte development bordering Spring Road and called Noble Hill. In conversations with others with property on Indigo Drive and Lilac Drive I’ve learned that others share the concerns expressed here, but this letter is only intended to represent the unanimous interests of the resident properties noted above. Background As you know, the planned Pulte development will have an eastern boundary that abuts a significant number of properties within the Hennepin Village (HV) residential complex. Specifically, the planned development will share a property boundary with approximately 40 homes along Lilac Drive and Indigo Drive in HV. These homes have existed in Eden Prairie for as many as 15 years, and their residents pay annual property taxes totaling more than $200,000. Since the HV development was built and populated these homeowners have contributed over $2,500,000 in property tax support to Eden Prairie. In the same time period, the current owners of the property proposed for development by Pulte enjoyed a favorable tax status and have contributed only minimally (less than the HV homeowners contribute in one year) to tax support for Eden Prairie. I hope that you’ll agree that our interests and concerns as HV residents deserve careful consideration. In support of the Pulte development, we appreciate that the property they’ve purchased has long been the subject of development interest, and that the city of Eden Prairie has a legitimate interest in strengthening its tax base through thoughtful, planned development. However, we don’t understand why the city isn’t requiring two points of access into the Pulte development when we understand that they did for the previously proposed Gonyea development. Hopefully, that decision by the city will be explained at the upcoming Planning Commission Public Heariing. We accept that any new development, including this one, will bring increased traffic flow, construction noise and inconvenience for current residents of HV, and we concede that we must exercise patience in this regard. However, we want to register several important overarching concerns about Pulte’s current development plans and their apparent lack of interest in considering any changes suggested by attendees at a virtual meeting they hosted on February 10 of this year. Those concerns relate to the dramatic and unnecessary loss of the green space and barrier trees that line the border between the proposed Pulte development and the existing properties on Indigo and Lilac Drives, their lack of interest in considering decreasing impacts due to their plan to construct two story homes by reducing the grade on proposed Osprey Point and the serious potential environmental impacts on the entire development to the Miller Spring and Riley Creek. We concede the rights of developers to legally purchase and thoughtfully develop available property, but we very strongly oppose the rights of Pulte to negatively impact the quality of our own life and reducing the value (as well as tax base for the city). Specifically, the site plan submitted by Pulte calls for removal of many of the mature trees and much of the green space that currently border the Indigo Drive properties and the Pulte development. Proposed setbacks are minimal, and although the elevation drop between many of the Indigo Drive homes and Spring Road is over 160’, Pulte has proposed two story properties with first floor elevations only a few feet lower than existing Indigo Drive residences. The result for us on Indigo Drive will be viewing home siding, vent stacks and roof shingles. Pulte suggests that they have no options in regard to eliminating the trees and green space that form the eastern border of their planned development. They submit that their site plan is pushed unavoidably eastward by the requirement to respect the conservation easement on the western border of their development, and that the small resulting setbacks between their property and our own will not support the dense stands of mature trees that currently form the sight barrier and green space enjoyed by Indigo Drive residents. Instead, small stands of short, immature trees are proposed as replacements for the fully developed stands of trees already in place. Our Very Important Request We strongly request that the planning commission recognize the long-standing contributions of the Indigo Drive residents, and take our legitimate interests into consideration before approving the Pulte development as currently planned. As might reasonably be expected, Pulte has designed a site plan and building plan with optimal benefits for itself. It is not true, however, that Pulte is without other options. Until the planning commission grants final approval, such fluid things as number of lots, lot size, lot dimensions, lot grades and flow and placement of the home sites within the property can all be adjusted if other compelling interests dictate. We believe that our interests on Indigo Drive are compelling. We request that the planning commission require three reasonable but important changes in the current development plan. 1. First, require more favorable setbacks from the Indigo Drive properties. At a minimum, required setbacks should be at least 75’. Only small adjustments to planned lot dimensions and shapes, placement of the homes within the lots, and/or some small relief relative to the conservation easement would be required to accomplish this. 2. Second, a sloping grade characterizes much of the planned development property behind the Indigo Drive properties. We ask that the planning commission require that new homes be placed low enough on the sloping grade to allow for horizontal sight lines from Indigo Drive homes that don’t intersect with walls, windows and rooftops in the Pulte development. If the lack of appreciable slope simply makes this impossible for some homes, require additional setbacks and visual barriers. 3. Finally, require that more of the current mature growth trees, and much more of the green space and other visual barriers be preserved. Longer setbacks will make this simpler. Pulte rightly points out that the smaller replacement trees planned for the eastern border will look much fuller in 15 or 20 years, but many of the current residents of the homes on Indigo Drive are retirement age people. Those retirement age residents simply shouldn’t have to wait 15 or 20 years to have the peace and beauty of their own views restored. Thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter. With your reasonable assistance and guidance we’re confident that Pulte can make the changes we’re requesting and still accomplish its development goals. Without consideration of these reasonable change requests, the Pulte development will negatively and dramatically impact the lives of too many long-term Indigo Drive residents. Sincerely, David and Dorothy Raby; 10006 Indigo Dr. Scott and Michelle Addyman; 10002 Indigo Dr. Lynn O’jala; 10012 Indigo Dr. Cc Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Board of Managers Eden Prairie City Council From:diane brown To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Save the Frederick spring & wooded areas Date:Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:37:01 PM Please save the Frederick spring, I love the trees in this area & I am a resident in the Heritage Pines/settler's Ridge area. I hike around & often use this fresh water spring ,& see manyothers filling their bottles. Sincerely, Diane Wilder Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android From:Jed Hicks To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Frederick Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 6:42:34 AM Hello, Please reconsider rezoning the area around the Frederick Miller Spring. This area is a beautiful accessible natural area. And access to Spring water is a great natural and historic part of Eden Prairie. Please preserve our link to our past. Thanks, Jed From:jlang0321 To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Frederick-Miller Spring Date:Friday, March 12, 2021 11:56:32 AM Commissioner, I was notified that there is a proposal going in front of the EP City Hall on the 22nd that would allow a development company to build 50 homes on the lands next to the Frederick-MillerSpring. I have been getting water from that spring for about 7 years now. I'm writing to ask you that you help the community keep the quality of the spring. We know that the development of that land will destroy the forest and the ecosytem that allows thatspring to be as clean and healthy as it is. With that and the fact that those homes will have chemicals put in the grass, the water supply will become contaminated... for humans andanimals alike. We will also reduce the scenic beauty of the area that people want, and is the reason people move to the EP/Chanhassen area. There has to be at least a hundred people that go to that spring on a daily basis, with theamount even higher in warmer months. That spring is of high value for those seeking fresh clean water. I have met countless amounts of people that travel almost an hour to get waterfrom that spring! Those are people that appreciate what EP has to offer and that it's open to everyone. That alone brings people to EP, thus adding economic influence to stores, services,and restaurants nearby. Those are also the people that recommend others to go to EP for the spring and whatever else we offer. That spring brings people from everywhere and provides usexposure that is unique to the area. Those people will stop coming to this area once this housing development comes in. They won't trust the safety and cleanliness of the water anylonger. That is a big loss for this area, financially, but most importantly the impact to our environment will be even worse. Please work on behalf of the citizens to stop this rezoning and protect this area so we cancontinue to enjoy it, but also benefit from all things it offers. Tell the builder to find land elsewhere. The risk is far greater than the reward. Thank you.Jenny L From:Katy Sudlow To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Frederick- Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 6:14:20 PM To whom this may concern, I am writing to express my family's and friends' concern with the proposed development on top of the Frederick-Miller Spring. We have been exclusively using water from this spring fordrinking, cooking, and fermenting foods and drinks for over six years. Initially we started looking into water sources after the Flint water crisis was exposed. Knowing that was aterrible event, that actually still has not been solved, but it was far from the only case of unsafe water in the United States, made us realize we had to take our own family's health into ourhands. This is the cleanest water by far in the area, and I have met people at the Spring coming from Northfield, or farther!, to collect water and bring back home to use for their ownfamilies. We know even locally that the areas around the 3M plant have had contaminated water for decades, and have not been remedied, seen by the higher cases of cancer-particularly childhood cases- in Cottage Grove and other surrounding areas. The Spring was meant to be protected land. It grieves us that we may lose our source of water, yet again, for corporate interests and the financial gain of others. How many more times mustwe as citizens lose out on our health for the gain of others? You may think this will not affect the water quality, but how can you be sure? Until the water is affected to the point it will neverreclaim it's purity, corporate interests will insist it is safe. Then will they apologize? Will they find another pure water source for us? Will they pay for the medical bills of the families thiswill harm? History tells us they will do none of the above. As in the cases of Flint, the Eastern Twin Cities from 3M, and so many other stories of negligence, greed, and harm, this will justadd to the list of the public being harmed to protect the pockets of the bigger businesses. Besides the health factor, you may not be realizing the community and diversity that this Spring attracts. I have grown up in diverse areas, from Chicago and here. Nothing, literallynothing, has a chance of comparing to the diversity of this Spring. We started coming here to gather water and met and enjoyed the company of people from all walks of life. Teenagerscome to grab a cold drink with their friends. Young business people, families, and elderly that need assistance bringing their bottles back to their cars all regularly come to appreciate thepure water. Some people have known no water but the water of the pure Spring in Eden Prairie, as they have been raised for decades only drinking this water. I do not think I haveever seen so many ethnicities and languages in one location because pure water is needed by all people. Delivery drivers stop by just to fill up their water bottle for the day. Men in suitscome while on conference calls for their business. Little kids play in the creek while they wait for their parents to fill their bottles. The Spring is a true community enjoyed by thousands ofpeople regularly- and it costs nothing, or next to nothing, to maintain. I often see people chipping the ice off the basin, cleaning up the few items of trash left accidentally, and saltingthe area in the winter. People that come here are just good, kind, and true humanitarians. One of my pregnancies I never lacked assistance helping me bring my bottles to my car, as theywere too large for me to carry anymore by myself. This is the kind of community the spring attracts. It would be a true shame on Eden Prairie to end this community and diversity to builda few more houses. Lastly, this beautiful area is a gem of the city. The majority of EP is built around the mall, and although you have done a good job of creating man-made parks and selecting small areas ofthe land to be unbuilt, the majority is known for being full of cars, construction, and buildings. The area surrounding this spring is as important as the spring itself. We have spent manyhours exploring the trails around it. It is not hard to see wildlife every single time we get to escape from the city a little by trekking up that large hill. This land is beautiful because it islargely untouched. While a house or two would be able to have a beautiful view of the river valley, how many more people can appreciate and love this land by keeping it public andprotected? How many more birds, deer, turkeys, and other wildlife can live in this area instead, just as they have since the beginning of time? Please protect this Spring, the land surrounding it for the wildlife and untouched woods, andthe community and diversity this true water source attracts. Building houses in this area would inevitably mean you lose all of this. The water quality decrease from this will never support allthat you are losing. Thank you for reading and please consider all my points. My dad recently died, and if I did not have his celebration of life on the day of your meeting, you can be sure I would be there forthis discussion. Sincerely, Katy, Justin, Jase, and Isabelle SudlowCarver residents -- Katy Sudlow, ACSM-EP, M-HYI Certified Exercise Physiologist Master Yoga Instructor 952-406-1903 From:Leo To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Protect the springs Date:Thursday, March 11, 2021 2:06:16 PM Hello Please save our spring my family has been using the Fredric-Miller springs since I can remember!!! Keep if open for the people !!! please ! Leonid Bruslavtsev Sent from my iPhone From:Roberto Gonzalez To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Preservation of the Frederick Miller Spring (FMS) Date:Friday, March 19, 2021 1:11:56 AM Good day. I have recently been notified of the potential danger to the water quality at the FMS. Please protect what makes Eden Prairie beautiful to many people. That is some of thefreshest water, beautiful woodlands and exquisite wildlife near the FMS. I’m a fan of creating new neighborhoods but it must be without danger to something so sacred as a spring that has been offering many people freshwater for years. Hoping to hear great news from you. Thank you From:Sandeep Sharma To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fwd: New Pulte homes development in Eden prairie Date:Friday, March 19, 2021 9:13:59 AM Hello, As a resident of Eden prairie I am excited to learn that Pulte Homes is proposing to build aneighborhood off of Spring Road next to Hennepin Village. My understanding is that the proposal is consistent with the City’s plans for this land as a lower density neighborhood.The new neighborhood would create a safe environment for 50 families to live and protect the sensitive environmental areas nearby. I believe that City’s usually require 10% of theland for parks/green or open space and Pulte’s proposal sets aside over 30% of the land to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Please support this proposal so that this newneighborhood can be built. My family would be excited to live there. Thanks, Sandy From:Stephanie Horak To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Frederick Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 12:07:48 PM Good afternoon, I'm writing to plead with you to delay the approval of development plans that could affect theFrederick Miller Spring. Preserving our precious natural resources should be a priority for Minnesotans and we trust those in leadership to act on behalf of citezens. My family depends on this source of clean and mineral-rich water every day for our health and wellbeing. It's the only water we drink and trust with guidance from our healthcare providers. Please consider the long-term and widespread impact of potential damage to this spring forgenerations of Minnesotans to come. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Stephanie and David Horak Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Sue Bennett 9992 Indigo Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 March 10, 2021 Eden Prairie Planning Commission C/O Beth Novak-Krebs 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 To The Eden Prairie Planning Commission, I’m writing to you regarding the Pulte Homes development proposal and their plans to remove over 445 trees and the line of mature pine trees on the property line between Indigo and Lilac drive. I’m very concern about the impact this will have on the environment, the wildlife in the area, the soil erosion, the traffic patterns and the water quality of the Fredrick-Miller Spring area. I’m asking that the Planning Commission complete an Environmental Impact Statement before you consider approval of this home development project. One of my main concerns is the line of beautiful pine trees that are at least 45 feet tall. Beyond their maturity, beauty and privacy, these trees have added an aesthetic value to this neighborhood. At the very least this line of trees need to be kept to maintain the overall environment of the area. My request to keep this line of mature trees also carries forward to the value of both the Hennepin Village and the Pulte homes. The plans that Pulte has submitted affects over 300 tax paying homes in the Hennepin Village Townhouse complex. I understand that change in inevitable in a growing city, but we are asking for a fair and equitable compromise to the current construction plans. How can we preserve the environment and the beauty of the area? Can Pulte reduce the number of homes planned to be built to preserve the Eden Prairie land scape? If you have any additional question for me, I can be reached at 952-334-5617 and I’m planning to attend the public planning meeting on this subject. Best regards, Sue Bennett From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: MN "Noble Hill" Project Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:30:27 AM For PC review From: Ben D <benjamined@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:26 AM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: MN 'Noble Hill' Project Hello Julie, It was recently brought to my attention that there are plans to rezone this area fordevelopment. Thank you for making time to allow for public hearing on this matter and I look forward to helping prevent this from happening. Kind regards,Ben Doyle From:Brady Longtin To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Miller Springs Development Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 6:04:07 AM To Eden Prairie city council, As a lifelong resident of Eden Prairie I wholeheartedly oppose the development project at 9955Spring Road. Many people rely on Miller Spring not only as a source of free, clean drinking water butas a woodland area to bring their families. I’m sure the development company claimed that theywould do their best to preserve the spring, but I highly doubt that they will. If you allowdevelopment to proceed you will lose the support and votes of myself and many others in thecommunity. I ask that you make the right choice and choose to protect this valuable woodland bydenying development. With best regardsBrady longtin From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: Frederick Miller spring water site Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 10:50:54 AM More comments for PC. Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: Cathy <skydancer66@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 10:50 AM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: Frederick Miller spring water site I don’t live in Eden prairie but drive 45 minutes one way to get water there. For me, water is life and having access to good spring water is imperative to our family. I’m worried that refining that particular area for 50 homes will destroy the accessibility and quality of life for the water, wildlife and natural habitants of that area. Please consider a different location for your new homes that will not interfere with the Frederick Miller spring water site and closely surrounding area. Thank you 1 Beth Novak-Krebs From:Julie Klima Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 12:38 PM To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: It’s World Water Day! / Frederick-Miller Spring More PC comments. Thanks for all of your coordinating and tracking of these Beth! From: Cheri Miller <cherimiller12345@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 12:10 PM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Cc: Cheri Miller <cherimiller12345@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: It’s World Water Day! / Frederick‐Miller Spring Hello again Julie and all concerned with the Frederick-Miller Spring~ The pictures would not forward with my last email so I wanted to forward you the World Water Day email as well with the pictures if you could please add this to my email. I also have my email again at the bottom of this. I really appreciate your time and help in this urgent matter. Do not hesitate to reach out with any questions and I am happy to help in any way I can. Thank you again and enjoy your day. ~Cheri Miller 6801 Stonewood Court Eden Prairie, MN 55346 612-865-0818 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: MiiR <hello@miir.com> Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:08 AM Subject: It’s World Water Day! To: Cheri <cherimiller12345@gmail.com> Because everyone deserves clean water 2 Everyone in the World Deserves Clean Water It’s World Water Day! Today, and every day, MiiR advocates for the importance of clean and safe drinking water and the sustainable management of freshwater systems. Since our inception in 2010, we have partnered with nonprofits that work with local communities to implement long-term, sustainable projects in the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector. Clean water and proper sanitation are basic rights that many of us take for granted, and our partners envision a world where everyone is empowered with these critical, life changing elements. 3 Explore our Projects Splash in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Water1st in Dima Jeliwan, Ethiopia How You Support Our Mission Our premium stainless steel vessels for coffee, beer, wine, and food all rely on three things at their core: water, earth, and the relationship people have with both. 4 We sit at the nexus of these three critical elements by setting aside a portion of revenue to fund projects focused on clean water, a healthy environment, and strong communities. When you purchase MiiR, you are contributing to our mission of empowering people for a better future. That’s why each product comes equipped with a custom Give Code™so you can register and stay connected with the projects you’ve enabled us to support. Learn more about our impact and register your Give Code™. Learn More 5 We exist to empower people for a better future. Design forward. Generosity driven. We exist to empower people for a better future. Design forward. Generosity driven. miir.com MiiR, 3400 Stone Way N, Seattle, WA 98103 888 746 5762 | hello@miir.com FAQ Terms of Use Privacy Policy Unsubscribe ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Cheri Miller <cherimiller12345@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:03 PM Subject: Frederick-Miller Spring To: <jklima@edenprairie.org> Hello Julie and all concerned regarding the Frederick-Miller Spring~ I am deeply concerned and troubled to find out that the precious spring water I have been drinking for three and a half years... since moving to Eden Prairie, is at risk due to a new zoning proposal that is putting Frederick-Miller Spring at risk. We moved from Maiden Rock, WI where we had a well and were fortunate to have really good artesian spring water. When we moved to Eden Prairie we were selling our home with over 60 acres on the Rush River and rented in Eden Prairie so our children could start school at the beginning of the school year in 6 Eden Prairie because our house had not sold. The water was terrible at the Residence Inn, where we stayed the first month. Then we rented a corporate apartment for a month at Southwest Station because the townhouse we rented, Hills of Eden Prairie was not available until November 1st. The water at all of these locations tasted terrible and I was buying bottled water to drink. I read about Frederick-Miller Spring on the Eden Prairie website while living at Southwest Station for that month and have been drinking the Frederick-Miller Spring water ever since. I often have to wait 20-30 minutes to fill up my water bottles. Thankfully, I try not to go during prime times so it does not always take me that long. Having clean drinking water is near and dear to my heart. And the Frederick-Miller spring is my favorite thing about Eden Prairie. We need to preserve our city and the beauty and natural resources that are left. I was very troubled in the past with the water issues in Flint, Michigan. And when the movie Erin Brockovich came out with the water issues and concerns that brought up. I also happened to receive an email today that I attached/ copy and pasted below. Underneath my email. It is World Water Day. The pictures are not coming through so I will just forward the email to you Julie. ꞏ With the current Rural zoning only two houses could be built on the 28-acre site vs. the 50 housing units proposed if the intense Noble Hill up zoning is approved. ꞏ Portions of the site are considered Ecologically Significant. Only a fourth of Eden Prairie has this same designation. ꞏ DNR database records show an occurrence of Rhombic-Petala Evening Primrose (Special Concern Species) and Kitten-Tails (Threatened Species) in the vicinity. ꞏ This site is underlain by groundwaters rated high to highly vulernable to contamination. ꞏ The site is in the Riley Creek watershed which is considered impaired for aquatic recreation and aquatic life by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Much of the impairment is due to existing development. ꞏ Riley Creek is in a degraded state with restoration efforts currently underway, such as the Lower Riley Creek Ecological Restoration project. ꞏ According to the U.S. Geological Survey: o 22% of the Riley Creek watershed is covered with buildings, 7 streets and other impervious surfaces. Stream quality impairment begins at 10% impervious cover and at 25% restoration may not be possible. o Forest covers 15% of the watershed and a minimum of 40% forest cover is needed to preserve stream quality. Noble Hill will remove 456 trees - large portion of the forest onsite - which will be replaced with trees having far less ecological value. o By increasing impervious area and removing forest, Noble Hill will make it more difficult to restore Riley Creek to a higher-quality condition. ꞏ While Fredrick-Miller Spring may not be directly affected by Noble Hill, further development of the Riley Creek watershed area places this highly valued resource at risk. ꞏ The proposed point of access onto Spring Road poses a safety hazard as cars may not be able to safely turn onto Spring Road. I really appreciate your time and help in this urgent matter. Do not hesitate to reach out with any questions and I am happy to help in any way I can. Thank you again and enjoy your day. ~Cheri Miller 6801 Stonewood Court Eden Prairie, MN 55346 612-865-0818 From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: Noble Hill project Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:08:23 PM Another comment for the PC - thanks Julie -----Original Message----- From: Christine Fahey <faheychr@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 1:02 PM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: Noble Hill project I know it is past noon, so apologize for that. Got busy with work. I do not live in Eden Prairie, but my husband Ali have been getting water from the spring for the past 20 years. It is vital resource as there are usually others there getting water. The next run off beyond Riley Creek is into the MN river valley. Please protect the few green spaces left! Christine Fahey Chaska, MN Sent from my iPad From:D Schmitz To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fredrick Miller Development Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 9:45:13 PM To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this email to object to the development proposed affecting the Fredrick-Miller Spring. Having just been informed of this project, it concerns me that the city is remiss in their duty of proper and adequate notification to the residents of Eden Prairie, and more importantly, to the many neighboring residents using that natural spring. The "notification" was completely inadequate, obviously not displayed nearly long enough, given many residents using that spring come once a month or less,, and is obviously attempting to avoid informing the majority of residents affected by the proposed development. Having used that spring for many years, it is concerning that the city is, by neglecting their duties to adequately inform their constituents, electing to favor the developer and blatantly increase their property tax base. More time is required to inform the many residents who use that spring and the proposed plan to raze that entire hillside. From my personal experiences with the residents at that spring, it is extremely likely that a majority would sign a petition to object to this development. It is very evident that the city council has prioritized catering to big developers so that extremely wealthy people can build massive houses on a hill overlooking the river....thus massively increasing property taxes and the city council's control over normal, average residents who would like to preserve the century old spring. Side note: Why is it that a Google search of the spring and the city's proposed development did not pull up any articles related to this topic? Why, when I googled Eden Prairies' zoning board, did nothing related to this development come up? Extreme negligence on the part of city to properly inform its' citizenry. Sincerely, D. Schmitz Confidentiality Notice: This private email message, including any attachment(s) is limited to the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government(s), Municipality(ies), International Organizations, Corporation(s), agent(s), investigator(s), or informant(s), et. al., and/or Third Party(ies) working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring My email(s),and any other means of spying and collecting these Communications Without my Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review, Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights U.C.C.1-308.NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS. NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS From:Julie Klima To:dana.c.caron@gmail.com Cc:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:RE: City of Eden Prairie: City Council Contact Us Form Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 10:44:14 AM Hi Dana – thank you for your comments. A copy of your comments will be provided to the Planning Commission. Please let me know if you have any other questions - Julie Julie Klima, AICP City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road | Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 Direct: 952-949-8489 | Email: jklima@edenprairie.org A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name:Contact Us: City Council and Administration Date & Time:03/22/2021 7:58 a.m. Response #:175 Submitter ID:36221 IP address:2601:448:c380:e8a0:74db:f05e:954f:9339 Time to complete:10 min. , 44 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Please feel free to contact us with any comments or questions: Office of the City Manager 8080 Mitchell Road 952-949-8412 Or fill out the form below to send an email message: First Name Dana Last Name Caron Email Address dana.c.caron@gmail.com Phone Number 360-970-7591 Address 3312 22nd Ave S Apt 4 City Minneapolis State Minnesota Message Hello, I'm writing regarding the proposed rezoning that would allow 50 houses to be built across Spring Road from the Fredrick Miller Spring. I apologize for not having more specific information to describe what I am writing about, but I just received this information yesterday. Eden Prairie is a beautiful city. It has natural spaces to balance the spaces used for houses and commerce. Altering the land but the spring not only removes some of the habitat and environment that contributes to said beauty, but it would be a detriment to the health of the spring and subsequent creeks and waterways. We need houses, yes, but we need natural spaces as well. And we need clean water. And not just water that is run through water treatment and made available through our faucets and garden hoses. We need clean water that is clean on its own. We need it. Literally, it is one of the basic needs that keeps us alive. This housing development would destroy not only something we need for our bodies, but it would also destroy something that maintains a person's entire well being. Studies have shown that natural spaces and access to unaltered green environments contributes to happiness and well being. Please don't take this aways from the people of Eden Prairie, and the countless others that come from near and far to enjoy the water of Fredrick Miller Spring. Thank you for you time, and thank you for your consideration. Dana Caron Would you like to be contacted regarding your comments? (○) Yes How do you prefer we contact you? (○) Email Thank you, City of Eden Prairie This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System™. Please do not reply directly to this email. From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: Frederick Spring Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:22:51 AM For distribution to PC – we can talk more about it at staff meeting From: david.stormking <david.stormking@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 10:25 PM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: Frederick Spring My complaint about this project is that maybe if the county would have good water people would not have to depend on the spring. I have to use pure water to run aquariums because the Carver county water is the worse my aquarium expert has seen and my fish die. A lot of us depend on this spring for healthy drinking water and I know the Government and state will not make tap water safer for drinking and other purposes. If this spring gets damaged you will have a lot of unhappy tax payers. Your understanding -Dave Lindahl Carver county tax payer. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: Noble Hill Project Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:24:50 AM More comments for the PC From: Debra Cross <roundheads22@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 4:59 PM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: Noble Hill Project Hi. My name is Debra Cross and I live in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. I would like to recommend that the City Council retain the current Rural zoning of this site. There are numerous endangered and/or critical species of foliage in this area that would be decimated. I have read about the watershed and the pollution aspect. Please do not allow multi-housing units to be erected. This is valuable land and is vital to the community, environment, wildlife and sustainability to all involved. Thank you, Debra Cross Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: Noble Hill Project Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 9:26:43 AM Another comment for PC. Thanks! From: City of Eden Prairie <communications@edenprairie.org> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 9:15 AM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: Noble Hill Project Message submitted from the <City of Eden Prairie> website. Site Visitor Name: Diane B FollestadSite Visitor Email: dfollestad@gmail.com Dear Ms. Klima, I hope to persuade the decision regarding the Noble Hill Project via email since I won't be showing up to a large meeting in person for this cause (COVID concerns).We hope that the Planning Commission will recommend that the City Council retain the current Rural zoning of the site. I would like to believe that EP will stay the course and remainon high alert to our environment, sustainability, and all else that the City of Eden Prairie website so proudly offers. Thank you. Diane B Follestad From:Liz Lawson To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Concern for house development on Frederick-Miller Spring Date:Saturday, March 20, 2021 5:25:13 PM Hello, Today I heard the news about your plans to build on and near Frederick-Miller Spring land. My family and friends have been going here to get our water for over 10 years and to know that the beautiful nature will be destroyed and the quality of the water will change for the worse is heartbreaking. My dad unfortunately has an issue with high blood pressure which means that he is unable to drink our soft tap water due to the high salt content. Please consider my concerns, thank you! -Elizabeth Lawson Sent from my iPhone From:Jackie Clark To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Please Save Fredric Miller Spring Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 8:55:49 PM To whom it may concern, Fredric Miller Spring is some of the best water in the country, not just the state. It should be protected at all costs. Please do not allow for any development on this or surrounding land.Those of us who have personally consumed it for years, would do anything to be able to continue to drive up and fill up, so we can continue to drink and use it for things like cooking.Don’t let Minnesota be disappointing in another way. Thank you for reading, Respectfully, Jacquelyn Clark Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone From:Jillian Mittelmark To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Planned Development at Frederick Miller Springs Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 2:13:39 PM Dear Eden Prairie Planning Commission, I'm writing to express strong opposition to the planned Noble Hill development at Frederick Miller Springs. I have been an Eden Prairie resident and business owner for over a decade. The abundance ofnatural spaces is one of the reasons my family chose to make Eden Prairie our home. The proposed development area is one that is used by residents not only for its clean natural spring water, but also the walking trails and natural hiking areas on the bluffs.My family hikes these bluffs at least weekly when weather permits. We see dozens of individuals there every time we go, from teenagers socializing with friends outside, to youngfamilies with children walking through the trails, to older adults enjoying the scenery on the bluffs. It is a beautiful area to overlook the river valley, watch the sunset and enjoy theoutdoors. It is devastating to think that it may soon be another paved-over housing development. While that may be lovely for the 50 residents that live there, it will have a tremendous negativeimpact on the hundreds or even thousands of weekly visitors to this area. Over the years I have seen this city become more concerned with development and corporate profits than in preserving the natural spaces that once made this city so unique. My love forthis city fades with every green space that disappears and if we lose this area it will leave an even larger hole in our hearts. -- Jillian Mittelmark, CPA Founder & PresidentResolve Works p:612-293-9368 m: 651-334-0565 a:9975 Valley View Road, Suite L, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 w:resolve-works.com e: jillian@resolve-works.com From:Jim F To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Preserve Frederick Miller Spring and neighborhoods Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 9:31:39 PM Please preserve this spring by not allowing this area to be developed by homes. From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fwd: Preserve the Frederick-Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 12:07:30 PM More comments for PC Begin forwarded message: From: Josie Miller <josiejademiller@gmail.com>Date: March 22, 2021 at 11:57:30 AM CDTTo: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org>Subject: Preserve the Frederick-Miller Spring Dear Julie, I hope that this email finds you well. Please do all that you can to preserve the Frederick-Miller Spring. My family moved to Eden Prairie a few years ago, and when we first moved we missed the taste of well water. However, then we found Frederick-Miller Spring!We, along with many others, have been using this spring for the past few years. Another important aspect of this spring is the sense of community that it brings. Miller-Frederick Spring has brought us a sense of community that we would nototherwise have. We have created amazing friendships by meeting people at the spring. Please protect this valuable resource and important piece of the Eden PrairieCommunity. Sincerely, Josephine Miller 612.875.8429josiejmiller9@gmail.com From:Madalyn Baker To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fredrick/Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 3:54:36 PM Hello, My name is Madalyn Baker. I’ve been coming to the spring for 5 years now. Not only has this spring been a haven from the city with it’s beautiful flowing waters and amazing hiking trails. It’s water is nourishment that’s helped heal my body and my mother’s. CLEAN, un-contaminated, chemical free water with the essential minerals our bodies need to function is crucial!! We deserve to have this option flowing freely everywhere we go. Why have we destroyed the only Earth we get and regulated one of it’s most prominent gifts? WATER! The opportunity to have such a sacred option in our community is a huge gift! And one the Miller family left in YOUR hands to do right by them with. Why take away this place of community & healing to build more homes? Not only is this about the water, but it’s about the land. Think about the future of your children. What Earth do you want to leave for them? One that you destroyed to make more money. Or one that you nurtured so that they and their kids can exist in a healthy way, experiencing the gifts of this planet. Thank you, Madalyn Baker From:Manifestival Matter To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Frederick-Miller Spring Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 1:20:26 PM Hello, I'm reaching out to petition against the planned development project of the Frederick-Miller spring. Please don't take my water source away from me and everyone I know. From:Melissa Malam To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fredric Miller Spring Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 1:19:15 PM To whom it may concern, Fredric Miller Spring is some of the best water in the country, not just the state. It should be protected at all costs. Please do not allow for any development on this or surrounding land. Those of us (myself included) who have personally consumed it for years, would do anything to be able to continue to drive up and fill up, so we can continue to drink and use it for things like cooking. Don’t let Minnesota be disappointing in another way. Thank you for reading, Respectfully, Melissa Malam Minneapolis resident 612.601.6495 Sent from my iPhone From:Mitch Snyder To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Property development near Frederick-Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:24:17 AM Hello, my wife and our family have been going to the spring for years. We enjoy the water, the nature, the entire experience. We even bring our new puppy out there and he loves it. Hearing about this new property development is not surprising. The area is beautiful and I'msure many people will make a lot of money. However... at what cost? Let's look for a practical solution, perhaps a 50/50 split between housing development (on the far side away from the spring) while maintaining the other half for the nature. Perhaps the citycan step in and support this change, so we can ensure this gift from nature (which is quite rare when you really investigate how common springs are in MN and the midwest) is cherishedand honored and used by the people of MN. Thank you for your consideration. Toward practical common sense solutions, Mitch Snyder, Jessica Snyder and our family From:obie calix To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fredrick Miller spring Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 6:22:06 PM Hello, The Fredrick Miller spring means a lot to so many people. I hope you can find it in you to see that our natural environment is the most important thing we have and this housing development will ruin this spring and the good it brings to the community. A housing development can be put somewhere else but the spring is something we can’t move and once damaged it will not return to where it’s at now. Please consider the future generations that should have access to this spring in its current state. You may not ever know them but they will certainly know you. From:Patricia Vessey To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Preserve the Frederick Spring Date:Saturday, March 20, 2021 10:13:21 AM My husband and I regularly get water from the Frederick-Miller spring. We saw the petition stating a builder wants to build 50 homes in this area. People come from miles around, even other states to get this great water. My fear is that this building project could impact the beautiful water source and just the beauty of this area. Please don’t rezone this area unless full consideration has been given to the environmental impacts. Thank you, Patricia Vessey Sent from my iPhone From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: MN "Noble Hill" Project Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:30:27 AM For PC review From: Ben D <benjamined@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:26 AM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: MN 'Noble Hill' Project Hello Julie, It was recently brought to my attention that there are plans to rezone this area fordevelopment. Thank you for making time to allow for public hearing on this matter and I look forward to helping prevent this from happening. Kind regards,Ben Doyle From:Brady Longtin To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Miller Springs Development Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 6:04:07 AM To Eden Prairie city council, As a lifelong resident of Eden Prairie I wholeheartedly oppose the development project at 9955Spring Road. Many people rely on Miller Spring not only as a source of free, clean drinking water butas a woodland area to bring their families. I’m sure the development company claimed that theywould do their best to preserve the spring, but I highly doubt that they will. If you allowdevelopment to proceed you will lose the support and votes of myself and many others in thecommunity. I ask that you make the right choice and choose to protect this valuable woodland bydenying development. With best regardsBrady longtin From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: Frederick Miller spring water site Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 10:50:54 AM More comments for PC. Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: Cathy <skydancer66@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 10:50 AM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: Frederick Miller spring water site I don’t live in Eden prairie but drive 45 minutes one way to get water there. For me, water is life and having access to good spring water is imperative to our family. I’m worried that refining that particular area for 50 homes will destroy the accessibility and quality of life for the water, wildlife and natural habitants of that area. Please consider a different location for your new homes that will not interfere with the Frederick Miller spring water site and closely surrounding area. Thank you 1 Beth Novak-Krebs From:Julie Klima Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 12:38 PM To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: It’s World Water Day! / Frederick-Miller Spring More PC comments. Thanks for all of your coordinating and tracking of these Beth! From: Cheri Miller <cherimiller12345@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 12:10 PM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Cc: Cheri Miller <cherimiller12345@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: It’s World Water Day! / Frederick‐Miller Spring Hello again Julie and all concerned with the Frederick-Miller Spring~ The pictures would not forward with my last email so I wanted to forward you the World Water Day email as well with the pictures if you could please add this to my email. I also have my email again at the bottom of this. I really appreciate your time and help in this urgent matter. Do not hesitate to reach out with any questions and I am happy to help in any way I can. Thank you again and enjoy your day. ~Cheri Miller 6801 Stonewood Court Eden Prairie, MN 55346 612-865-0818 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: MiiR <hello@miir.com> Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:08 AM Subject: It’s World Water Day! To: Cheri <cherimiller12345@gmail.com> Because everyone deserves clean water 2 Everyone in the World Deserves Clean Water It’s World Water Day! Today, and every day, MiiR advocates for the importance of clean and safe drinking water and the sustainable management of freshwater systems. Since our inception in 2010, we have partnered with nonprofits that work with local communities to implement long-term, sustainable projects in the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector. Clean water and proper sanitation are basic rights that many of us take for granted, and our partners envision a world where everyone is empowered with these critical, life changing elements. 3 Explore our Projects Splash in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Water1st in Dima Jeliwan, Ethiopia How You Support Our Mission Our premium stainless steel vessels for coffee, beer, wine, and food all rely on three things at their core: water, earth, and the relationship people have with both. 4 We sit at the nexus of these three critical elements by setting aside a portion of revenue to fund projects focused on clean water, a healthy environment, and strong communities. When you purchase MiiR, you are contributing to our mission of empowering people for a better future. That’s why each product comes equipped with a custom Give Code™so you can register and stay connected with the projects you’ve enabled us to support. Learn more about our impact and register your Give Code™. Learn More 5 We exist to empower people for a better future. Design forward. Generosity driven. We exist to empower people for a better future. Design forward. Generosity driven. miir.com MiiR, 3400 Stone Way N, Seattle, WA 98103 888 746 5762 | hello@miir.com FAQ Terms of Use Privacy Policy Unsubscribe ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Cheri Miller <cherimiller12345@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:03 PM Subject: Frederick-Miller Spring To: <jklima@edenprairie.org> Hello Julie and all concerned regarding the Frederick-Miller Spring~ I am deeply concerned and troubled to find out that the precious spring water I have been drinking for three and a half years... since moving to Eden Prairie, is at risk due to a new zoning proposal that is putting Frederick-Miller Spring at risk. We moved from Maiden Rock, WI where we had a well and were fortunate to have really good artesian spring water. When we moved to Eden Prairie we were selling our home with over 60 acres on the Rush River and rented in Eden Prairie so our children could start school at the beginning of the school year in 6 Eden Prairie because our house had not sold. The water was terrible at the Residence Inn, where we stayed the first month. Then we rented a corporate apartment for a month at Southwest Station because the townhouse we rented, Hills of Eden Prairie was not available until November 1st. The water at all of these locations tasted terrible and I was buying bottled water to drink. I read about Frederick-Miller Spring on the Eden Prairie website while living at Southwest Station for that month and have been drinking the Frederick-Miller Spring water ever since. I often have to wait 20-30 minutes to fill up my water bottles. Thankfully, I try not to go during prime times so it does not always take me that long. Having clean drinking water is near and dear to my heart. And the Frederick-Miller spring is my favorite thing about Eden Prairie. We need to preserve our city and the beauty and natural resources that are left. I was very troubled in the past with the water issues in Flint, Michigan. And when the movie Erin Brockovich came out with the water issues and concerns that brought up. I also happened to receive an email today that I attached/ copy and pasted below. Underneath my email. It is World Water Day. The pictures are not coming through so I will just forward the email to you Julie. ꞏ With the current Rural zoning only two houses could be built on the 28-acre site vs. the 50 housing units proposed if the intense Noble Hill up zoning is approved. ꞏ Portions of the site are considered Ecologically Significant. Only a fourth of Eden Prairie has this same designation. ꞏ DNR database records show an occurrence of Rhombic-Petala Evening Primrose (Special Concern Species) and Kitten-Tails (Threatened Species) in the vicinity. ꞏ This site is underlain by groundwaters rated high to highly vulernable to contamination. ꞏ The site is in the Riley Creek watershed which is considered impaired for aquatic recreation and aquatic life by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Much of the impairment is due to existing development. ꞏ Riley Creek is in a degraded state with restoration efforts currently underway, such as the Lower Riley Creek Ecological Restoration project. ꞏ According to the U.S. Geological Survey: o 22% of the Riley Creek watershed is covered with buildings, 7 streets and other impervious surfaces. Stream quality impairment begins at 10% impervious cover and at 25% restoration may not be possible. o Forest covers 15% of the watershed and a minimum of 40% forest cover is needed to preserve stream quality. Noble Hill will remove 456 trees - large portion of the forest onsite - which will be replaced with trees having far less ecological value. o By increasing impervious area and removing forest, Noble Hill will make it more difficult to restore Riley Creek to a higher-quality condition. ꞏ While Fredrick-Miller Spring may not be directly affected by Noble Hill, further development of the Riley Creek watershed area places this highly valued resource at risk. ꞏ The proposed point of access onto Spring Road poses a safety hazard as cars may not be able to safely turn onto Spring Road. I really appreciate your time and help in this urgent matter. Do not hesitate to reach out with any questions and I am happy to help in any way I can. Thank you again and enjoy your day. ~Cheri Miller 6801 Stonewood Court Eden Prairie, MN 55346 612-865-0818 From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: Noble Hill project Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:08:23 PM Another comment for the PC - thanks Julie -----Original Message----- From: Christine Fahey <faheychr@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 1:02 PM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: Noble Hill project I know it is past noon, so apologize for that. Got busy with work. I do not live in Eden Prairie, but my husband Ali have been getting water from the spring for the past 20 years. It is vital resource as there are usually others there getting water. The next run off beyond Riley Creek is into the MN river valley. Please protect the few green spaces left! Christine Fahey Chaska, MN Sent from my iPad From:D Schmitz To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fredrick Miller Development Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 9:45:13 PM To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this email to object to the development proposed affecting the Fredrick-Miller Spring. Having just been informed of this project, it concerns me that the city is remiss in their duty of proper and adequate notification to the residents of Eden Prairie, and more importantly, to the many neighboring residents using that natural spring. The "notification" was completely inadequate, obviously not displayed nearly long enough, given many residents using that spring come once a month or less,, and is obviously attempting to avoid informing the majority of residents affected by the proposed development. Having used that spring for many years, it is concerning that the city is, by neglecting their duties to adequately inform their constituents, electing to favor the developer and blatantly increase their property tax base. More time is required to inform the many residents who use that spring and the proposed plan to raze that entire hillside. From my personal experiences with the residents at that spring, it is extremely likely that a majority would sign a petition to object to this development. It is very evident that the city council has prioritized catering to big developers so that extremely wealthy people can build massive houses on a hill overlooking the river....thus massively increasing property taxes and the city council's control over normal, average residents who would like to preserve the century old spring. Side note: Why is it that a Google search of the spring and the city's proposed development did not pull up any articles related to this topic? Why, when I googled Eden Prairies' zoning board, did nothing related to this development come up? Extreme negligence on the part of city to properly inform its' citizenry. Sincerely, D. Schmitz Confidentiality Notice: This private email message, including any attachment(s) is limited to the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government(s), Municipality(ies), International Organizations, Corporation(s), agent(s), investigator(s), or informant(s), et. al., and/or Third Party(ies) working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring My email(s),and any other means of spying and collecting these Communications Without my Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review, Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights U.C.C.1-308.NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS. NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS From:Julie Klima To:dana.c.caron@gmail.com Cc:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:RE: City of Eden Prairie: City Council Contact Us Form Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 10:44:14 AM Hi Dana – thank you for your comments. A copy of your comments will be provided to the Planning Commission. Please let me know if you have any other questions - Julie Julie Klima, AICP City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road | Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 Direct: 952-949-8489 | Email: jklima@edenprairie.org A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name:Contact Us: City Council and Administration Date & Time:03/22/2021 7:58 a.m. Response #:175 Submitter ID:36221 IP address:2601:448:c380:e8a0:74db:f05e:954f:9339 Time to complete:10 min. , 44 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Please feel free to contact us with any comments or questions: Office of the City Manager 8080 Mitchell Road 952-949-8412 Or fill out the form below to send an email message: First Name Dana Last Name Caron Email Address dana.c.caron@gmail.com Phone Number 360-970-7591 Address 3312 22nd Ave S Apt 4 City Minneapolis State Minnesota Message Hello, I'm writing regarding the proposed rezoning that would allow 50 houses to be built across Spring Road from the Fredrick Miller Spring. I apologize for not having more specific information to describe what I am writing about, but I just received this information yesterday. Eden Prairie is a beautiful city. It has natural spaces to balance the spaces used for houses and commerce. Altering the land but the spring not only removes some of the habitat and environment that contributes to said beauty, but it would be a detriment to the health of the spring and subsequent creeks and waterways. We need houses, yes, but we need natural spaces as well. And we need clean water. And not just water that is run through water treatment and made available through our faucets and garden hoses. We need clean water that is clean on its own. We need it. Literally, it is one of the basic needs that keeps us alive. This housing development would destroy not only something we need for our bodies, but it would also destroy something that maintains a person's entire well being. Studies have shown that natural spaces and access to unaltered green environments contributes to happiness and well being. Please don't take this aways from the people of Eden Prairie, and the countless others that come from near and far to enjoy the water of Fredrick Miller Spring. Thank you for you time, and thank you for your consideration. Dana Caron Would you like to be contacted regarding your comments? (○) Yes How do you prefer we contact you? (○) Email Thank you, City of Eden Prairie This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System™. Please do not reply directly to this email. From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: Frederick Spring Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:22:51 AM For distribution to PC – we can talk more about it at staff meeting From: david.stormking <david.stormking@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 10:25 PM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: Frederick Spring My complaint about this project is that maybe if the county would have good water people would not have to depend on the spring. I have to use pure water to run aquariums because the Carver county water is the worse my aquarium expert has seen and my fish die. A lot of us depend on this spring for healthy drinking water and I know the Government and state will not make tap water safer for drinking and other purposes. If this spring gets damaged you will have a lot of unhappy tax payers. Your understanding -Dave Lindahl Carver county tax payer. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: Noble Hill Project Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:24:50 AM More comments for the PC From: Debra Cross <roundheads22@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 4:59 PM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: Noble Hill Project Hi. My name is Debra Cross and I live in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. I would like to recommend that the City Council retain the current Rural zoning of this site. There are numerous endangered and/or critical species of foliage in this area that would be decimated. I have read about the watershed and the pollution aspect. Please do not allow multi-housing units to be erected. This is valuable land and is vital to the community, environment, wildlife and sustainability to all involved. Thank you, Debra Cross Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: Noble Hill Project Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 9:26:43 AM Another comment for PC. Thanks! From: City of Eden Prairie <communications@edenprairie.org> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 9:15 AM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: Noble Hill Project Message submitted from the <City of Eden Prairie> website. Site Visitor Name: Diane B FollestadSite Visitor Email: dfollestad@gmail.com Dear Ms. Klima, I hope to persuade the decision regarding the Noble Hill Project via email since I won't be showing up to a large meeting in person for this cause (COVID concerns).We hope that the Planning Commission will recommend that the City Council retain the current Rural zoning of the site. I would like to believe that EP will stay the course and remainon high alert to our environment, sustainability, and all else that the City of Eden Prairie website so proudly offers. Thank you. Diane B Follestad From:Liz Lawson To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Concern for house development on Frederick-Miller Spring Date:Saturday, March 20, 2021 5:25:13 PM Hello, Today I heard the news about your plans to build on and near Frederick-Miller Spring land. My family and friends have been going here to get our water for over 10 years and to know that the beautiful nature will be destroyed and the quality of the water will change for the worse is heartbreaking. My dad unfortunately has an issue with high blood pressure which means that he is unable to drink our soft tap water due to the high salt content. Please consider my concerns, thank you! -Elizabeth Lawson Sent from my iPhone From:Jackie Clark To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Please Save Fredric Miller Spring Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 8:55:49 PM To whom it may concern, Fredric Miller Spring is some of the best water in the country, not just the state. It should be protected at all costs. Please do not allow for any development on this or surrounding land.Those of us who have personally consumed it for years, would do anything to be able to continue to drive up and fill up, so we can continue to drink and use it for things like cooking.Don’t let Minnesota be disappointing in another way. Thank you for reading, Respectfully, Jacquelyn Clark Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone From:Jillian Mittelmark To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Planned Development at Frederick Miller Springs Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 2:13:39 PM Dear Eden Prairie Planning Commission, I'm writing to express strong opposition to the planned Noble Hill development at Frederick Miller Springs. I have been an Eden Prairie resident and business owner for over a decade. The abundance ofnatural spaces is one of the reasons my family chose to make Eden Prairie our home. The proposed development area is one that is used by residents not only for its clean natural spring water, but also the walking trails and natural hiking areas on the bluffs.My family hikes these bluffs at least weekly when weather permits. We see dozens of individuals there every time we go, from teenagers socializing with friends outside, to youngfamilies with children walking through the trails, to older adults enjoying the scenery on the bluffs. It is a beautiful area to overlook the river valley, watch the sunset and enjoy theoutdoors. It is devastating to think that it may soon be another paved-over housing development. While that may be lovely for the 50 residents that live there, it will have a tremendous negativeimpact on the hundreds or even thousands of weekly visitors to this area. Over the years I have seen this city become more concerned with development and corporate profits than in preserving the natural spaces that once made this city so unique. My love forthis city fades with every green space that disappears and if we lose this area it will leave an even larger hole in our hearts. -- Jillian Mittelmark, CPA Founder & PresidentResolve Works p:612-293-9368 m: 651-334-0565 a:9975 Valley View Road, Suite L, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 w:resolve-works.com e: jillian@resolve-works.com From:Jim F To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Preserve Frederick Miller Spring and neighborhoods Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 9:31:39 PM Please preserve this spring by not allowing this area to be developed by homes. From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fwd: Preserve the Frederick-Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 12:07:30 PM More comments for PC Begin forwarded message: From: Josie Miller <josiejademiller@gmail.com>Date: March 22, 2021 at 11:57:30 AM CDTTo: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org>Subject: Preserve the Frederick-Miller Spring Dear Julie, I hope that this email finds you well. Please do all that you can to preserve the Frederick-Miller Spring. My family moved to Eden Prairie a few years ago, and when we first moved we missed the taste of well water. However, then we found Frederick-Miller Spring!We, along with many others, have been using this spring for the past few years. Another important aspect of this spring is the sense of community that it brings. Miller-Frederick Spring has brought us a sense of community that we would nototherwise have. We have created amazing friendships by meeting people at the spring. Please protect this valuable resource and important piece of the Eden PrairieCommunity. Sincerely, Josephine Miller 612.875.8429josiejmiller9@gmail.com From:Madalyn Baker To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fredrick/Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 3:54:36 PM Hello, My name is Madalyn Baker. I’ve been coming to the spring for 5 years now. Not only has this spring been a haven from the city with it’s beautiful flowing waters and amazing hiking trails. It’s water is nourishment that’s helped heal my body and my mother’s. CLEAN, un-contaminated, chemical free water with the essential minerals our bodies need to function is crucial!! We deserve to have this option flowing freely everywhere we go. Why have we destroyed the only Earth we get and regulated one of it’s most prominent gifts? WATER! The opportunity to have such a sacred option in our community is a huge gift! And one the Miller family left in YOUR hands to do right by them with. Why take away this place of community & healing to build more homes? Not only is this about the water, but it’s about the land. Think about the future of your children. What Earth do you want to leave for them? One that you destroyed to make more money. Or one that you nurtured so that they and their kids can exist in a healthy way, experiencing the gifts of this planet. Thank you, Madalyn Baker From:Manifestival Matter To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Frederick-Miller Spring Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 1:20:26 PM Hello, I'm reaching out to petition against the planned development project of the Frederick-Miller spring. Please don't take my water source away from me and everyone I know. From:Melissa Malam To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fredric Miller Spring Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 1:19:15 PM To whom it may concern, Fredric Miller Spring is some of the best water in the country, not just the state. It should be protected at all costs. Please do not allow for any development on this or surrounding land. Those of us (myself included) who have personally consumed it for years, would do anything to be able to continue to drive up and fill up, so we can continue to drink and use it for things like cooking. Don’t let Minnesota be disappointing in another way. Thank you for reading, Respectfully, Melissa Malam Minneapolis resident 612.601.6495 Sent from my iPhone From:Mitch Snyder To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Property development near Frederick-Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:24:17 AM Hello, my wife and our family have been going to the spring for years. We enjoy the water, the nature, the entire experience. We even bring our new puppy out there and he loves it. Hearing about this new property development is not surprising. The area is beautiful and I'msure many people will make a lot of money. However... at what cost? Let's look for a practical solution, perhaps a 50/50 split between housing development (on the far side away from the spring) while maintaining the other half for the nature. Perhaps the citycan step in and support this change, so we can ensure this gift from nature (which is quite rare when you really investigate how common springs are in MN and the midwest) is cherishedand honored and used by the people of MN. Thank you for your consideration. Toward practical common sense solutions, Mitch Snyder, Jessica Snyder and our family From:obie calix To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fredrick Miller spring Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 6:22:06 PM Hello, The Fredrick Miller spring means a lot to so many people. I hope you can find it in you to see that our natural environment is the most important thing we have and this housing development will ruin this spring and the good it brings to the community. A housing development can be put somewhere else but the spring is something we can’t move and once damaged it will not return to where it’s at now. Please consider the future generations that should have access to this spring in its current state. You may not ever know them but they will certainly know you. From:Patricia Vessey To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Preserve the Frederick Spring Date:Saturday, March 20, 2021 10:13:21 AM My husband and I regularly get water from the Frederick-Miller spring. We saw the petition stating a builder wants to build 50 homes in this area. People come from miles around, even other states to get this great water. My fear is that this building project could impact the beautiful water source and just the beauty of this area. Please don’t rezone this area unless full consideration has been given to the environmental impacts. Thank you, Patricia Vessey Sent from my iPhone From:Sarah To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Zoning Prioject Near the Frederick Miller Spring Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 3:58:11 PM To whom this may concern, I am reaching out today to share my concern over the zoning project that is being planned for Gonyea Homes. I ask that you please reconsider the location of this housing project. There is plenty ofavailable, viable land that would be much less likely to disrupt the balance of nature and the clean water spring, which has nourished so many different lives over the last 30+ years. Themunicipal tap water has been tested from city to city and shows many chemicals that are dangerous to the human body, including chlorine, fluoride, and even certain levels ofclorophorm. Building over this beautiful site would be devastating to many people, as well as the wildlife that has depended upon this place for generations. Again, I ask that you reconsider and work to find a better location for this project. So many ofus depend on this clean water. It is a deep and nourishing blessing for so many of us, and it would be absolutely heartbreaking to see it disappear. We are counting on the people ofGonyea Homes and the people behind this development project to reconvene over this location and look into other options so we may continue to enjoy the beautiful wilderness and return tothis source of clean water that has remained for so many years. Thank you for taking the time to listen to myself and all of us who stand in solidarity with theFrederick Miller spring. Sincerely, Sarah From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: MN ‘Noble Hill’ Project– Objection to the project close to the Frederick Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:23:49 AM More comments for the PC From: Vin S <vinod.sridhar@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 8:57 PM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: MN ‘Noble Hill’ Project– Objection to the project close to the Frederick Miller Spring Hi Julie, I live in Eden Prairie that has had the Fredrick-Miller Spring serving many people sincedecades. The water is very precious and we find a very deep connection to the spring as we draw waterfor drinking year round. There is a Noble Hill Project being proposed which if built will be very close to the vicinity of the spring. Many trees will be uprooted and the serenity of theplace will get destroyed, The water will definitely not be good for consumption if the building project is completed. I request your support in any way to help us from preventing the springbeing destroyed. I have seen nature being destroyed in my country (India) and it pains me when I see the same here. As a resident of Eden Praire I object to the Noble Hill project that threatens to destroy theheritage spring water. Please consider this and email as an objection. My details are as follows: Name: Sridhar, Vinod KurudumaleAddress: 7100 Sunshine Dr, Eden Prairie-55346 Phone: 301-250-8725 Thanks,Vinod From:Whitney Kempfert To:Beth Novak-Krebs Date:Saturday, March 20, 2021 6:47:06 PM Dear Representative, I visited the Frederick Miller spring today and learned about theproposal to develop that land, which would affect the water quality ofthe spring. Please vote to save the Frederick Miller Spring.I visit the spring to get drinking water about once a month. Thatwater is god's water. I say that because it has the perfect balance ofminerals from nature.While teaching English in Korea, I drank filtered water for my health.I reached a point in which I became mineral deficient. It was onlywhen I switched to drinking the local spring water that my healthbegan to improve. After 4 years away from home, I had a special phonecall with my family while they were eating at the Lion's Tap. Itbrought back memories of a place that felt like home, a place I lovedand was proud to call home. Remembering a photo of my siblings and Iat Frederic Miller Spring as children, and needing to get spring waterfor my health, I found myself back at Frederic Miller Spring shortlyafter my return to the US.Now three years later I continue to make monthly trips to get the besttasting water around often on holidays, my only days off. Each time Ivisit the spring I am joined by others traveling from all over theentire metro area as far south as Mankato to fill up on God's water.If money is the motivation here, then lets bottle at the source. Buteven while making good money in Korea, I learned nothing can replacehome. As I drive down Flying Cloud Drive and look out over the rivervalley, my family is with me. This water is feeding people's bodiesand souls. Please save the land and the Spring.Thank you.Sincerely,Whitney From:Sarah To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Zoning Prioject Near the Frederick Miller Spring Date:Sunday, March 21, 2021 3:58:11 PM To whom this may concern, I am reaching out today to share my concern over the zoning project that is being planned for Gonyea Homes. I ask that you please reconsider the location of this housing project. There is plenty ofavailable, viable land that would be much less likely to disrupt the balance of nature and the clean water spring, which has nourished so many different lives over the last 30+ years. Themunicipal tap water has been tested from city to city and shows many chemicals that are dangerous to the human body, including chlorine, fluoride, and even certain levels ofclorophorm. Building over this beautiful site would be devastating to many people, as well as the wildlife that has depended upon this place for generations. Again, I ask that you reconsider and work to find a better location for this project. So many ofus depend on this clean water. It is a deep and nourishing blessing for so many of us, and it would be absolutely heartbreaking to see it disappear. We are counting on the people ofGonyea Homes and the people behind this development project to reconvene over this location and look into other options so we may continue to enjoy the beautiful wilderness and return tothis source of clean water that has remained for so many years. Thank you for taking the time to listen to myself and all of us who stand in solidarity with theFrederick Miller spring. Sincerely, Sarah From:Julie Klima To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:FW: MN ‘Noble Hill’ Project– Objection to the project close to the Frederick Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:23:49 AM More comments for the PC From: Vin S <vinod.sridhar@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 8:57 PM To: Julie Klima <jklima@edenprairie.org> Subject: MN ‘Noble Hill’ Project– Objection to the project close to the Frederick Miller Spring Hi Julie, I live in Eden Prairie that has had the Fredrick-Miller Spring serving many people sincedecades. The water is very precious and we find a very deep connection to the spring as we draw waterfor drinking year round. There is a Noble Hill Project being proposed which if built will be very close to the vicinity of the spring. Many trees will be uprooted and the serenity of theplace will get destroyed, The water will definitely not be good for consumption if the building project is completed. I request your support in any way to help us from preventing the springbeing destroyed. I have seen nature being destroyed in my country (India) and it pains me when I see the same here. As a resident of Eden Praire I object to the Noble Hill project that threatens to destroy theheritage spring water. Please consider this and email as an objection. My details are as follows: Name: Sridhar, Vinod KurudumaleAddress: 7100 Sunshine Dr, Eden Prairie-55346 Phone: 301-250-8725 Thanks,Vinod From:Whitney Kempfert To:Beth Novak-Krebs Date:Saturday, March 20, 2021 6:47:06 PM Dear Representative, I visited the Frederick Miller spring today and learned about theproposal to develop that land, which would affect the water quality ofthe spring. Please vote to save the Frederick Miller Spring.I visit the spring to get drinking water about once a month. Thatwater is god's water. I say that because it has the perfect balance ofminerals from nature.While teaching English in Korea, I drank filtered water for my health.I reached a point in which I became mineral deficient. It was onlywhen I switched to drinking the local spring water that my healthbegan to improve. After 4 years away from home, I had a special phonecall with my family while they were eating at the Lion's Tap. Itbrought back memories of a place that felt like home, a place I lovedand was proud to call home. Remembering a photo of my siblings and Iat Frederic Miller Spring as children, and needing to get spring waterfor my health, I found myself back at Frederic Miller Spring shortlyafter my return to the US.Now three years later I continue to make monthly trips to get the besttasting water around often on holidays, my only days off. Each time Ivisit the spring I am joined by others traveling from all over theentire metro area as far south as Mankato to fill up on God's water.If money is the motivation here, then lets bottle at the source. Buteven while making good money in Korea, I learned nothing can replacehome. As I drive down Flying Cloud Drive and look out over the rivervalley, my family is with me. This water is feeding people's bodiesand souls. Please save the land and the Spring.Thank you.Sincerely,Whitney QR4 PROSPECT RD PINCHERRYLNC H AR L S ON R DPLUMSTONEDR P R O SPECTRDJUNEGRASS LN INDIGODR CRABAPPLE LN WILDFLOWER DRP O R C H L I G H T LN PINCHERRY LNCUPOLA LNPORCHLIGHTL N LILACDRTICKSEED LN VERVAINDRSWITCHGRASS LNGABLE DRPICKET DRSPRINGRDSPRINGRDStreams Principal Arterial A Minor Arterial B Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector City of Eden Prairie Land Use GuidePlan Map 2040 ¯ DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracyof this information. In no event will The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages,including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business informationor other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information itcontains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed.Any errors or omissions should be reported to The City of Eden Prairie.M:\GIS\Users\Departments\CommDev\Themes\Shapes\Zoning and all other land use information\OfficialMaps\OfficialGuidePlan.mxd Map was Updated/Created: April 18, 2008 DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Approved 03-19-03DATE Revised 01-07-05DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 03-23-06DATE Revised 06-23-06 DATE Revised 12-06-06DATE Revised 03-01-07DATE Revised 06-01-07DATE Revised 10-01-07DATE Revised 03-01-08DATE Revised 03-01-09 Guide Plan Map: Noble HillAddress: 9955 and 9875 Spring Road Eden Prairie, MN Rural Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Migh Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed-Use Town Center Transit-Oriented Development Regional Commercial Commercial Office Industrial Flex Tech Flex Service Eco Innovation Industrial Airport Public / Semi-Public Parks & Open Space Golf Course Utility & Railroad RIght-of-Way CityLimits 440 0 440220 Feet Project Site QR4 PROSPECT RD PINCHERRYLNPINCHERRY LNPLUMSTONEDR CHARLSONRD P R O SPECTRDWILDFLOWERDRJUNEGRASS LN INDIGO DR CRABAPPLE LN P O R C H L I G H T LNCUPOLA LNPORCHLIGHTL N LILACDRVERVAINDRTICKSEED LN SWITCHGRASS LNGABLE DRPICKET DRSPRINGRDSPRINGRDCity of Eden Prairie Zoning Map In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail. ¯Shoreland Management Classifications 100 - Year Floodplain Natural Environment Waters Recreational Development Waters General Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD NE RD Up dated through approved Ordinances #26-2008 Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map edition Date: March 1, 2009 0 0.150.075 Miles DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracyof this information. In no event will The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages,including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business informationor other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information itcontains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed.Any errors or omissions should be reported to The City of Eden Prairie.M:\GIS\Users\Departments\CommDev\Themes\Shapes\Zoning and all other land use information\OfficialMaps\OfficialZoning.mxd Map was Updated/Created: June 11, 2008 Zoning Map: Noble Hill Address: 9955 and 9875 Spring Road Eden Prairie, MN Legend Rural R1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min. R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Airport Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Highway Commercial Airport Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial TC-C TC-R TC-MU Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Public Golf Course Water Right of Way TOD-R Transit Oriented Development - Residential Transit Oriented Development - Residential ProjectSiteProposing to rezone the property from Rural to R1-9.5 QR4 PROSPECT RD PINCHERRY LNPROSPEC T R D PLUMSTONEDR CHARLSONRD WILDFLOWERDRJUNEGRASS LN INDIGO DR CRABAPPLE LN P O R C H L I G H T LN PINCHERRY LNCUPOLA LNPORCHLIGHT LN LILACDRVERVAINDRTICKSEED LN SWITCHGRASS LNGABLEDRPICKET DRSPRINGRDSPRIN G R D ¯ Aerial Map: Noble HillAddress:9955 and 9875 Spring Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 0 340 680170 Feet PROJECT SITE APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2021 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette, William Gooding CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Rod Rue, City Engineer I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Mette to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the minutes of March 8, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS NOBLE HILL (2021-02) Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres • Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres • Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 50 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres Dean Lotter, manager of Land Planning and Entitlement for Pulte Homes presented a PowerPoint and gave some background on the company, presented the plan, and summarized the homes to be built. The previous 2030 City Comprehensive Plan had this site slated for three different uses, low density residential, medium density residential, and office. Historically it had been a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 2 private residence and a tree farm, and it was currently zoned as Rural. Future guidance as to zoning was low density residential. The Standal Property was divided into parcels one, two and three, none of which included the Fredrick Miller Spring, its source, or the watershed of which the spring was a part. Sand Prairie habitat would also be protected as part of the development. Lotter showed where Riley Creek was on parcel three and stated this would be protected. The Pulte Plan would preserve over a third (31 percent) of the site as open space, which protected all the sensitive areas mentioned. Gonyea had previously proposed a very similar development. The present proposal would have 50 instead of 59 units; it would preserve 14 percent more trees; and the impervious surface would be reduced by 5 percent. There would also be more trees planted (250) than Gonyea planned (215). No trees would be removed from Hennepin Village Property. Phase One was plantings on the perimeter of the property. Lotter displayed the Noble Hill home design. The houses would be between 3,100 and 6,000 square feet not including the basements and would have three bedrooms and three-car garages. Lotter gave the preliminary timeline: The PUD preliminary plat would be approved March/May. The final plat was to be approved in June. Site development work would begin in summer or fall of 2021, homes would be sold beginning fall/winter of 2021, and the full build of the neighborhood would be completed by the end of 2024. Lotter explained the waivers being requested were consistent with City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the Fredrick Miller Spring would not be impacted. It would protect sensitive areas, with 31 percent of that land being open space. A PUD typically included only 10-15 percent. Farr asked how the neighborhood meeting went. Lotter replied he did hold one in February. 15 or 16 people attended virtually. Lotter had run through a similar presentation as the one given tonight. Questions were predominantly about saving trees, including a stand of pine trees in block two which would be removed. June Grass Lane was renamed from the Lark Sparrow Lane cul-de-sac. He also presented how the view sheds would appear to neighbors. A row of 10-foot trees would be planted above a retaining wall. A lot of views from existing homes would be effectively screened. Mette asked for and received clarification that nothing would change the Fredrick Miller Spring or how it operated either during construction or after the development was complete. Lotter explained the source of the spring was on the west side of the road. The pipe was brought under the road to the east. DeSanctis asked if the possible impact on pollinators, flowering plants, and insects had been studied. There was a unique combination of pine and deciduous PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 3 trees on the property. Lotter replied he recognized Outlot D, which would be preserved. The site would be walked; it had previously been walked with Alliant Engineering that worked with the previous applicant. A survey would be done this spring that would look at all the sensitive vegetation particularly the Kittentail vegetation, which might not exist where the homes were to be built. This was one of the conditions of approval in the staff report. Higgins asked Lotter to give some indication of what the reasons were for the various retaining walls in the development. There was a substantial number of them, and the homeowners would presumably have the responsibility for maintenance. Lotter responded the site itself had 100 feet of topographic relief from east to west. The grade changes were substantial and posed a challenge for appropriate draining and basins. The goal was to not have the streets at a sharp grade. The retaining walls would allow different grades and elevations to be maintained over time. The number of retaining walls in the present application was a 30 percent decrease over the original plan. Klima presented the staff report. This included a rezoning request from Rural to R1-9.5. A project very similar to this one had been reviewed and recommended for approved by the Planning Commission, but that had eventually been withdrawn before City Council review. This plan included the design of outlots to handle water treatment and the connection to a trail. Outlots A and C were proposed to be owned by the applicant and included stormwater management facilities. Outlot B, which included a trail connection, would be deeded to the City. Outlot D with its stormwater management facilities and environmental features would also be deeded to the City for preservation. The developer has had conversations with Hennepin Village and would continue to do so regarding a trail connection between that project and Noble Hill. The Homeowners’ Association was set to meet with the developer on April 1. An endangered species review had been conducted and a few species could be impacted. Therefore, a field assessment would be conducted this spring. The development agreement would include language that addressed how the endangered species would be addressed and a timeline for specialized treatment if any were found to be present in the field assessment. Pulte Homes sustainable features included: home energy rating system (HERS) score, an archeological review was prepared as a part of the Gonyea project, and staff asked the State Archeologist to review this. The State Archeologist concluded this report was still relevant. Hennepin County, the airport, and the Watershed District were also contacted, and the Airport did comment, asking the City to reconsider single-family residences on this property, or notify future residents of the Flying Cloud Airport and that noise attenuation be extended to these homes. In addition to the neighborhood meeting, 35 written comments were received from both Eden Prairie residents and those outside of Eden Prairie. Staff PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 4 also fielded two phone calls. In addition, a number of residents had signed up to speak tonight. The majority of comments were regarding the spring, which was designated as a local heritage site and is not part of this development but on a parcel of land owned to the City. Staff recommended approval of the applications as proposed. Kirk requested additional City staff from City Engineering and the Parks and Recreation Department to comment on the spring. Matt Bourne reiterated that there were no changes proposed for the spring. The water under question was on the west side of Spring Road and development on the east side and the other side of the creek would have no impact. Rue added an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was done approximately 10 years ago. Back then there had been a proposal to make road connections in this area and various alternative had been discussed. Language in the EAW showing no impact from the proposed road extensions was provided in the current staff report. Gooding asked if this project was approved, what would be the costs for maintenance, which would lie on the private homeowners’ association, and what the liability for them (likely significant) if something happened to the proposed multiple retaining walls. Klima replied the development agreement would include language stating the multiple retaining walls would be maintained by the HOA rather than by the City. How those HOA documents were drafted to specifically assign financial responsibility would not be included in the development agreement. This would be a private matter between the HOA and the property owners, and the City would not maintain those retaining walls long term. Farr asked for and received clarification the street connection to the east of June Grass Lane was a right of way but connected to a private street. He asked if this was why the City could not force a connection at this time. Rue replied the public right of way went up to the property line of Hennepin Village to an outlot owned by the association. Best case scenario had the developer working with the HOA on a connection, where there were drainage and utilities easements. The easement was maintained by the City but the street was not. Farr asked for and received confirmation the City intended to reduce cul-de-sac lanes by having this connection. Farr asked for and received confirmation the walking path with the pedestrian bridge leading up the hill over Riley Creek to a bluff overlook on the south side of Hennepin Village was a City trail and would remain open to the public. Rue added the only change would be a trail going from this proposed development to the existing asphalt path along the existing trail corridor. Farr asked if there had been a discussion regarding boulder retaining wall material matching the previous proposal. Klima replied City staff would continue to work with the developer on the materials detail. Farr then stated he sensed skepticism regarding government and applicant’s comments the protection of the spring and stormwater management on the part of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 5 the public present tonight and asked for staff to speak to the rigor of the watershed district review process. Rue replied staff had had conversations with the developer, the engineer, and the watershed district. Any application to the watershed district would likely be concurrent with this one. The requirements from the watershed and the City were rigorous. There were four ponds on this site in series, meaning one treated pond would drain into the next before the water discharged into the creek. There would be a number of best management practices (BMPs) in place. DeSanctis asked if there had been planning regarding the possibility of a 100-year flood and creating a buffer against a 5/6/7-inch rain accumulation. Rue replied part of the analysis going into these developments, particularly with a creek, included an inundation model which was more than a 100-year event; it actually modeled and planned for protection against a 500-1,000-year event with 10 inches of rain. Rebecca Prochaska, 15781 Porchlight Lane, Eden Prairie, distributed and displayed a PowerPoint and explained her request for the commission to deny the rezoning on the strength of 1,087 signatures on a petition, and the area’s uniquely significant ecological area which only occurred in one-quarter of Eden Prairie and which was designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA) of international significance. She stated the building of 50 new homes would remove 456 trees and significantly impact the environment, safety, and community. She explained the impacts on the Fredrick-Miller Spring, which while not directly affected would be placed at high risk, and on the Riley Creek Watershed, which was in a denigrated state. Trees and natural heritage species, both plant and animal, would also be adversely affected, and there were at least two plants that were 1) a special concern species, Evening Primrose, and 2) a threatened species, Kittentail. By definition a heritage tree was irreplaceable. Facts were from the USGS Agricultural website. Another concern was potentially unsafe traffic patterns due to inadequate sight-distance. There was extensive metrowide and statewide support for the commission to deny this rezoning. She urged the commission to retain the site’s Rural zoning. Glenn Elo, 9755 Cupole Lane, Eden Prairie, and treasurer of the Board of Directors of Hennepin Village Master Association, spoke on the proposed pedestrian/biking trail connecting Hennepin Village to this development via June Grass Lane. The trail as currently proposed would provide emergency vehicle access to this development via June Grass Lane at Hennepin Village. The trail would be 10-12 feet wide and would prohibit nonemergency vehicular traffic. He expressed concern the width of the trail would encroach on sub-association owned property on both sides of the trail and would affect the Hennepin Village development where it crosses. He concluded an easement should be purchased by the developer, or June Grass Lane be made a full, City-maintained street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 6 Hennepin Village was not willing to assume any costs or responsibilities for this trail. Chesney Enquist, 4549 41st Avenue South, Minneapolis, who traveled regularly to the spring for her physical and mental health, stated every body of water was connected, including the body of water that was human beings. She urged the commission to adopt an attitude of gratitude toward the important bodies of water in Eden Prairie, including the spring. She expressed concern for the health of the spring, the environment, the community, and the animals. She thanked the commission for its stewardship thus far and looked forward to future conversations. Russ Enquist, 4549 41st Avenue South, Minneapolis, founder of Bee Safe Minnesota, stated road salts, pesticide and herbicides runoff would adversely affect the spring. He and his wife educated children on the importance of pollinators and the current mass extinction. He asked the commission to be a hero and not to rob the children’s future. Ronald A Seeley, 609 Market Street South, Shakopee, stated there were five topics in question: the rezoning, effect on the endangered flora, the loss of 450 trees, the water movement vulnerable to intrusive houses, and the effect of this development on antlered animals. Maggie Schmitz, 15605 Lund Road North, Eden Prairie, stated she and her partner chose to build lives in Eden Prairie in part due to the spring. She asked the commission review the EAW conducted in 2007, because the commission did not have all the information. This development was not the road development proposed in 2007. She stated also a wildlife study needed to be done in spring. An EIS was not required because there were less than 1,000 houses to be built, but she urged that one be done in this special situation. Patricia Oen, 7926 South Bay Curve, Eden Prairie, stated she and her husband Dan were 32-year residents of Eden Prairie. She urged the Planning Commission to retain the current Rural zoning. The bottom line was the possible risk to this unique treasure that was a part of the community. She displayed a book by Marie Wirtenburg stating the spring was known about for hundreds of years before Europeans arrived. It was visited by people from all over the Metro Area, even from Northfield. Damage to the spring would be an incalculable loss and while there was no direct threat, there was also no guarantee it would not be affected. Impervious surfaces would impact the entire watershed including the spring. The development would benefit only a few people, meaning this would privatize the benefits but socialize the losses, which was a risk she did not think the commission should take. She added today was World Water Day with the theme of “The Value of Water.” PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 7 Ted Hanners, 6 Crestview Terrace, Chaska, stated the bottom line for him was that the term “develop” was a politically correct way of saying “mass killer.” He stated the spring was also “developed.” Sophia, 8800 Tretbaugh Drive, Bloomington stated the world was losing 137 species of plant, animals and insects every day due to deforestation, which in Minnesota was mostly due to the building of roads, houses and buildings. Dramatic decrease in forest caused climate change, soil erosion, increased greenhouse gases, and more adverse effect. She had hope for the future. Pollution and deforestation were huge problems many people did not look at. She stated when one took something small it turns into something bigger. Sever Peterson, 15900 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, stated the property in question was his uncle’s farm. He spoke in favor of this project. He stated he appreciated the comments and concerns raised tonight from those who visited the spring and valued it, but he believed in landowner rights, which were what financed the ability to take care of these treasures. The City needed that tax base. Commission member Farr had mentioned expertise, and he had confidence in City staff. Sanie Seeborn, 5148 42nd Avenue South, Minneapolis, stated she had been visiting the spring for most of her life, as had her grandparents and parents, and she now brought her children. This was a big opportunity to lead by example. Some pollinators had a less than 24-hour lifespan, and a field study in April might miss them. Pollinators were fed by the spring. People visited the spring even from out of state. She urged the commission to expand on science, conservation, and teaching about the environment. The people were looking for change. Donald Callahan, 414 Ash Street South, Sauk Centre, asked for clarification as there seemed to be three proposals. He asked for and received confirmation that the commission members and staff had visited the site of the proposed development. He asked where the development was in relation to the spring. Klima pulled up the satellite view of the site and explained the three properties of the development and that the majority of the construction would take place on parcels one and two. Mr. Callahan pointed out some empty lots to the northeast and asked why this was not developed instead of the forested area in the watershed. He stated it would then destroy the watershed. He also urged low-income housing be constructed Theresa Hallonen, 853 Winnetka Avenue North, Golden Valley, stated she had stood outside the spring for three days straight and asked people if they knew about this development. Only one in twenty did. This was her sole source of water. She displayed a list of names she had collected against this proposal. All bodies of water are connected, and this development would contribute salt and chemicals to the spring and the environment. She asked why a huge sign was not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 8 displayed at the spring about this development or why a greater effort to inform the public was not done. Bruce Ferris, 6931 Autumn Terrace, Eden Prairie, stated he was a 25-year resident of Eden Prairie, having left Florida. He did not notice an improvement in the city despite all the developments. He displayed an August 2010 copy of Money Magazine which listed Eden Prairie as number one and displayed a photograph of the prairie bluff area and noted the irony. He acknowledged the importance of property rights but spoke against another misplaced, copycat development on a beautiful piece of land. Deborah Ramos, 520 2nd Street Southeast #414, Minneapolis, introduced herself as an indigenous Latinx person who also visited the spring. She stated she saw the spring, the creek, and the hill as a system of life. She asked if the developers had heard of Line Three, the pipeline proposed to be built through the Mississippi River headwaters, wetlands, and creek tributary, and of the Standing Rock Community that protested in 2016 against the pipeline. She stated this elitist housing development would impact much more than the people who would live in it, contributing to climate change and effecting native lands and plants and animals. She stated no one had the right to own land and do with it as they saw fit, as the earth was a living entity. She urged the commission to live in harmony with the earth. Matthew Mueller, an Eden Prairie resident at 8673 Grier Lane, Eden Prairie, stated he was a 29-year resident. He shared two quotes about the spring, one from City Manager Scott Neal and another from the Minnesota Department of Health on the recharge area of springs possibly being affected. He asked if the commission had researched the possible effect on the recharge area of this spring. David Smith, 9500 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, stated he was not opposed to landowners’ right to sell, but to the rezoning of this site. He asked if there were other sites in Eden Prairie to develop instead of this one. As a public-school teacher at all five public schools, he was concerned about the quality of life and green natural areas in this site. He encouraged denial of the application. Mitch Michaelson, 15900 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, stated he was a 39-year resident. He voiced support for this proposed project citing three areas: landowner rights, the process of decision, and the City of Eden Prairie. He stated the Standel family wonderful neighbors, stewards of the land, and wonderful citizens of the community. He strongly supported their ability and wish to sell their land. He commended the decision-making process of staff, government agencies and commission members. He supported the guidance of the City in infrastructure and planning. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 9 Paige Carlson, 5320 Washburn, Minneapolis, stated the completed EAW had not been done for this housing development but for a road extension in 2007, and the two developments were not comparable. She added Bourne’s statement that it should not impact the spring did not mean it would not impact it, and Rue did not address real steps for protection. She asked if the spring and wildlife were affected, who would be held accountable, and what the City was leaving its children. Matt Quinnell, 412 East 1st Street, Chaska, stated the City water piped into his house in Chaska was undrinkable. His disclosed his parents owned the retaining wall company that has built the retaining walls for this developer, and he was taking a risk in speaking tonight. He understood the handling of water flow. His point of contention with Pulte, based on his previous work with them, was in the handling of runoff. He added this appeared to be “political theatre” and he hoped Pulte will make a more serious and concise effort to deal with runoff in this and all other future developments. He offered to answer any questions regarding the retaining walls, and quoted, “Our ability to measure has exceeded our ability to understand.” Michel Maske, 5820 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, spoke in opposition to the development. He asked if there were any provisions or verbiage to address unintended effects, and what the community could do to offset the potential tax revenue if this development was not approved. Jessica Schultz, 8056 Rose Street, Victoria, asked what could be done to prevent pesticides and herbicides runoff from this development. Sheree Bermel, 24 Bayview Circle, Chaska stated she was previously a resident of Eden Prairie and had just learned about this development. She stated the community needed more notice. She wondered about cash compensation for this development and if the City received cash compensation for an approval. This development was within 20 miles of 20 golf courses that could be developed instead. She suspected the motive behind this proposal was the tax incentive it brought with it and did not believe this development would not adversely affect the spring or contribute to the deterioration of Riley Creek. She thanked the speakers for coming and urged the commission members to deny the application. Justin D’Angelo, a Chaska resident, asked the rigorous metrics mentioned by Rue be made public, or an independent study be done. There were 1,037 signatures for this and counting. He added Eden Prairie should change its nature-based logo on its signage if this development was approved. Scott Haddamann, 10002 Indigo Drive in Eden Prairie, stated he was a 31-year resident, and his wife was a 34-year resident. Woods and bluffs had been lost in previous developments. He stated Beth Novak-Krebs received a letter from him PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 10 and five of his neighbors. He passed around his cell phone with a photograph off his back deck showing 51-year-old heritage trees. He agreed with property owner rights but they did not have to affect his property owner rights. He stated he had researched the area before he bought the home, and this site had been slated for development for a long time. A similar crowd to the crowd tonight showed up in opposition for the last developer. The neighborhood meeting held was not well publicized if there were only 15 people that showed up, and the proposal one year later was the same except for nine fewer houses. Now he would get to look at shingles, siding, and chimneys. He saw all the animals on the first speaker’s slide plus a few she had not included from his back deck every day. He expected to lose one-fifth of his retirement money. The landowner didn’t have a right to make a profit on what he wished because he needed it rezoned, while affecting other landowners’ property values. He saw this as a tax grab that would have a domino effect. Any tax benefit would be erased with the neighborhood loss of value. The houses on either side of him went up for sale last year due to this fear. He concluded by saying he hoped the previous speaker was wrong about “political theatre.” Rachel Octonaus, Chanhassen, stated she lived near Riley Creek by Lake Susan and had been getting water at the spring since young. As a nurse she thought the water in Chanhassen was not safe to drink. She did not believe that 50 houses were worth the risk and asked the commission members to consider nature and what this community was all about. Jeff Buroviack,Borowiak, Minneapolis, stated he did not believe the EAW was accurate. He had a degree in biology from Carleton College, and stated the east side of the valley was part of the whole ecosystem. Damage to one side of a valley affected the other, and this was seen in Colorado. The Christmas tree farm was old and hopefully not loaded with pesticides, which would run downhill to the ground water. There would be a constant flow downhill from roofs from this new development. The wilderness area next to a housing development would be profoundly disturbed. He urged the commission members to find a way for the elders to buy out of that property without developing it; perhaps it could be augmented by organic farming. This was not an environmentally sustainable development. Mapurah Parduh, Shakopee, urged the commission members to consider the long-term impact of having too much impervious surfaces. She was also concerned about the possible contamination of the spring. Her culture taught her to take only what was needed from nature. Ingrid DeFrien, Bloomington, stated she is a former Eden Prairie resident and nature was being lessened and this was an opportunity to stop that. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 11 Dave Knotting stated he drove an hour-and-a-half each way to get this water, which he shared with friends and family. He could not tell his two brothers, who had health benefits from this water, they could no longer get the spring water due to this development. He saw a connection between the increase in autism and the increase of toxins in the environment. He urged the commission to preserve this body of water that so many people depended on. John Richardson, a contractor and builder, stated this particular development did not make sense. He did not believe that adding these homes would not be an adverse environmental impact. He commended the vibrant impact of the objections and stated he found the claim of no impact on this spring to be foolish. He agreed the landowners should be able to sell the land, but rezoning it endangered the land. He was in favor of building good quality homes but opposed building homes in this instance. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. Kirk stated there was an assumption people make that commissioners work for the City. He emphasized commission members actually were volunteers that were not paid by the City or by any other entity. In addition, the Planning Commission members did not make the final decision; they could only make recommendations to the City Council, which did make that decision. He urged the passionate activists in the public to serve on a commission themselves and channel their energies toward helping Eden Prairie be a better place. Mette stated she was a user and advocate of the spring and would never support a proposal that impacted it. She did read the EAW done for the proposed extensions of Spring Road. The groundwater flow had not changed since then. She was taking in the information and attempting to make a decision of fact. The zoned Rural use allowed for low-density housing and agricultural uses, including a farm using fertilizer, and stables which could have manure smell and runoff, which neighbors would not like. This proposal had storm water draining and filtering that would protect Riley Creek. It was an improvement from the last proposal, and she saw sufficient evidence it would not affect the spring. Riley Creek could potentially be impacted but the runoff would be treated and mitigated. The commission’s job was to review the proposal and make sure it was taking all required measurements the commission required to protect the site, and therefore she saw no reason to deny this application. DeSanctis noted the City’s Aspire Comprehensive Plan called for more affordable housing but this development was building homes in the upper $600,000.00 range, out of reach of most people. He stated he was impressed by the spirit of the public coming together to speak to the community’s physical and emotional wellbeing and agreed there was no guarantee the watershed would not be sullied. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 12 He stated he could not support this development or rezoning plan in its current form and was opposed to this development plan. Gooding stated this was a difficult piece of land for development. The topography was poor, and he didn’t like the extensive use of retaining walls, which could become a long-term headache for homeowners. He thought the loss of trees should not be taken lightly and was concerned about sightlines. He had not yet read the EAW, but he could not support the application. Markos stated she had reviewed the Gonyea development and was surprised and impressed by the input from the community. She did not think a proper EAW had been done to this site for this development, despite the due diligence by Pulte. She agreed with Mette the zoning came with its own environmental challenges, but she could not support making this change to the site at this time. She urged the commission to do more work before approving this development. Higgins stated she had deeply considered the public’s opposition, but the development had pulled back on building on every space that could have been developed. The public had raised concerns she had not considered, but it was time for this development to move forward, and she did support it. The area to the east was the largest housing project in Eden Prairie and she lived closed to it, and it was 20 years old. She understood the concerns of the public, the adjacent development, and the need for access of emergency vehicles. She stated she would support this proposal. Farr stated he was a 40-year resident of Eden Prairie who went to the spring every week and drank from its water every day. It was a great source of pride for the City and the Metropolitan area. Commission members were charged to protect the City’s resources and were passionate in protecting the spring, and the City had invested in land preservation as a top priority. Eden Prairie had an extraordinary percentage of land set aside for parks, streams, lakes, and various natural features already invested. All development had impacts; the commission members had to find a tipping point, and to do so he turned to science and technology. Even preservation could be damaging if not handled properly. Soil conditions were taken into account by the experts in water runoff. Gravity prevailed and the spring was upland from this development. He saw no adverse effect on the spring or its source. The watershed district had significantly more stringent regulations than those imposed on Riley Creek, which accounts for its deterioration, which was a fact. He believed in property rights, and it was not in the purview of the commission to decide land could not be owned. This parcel could be developed with more units per acre, but it was not going to be. He thought that science prevailed with the water management plan, and staff would monitor how the contractor built this project, which he would support. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 13 Kirk stated the commission’s job was balance of many conflicting points of information. Tax base had nothing to do with his decision; he wanted what was best for the community. He had been on this commission for 13 years and found staff to be credible with a high level of expertise. The commission and rules and codes and laws to follow regarding landowner rights. There were things the commission could and could not do, because otherwise someone could sue the City. He also seriously considered community input, and many times it had changed his perspective. Lastly, he drew upon his own set of values. He had voted for the Gonyea development and would support this one. There were no guarantees, but he believed the evidence was strong the stream would be safe. The public input was important to him and made this a tight call, but the balance was for him to support this proposal. He added he would like to see what more the commission can do to educate the community. Pieper asked staff to review the next steps for the watershed. Rue replied the watershed would review all of the applicant’s calculations, treatments, removal of phosphorus, preexisting and subsequent conditions, probably concurrently with the City’s review. Kirk added he had attended a number of the watershed district meetings, which had a parallel public hearing process similar to this process in Eden Prairie. The watershed regulations were strict, and the developer had to follow them by law. He was confident that in the vast majority of the time the development could actually improve the water quality. Lotter stated the watershed permit had been applied for last week and that approval process was running concurrently with this one. Klima stated it was typical for the City to condition that the developer to provide a watershed district permit to the City before the City issued a land alteration permit. Pieper noted this was a very difficult decision. He found this a better development than last time, with fewer houses, and low density. He also had memories of visiting the spring and assured the public he would never do anything detrimental to it. While he was not an environmental expert, he found it followed Aspire 2040 and was in support of recommending this project to the City Council. MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Farr to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres, Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 50 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres based on plans stamp dated Feb 19, 2021 and the staff report dated March 18, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 5-3 (Markos, DeSanctis, Gooding opposed). VI. PLANNERS’ REPORTS VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 14 VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m. From:Alexander Augustin To:GRP-AllCouncil; Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:**Please Save Frederick Miller Spring!** Date:Sunday, April 25, 2021 7:39:51 PM Hi Beth, My name is Alex Augustin and I am reaching out to voice my opposition to the Noble Hill Project and the expected water contamination that would commence at Frederick MillerSpring. I think it would be best to stop the project and preserve the spring because many, many people like me fill their drinking water from this amazing spring. Many of them, likemyself I’m sure, do this to cut down on producing more plastic from buying bottled drinking water. Plastic pollution is an enormous problem and I’m an advocate against non-compostableplastic like others that use the spring. We choose not to drink tap water knowing of the various chemicals found within that can cause harm to bodily systems over time. Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my viewpoint. I’m hoping to hear goodnews regarding this decision soon. Best regards, Alex From:Alyssa Smith To:Beth Novak-Krebs Date:Friday, April 23, 2021 9:15:34 PM So I appreciate you building more homes for people yes. But can you please find anotherlocation other then where the natural area springs flow.we need to keep that resource for local people and animals to use. We really need wild places to go for our soul,health and well being.Please thank you From:Amber Cromer To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Opposition to valley project Date:Friday, April 23, 2021 1:59:08 PM Hi Beth, My name is Amber and I am reaching out to voice my opposition to the Noble Hill Project and the expected water contamination that would commence at Frederick Miller Spring. I think it would be best to stop the project and preserve the spring because animals and humans depend on that valley and spring for survival. You may be thinking, oh no this won't effect water quality, or they can get water elsewhere. That would be incorrect. Disturbing the layers of soil carefully created by our planet would in fact cause issues for the spring, besides displacing animals from their native habitat. Many developments state that their actions will have no impact on the environment and it never fails that later we see headlines stating the opposite. Even where I live they have been building a grocery store down the road and since this has started I have seen so many displaced animals wandering my neighborhood. Raccoons and snakes and the like. Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my viewpoint. I look forward to hearing good news regarding this decision soon. Thank you, Amber Cromer From:Rick Getschow To:Julie Klima; Beth Novak-Krebs; Robert Ellis; Jay Lotthammer Subject:FW: Fredrick-Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 10:58:17 AM Attachments:image001.png Here is one the Council received over the weekend … Rick Getschow City Manager City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota , 8080 Mitchell Road | Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 ( 952.949.8410 | * rgetschow@edenprairie.org |8 edenprairie.org From: Andrew Neave <andrew.r.neave@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 4:03 PM To: GRP-AllCouncil <GRP-AllCouncil@edenprairie.org> Subject: Fredrick-Miller Spring To who it may concern; My name is Andrew Neave, and I am deeply saddened and devastated to hear about the NobleHill, Pulte Homes, possible development. I moved to Minnesota from Chicago for nature, biking, hiking, and and a more natural, healthy style of living. I rely on the Fredrick-MillerSpring for fresh, clean, drinking water. I go through 5 gallons every 6 days and absolutely love looking forward to go back to the spring on a weekly basis to mingle with like minded people,and stay healthy. I love to hike that area and bird watch several times a week. There are thousands and thousands of people just like me. To take that beautiful, historic, natural site todevelop more homes would utterly crush me, and the thousands of people just like me. With society crumbling around me, it doesn’t surprise me that greedy corporations would try todestroy something so beautiful in nature. What surprises me is when good people like yourself, sit back, do nothing, and let it happen. The City of Eden Prairie acquired the property in 1969 and made improvements in 1972 and in 2003. Little else disturbs the spring site and today it appears much like it did in 1890 This is currently posted on your website, “Little else disturbs the spring site and today it appears much like it did in 1980." What will history read on your website in the nearupcoming future. The council and officials names who destroyed this great spring, or the ones who cared about the people, their health, history, nature, and doing what’s right. Sincerely, Andrew Neave From:Beth Burgstahler To:bnovakkrebs@edenprairir.org Subject:Preserve Fredrick Miller Spring Date:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 8:15:13 AM Frederick Miller spring and surrounding area has been a natural resource for decades and should be preserved not destroyed for housing. Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S10+.Get Outlook for Android From:Bob Mahoney To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Noble Hill Project opposition Date:Sunday, April 25, 2021 2:10:28 PM Hi Beth, My name is Bobby and I am reaching out to voice my opposition to the Noble Hill Project and the expected water contamination that would commence at Frederick Miller Spring. I think it would be best to stop the project and preserve the spring because this is the only source of water families use. The benefits from the water are too great to not speak out against the project. Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my viewpoint. I look forward to hearing good news regarding this decision soon. Sincerely, Bobby From:Brady Longtin To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Miller Springs Development Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 6:04:07 AM To Eden Prairie city council, As a lifelong resident of Eden Prairie I wholeheartedly oppose the development project at 9955Spring Road. Many people rely on Miller Spring not only as a source of free, clean drinking water butas a woodland area to bring their families. I’m sure the development company claimed that theywould do their best to preserve the spring, but I highly doubt that they will. If you allowdevelopment to proceed you will lose the support and votes of myself and many others in thecommunity. I ask that you make the right choice and choose to protect this valuable woodland bydenying development. With best regardsBrady longtin From:Chris Johnson To:Beth Novak-Krebs Cc:GRP-AllCouncil Subject:Frederick Miller Spring Date:Sunday, April 25, 2021 5:00:42 PM Hi Beth, My name is Chris and I am reaching out to voice my opposition to the Noble Hill Project and the expected watercontamination that would commence at Frederick Miller Spring. I think it would be best to stop the project andpreserve the spring because water is life and we need to protect natural springs. Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my viewpoint. I look forward to hearing good newsregarding this decision soon. Best regards, Chris Johnson Sent from my iPhone From:DAniel Carlon To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Hi Beth Date:Friday, April 23, 2021 9:13:46 AM My name is Daniel and I am reaching out to voice my opposition to the Noble Hill Project and the expected water contamination that would commence at Frederick Miller Spring. I think itwould be best to stop the project and preserve the spring because water is life and it would be a tragedy to render the water unable to drink. Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my viewpoint. I look forward tohearing good news regarding this decision soon. Best regards, Daniel From:Diahann Cole To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Noble Hill Project Date:Saturday, April 24, 2021 8:04:33 PM Hi Beth, My name is Diahann and I am reaching out to voice my opposition to the Noble Hill Project and the expected water contamination that would commence at Frederick Miller Spring. I think it would be best to stop the project and the preserve the spring because families rely on clean, drinkable water. I wish the residents of Flint, MI had access to a fresh spring in there area. Filling up bottles of clean spring water to keep your family hydrated and healthy should be the norm for everyone. Best Regards, Diahann From:equanimity22@protonmail.com To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:NOBLE HILL PROJECT Date:Friday, April 23, 2021 9:23:01 AM Hi Beth, My name is Elizabeth and I am reaching out to voice my opposition to the Noble Hill Project and the expected water contamination that would commence at Frederick Miller Spring. Ithink it would be best to stop the project and preserve the spring because it's God-given and created beauty it brings to many animals and humans alike. Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my viewpoint. I look forward tohearing good news regarding this decision soon. Best regards, Elizabeth Sent from ProtonMail mobile From:Rick Getschow To:Beth Novak-Krebs; Julie Klima Subject:FW: Frederick-Miller Spring Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 3:12:55 PM Attachments:image001.png FYI Rick Getschow City Manager City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota , 8080 Mitchell Road | Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 ( 952.949.8410 | * rgetschow@edenprairie.org |8 edenprairie.org From: Emin Mamedov <emin@gmx.us> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:54 PM To: GRP-AllCouncil <GRP-AllCouncil@edenprairie.org> Subject: Frederick-Miller Spring You're getting rid of Frederick-Miller Spring? That's a gem of the cities. --Emin Mamedov (c)612-385-0166(h)952-657-5742 Sent from my Android phone with GMX Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From:City of Eden Prairie To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Save the Spring! Date:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 8:43:35 AM Message submitted from the <City of Eden Prairie> website. Site Visitor Name: Erin LemkeSite Visitor Email: erin.lemke@carrier.com Beth, I write to you as a concerned citizen of Eden Prairie. I was recently made aware that the areaaround the Fredrick-Miller spring will be developed. This is such a loss for the community, not only do many people use the spring, the wooded area around the spring is beautiful. I fullybelieve we should work to keep the wild parts of Eden Prairie wild, as they help to make our city special. I urge you to take action against this effort in your role in the communitydevelopment department. Best Regards, Erin LemkeLuther Way, Eden Prairie From:Jennifer Barrett To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fwd: Miller Springs Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 5:11:11 PM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: William Efron <bill@edenprairie.com>Date: March 22, 2021 at 3:03:48 PM CDTTo: Jennifer Barrett <Jenniferbarrett49@gmail.com>Subject: Re: Miller Springs You want edenprairie.org, not edenprairie.com. On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:45 PM Jennifer Barrett <jenniferbarrett49@gmail.com> wrote:Eden Prairie city council, I am writing to encourage the council to vote against the redistricting of the land surrounding Miller springs. This water was deeded to the city for the people touse. This housing development will compromise this source of good clean drinking water. Please reconsider this project as the tax dollars will not out weigh thedestruction to this precious water source that many people across the twin cities area enjoy. Please do what is right for this natural resource to remain intact. Thank you Jennifer Barrett, Victoria Mn Sent from my iPhone From:Jordan Raw To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Opposition to Noble Hill Project Date:Friday, April 23, 2021 8:23:13 AM Hi Beth, I hope all is well. I am reaching out to make my voice heard regarding my opposition to the Noble Hill Project. I currently live in Rogers, MN but make the 45 minute drive down to Eden Prairie at leastonce per week to get 15 gallons of the spring water for my wife and 4 boys. I could easily get water from the supermarket but I make the long drive because I know how powerful theFrederick Miller Spring water is. It’s is perfectly cleansed by Mother Nature and is alive and mineral rich. Simply put this is the best water in the world that my family has access to giventhat our other options for water sources are recycled tap water or dead water that has been bottled in plastic and sitting on shelves for days on end. This water is sacred in my family. My wife, 4 boys, and I would be so sad to see it go. I myself am an entrepreneur and own 2 businesses so I am not oblivious to understanding thepotential economic benefits and opportunities for growth from this housing development. However I do think that it is important that we preserve our natural resources such as thisnatural spring because at the end of the day, the human race has only able to survive 200,000 years or longer from living lifestyles with the resources provided by Mother Nature. If wecontinue to cut out Mother Nature and supplement her with man made things I am afraid we will realize far too late after the damage has been done that the best way for us to upkeep ourphysical, mental, and emotional health is by getting back to nature with our diets and lifestyles. Drinking the natural spring water from Fredrick Miller Spring plays a big role inthat not only for me and my family, but for many others. I thank you very much in advance for your consideration of my viewpoint. Please let me know if I could be of further assistance to you during this process. I looking forward to hearing goodnews progress in regards to preserving the spring. All the best, Jordan RAW "Love Yourself Deeper"www.jordanraw.com From:Fletchee_7 To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fw: Opposed to construction of the Noble Hill Development at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:25:10 PM -------- Original Message -------- On Mar 22, 2021, 5:28 PM, Fletchee_7 < Fletchee_7@protonmail.com> wrote: Hello, I am writing to express my concern and opposition at the proposed Noble HillDevelopment at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road. I and thousands (millions?) of others get our drinking water from Frederick Miller Spring and have for decades. There is already a lot of traffic in the area, and any more development could be harmful to the water quality and quality, not to mention the wild area. Please listen to our concerns and don't let this turn into another Ford Plantdevelopment nightmare due to tax dollars. The people are speaking, are you listening? Thank you for listening, Julia From:Karen Townsend To:Beth Novak-Krebs; GRP-AllCouncil Subject:Fredrick Miller Springs Date:Sunday, April 25, 2021 10:18:45 PM Hi Beth, My name is Karen Townsend and I am reaching out to voice my opposition to the Noble Hill Project and the expected water contamination that would commence atFrederick Miller Spring. I think it would be best to stop the project and preserve thespring because fresh, uncontaminated spring water is such a gift and and a direct connection to nature. My children and I recently discovered the spring and delighted in filling our water vessels with such delicious, clean water. My daughterwas so thrilled about it every time we poured our rest water. Soon afterwards thatthe health of the spring was being threatened by a housing development and that breaks our hearts. We live in the middle of Minneapolis and having nearby places to connect with nature, especially after the past year of Covid and uprisings, has felt more important than ever. There is no better way to connect with nature thandrinking fresh spring water! Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my viewpoint. I lookforward to hearing good news regarding this decision soon. Best regards, Karen Townsend (and children Skylar age 8, Wynn age 1) Sent from my iPhone From:KVB To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Springs Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:46:32 PM To whom it may concern, As a city resident I am appalled at the city's mention of eliminating public access to Frederick- Miller springs. These springs are priceless and appreciated by many even outside of ourcommunity! Please, do not build around or destroy the current environment surrounding the springs. This water is the best tasting water I've ever consumed (much better than the city tapwater which smells like a swimming pool). I'm a tax paying resident of Eden Prairie and would appreciate this water and habitat preserved. Regards, Kellie VonBank12900 Technology Drive Apt 210 Eden Prairie, Mn 55344 May the sun bring you new energy by day, May the moon softly restore you by night, May the rain wash away your worries, May the breeze blow new strength into your being, May you walk gently through the world and know it's beauty all the days of your life. ~Apache Blessing From:Keturah Nelson To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Relocate the Noble Hill Project (hear me out) Date:Saturday, April 24, 2021 2:31:09 AM Good Day Beth, I’ve received word about the Noble Hill Project and I would like to express my feelingstowards this potential move. I honestly do not believe this is a good idea Beth. As humans do more “developing” we tend to forget about or disregard the harm done to our sacred motherearth! Water is essential and it should not be polluted just for the sake of living when humans can live somewhere else. Please reconsider the location of the Noble Hill Project that does notintoxicate the stream that some people use to drink from and use throughout there daily lives. Not to mention the animals that use it as well! Houses and homes are needed and I understandthat, however let’s give thanks that humans are able to adapt and move somewhere else very easily. Thanks for hearing me out and I hope that a positive decision is made. Thank you Beth. Love, Keturah Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone From:Riri Davis To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:BNovakkrebs@edenprairie.org Hi Beth, My name is maria and I am reaching out to voice my opposition to the Noble Hill Project and the expected water contamination that would commence at Frederick Miller Spring. I thinkit would be best to stop the proje... Date:Saturday, April 24, 2021 12:36:02 AM From:Mary Baumgartner To:Beth Novak-Krebs; GRP-AllCouncil Subject:Noble Hill Project Date:Monday, April 26, 2021 3:51:26 PM Hi Beth, My name is Mary Refalopei and I am reaching out to voice my opposition to the Noble Hill Project and the expected water contamination that would commence at Frederick MillerSpring. I think it would be best to stop the project and preserve the spring because I believe there are alternatives to find that don't include contaminating the spring. It is very important topreserve drinkable water sources while we still have them. Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my viewpoint. I look forward to hearing good news regarding this decision soon. Best regards, Mary Refalopei From:Miranda Urrutia To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Natural spring water Date:Saturday, April 24, 2021 11:47:17 AM Hi Beth, My name is Miranda and I am reaching out to voice my opposition to the Noble Hill Project and the expected water contamination that would commence at Frederick Miller Spring. I think it would be best to stop the project and preserve the spring because this is the only source of water my family and I use. Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my viewpoint. I look forward to hearing good news regarding this decision soon. Best regards, Miranda From:Oneyda Escobar To:Beth Novak-Krebs; GRP-AllCouncil Subject:Opposition to Noble Hill Project Date:Sunday, April 25, 2021 6:38:35 PM To whom it may concern, My name is Oneyda Escobar and I am reaching out to voice my opposition to the Noble Hill Project in Eden Prairie Minnesota and the expected water contamination that would commence at Frederick Miller Spring. I think it would be best to stop the project and preserve the spring because of the contamination it will cause to the water. My family and I rely on this naturally cleansed water for our home. There truly is no other drinking water like the one at Frederick Miller Spring. Preserving the natural spring would mean the world to not just my family but so many others. I understand that this decision is not an easy one but I hope that this email brings light to why the spring is vital to so many other families Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my viewpoint. I look forward to hearing good news regarding this decision soon. Kind regards, Oneyda Escobar From:renee@transformationkey.com To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Spring and wildlife protection Date:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:38:06 AM Hello, I love the Eden Prairie quality of life. I have always loved the spring and the natural areas in Eden Prairie and believe it is priceless heritage for now and especially in the future. We have plenty of houses and too little of this kind of wonder. Please do not allow the destruction that is planned in this proposed development. Atthe very least more public discussion needs to take place. Renee Brown From:Satail Tailin To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Fredrick-MillerSpring Date:Friday, March 26, 2021 1:10:14 AM To: B Novak-Krebs I am hoping that the commission charged with the decision regarding the use of the land around the Fredrick-Miller Spring decided in favor of preservation, and did not cave to thedevelopment company. The wooded land surrounding the spring is a natural treasure, and should be preserved. Families come with children and take serene walks by the flowing creek. Many, many peoplecome to the spring for their drinking water. I cannot imagine that a development such as the one proposed could do anything good for the water. The destruction of trees would be a hugeloss. Our planet is struggling against global warming and climate change. We so desperately need trees to compensate for the heavy load of carbon dioxide we are creating. Harming this oneoasis of gentle wooded area would be a sacrilege. Please vote your heart, and not the pocketbook. Thank you for your consideration, Satail Tailin From:Sean Connaughty To:GRP-AllCouncil; Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Miller Spring Date:Friday, April 2, 2021 8:27:51 AM Dear Eden Prairie council members. My name is Sean Connaughty. I was born and raised in Eden Prairie. My family has been a part of this community since my father moved our family here in 1963. Miller Spring and the land around it has played a role as we would enjoy the spring and the natural beauty of this location. I am writing to urge the Eden Prairie City Council to withhold the rezoning for the development of this beautiful 28-acre wooded meadowland. The City of Eden Prairie continues to develop our natural spaces. already far too much has been lost. The meadows, forests, prairies and wetlands of my childhood have mostly been destroyed in sale for profit and the endless need for more space. It is time for Eden Prairie to finally recognize the cost to future generations who will never know the beauty that is here unless we preserve it. As restoring lost biodiversity and ecological function becomes more and more critical to our own survival as a species we will regret what we have lost. Miller Spring has been a source for clean, fresh and delicious spring water for many generations. I have visited the spring since I was a child and hope that you will act to preserve the spring and our natural spaces for future generations. Thank you!In appreciation, Sean Connaughty and the Connaughty family612 226 5126 From:Steve M To:Beth Novak-Krebs Subject:Noble Hill Project Date:Sunday, April 25, 2021 11:55:17 AM Hi Beth, My name is Steve McCullum and I am reaching out to voice my opposition to the Noble Hill Project and the expected water contamination that would commence at Frederick Miller Spring. I think it would be best to stop the project and preserve the spring because it will contaminate the spring and make the water undrinkable for hundreds of people who rely on this source for their drinking water. Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my viewpoint. I look forward to hearing good news regarding this decision soon. Best regards, Steve McCullum 1010 Lake St. NE Apt. 315 Hopkins, MN 55343 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Payment of Claims DATE: May 4, 2021 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Sue Kotchevar, Office of the City Manager/Finance ITEM DESCRIPTION: Payment of Claims ITEM NO.: X. Requested Action Move to: Approve the Payment of Claims as submitted (roll call vote) Synopsis Checks 281908 - 282230 Wire Transfers 1027728 - 1027837 Wire Transfers 8193 - 8213 City of Eden Prairie Council Check Summary 5/4/2021 Division Amount Division Amount 000 General 35,241 601 Prairie Village Liquor 106,724 100 City Manager 60,039 602 Den Road Liquor 224,256 101 Legislative 6,600 603 Prairie View Liquor 126,019 102 Legal Counsel 48,579 605 Den Road Building 914 110 City Clerk 783 701 Water Enterprise Fund 119,454 111 Customer Service 4,235 702 Wastewater Enterprise Fund 349,545 114 Benefits & Training 3,128 703 Stormwater Enterprise Fund 41,991 130 Assessing 150 Total Enterprise Fund 968,903 131 Finance 242 132 Housing and Community Services 5,505 316 WAFTA 83 136 Public Safety Communications 5,333 802 494 Commuter Services 21,771 151 Park Maintenance 38,317 807 Benefits Fund 841,924 153 Organized Athletics 43 812 Fleet Internal Service 86,552 154 Community Center 2,235 813 IT Internal Service 62,435 156 Youth Programs 2,110 814 Facilities Capital ISF 117,267 158 Senior Center 27 815 Facilites Operating ISF 37,545 163 Outdoor Center 415 816 Facilites City Center ISF 64,268 180 Police Sworn 11,496 817 Facilites Comm. Center ISF 82,428 184 Fire 17,488 Total Internal Svc/Agnecy Funds 1,314,272 186 Inspections 1,055200Engineering33,643 Report Total 2,871,764 201 Street Maintenance 8,893 202 Street Lighting 3,601 Total General Fund 289,156 301 CDBG 54,616 303 Cemetary Operation 619 Total Special Revenue Fund 55,235 439 G.O. Refunding Bonds 2011C 2,700 440 GO Perm Impr Ref Bonds 2011D 2,700 441 2012A G.O. Refunding Bonds 2,700 442 2012B G.O. Refund Capital Imp 2,700 443 2012C GO Perm Impr Ref Bonds 850 Total Debt Service Fund 11,650 315 Economic Development 7,255 445 Cable PEG 300 509 CIP Fund 62,478 513 CIP Pavement Management 4,048 522 Improvement Projects 2006 26,166 532 EP Road Connect Flying Cloud 46,035 536 General LRT 47,213 539 2020 Improvement Projects 39,041 804 100 Year History 11 Total Capital Projects Fund 232,548 City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register by GL 5/4/2021 Check #Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Comments 282033 337,628 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MCES User Fee Wasterwater Collection Wasterwater svc fee May 2021 8193 311,430 HEALTHPARTNERS Medical/Dental Premiums Health and Benefits Premiums April 2021 04/09/21 8196 255,628 ULTIMATE SOFTWARE GROUP, THE Federal Taxes Withheld Health and Benefits Payroll taxed PR Ending 8194 187,788 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION PERA Health and Benefits PERA PR Ending 03/26/21282010117,267 GARLAND DBS INC Other Contracted Services Facilities Capital Fire station 1 Project 8206 104,653 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE Sales Tax Payable Historical Culture Sales Tax March 2021 1027780 61,235 XCEL ENERGY Electric Water Storage 281911 54,412 EDSTROM DEAN AND KAREN Right of Way & Easement General Fixed Asset Account Gr 282187 50,000 INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA Deposits General Fund102782249,344 GREGERSON ROSOW JOHNSON & NILAN LTD Legal EP Rd Connect to Flying Cloud 282194 44,398 METRO TRANSIT Other Contracted Services General LRT 1027827 44,078 LOGIS Hardware - R&M IT Operating 1027837 41,949 XCEL ENERGY Electric Building 51 282153 39,894 BLUE WATER SCIENCE OCS - Monitoring Stormwater Non-Capital102782031,156 FRONTIER PRECISION INC Operating Supplies Engineering 1027770 30,115 JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC Other Assets Capital Maint. & Reinvestment 282168 28,450 DODGE OF BURNSVILLE Equipment Parts Fleet - Police 8198 28,234 EMPOWER Deferred Compensation Health and Benefits 282006 27,350 DODGE OF BURNSVILLE Autos Fleet - Police28207923,500 HAASE DAVID Right of Way & Easement Improvement Projects 2006 281946 23,242 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282219 22,383 SOUTH METRO PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING FACIL Other Contracted Services Public Safety Training Facilit 282188 21,700 ISG Other Contracted Services Capital Maint. & Reinvestment 8197 20,760 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 Deferred Compensation Health and Benefits102783220,588 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Design & Engineering 2020 Improvement Projects 281910 20,000 EDSTROM DEAN AND KAREN Right of Way & Easement EP Rd Connect to Flying Cloud 282113 19,722 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 1027816 18,479 DIVERSE BUILDING MAINTENANCE Janitor Service Prairie View Liquor Store 1027815 17,008 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Gas General Community Center28221116,959 REHBEIN'S AGRICULTURAL SERVICES Lime Residual Removal Water Treatment 282205 16,026 PRAIRIEVIEW RETAIL LLC Building Rental Prairie View Liquor Store 1027766 14,630 DIVERSE BUILDING MAINTENANCE Janitor Service Maintenance Facility 8199 14,455 FURTHER - AKA SELECT HSA - Employer Health and Benefits 8208 14,130 FURTHER - AKA SELECT HSA - Employee Health and Benefits28193514,123 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEER LLC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 1027759 13,854 YOUNGSTEDTS COLLISION CENTER Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Operating 282225 13,742 U.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Other Contracted Services Deer Consultant 1027834 13,706 TEE JAY NORTH INC Other Contracted Services Rehab 282066 13,383 SSI KEF SLB LLC Electric Maintenance Facility 281945 13,152 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING MINNESOTA Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 281957 12,608 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS OF MN Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282152 12,145 BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF Kennel Services IT Operating 282207 11,956 PRESCRIPTION LANDSCAPE Contract Svcs - Lawn Maint.Fire Station #1 282104 11,718 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEER LLC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 1027758 11,688 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC Design & Engineering 2020 Improvement Projects 282150 11,650 BAKER TILLY MUNICIPAL ADVISORS, LLC Other Contracted Services 2012C GO Perm Impr Ref Bonds 282176 9,933 GRAYMONT Treatment Chemicals Water Treatment 282121 9,877 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS OF MN Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store Check #Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Comments 282078 9,660 VERIZON WIRELESS Other Contracted Services IT Operating 282134 9,614 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282032 9,341 METERING & TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS Capital Under $25,000 Water Metering 282178 9,001 GRI EDEN PRAIRIE, LLC Waste Disposal Prairie Village Liquor Store 281973 8,975 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282092 8,868 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282056 8,800 PROP Other Contracted Services CDBG - Public Service 1027743 8,219 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Design & Engineering Capital Maint. & Reinvestment2821978,000 NAGELL APPRAISAL AND CONSULTING INC Other Contracted Services 2020 Improvement Projects 281921 7,803 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282055 7,783 PROP Other Contracted Services CDBG - Public Service 1027831 7,684 REINDERS INC Chemicals Park Maintenance 282064 7,673 SHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS INC Improvement Contracts 2020 Improvement Projects2821817,473 HAMMER COMMUNITY SOLAR LLC Electric Facilities Operating ISF 281937 7,301 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282057 7,279 PROP Other Contracted Services CDBG - Public Service 1027768 7,255 GRAYBAR Design & Engineering Economic Development Fund 282173 7,104 FEHN LUANN Other Contracted Services Rehab2820046,600 DEYOUNG CONSULTING SERVICES Other Contracted Services City Council 282126 6,395 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEER LLC Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282106 5,838 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 281915 5,769 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 281953 5,736 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store10277795,690 WALL TRENDS INC Contract Svcs - General Bldg City Center - CAM 282105 5,640 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282185 5,626 HINTERLAND CSG LLC Electric Facilities Operating ISF 1027765 5,594 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Gas Building 51 8205 5,505 U.S. BANK - I-494 PURCH. CARD Marketing 494 Corridor Commission2819725,408 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING MINNESOTA Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282112 5,366 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING MINNESOTA Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 281928 5,329 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS OF MN Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 281980 5,192 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS OF MN Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 281936 5,108 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store10277675,101 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Operating 8213 5,096 FURTHER - AKA SELECT FSA - Dependent Care Health and Benefits 282013 5,031 GRAYMONT Treatment Chemicals Water Treatment 282138 5,010 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS OF MN Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282015 4,852 HEALTHPARTNERS Wages and Benefits 494 Corridor Commission10277764,838 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY Other Contracted Services Senior Center 282218 4,770 SOBANIA COMMUNITY SOLAR Electric Facilities Operating ISF 282224 4,650 TRI STATE BOBCAT INC.Machinery & Equipment Capital Outlay Parks 282098 4,603 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS OF MN Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 281978 4,560 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 281914 4,511 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEER LLC Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282228 4,424 VIDEOTRONIX INC Equipment Repair & Maint Public Safety Communications 282171 4,214 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY INC Autos Fleet Operating 281964 4,184 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEER LLC Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282133 4,052 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING MINNESOTA Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282151 4,048 BKJ LAND COMPANY Improvement Contracts CIP Pavement Management 282047 3,934 NAC Contract Svcs - Plumbing City Center - CAM 281942 3,926 HOHENSTEINS INC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282118 3,867 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store Check #Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Comments 282163 3,843 CORE & MAIN Repair & Maint. Supplies Park Maintenance 282169 3,750 EDEN PRAIRIE EARLY CHILDHOOD Other Contracted Services Housing and Community Service 282034 3,575 MHSRC/RANGE Training Fire 282031 3,500 MESSERLI & KRAMER Messerli & Kramer 494 Corridor Commission 282193 3,450 MARTIN-MCALLISTER Employment Support Test Police Sworn 282192 3,379 LUBE-TECH & PARTNERS LLC Lubricants & Additives Fleet Operating 282213 3,285 SAARI CINDY Other Contracted Services Rehab 1027769 3,227 H M CRAGG CO Contract Svcs - Fire/Life/Safe Fire Station #410278043,122 LYNDALE PLANT SERVICES Contract Svcs - Int. Landscape City Center - CAM 281932 3,084 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 1027777 3,001 STREICHERS Training Supplies Police Sworn 282050 3,000 POSTAGE BY PHONE RESERVE ACCOUNT Postage Customer Service 282022 2,998 IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS Other Contracted Services Wastewater Accounting2820912,830 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING MINNESOTA Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282084 2,811 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282199 2,804 PARAGON VISUAL LLC Capital Under $25,000 IT Operating 282039 2,798 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE Electric Riley Lake 282184 2,750 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER Training Fire2819652,709 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 8202 2,640 FURTHER - AKA SELECT FSA - Dependent Care Health and Benefits 282096 2,606 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282174 2,545 FIRE SAFETY USA INC Protective Clothing Fire 282128 2,517 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store2819662,491 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282082 2,454 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEER LLC Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282127 2,432 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282060 2,393 PROP Other Contracted Services CDBG - Public Service 282061 2,386 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC Equipment Repair & Maint Wastewater Lift Station10278102,380 VAN PAPER COMPANY Cleaning Supplies Facilities Operating ISF 281926 2,346 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 281920 2,327 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING MINNESOTA Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 1027828 2,273 MENARDS Operating Supplies Fire Station #1 281930 2,199 WINE MERCHANTS INC Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store2821252,197 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282075 2,189 WM CORPORATE SERVICES INC Waste Disposal Fire Station #3 282117 2,125 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 1027826 2,124 LANDS END CORPORATE SALES Clothing & Uniforms Police Sworn 282149 2,110 AT YOUTH PROGRAMS LLC Instructor Service Tennis2819161,995 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282083 1,985 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 1027796 1,940 CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT Other Contracted Services Emergency Management 281987 1,935 ARVIG Fiber Lease Payments IT Operating 282016 1,904 HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Board of Prisoner Police Sworn 1027824 1,889 JASPER ENGINEERING & EQUIPMENT COMPANY Repair & Maint. Supplies Water Treatment 1027778 1,877 USA SECURITY Maintenance Contracts Water Treatment 282191 1,840 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Dues & Subscriptions Stormwater Non-Capital 1027764 1,795 CDW GOVERNMENT INC.Software Maintenance Engineering 282058 1,772 PROP Other Contracted Services CDBG - Public Service 282154 1,710 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION Software Maintenance IT Operating 281939 1,684 CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE CO Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282123 1,675 WINE MERCHANTS INC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282020 1,625 HOMELINE Other Contracted Services Housing and Community Service Check #Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Comments 282070 1,600 THE ADVENT GROUP Temp 494 Corridor Commission 282223 1,590 THE ADVENT GROUP Temp 494 Corridor Commission 281961 1,584 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282200 1,567 PERA Wages and Benefits 494 Corridor Commission 1027821 1,543 GRAINGER Cleaning Supplies Fire Station #2 282222 1,520 STONEWOOD CORPORATION Other Contracted Services General LRT 282062 1,495 SAMPAIR COMPANIES Other Contracted Services General LRT 281969 1,473 HOHENSTEINS INC Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store2821481,457 ASSURED SECURITY Safety Supplies Utility Operations - General 1027772 1,404 MENARDS Building Materials Ice Arena Maintenance 282161 1,401 COLE PAPERS INC Capital Under $25,000 Capital Maint. & Reinvestment 282229 1,374 YORKTOWN OFFICES Rent 494 Corridor Commission 282065 1,360 SHIRAZI ELHAM Conference/Prof. Dev.494 Corridor Commission2819771,352 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 1027829 1,335 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 281951 1,323 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282135 1,322 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 281952 1,315 PEQUOD DISTRIBUTION Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store2822061,300 PRECISE MRM LLC Other Contracted Services Snow & Ice Control 1027789 1,209 WINE COMPANY, THE Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 1027732 1,199 VINOCOPIA Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282136 1,179 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282221 1,161 STAPLES ADVANTAGE Office Supplies Utility Operations - General2821071,157 CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE CO Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 8211 1,139 FURTHER - AKA SELECT Other Contracted Services Health and Benefits 282088 1,131 HOHENSTEINS INC Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 1027731 1,118 WINE COMPANY, THE Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282208 1,112 PROP Other Contracted Services Rehab2820991,088 WINE MERCHANTS INC Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282226 1,069 UNIVERSAL ATHLETIC SERVICES INC Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 1027775 1,064 PETERSON BROS ROOFING AND CONSTRUCTION I Contract Svcs - Roof City Center - CAM 282074 1,052 WINFIELD UNITED Chemicals Park Maintenance 1027744 1,025 CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT Equipment Testing/Cert.Emergency Management2821091,002 HOHENSTEINS INC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282202 960 PITNEY BOWES Postage Customer Service 282100 955 WINEBOW Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282102 945 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 281944 942 INDEED BREWING COMPANY LLC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store1027762942BIFFS INC Waste Disposal Utility Operations - General 282019 939 HLS OUTDOOR Landscape Materials/Supp Park Maintenance 1027794 931 ASSOCIATED BAG COMPANY Operating Supplies Inspections-Administration 1027812 911 YOUNGSTEDTS COLLISION CENTER Autos Fleet - Police 282059 911 PROP Other Contracted Services CDBG - Public Service 282198 908 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY EMS Supplies-Oxygen Supplies Fire 281925 881 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 281983 860 88 TACTICAL OMAHA LLC Tuition Reimbursement/School Police Sworn 1027803 850 HIGGINS, RYAN Operating Supplies IT Operating 282095 841 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282139 811 WINE MERCHANTS INC Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 281923 793 MAVERICK WINE LLC Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 281948 793 MAVERICK WINE LLC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 281974 793 MAVERICK WINE LLC Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store Check #Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Comments 1027728 792 VINOCOPIA Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 1027817 783 ECM PUBLISHERS INC Legal Notices Publishing City Clerk 281938 774 CARLOS CREEK WINERY Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282030 771 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 282108 759 DOMACE VINO Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 281971 756 INDEED BREWING COMPANY LLC Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282177 745 GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA DISTRIBUTION Merchandise for Resale Concessions 282042 723 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Equipment Repair & Maint Traffic Signals282189716JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA INC Maintenance Contracts Water Treatment 282053 714 PRESCRIPTION LANDSCAPE Contract Svcs - Snow Removal City Center - CAM 282142 703 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER Equipment Repair & Maint Fire 282090 702 INDEED BREWING COMPANY LLC Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282140 685 WINEBOW Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store1027752674OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE Equipment Repair & Maint Traffic Signs 1027736 656 WINE COMPANY, THE Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 1027806 654 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE Clothing & Uniforms Round Lake 282111 651 INDEED BREWING COMPANY LLC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 281950 638 MODIST BREWING COMPANY Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store282073637VIRTUAL ACADEMY Tuition Reimbursement/School Police Sworn 281985 628 ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPAREL GROUP Janitor Service Prairie View Liquor Store 1027793 626 WINE COMPANY, THE Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 8195 622 ULTIMATE SOFTWARE GROUP, THE Garnishment Withheld Health and Benefits 8207 618 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE Motor Fuels Fleet Operating281912613ARTISAN BEER COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 281990 600 BARTODZIEJ WILLIAM Operating Supplies Pleasant Hill Cemetery 281918 600 HOHENSTEINS INC Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282175 590 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL Other Contracted Services Utility Operations - General 282124 587 WINEBOW Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store1027738585VINOCOPIALiquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 281917 567 DOMACE VINO Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282009 549 FLYING CLOUD TRANSFER STATION 4553 Waste Disposal Park Maintenance 1027836 523 WALL TRENDS INC Supplies - General Bldg City Hall (City Cost) 1027747 514 FASTENAL COMPANY Equipment Parts Fleet Operating282087503GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA DISTRIBUTION Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282130 500 GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA DISTRIBUTION Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282007 499 EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERVICES Conference/Training Utility Operations - General 282048 498 PAFFY'S PEST CONTROL Contract Svcs - Pest Control Arts Center 282131 495 HOHENSTEINS INC Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store1027741494WINE COMPANY, THE Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282080 494 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 281924 490 MODIST BREWING COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 281976 484 MODIST BREWING COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 1027799 481 FASTENAL COMPANY Repair & Maint. Supplies Fleet Operating 281947 472 LUPULIN BREWING COMPANY Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 281940 469 GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA DISTRIBUTION Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 1027813 452 ZEP SALES AND SERVICE Lubricants & Additives Fleet Operating 282012 433 GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY Supplies - General Bldg Police (City Cost) 281954 433 PRYES BREWING COMPANY Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 1027782 433 VINOCOPIA Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 1027786 427 VINOCOPIA Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282204 425 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC Maintenance Contracts Water Supply (Wells) 282122 424 STARRY EYED BREWING LLC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store Check #Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Comments 281949 420 MEGA BEER Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282164 393 CORPORATE TECHNOLOGIES Computers 494 Corridor Commission 281979 389 PRYES BREWING COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282156 389 CAPREF EDEN PRAIRIE LLC Building Rental CDBG - Public Service 281959 389 WINE MERCHANTS INC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282186 387 HURTADO AMALIA SALAZAR P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 282214 385 SAFETY SIGNS Operating Supplies Traffic Signs 281986 378 ARCPOINT LABS OF EDEN PRAIRIE Employment Support Test Organizational Services281927376PRYES BREWING COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282180 375 GYM WORKS Equipment Repair & Maint Police Sworn 1027825 375 JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC Clothing-Boots Fire 281968 368 DOMACE VINO Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 1027818 366 ELECTRIC PUMP Equipment Repair & Maint Wastewater Lift Station282159342CENTURYLINKTelephoneIT Operating 281988 340 ASPEN MILLS Clothing & Uniforms Fire 1027773 339 METRO SALES INCORPORATED*Equipment Rentals IT Operating 1027784 337 WINE COMPANY, THE Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 1027787 336 BELLBOY CORPORATION Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store281991333BCA - MNJIS Employment Support Test Fire 281962 330 BERGMAN LEDGE LLC Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 1027753 321 QUALITY PROPANE Motor Fuels Fleet Operating 282025 315 JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA INC Equipment Repair & Maint Water Treatment 282146 313 ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPAREL GROUP Janitor Service Prairie Village Liquor Store1027733312BELLBOY CORPORATION Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282116 309 OMNI BREWING COMPANY Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282023 303 J H LARSON COMPANY Supplies - Electrical Pool Maintenance 282069 300 TECH ACUMEN INCORPORATED Other Contracted Services Liquor Store Delivery 282141 300 ERICKSON KIMBERLY Other Contracted Services Sustainable Eden Prairie1027795300AVI SYSTEMS INC Equipment Repair & Maint Cable PEG 1027814 298 CDW GOVERNMENT INC.Hardware Maintenance IT Capital 1027790 295 VINOCOPIA Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282144 294 ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC Equipment Repair & Maint Park Maintenance 281919 292 INBOUND BREW CO Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store1027740292NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282147 291 ASPEN MILLS Clothing & Uniforms Fire 1027791 291 BELLBOY CORPORATION Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 281982 284 WINE MERCHANTS INC Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282110 280 INBOUND BREW CO Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store282220279ST CROIX LINEN LLC Operating Supplies-Linens Fire 282086 269 DOMACE VINO Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282027 261 KIESLER POLICE SUPPLY INC.Training Supplies Police Sworn 8201 259 VANCO SERVICES Bank and Service Charges Wastewater Accounting 281975 258 MEGA BEER Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282132 251 INBOUND BREW CO Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282068 249 TASK FORCE TIPS INC Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 282005 247 DIRECTV Cable TV Community Center Admin 1027749 245 GOODIN COMPANY Supplies - Pool Pool Maintenance 1027755 243 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY, LLC Patching Asphalt Street Maintenance 8212 242 US BANK - PAYMODE Bank and Service Charges Finance 282094 238 OMNI BREWING COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282085 224 CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE CO Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282129 224 CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE CO Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store Check #Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Comments 281958 222 STEEL TOE BREWING LLC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282179 220 GS DIRECT Equipment Repair & Maint Engineering 1027807 218 QUALITY PROPANE Motor Fuels Ice Arena Maintenance 281995 216 CENTURYLINK Telephone IT Operating 282167 215 DEZURIK Repair & Maint. Supplies Water Treatment 1027757 214 VAN PAPER COMPANY Cleaning Supplies General Community Center 281981 213 STEEL TOE BREWING LLC Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 281933 210 BERGMAN LEDGE LLC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store281929207STEEL TOE BREWING LLC Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 281922 203 LUPULIN BREWING COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 281967 203 CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE CO Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282029 201 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR LLC Contract Svcs - General Bldg Maintenance Facility 281913 198 BLACK STACK BREWING INC Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store281934198BLACK STACK BREWING INC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 281963 198 BLACK STACK BREWING INC Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282046 196 NAAB SALES CORP Repair & Maint. Supplies Wasterwater Collection 282103 195 BOURGET IMPORTS Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282115 194 MODIST BREWING COMPANY Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store281999190COMCASTInternetIT Operating 1027802 188 HESSEL, ZACK Clothing & Uniforms Police Sworn 282137 186 SHAKOPEE BREWHALL Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282119 183 SAINT CROIX VINEYARDS, INC.Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282145 182 AMERICAN PRESSURE INC Repair & Maint. Supplies Utility Operations - General1027833180STREICHERSClothing & Uniforms Police Sworn 1027771 176 LEROY JOB TRUCKING INC Other Contracted Services Police Sworn 1027745 170 CONCRETE CUTTING AND CORING Equipment Parts Street Maintenance 281955 170 RED BULL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY INC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 281994 168 BROCK WHITE COMPANY LLC Patching Asphalt Street Maintenance282160168CINTAS CORPORATION Safety Supplies Community Center Admin 281960 168 WOODEN HILL BREWING COMPANY LLC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 1027735 162 PARLEY LAKE WINERY Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282081 162 BOURGET IMPORTS Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282120 159 SHAKOPEE BREWHALL Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store1027734158NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 281956 156 SHAKOPEE BREWHALL Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282089 155 INBOUND BREW CO Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 282014 150 GUSTAFSON REID Clothing & Uniforms Volunteers 1027751 150 MPX GROUP, THE Printing Police Sworn1027763150BOBBY & STEVE'S AUTO WORLD EDEN PRAIRIE Equipment Repair & Maint Police Sworn 1027835 150 USA SECURITY Maintenance Contracts Water Treatment 282051 150 POWELL CHRISTOPHER Clothing & Uniforms Volunteers 1027737 149 SHAMROCK GROUP, INC - ACE ICE Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282217 149 SIRUCEK TYLER AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund 282114 147 JUST PLAIN WRONG BREWING CO LLC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 281997 146 CHRISTOPHERSON STACI AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund 1027819 142 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY Lubricants & Additives Fleet Operating 281941 138 HEADFLYER BREWING Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282054 135 PRO HYDRO-TESTING LLC Safety Supplies Utility Operations - General 281931 132 56 BREWING LLC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282165 131 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 1027800 125 FITZGERALD, MAUREEN Tuition Reimbursement/School Fitness Classes 8210 124 ELAVON Operating Supplies Inspections-Administration Check #Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Comments 1027830 124 PREMIUM WATERS INC Operating Supplies - Water Fire 1027788 122 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282201 117 PILGRIM DRY CLEANERS INC Clothing & Uniforms Police Sworn 282093 115 MINNESOTA ICE SCULPTURES LLC Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 1027739 114 BELLBOY CORPORATION Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282001 103 COMCAST Cable TV Fire 282018 102 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER PUBLIC WORKS Waste Disposal Park Maintenance 282097 102 SHAKOPEE BREWHALL Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store281943100INBOUND BREW CO Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 281970 100 INBOUND BREW CO Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 281984 100 ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURNITURE INC Supplies - General Bldg Police (City Cost) 282067 99 TARGETSOLUTIONS LEARNING, LLC Software Maintenance IT Operating 1027783 98 BELLBOY CORPORATION Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store102777496MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 282045 96 MULTIHOUSING CREDIT CONTROL Other Contracted Services Police Sworn 282026 94 JONNALAGADDA VAMSHI P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 282049 93 PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT Repair & Maint. Supplies Park Maintenance 282052 92 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN Equipment Repair & Maint Park Maintenance28200390COMCASTInternetIT Operating 1027750 89 HACH COMPANY Laboratory Chemicals Water Treatment 282017 87 HENNEPIN COUNTY I/T DEPT Software Maintenance IT Operating 282183 87 HENNEPIN COUNTY I/T DEPT Software Maintenance IT Operating 1027781 86 SHAMROCK GROUP, INC - ACE ICE Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store28215583CAMPBELL KNUTSON, P.A.Legal WAFTA 282210 80 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Operating Supplies Outdoor Center 281998 80 CINTAS Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 282215 79 SANDERSON VICTORIA AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund 1027785 76 SHAMROCK GROUP, INC - ACE ICE Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store28217075EDEN PRAIRIE ROTARY CLUB Dues & Subscriptions Administration 1027792 74 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie View Liquor Store 282216 74 SHRED RIGHT Waste Disposal City Hall (City Cost) 282143 70 ACEK9 Autos Fleet - Police 1027823 68 HORIZON COMMERCIAL POOL SUPPLY Supplies - Pool Pool Maintenance28210166ARBEITER BREWING COMPANY LLC Liquor Product Received Den Road Liquor Store 282028 64 KING GINA P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 282172 64 FASTSIGNS Operating Supplies Snow & Ice Control 282209 64 REGAN KELLEY P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 8200 61 MONEY MOVERS INC Other Contracted Services Community Center Admin28220361PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT Repair & Maint. Supplies Flying Cloud Fields 282182 60 HARTMAN THOMAS P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 282038 59 MINNESOTA PRINT MANAGEMENT LLC Office Supplies Customer Service 282196 59 MINNESOTA PRINT MANAGEMENT LLC Office Supplies Customer Service 1027730 58 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 281989 58 BADGER METER Capital Under $25,000 Water Metering 282000 55 COMCAST Cable TV Fire 282063 54 SAUERESSIG SARA P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 282076 54 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY INC Autos Fleet - Police 282162 50 COMCAST Internet IT Operating 282041 50 MINNESOTA YOUTH SKI LEAGUE P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 282043 50 MOQUIST, LYNDON Other Contracted Services Assessing 282071 50 THOMPSON, NATE Other Contracted Services Assessing 282157 50 CEDERSTROM KATIE Deposits General Fund Check #Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Comments 282212 50 RIAL KRISTIN Other Contracted Services Assessing 282227 50 VERIZON WIRELESS - VSAT Other Contracted Services Police Sworn 1027748 50 GOERGEN, MARIE Tuition Reimbursement/School Fitness Classes 1027798 50 DUNGAN, TRACY P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 1027811 46 WAYTEK INC Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 282037 46 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH Licenses, Taxes, Fees Utility Operations - General 1027742 45 BOSACKER MIKE Mileage & Parking Police Sworn 1027761 43 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO.Equipment Parts Fleet Operating102776043ZOELLNER, MARK Conference/Training Softball 1027746 40 DAILEY DATA & ASSOCIATES Equipment Repair & Maint Prairie View Liquor Store 282021 35 IEDITWEB INC Licenses, Taxes, Fees Garden Room Repairs 1027729 35 BELLBOY CORPORATION Liquor Product Received Prairie Village Liquor Store 281992 33 BCA - MNJIS Repair & Maint. Supplies Facilities Staff28201133GETTINGER MARK AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund 281993 32 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC EMS Supplies Fire 1027754 27 ROCKEY, JOSH Mileage & Parking Senior Center Admin 8204 25 NCR PAYMENT SOLUTIONS,PA, LLC Bank and Service Charges Liquor Store Delivery 282195 25 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Autos Fleet - Fire28203523MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH Licenses, Taxes, Fees Utility Operations - General 282036 23 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH Licenses, Taxes, Fees Utility Operations - General 282044 23 MPCA Licenses, Taxes, Fees Utility Operations - General 1027809 22 TOLL GAS AND WELDING SUPPLY Repair & Maint. Supplies Wasterwater Collection 282230 22 ZHU JIN AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund28199620CHRIS CASTLE INC Phone/Data/Web 494 Corridor Commission 1027756 20 SPOK, INC.Cell/Pager Plans IT Operating 1027797 20 CONCRETE CUTTING AND CORING Equipment Repair & Maint Street Maintenance 282190 16 JOHNSON NANCY P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 1027808 15 R & R SPECIALTIES OF WISCONSIN INC Repair & Maint - Ice Rink Ice Arena Maintenance820314NCR PAYMENT SOLUTIONS,PA, LLC Bank and Service Charges Liquor Store Delivery 1027805 14 METROPOLITAN FORD Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 282166 10 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER Corridor Comm. Misc 494 Corridor Commission 282077 10 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE Electric Riley Creek Woods 282158 8 CEF EP COMMUNITY SOLAR LLC Electric Facilities Operating ISF2820024COMCASTOther Contracted Services Police Sworn 8209 3 ULTIMATE SOFTWARE GROUP, THE Payroll Taxes Health and Benefits 1027801 1 FLEETPRIDE INC Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 282024 1 JERRY'S ENTERPRISES INC Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 2,871,764 Grand Total