HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-09-21 ENR Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION
Monday, September 21,2009
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes:
a. July 20, 2009
b. August 17,2009
5. New Business
a. Eureka Recycling Contract Amendment
b. Kohlman Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Draft Report
6. Unfinished Business
a. Wind Turbine Ordinance
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Commission Presentations
a. Subcommittee Reports
1) Stormwater
2) Greenways
3) Trash Hauling
b. Fish Creek Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission - Update by Commissioner Yingling
9. Staff Presentations
a. Slope Tour - September 29, 5 to 7 p.m.
b. Fall Clean Up Event - October 24, 8 a.m. to 1 p.m., Gethsemane Church
c. Joy Park Buckthorn Pull- November 14, 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon
d. Maplewood Nature Center Programs
10. Adjourn
Agenda Item 4.a.
DRAFT
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
July 20, 2009
7:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Mason Sherrill indicated seven commissioners were present; there was
quorum.
2. ROLL CALL
Chair Carole Mason Sherrill
Commissioner Judith Johannessen
Commissioner Carole Lynne
Commissioner Frederica Musgrave
Commissioner Bill Schreiner
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Ginny Yingling
Staff members present:
Shann Finwall, Enviromnental Planner
Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator
Andrew Hovland, Consulting Tree Inspector
Kathleen Juenemann, City Councilperson Liaison
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Mason Sherrill asked for approval of the agenda, and if there were any additions or
corrections. Commissioner Musgrave stated she was watching the cable cast of their
meeting and could not hear everyone speaking. She reminded the commissioners to speak
into their microphones. Commissioner Musgrave also wanted to add two agenda items
(New Business Items and City Council Consent Agenda). Commissioner Lynne made a
motion to approve the agenda as revised, seconded by Commissioner Johannessen. The
motion carried by a unanimous vote.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 2, 2009
Commissioner Trippler suggested they change a sentence to read: "Commissioner
Schreiner was appointed after receiving four of seven votes". On page three a sentence
1
read "Chair Mason Sherrill said this item will be brought forward to the next meeting".
Commissioner Trippler could not determine what "this item" pertained to. The
commission moved to strike the sentence; it was referring to meeting times and wind
turbines. Commissioner Johannessen said that on page six, the word "purpose" should be
"propose". Commissioner Johannessen corrected a sentence regarding "over-use of drain
oils,". Commissioner Musgrave said a sentence should be corrected to read
"Environmental Planner Finwall said she would present this information to the City
Council meeting on June 8th". This was referring to the Fish Creek ad hoc commission
appointments. Commissioner Musgrave had asked for an update on the groundwater
protection plan. She had mentioned it several times during the meeting, and it was not
reflected in the minutes. Environmental Planner Finwall said she outlined and explained
the groundwater protection plan in an e-mail to the commissioners. Commissioner Lynne
made a motion to approve the minutes, as amended, and Commissioner Schreiner
seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of six to one with Commission
Musgrave voting against the motion.
5. NEW BUSINESS - a) Emerald Ash Borer
Mr. Andy Hovland, the city's consulting tree inspector, gave a presentation and
explanation of the biology of the Emerald Ash Borer. He explained what the city ofSt.
Paul has done about infestation and what has been done in other cities. The Emerald Ash
Borer was originally found in Detroit in 2002. He explained the factors in infestation;
human senses cannot pick it up, trees are thin, bad winters, drought, and in the early
stages, crown thinning. By the time crown die-back occurs, most of the trees are past the
point of saving them. The insect has spread quickly in southern Michigan and Canada. It
has moved into Indiana, Ohio, Maryland, New York and Minnesota. They believe it was
originally sent in packing materials shipped into the Detroit area. The movement has
spread west to Milwaukee, St. Louis, LaCrosse, and Minnesota. The spread of the insects
was likely in firewood because the insect cannot move quickly; it moves a mile or so per
year. He showed a visual of the Emerald Ash Borer. He said the insects will probably not
be seen until next spring. They feed in the upper crowns of the trees, lay eggs, and stay
alive for four to six weeks. It takes two to three weeks for eggs to mature and hatch and
the larvae get into the tree and cause the damage. As the larvae feed on the tree, the
vascular system of the tree is compromised; there is no uptake of water from the roots,
and crown thinning and die-back occurs. Larger trees will die in two to four years. Mr.
Hovland explained things to consider when looking at infested trees. Bark splitting
where infestation is occurring and heavy woodpecker activity is seen. There is also leafy
growth coming out of the bark. Healthy trees may take more than one season for the
adults to emerge because of chemical defenses built up in the trees.
Infestation in St. Paul was found on May 12, 2009, and St. Paul immediately had
representatives from the National Bureau of Agriculture (NBA) come out and positively
identified the Emerald Ash Borer. The NBA directed the City of St. Paul to eradicate
every infested tree, directing residents to remove ash trees on private property, and within
a week they had eradicated the infested trees. Any suspected, stressed tree was left as a
"trap" tree. The insects are attracted to the tree, the trapped trees will be removed this
2
winter, and any insects in the trees will be eradicated in the dormant season. Mr.
Hovland talked about the impact on greater Minnesota and in Maplewood and
surrounding areas. He said there are a billion ash trees in Minnesota. All the lowland
forests will be impacted along with other insects and wildlife. Businesses using ash pulp
for paper and ash wood for furniture will be impacted.
Treatment options are systemic insecticides that are applied as a soil drench around the
base, a soil injection within a three to four foot diameter, or a truuk injection. Treatment
can be very expensive. The systemic insecticide has a warning label on it against treating
trees that are close to water bodies, and it is poisonous to other insects and animals. St.
Paul and Minneapolis have come up with preparedness plans received from the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA). Both cities have revised their ordinances
to manage this problem, keeping the public informed when an infestation is found and
following what the MDA is doing. Mr. Hovland said that he and Ms. Gaynor discussed
various options for Maplewood which include inventorying of public ash trees. Natural
Resources Coordinator Gaynor said they are beginning discussions, and volunteers may
be needed. Mr. Hovland said he also does forestry consulting for Falcon Heights and the
residents are considering cost sharing for treatment plans, and residents would like to
involve city council members to discuss removal and replacement of boulevard trees.
Mr. Hovland also said they have secured discount rates from several companies to treat
the trees, allowing residents to meet with the companies themselves. They have
implemented reduced maintenance on the trees on the boulevards and in the parks; and
have replaced ash trees with other species. Ash will make a comeback in the future,
however not in its native form. This insect is from China and Russia, and most likely
there will be a cross breed ten years before planting saplings. Mr. Hovland talked about
stingless ants and wasps that have been considered to combat the problem. The ants and
wasps prey on the eggs of the Emerald Ash Borer, follow the route of the larvae and act
as predators.
Questions and discussion ensued. Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor asked the
commission to send comments and questions to her.
5. NEW BUSINESS - b) Storm water management
Enviromnental Planner Shann Finwall presented a report on storm water management,
which is one of the Environmental and Natural Resource Commission's 2009 goals. She
said the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Local
Surface Water Management Plan are the two programs involved in storm water
management in the city. The two plans combine to form the implementation of the
programs. Ms. Finwall said Michael Thompson, city engineer, is present to answer
questions as they discussed the two programs. A public hearing was held on June 22,
2009, with the city council to present the NPDES annual report. Ms. Finwall a
presentation on the report, which reflects that in 1991 the Federal Clean Water Act was
adopted and requires that cities issue permits for storm water management. Phase I was
for cities with populations over 100,000, and Phase II was for cities with populations over
10,000. Maplewood was affected by the Phase II permitting process.
3
Ms. Finwall stated they had over 90,000 hits to the Public Works Web site which goes
into detail on Maplewood's storm water management programs. She said Maplewood
participates in the Ramsey Washington Watershed District Waterfest event every spring;
the city collaborates with the three watershed districts and the Metropolitan Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) on public outreach; and the Nature Center sponsors a series of
programs on rain water gardens and native landscaping. Since 2003, over 2,500 people
have attended these programs. Maplewood has a rain garden program in force, and the
city hall campus has a large rain garden, prairie and shore land plantings, and a
sedimentation basin in the public works yard, which was seeded with native seeds to help
cleanse water runoff from the storage of salt and sand. Maplewood works with students
and organizations planting public rain gardens and always works with homeowners and
businesses to promote best management of storm water practices. There was a clean up
day in Maplewood in conjunction with Ramsey County's Household Hazardous Waste
Program this past year. Enviromnental Planner Finwall said the city conducts in-house
training seminars on "elicit discharge" which is the illegal release of storm water into
sanitary sewers, ensuring that residents do not have sump pumps draining into sanitary
sewers. They meet with local area businesses to explain programs and ensure
compliance, and when they receive complaints they have investigations which are
followed through.
Another area of storm water management is during construction, ensuring site storm
water controls are in place. All projects are reviewed and inspected for erosion control
measures, working with the two watersheds on plan review site inspections and
compliance issues. They collaborate with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and
surrounding watershed districts. The city meets with developers or homeowners prior to
submitting an application, which assists in the educational process of storm water
management. There are site inspections where storm water plans are reviewed prior to
building. They monitor everything through the construction projects and ensure the
contractors use best management practices. After construction the city holds training
seminars with post -construction strategies. The public works department street crew and
engineers participate in public works forums to assist in the timely and appropriate needs
of street sweeping. The streets are swept within the city at least twice a year, and they
target enviromnentally sensitive areas that are apt to have storm water issues.
The city has non-degradation requirements, which are water quality targets based on
1988 standards, so the city along with the PCA and watershed districts will be identifying
impaired waters that are likely to be impacted by storm water discharge. This will be
conducted through our watershed district review through the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. They will assure compliance with developing a storm water comprehensive
plan, which may require additional staff, monies, and changes to operating procedures to
assure water quality targets are being met. Ms. Finwall discussed program funding,
which was established in 2004. They receive grant monies from many organizations, and
actively search for and receive cost share assistance for projects with the Ramsey-
Washington Watershed District. Ms. Finwall also explained a road improvement project
in 2008. It was a 14-acre drainage area with several run off points which drained into
4
Kohlman and Gervais lakes. The storm water was not being treated properly before going
into the lake. There was an elimination of nine septic systems in this area, and the homes
are now utilizing the new drainage systems. She explained some of the other projects the
city has been working on and the other work that the city will do to be in compliance with
the storm water management plans.
Questions and discussion ensued. Environmental Planner Finwall stated that the next
step in the storm water management plan is to carry through with implementation, which
includes updating the city's ordinances to reflect the plan and watershed district rules.
Staff will begin working on the ordinance updates, along with the stormwater
subcommittee, and present that to the commission in the coming months.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - a) Stormwater Management Enhancements at Spoon
Lake Preserve
Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor stated at the April 2, 2009 Environmental and
Natural Resources Commission meeting that the commission recommended a filtration
basin at Spoon Lake Preserve, and had requested to see the final plans. She said the
culvert has been installed and seeded. She explained how the basin will operate, and
stated the water will be coming in from the street. The designer has planned it so that
when you enter this preserve, there is a trail. The plans include a wooded wetland, and
woods opening up to savannah areas. For the woodland, they selected plants found in a
hardwood forest. As they excavated the pond, they found more sand than they thought so
they plan to have a slightly drier planting there. The landscape plan calls for a large
variety of trees, among which are oak, basswood, hickory, and maple. Ms. Gaynor
explained the details of the entry way to the preserve and she said in the commissioner's
packets there is a series of drawings that build on each other. They will place boulders to
give it a more natural look, and also install a rail fence. Perennial plantings will be done.
In restoring a wood land, there is no shade, so the whole basin was seeded with the
thought that they will start planting the tree canopy, shrub beds, and plug plantings. They
may be ready to plant this fall, and there will be a larger planting next year of trees and
shrubs. They would also add woodland ferns and wild flowers.
She took questions and comments, and suggestions. Questions and discussion ensued.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - b) Capital Improvement Plan
Environmental Planner Finwall said the Environmental and Natural Resources
Commission was invited to the Capital Improvement Plan public meeting with the
Planning Commission on July 7th. The finance director was present at the meeting to
answer questions. The city council will have final review of the plan on July 27, 2009.
Chair Mason Sherrill stated that the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
should ensure that the plan includes projects that protect, enhance, and preserve the
environment.
5
Commissioner Yingling stated that some of the environmental projects are too vague in
their justification.
Commissioner Musgrave stated that when the commission approves the plan, it is giving
blanket approval of all of the projects.
Commissioner Yingling made a motion to adopt the proposed Capital Improvement Plan
and to have the City Council approve the document with their comments, Commissioner
Trippler seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of seven to one, with
Commissioner Musgrave voting against the motion.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - c) Wind Turbine Ordinance
Environmental Planner Finwall stated she included the two presentations by Felicia Szott,
undergraduate student from Hamline University, on wind energy and permitting
standards on wind energy in the commissioner's packets. Ms. Szott also completed a
brief on the subject, which was included for the commission at tonight's meeting. Ms.
Finwall will continue to draft wind turbine regulations based on information researched
by Ms. Szott and present to the commission in the coming months.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - d) Environmental Protection Ordinance
Environmental Planner Finwall stated that the commission began reviewing the slope and
Mississippi Critical Area portions ofthe Environmental Protection Ordinance last year.
For review, Ms. Finwall included a copy ofthe slope presentation by Steve Kummer, one
ofthe city's engineers, given to the commission in May.
Chair Mason Sherrill asked about the slope tour suggested by Mr. Kununer.
Ms. Finwall said she will arrange the tour and get back to the commission. It is important
for the commission to understand what they are trying to protect, prior to drafting the
slope regulations.
7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: No visitors present.
8. COMMISSIONER PRESENTATIONS: a) Subcommittee Reports
1) Stormwater:
Commissioner Schreiner stated that Maplewood is a city on the verge of rebuilding. He
said they need to think about parking lot requirements, and items that need to be
addressed as businesses submit plans for rebuilding areas and buildings.
Mr. Schreiner said that based on studies he has reviewed regarding the urban Portland
area, 60% of all available parking space is not used. He said the best way to address
storm water management is to eliminate pervious ground. Some businesses think they
6
need a large number of parking spaces, however the city could mandate a certain number
of spaces, and if the businesses wanted to have more there are other surfaces that could
be used.
Commissioner Schreiner talked about Golden Valley's website; which has a 30 second
cartoon regarding ground and storm water. He suggested that they have a message on
cable television regarding this. He talked about other ideas for educating the public about
storm water and ground water.
2) Greenways
Commissioner Johannessen said this subcommittee has been working on a
comprehensive statement on what greenways are and about goals toward the protection
and maintenance of the greenways. The statement is both a physical and "valuable" idea
about the greenways.
3) Trash Hauling
Commissioner Lynne said she does not have new information on this subject; however
she said Enviromnental Planner Finwall has information that she requested commission
members to have. Ms. Finwall said that the recycling coordinator for Maplewood went to
a presentation at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and they had recently
conducted a study on multiple and single trash haulers. She forwarded this information
to Commissioners Lynne and Trippler. She said that representatives from the MPCA
have been invited to the next commission meeting to give a presentation oftheir findings.
8. COMMISSIONER PRESENTATIONS: b) Capitol Region Watershed District
2010 Watershed Management Plan
Commissioner Schreiner is the commission liaison to the watershed management plan
meetings. He stated there is a meeting on July 2lat the Capitol Region Watershed
District office. He explained this watershed group was started about ten years ago, and
includes parts of St. Paul, Maplewood and other metro areas. Their new ten year
program is based on "Bring Water Back to St. Paul". It involves moving forward on
groundwater protection and well sealing. They are looking at rules and permits
regarding watersheds; and are doing stewardship grants for businesses and industries that
are preserving land and watershed areas. They are moving forward with monitoring and
data collection, education and outreach programs. They are offering support for any of
the partner cities. Commissioner Schreiner explained some new initiatives. One was the
effects of climate change on our water; they are researching innovative best management
practices, and thinking "outside the box" and they hope to have new ideas in the future.
They are monitoring fish populations; storm water runoff warms up lakes and rivers, and
they are monitoring that. The entire watershed district is full oflost ecosystems and
wetlands that have been filled in and built over, and they are looking at the possibilities
of recovering these wetlands and ecosystems. He will continue to update the commission
on the draft plan.
7
8. COMMISSIONER PRESENTATIONS: b) Fish Creek Ad Hoc Greenway
Commission
Commissioner Yingling said they had a meeting on July lOth and she was. elected chair of
the commission, Ron Cockriel the vice chair, and the total membership is six voting
members and some ad hoc members. They are planning a tour of the Fish Creek corridor
on July nnd. They will evaluate and make recommendations on what are the best ways
to preserve the valuable natural areas along the corridor. They have a fair amount of
work to do until the end of December, 2009. There were some questions from the
commission. Ms. Yingling also said they are working on plans for public involvement,
particularly people livillg along the greenway.
8. COMMISSIONER PRESENTATIONS: c) New Business Items
Commissioner Musgrave stated that the commission should have calendar each year
reflecting what items will be on each agenda.
She asked about mass transportation several times, and she said it has never been
presented.
8. COMMISSIONER PRESENTATIONS: d) Consent Agenda Items
Commissioner Musgrave questions some items that were on the city council consent
agenda which should have gone to the commission frrst for review, such as mass transit.
9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS - a) wetland ordinance update
Environmental Planner stated that staff is continuing to work on possible incentives for
the wetland ordinance, and look at some programs and initiatives that they could offer to
residents and property owners when they are doing best management practices. If there
are any major changes, she will bring that back to the commission.
b) National Night Out
Ms. Finwall wanted to remind the commissioners about National Night Out, put on by the
police department. Taste of Maplewood is on Thursday, August 13th; from 4:00 to 9:00
p.m. at the Maplewood Community Center. Various vendors from around Maplewood
will be offering food choices, with fun and games and other things for sale. Eureka
Recycling has agreed to have a booth with their recycling information and items.
c) Nature Center Programs
Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor talked about the Nature Center programs and the
tree rebate program. She said now and in fall is a great time to plant trees. She explained
the match program for trees. There will be a buckthorn program this fall to help
residents, and she said to check the Maplewood Monthly for information. There is a Lake
8
Phalen wildflower hike this Thursday, July 23rd. On July 30th there is a bat program at
the Nature Center. On August I st, a program called Inviting Butterflies to your Yard will
be held, and people may tour the butterfly garden at the Nature Center. There will be a
photography program Dragonflies by Digital Camera on August 22nd.
8. ADJOURN - 9:55 p.m.
9
Agenda Item 4.b.
DRAFT
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
August 17, 2009
7:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Mason Sherrill indicated six out of seven commissioners were present; there is a
quorum.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chair Carole Mason Sherrill
Commissioner Judith Johannessen
Commissioner Carole Lynne
Commissioner Frederica Musgrave
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Ginny Yingling
Staff members present:
Shann Finwall, Enviromnental Planner
Kathleen Juenemann, City Councilmember Liaison
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Mason Sherrill asked for approval of the agenda, and if there were additions or
corrections. Commissioner Musgrave requested an item be placed under Commission
Presentations (Sustainable Article). Commissioner Yingling made a motion to approve
the agenda as amended, seconded by Commissioner Johannessen. The motion carried by
a unanimous vote.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 2009
This item was tabled until September.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - a) Analysis of Waste and Recyclable Materials
Collection Arrangements
Environmental Planner Finwall introduced two guests, Sigrid Scheurle and Peter Sandei
who work in the mnnicipal division of the Metropolitan Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA). Mr. Scheurle has been working on solid waste matters since 1986, and his
assignment was to move the state from a disposal site system to a recovery-based system,
which is known as the Minnesota Waste Management Act. Peter Sandei works in
another division of the MPCA, and is collaborating on organized collection and giving
assistance and information to people regarding this. They presented the results of the
study the MPCA completed in July regarding collection arrangements. The study
reflected substantial environmental and economic benefits to organized trash collection.
Commissioner Lynne asked what types of impacts do multiple trash haulers have on
roads. She is on the trash hauling subcommittee and they have been trying to find
documentation for their group on impact to roads.
Mr. Scheurle suggested they could consult the University of Minnesota and MNDOT to
see if they have models that are available. It is possible the League of Minnesota Cities
could sponsor that kind of study as well. The information that is critical is what type of
street and what specifications is that street built to.
Mr. Scheurle stated that Maplewood's city attorney would have to determine which
organized hauling process would best suit the needs of the city based on those specified
in state statute. He also discussed the number of independent haulers today, and said
there has been a lot of consolidation in the last few years and as a result fewer
independent haulers. There are three large national companies. He pointed out that if
Maplewood decided to go with four or five independent haulers, the independents could
survive here.
Commissioner Trippler asked if the MPCA has studied organized versus open collection
service and has found that organized service uses less gas, produces less C02, produces
better recycling rates, lowers unit cost, causes less damage to streets then why doesn't the
MPCA support organized hauling over open collection?
Mr. Scheurle stated that the MPCA would like the study results to speak for themselves.
Councilmember Juenemann stated that Maplewood attempted to organize trash hauling in
1987 and again in 1993. Both times had been an uphill battle. No one with any
significant responsibility wants to take a stand on organized trash hauling and take away
a resident's choice of garbage haulers. However, she thought that in this more
environmentally conscious era it seems as ifthe citizens are supportive of the concept
because they are wondering why there are so many garbage haulers on our streets. She
said Maplewood has 13 haulers right now. The haulers cause accidents, noise pollution,
and air pollution.
Diana Wanner, who works for the city council's office in St. Paul, introduced herselfto
the commission. Ms Wanner stated that the St. Paul city council recently passed a
resolution to have staff complete a report on organized collection. They were verynpleased to find out the work that the MPCA has done on this, and she was also familiar
2
with the Ramsey County study. Over the next month or so, policy analysts will be
looking at this and drafting a report and presenting it to the St. Paul city council. For her
part, she works in the city council office. Her role is liaison with the 17 neighborhood
groups in St. Paul. A number of neighborhoods have decided on their own to look at this
voluntarily, because of their concerns with road wear and tear and environmental issues.
A number of neighborhood groups have environmental committees. She said she wanted
to attend the meeting tonight to learn more about Maplewood's efforts.
Commissioner Yingling asked Ms. Wanner about the neighborhood councils and had
they put together any reports on what they have looked at.
Ms. Wanner said there has been one individual that has done this, and she would send
that name to the commission.
Ms. Finwall stated that staff would continue to meet with the trash hauling subcommittee
to discuss the next steps which would include a review of St. Paul's report.
Commissioner Trippler made a motion to recommend that the Environmental
Commission direct staff to draft a report on organized collection for review in the next
three months. The report should include information on the environmental and financial
impacts. Commissioner Yingling seconded the motion. The motion was approved
unanimously.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - b) Wind Turbine Ordinance
Environmental Planner Finwall stated that Felicia Szott's wind turbine brief was included
in the enviromnental commission packet for review. The brief goes into the key factors
that the city should look at when looking at wind turbines, looking at the differences
between commercial and residential wind turbines, necessary permits for various
turbines, set back requirements, insuring the safety, aesthetics, looking at the safety
standards, design standards and other applicable standards such as noise, electrical codes
and minimizing infrastructure impacts.
Ms. Finwall stated that the City of Woodbury had recently completed a draft wind turbine
ordinance, which was included in the packet also. Their ordinance has expanded to
include other alternative energy sources including geothermal and solar. The wind
turbine regulations in Woodbury would allow only residential property owners with 2-1/2
acres or more a wind turbine.
Commissioner Yingling commented that the Woodbury ordinance doesn't give all
residents and business owners an opportunity to use alternative energy sources.
Ms. Finwall stated that the commission has reviewed a lot of research and data regarding
wind turbines, and now it would be beneficial to discuss the true purpose of crafting an
ordinance. Is it to promote alternative energy sources, or just ensure that they are
regulated? Due to the lateness of the hour, Ms. Finwall suggested that the commission
continue with this item at next month's meeting.
3
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - c) Surface Water Management Plan - Storm Water
Ordinance
Environmental Planner Finwall stated the commission reviewed the surface water
management plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan, and on August 6th the Metropolitan
Council completed its review of the plan. The Metropolitan Council submitted six minor
comments on the plan, and stated overall that the plan has potential for the city to
successfully plan its water resources. Staff is requesting comments and a
recommendation on the final version of the plan which will then be reviewed by the city
council in the coming months.
In addition comments and recommendation on the surface water management plan,
information on a surface water management ordinance was included for review in the
commission's packets. The ordinance amendments are needed to meet one of the
implementations required in the plan. The amendments will bring all areas of surface
water management, including the city's engineering review, ordinances, and all
watershed district rules, into one document.
Ms. Finwall introduced a guest in the audience. Her name is Yanna Hedke. She is an
undergraduate student with interest in studying surface water issues. She has offered to
assist the city on the ordinance amendments on a pro bono basis.
Ms. Finwall stated that there is a lot of technical information which needs to be reviewed
on a surface water management ordinance. As such, she will invite Ron Leaf, storm
water consultant, and Michael Thompson, city engineer, to the next meeting that this item
is discussed. They are the experts and should lead the charge on these efforts.
Commissioner Yingling made a motion to approve the final version of the surface water
management plan, seconded by Commissioner Johannessen seconded the motion. The
motion carried by a vote of five to six, with Commissioner Musgrave voting against the
motion due to the fact that portions of the final version were missing in the commission's
reVIew.
6. NEW BUSINESS
No new business
7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors spoke
8. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. Storm Water Subcommittee
Commissioner Yingling stated that they were waiting to see how the storm water
management ordinance moves forward before proceeding further with this item.
4
b. Greenways
Commissioner Johannessen said the subcommittee had a meeting on August 11,2009.
The meeting centered primarily on developing ideas for encouraging conservation
development in the city, and the subcommittee agreed at the onset that they were going to
emphasize the idea of stewardship, rather than regulation in their comments and ideas.
They felt that people needed to help conserve greenways and maintain them. Ms.
Johannesson distributed a list of the ideas they had. Discussion and comments ensued.
c. Trash Hauling
Commissioner Trippler said the subcommittee did not have a current report.
d. Fish Creek
Commissioner Yingling stated the Fish Creek Ad hoc Commission has met twice since
the last commission meeting. She said they went on a walking tour of the southern half
ofthe Fish Creek corridor.
The commission discussed the Libby property and the complications that will be
presenting themselves due to the death of Mr. Jay Libby. The grant proposal the
commission submitted was rejected. Their next meeting is August 28th from 1 :00 to 3 :00
p.m. in city hall.
9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Slope Tour
Environmental Planner Finwall suggested a date for the commission's slope tour. She
said Steve Kumer, the slope expert, is not available until the end of September. The dates
suggested were September 29th after 5 p.m. or other evenings toward the end of
September and October. She suggested they meet at city hall and take a van. She said she
would e-mail the commission with the dates.
b. Calendar
Environmental Planner Finwall followed up on a request by Commissioner Musgrave in
regard to a yearly calendar for the commission. Ms. Finwall wanted to remind the group
that they did go into some items that they need to address yearly in their goal setting
meeting, and included those on a calendar. Some of the items were the year-end report,
clean-up days, Arbor Day, Waterfest event, among others. Over and above these dates,
staff does not know what will come up for review each month. The commission must
react to current environmental issues.
c. Wetland Ordinance Update
5
Environmental Planner Finwall gave a report on the wetland ordinance. She said they
have a proposed timeline for review; and will have a public forum in September, 2009,
because of the concerns expressed by residents. The date proposed to hold the public
forum is September 28th, with the first reading November 9th, and the second reading
November 23,2009.
d. Upcoming conferences
Ms. Finwall invited the commission to some upcoming conferences: the East Metro
Sustainability Roundtable September 3, 2009 at Century College. The workshop for city
leaders starts at 3 :00 p.m. There will be a reception at 5 :00 p.m. with guest speaker polar
explorer Eric Larsson; and then at 7:00 p.m. they will be a public forum for neighbors.
She said that if anyone is interested in attending, to please RSVP to the East Metro
Sustainability (Alliance for Sustainability). She also said there is a workshop put on by
the Watershed District at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum.
e. Maplewood Nature Center Programs
Ms. Finwall announced the Maplewood Nature Center programs: there is a tree program
with a cost share, and the nature center will reimburse 50% up to $100.00 per tree for up
to four trees. There will be a children's program August 29th, which is called
Magnificent Monarchs, Saturday from 10:00 to II :30 a.m. Programming for adults
includes a composting workshop, and the city has compost bins available for $45.00.
There will be adult lawn seminars pertaining to low input lawn care; and creating a lawn
that doesn't require a lot of water. Natural Resources Coordinator Ginny Gaynor wanted
to announce a fall buckthorn program, which is a volunteer program where they request
assistance for removal at Vista Hills Park. There will be a demonstration on how to
remove buckthorn on Saturday September 26th, and finally, there will be a collaborative
with the city of North St. Paul, Oakdale, and Ramsey Watershed to remove buckthorn at
Silver Lake on November 14,2009.
10. ADJOURNMENT - 9:55 p.m.
6
Agenda Item 5.8.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Bill Priefer, Public Works Operations Analyst/Recycling Coordinator
Eureka Recycling Contract Amendment
September 16, 2009 for the September 21 ENR Commission Meeting
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
Recent unforeseen economic events have affected the recycling markets in serious
ways that are threatening the viability of the City of Maplewood's recycling program.
The value of recycled commodities has dropped by more than 60%, and worse yet, the
volume of recycled materials is decreasing. In order to continue the program at the
current level of service, Eureka Recycling and staff propose a change in the collection
fee charged by Eureka to Maplewood from a per ton basis to a per household basis.
The current recycling contract with Eureka ends December 31, 2010. It is proposed
that the contract be extended for an additional two years from 2010 to 2012.
BACKGROUND
Maplewood's contract with Eureka Recycling is typical of metro area recycling
contracts: collection, processing and a revenue share component which is tied to
market conditions for recycling commodities.
Collection
The city currently pays Eureka $116.73 per ton of material per month to collect
recycling in Maplewood. This equates to approximately $1.71 per household per month
or $20.52 per year. On average, other metro area cities pay their recycling contractors
around $30 to $40 per household per year, which does not include educational and
promotional materials or any other waste reduction programs.
Processing
The city currently pays Eureka $50 per ton for fiber (paper and cardboard) that is
processed and $90 per ton for aluminum. Processing includes the cleaning, sorting,
bailing, crushing, marketing and transporting of the material so it can be made into new
products. The city does not pay for processing for the other material collected such as
steel, plastic bottles, milk cartons, juice boxes, glass and textiles.
Revenue Share Agreement
Since the beginning of the contract in 2006, Eureka has provided over $251,000 of
revenue share to the city after the processing costs were deducted. The revenue is
derived from the sale of the recyclable materials. Eureka pays the city 60 percent of
the revenue for paper after the processing fee of $50 per ton is deducted, and pays 50
percent of the revenue for aluminum after the processing fee of $90 per ton.
Current Market Conditions
Due to the current market conditions, it costs more to process paper than the market
will pay for it. Consequently, there is no revenue, and in fact, the revenue is "negative'.
The aluminum market continues to show increases, but the revenue share from
aluminum still does not offset the loss from paper. The city's revenue share through
August 2009 is negative $3,115. Comparatively, the total revenue share for 2008 was
$106,014 to the city.
DISCUSSION
Eureka and staff propose a change in the collection fee charged by Eureka Recycling to
Maplewood from a per ton basis to a per household basis. Under the current per ton
fee structure, the cost of Maplewood's recycling program ebbs and flows with the
amount of materials collected at the curb. Under a new per household fee structure,
the amount the city pays Eureka to provide recycling services remains consistent even
if the number of tons rise or fall.
Eureka Recycling and staff are proposing to move, over the next three years, to a $2.10
per household per month fee for all curbside and multi-family units. These per
household rates will continue to keep Maplewood's recycling program one of the most
cost effective in the metro area. The fee of $2.10 per household ($25.20 per year) for
recycling would put Maplewood at the low end of the $30 to $40 per year average cost
for residents in the metro area. The rate increase would be effective November 1, 2009
(provided council support) at $2.00 per household through 2010, and then increase five
cents per household in both 2011 and 2012 to arrive at $2.10 per household. The per
household fee would also be adjusted annually using the Federal Reserve Sank of
Minneapolis annually published Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 2.0%, whichever is less.
Assuming a 2.0% CPI, the rates would be $2.09 and $2.18 in 2011 and 2012
respectively.
2
Considering the current market conditions and the unlikely rebound of the markets in
the near term, it is unlikely that a comparable contract could be obtained through the
request for proposal (RFP) process when our contract with Eureka Recycling expires at
the end of 2010. Any proposals received in the current market will be at a significantly
higher cost for the same (or less) service since the revenue to offset collection costs is
not available.
In addition to the per household fee, staff is also recommending that the contract be
extended for a period of two years beyond the current five-year term which terminates
on December 31,2010. The existing contract contains language that allows this
extension to occur provided both parties mutually agree. The reasons for extending the
contract are as follows:
1. Maplewood's recycling program will be more economically sustainable and will
continue to ensure that all materials collected in Maplewood are recycled to their
highest and best use.
2. The switch to a per household fee provides much more stability in the cost of the
program, allowing the city to be able to project costs out further with more
accuracy.
3. Maplewood will extend their contract for recycling collection and processing to
the end of 2012 with very favorable pricing even in a down market in which new
bids would likely be much higher on both the processing and collection sides of
the program.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission approve
the proposed amendments to the Eureka Recycling contract which would change the
collection fee from a per ton basis to a per household basis, and extend the contract
two additional years through December of 2012. Staff will then bring this item before
the city council for their consideration at the October 12, 2009 council meeting.
Attachments:
1. Eureka's September 2009 Fact Sheet
2. Eureka Recycling September 27, 2005, Contract
3
Contract Extension and Change from a Per Ton Fee to Per
Household Fee in the City of Maplewood's Recycling
Program
September 2009
Eureka Recycling
Eureka Recycling is a mission driven non-profit business dedicated to demonstrating that
waste is completely preventable. Eureka Recycling is committed to providing services, as
well as education, advocacy, and other programs desigued to respond to the community's
needs and concerns about the environmental and health problems caused by waste.
We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, created in 2001 without using grants or funds
that would not be available to any private entity to demonstrate recycling's true
sustainability. Eureka Recycling borrowed approximately $7 million to create increased
recycling capacity for the metropolitan region. Eureka Recycling borrowed money at
standard interest rates. No grants were used in the purchase of any assets that serve our
customers. This assures that all of our methods and processes for collection and processing
recyclables can be implemented by any company, municipality or other non-profit.
Eureka Recycling works on zero waste issues in many areas from zero waste events to
backyard composting workshops. One ofthe most visible activities that we engage in is the
curbside collection and processing of recyclable material in several cities around the
metropolitan area. We currently serve the cities of Maple wood, St Louis Park, Roseville,
Lauderdale, Arden Hills and Saint Paul.
Rate Structure for Recycling Services
The City of Maplewood's recycling services contract has several components typical of
metro area recycling contracts: collection, processing, and a revenue share which is tied to
market conditions for recycling commodities.
2828 Kennedy Street NE \ Minneapolis, MN 55413 \ (651) 222-7678 \ Fax (612) 623-3277 \ www.eurekarecycling.org
Eureka Recycling Is an affirmative action, equal opportunity employer. It is our policy to hire without discrimination based on race, creed, religion, sex, color, national origin,
sexual or affectional orientation, ancestry, familial statlIs, age, dlsabllity, marital status or status with regard to public assistance.
o Printed on 100% postconsumer recycled paper that was processed without the use 01 chlorine,
. Collection: The City of Maplewood currently pays Eureka Recycling $116.73 per
ton of material per month to collect recycling in Maplewood. This equates to
approximately $1.71 per household per month or $20.52 per year. On average
metro area cities pay their recycling companies around $30-$40 per household per
year, which does not include educational and promotional materials or any other
waste-reduction programs. In other cities, the costs for these additional program
elements are paid from other city funds.
. Processing: The City of Maplewood pays Eureka Recycling $50 per ton of fibers
(paper) that is processed and $90 per ton of aluminum that is processed, for the
cost of processing (cleaning, sorting, baling, crushing, marketing, transporting)
materials to prepare them to specifications so that they can be made into new
products. The city pays no processing fees on all other material processed. This
includes: steel, HDPE #2 plastic bottles, PET #1 plastic bottles, milk cartons, juice
boxes, textiles and all colors of glass as well as the residual material set out by
residents and inadvertently collected that can not be recycled (trash). Rather than
the city actually being invoiced and paying Eureka Recycling a processing fee, this
fee has historically been deducted from the value ofthe materials before the
revenue share.
. Revenue Share: Since the beginning of our contract with the city in January 2006,
Eureka Recycling has provided over $251,000 after all processing costs to the City
of Maplewood from the sale of the recyclable materials through the revenue share
agreement.
. Markets: Eureka Recycling's proforma for Maplewood's curbside recycling
program was built on average or slightly below average market conditions which
equates to $85-$90 per ton of average curbside composition delivered to market.
For the calendaryear of2008 the average value was over $125 per ton. The value
for most recycled material has been below $50 per ton for several months and is
currently just now hovering around $75 per ton.
Current market conditions
Recent unforeseen and dramatic economic events have affected the recycling markets in
serious ways that must be immediately discussed and require our urgent action in order to
ensure the ongoing viability ofthe City of Maplewood's recycling program. The value of
recycled commodities has dropped by more than 60% and volumes are decreasing.
. Eureka Recycling has taken action to address recent challenges of the current
economic conditions. In sununary, we cut everything that could while maintaining
living wages and benefits for our employees and providing the resources to ensure
the essential services of our organization. At the close of the frrst quarter and with
almost all forecasts for the next three quarter market conditions, it is apparent that
even these cuts are not and will not cover our costs for providing these services.
. Even with these drastic cuts, under the current rate structure, Eureka Recycling will
sustain significant losses this year. Every day adds to losses at Eureka Recycling
2
that cannot be sustained for the long term. Market conditions are not within the
organization or the city's control and an end to the current condition is unknown.
Collection Fee Adjustment Request
Eureka Recycling and city staff in Maplewood propose changing the $116.73 per ton fee
currently being paid for the collection of recycling in Maplewood to a per household fee.
Under the current per ton fee structure, the cost of Maplewood' s recycling program ebbs
and flows with the amount of materials collected at the curb. Under a new per household
fee structure, the amount the city pays Eureka Recycling to provide recycling services
remains consistent even if the number of tons rise or fall. Most other communities already
have programs that are paid for on a per household basis.
Eureka Recycling and the city staff are proposing to move, over the next two years, to a
$2.10 per household per month fee for all curbside units and multi-family units. These per
household rates will continue to keep Maplewood's recycling program one ofthe most cost
effective in the metro area. $2.10 per household for curbside and multi-family residences
($25.20 per year) would put Maplewood at the low end of the $25-$40 per year average
cost for residents in the Twin Cities. Below is a list of what other cities are currently
paymg:
City Cost per MonthlYear
Maplewood* $2.10/$25.20
Roseville* $2.23/$26.76
St Paul* $2.24/$26.88
Lauderdale* $2.40/$28.80
Edina $2.65/$31.80
Plymouth $2.70/$32.40
St Louis Park $2.79/$33.48
Arden Hills $3.06/$36.72
*
These cities have Curbside and Multifamily recycling
programs. The cost listed is the per unit cost for both types
of collection.
Some cities, like Maplewood, include both curbside and multifamily residents in their
municipal recycling program. For these cities some charge the same amount for both types
of recycling collections. Other cities change a different amount for curbside and
multifamily. The costs listed in the above chart are the costs that would be paid assuming
the city charges the same amount for both multifamily and curbside.
We propose that the changes to the fees for the program take effect on October I, 2009.
Current Market Cost Comparison Information
In the current market costs are rising for providing recycling collection and processing
services. The most recent comparative proposal process was in the City of Edina. Edina
released an RFP for recycling collection and processing services in January 2009. Three
companies submitted proposals. Edina's current hauler at the time was Allied Waste. As
they already had the contract and could continue using the equipment without having to
invest new resources and capital to set up service, their bid was the lowest and involved
3
little change to their per household fee and an increase in the processing cost. Two other
companies submitted proposals. These proposals were significantly higher as these
companies would have needed to buy trucks and put on new staff to provide the service as
the city made the transition to a new provider.
All of the bids submitted suggest that haulers are no longer willing to make the assumption
that there will be excess revenue from material sales that can be relied upon to subsidize
and keep collection costs reduced.
On the collection side of the program Waste Management submitted a bid for $3.61 per
household. This would have been a 40% increase from the Edina's previous cost. Randy's
Sanitation submitted a bid for $3.95 per household, a 51 % increase in cost.
On the processing side the Allied Waste proposal included $50 per ton processing fee on
papers and $90 per ton processing fee on containers and a 60% revenue share. Waste
Management proposed a $50 per ton processing fee and 66% revenue share. Randy's
Sanitation proposed a $59 per ton processing fee on papers and a $69 processing fee on
containers and 60% revenue share.
Waste Management has also confirmed in a May 2009 Waste & Recycling News article
(released after the RFP process in Edina) that the company will be instituting higher
processing fees and no floor pricing for commodities in all current, new and extended
contracts. Other national haulers are expected to follow suit.
Eureka Recycling Contract Extension
The term of the current recycling collection and processing contract with the City of
Maplewood ends at the end of December 2010. It is fair to assume that if the city puts out
an RFP in the current economic climate in which, as seen in the case of Edina, haulers are
not expecting to have material revenue to offset their collection costs, that the likely
proposals will be for significantly higher cost for the same (or less) service.
Eureka Recycling is offering as part of this contract negotiation to include a two year
extension on the contract. The cost for each of these two years will increase by five cents
per household per month in addition to the CPI or 2% (whichever is lower) escalator that is
in the current contract. That would mean (assuming the 2% escalator) the City's collection
costs would be as follows:
Year Per Household
Cost
2010 $2.00
2011 * $2.09
2012* $2.18
* Assuming the extension is agreed upon
Conclusion
Because Eureka Recycling is a mission-driven organization whose purpose is to
demonstrate that waste is preventable, it is essential that the cost effectiveness of the
4
collection and processing of our recyclables include serious consideration of the
environmental impacts. Eureka Recycling, the commnnity, and the City of Maplewood
have always agreed that the entire cost, including the environmental costs, needs to be
covered. Weare doing our best to keep our costs to a minimum while assuring quality,
convenient, and environmentally beneficial recycling and waste reduction services.
Eureka Recycling and the city staff in Maplewood have worked hard during the years of
this contract to improve the recycling program in the city and to work to achieve the
environmental and zero waste goals of the city together.
In the last year Eureka Recycling and the city staff have:
Worked with University of Minnesota students to do an environmental
assessment of city departments and initiatives,
Successfully reinvigorated recycling in City Hall and several other city buildings,
Done several recycling bin and information distribution events around the city
during National Night Out,
Worked together on cooperative recycling bin purchases saving the city money
and helping to work with other cities to keep recycling costs down,
Worked together to do a cooperative purchase of backyard compost bins with
other cities around Ramsey county,
Worked with city staff to identify low performing recycling neighborhoods and
do additional education as part ofthe city's "get caught recycling campaign",
Co-hosted and taught with City Staff several backyard compo sting workshops at
Maplewood Nature Center for city residents.
Eureka and city staff believe that making these adjustments will accomplish the following:
1. Maplewood's recycling program will be more economically sustainable and will
continue to ensure that all materials collected in Maplewood are recycled to their
highest and best use.
2. The switch to a per household fee provides much more stability in the cost of the
program, allowing the city to be able to project costs out further with more
accuracy.
3. Maplewood will extend their contract for recycling collection and processing to the
end of 20 12 with very favorable pricing even in a down market in which new bids
would likely be much higher on both the processing and collection sides of the
program.
5
Mttc.hmeld L
As of 9-27-05
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF MAPlEWOOD AND EUREKA RECYCLING
FOR RECYCLING SERVICES
Table of Contents
1. Definitions.................... .................. .... ... ... ............ ........... .... ....... ........ ........ .... .... ..........4
2. Term of contract. ....... ............... ..... ......... ..... ... ..... .... ....... ... ................ ............ ............... 7
3. Annual Work Plan ........................................................................................................7
4. Annual performance review meeting to discuss recommendations for continuous
improvement ................ ....... .... ....... .... ..... ..... ....... ..... ...... ........... ............ ........... ..... ......7
5. "Dual Stream, Plus" collection I processing system .................................................... 8
6. Payment Terms .......... ......... ..... ... ... ..... ... ........ ... ..... ... .... ................ ........ ........ ... ...........8
7. RFP and Contractor's Proposal................................................................................... 9
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL COLLECTIONS .................................................. 9
8. Missed collections........ ....... ................ .... ..... ........ ..... ........... ...... .... .... ....... ........ ...........9
9. Severe weather.......... ................... ........ .... .... .... ................. .......... .............. ......... ....... 10
10. Collection hours and days..........................................................................................10
11. Customer Complaints ................................................................................................ 10
12. City retains right to specify resident preparation instructions ...........,.........................10
13. City shall approve Contractor's public education literature ........................................ 10
14. Weighing of loads ......................................................................................................11
15. Monthly and annual reports ....................................................................................... 11
16. Ownership of recyclables .......... ...... .... .... ..... ... ..... ...... ..... .......... ....... ...... .... ....... .... ..... 11
17. Scavenging prohibited ...............................................................................................11
18. Cleanup of spillage or blowing litter ...........................................................................12
19. Recyclable materials required to be transported to markets; Disposal prohibited...... 12
20. Designated primary glass market...............................................................................12
21. Processing facilities must be specified....................................................................... 12
22. Estimating materials composition as collected........................................................... 12
23. Estimating process residuals ..................................................................................... 13
24. Lack of adequate market demand..............................................................................13
25. Vehicle requirments ... ....... ..... .......... ........ ..... ............... ........ ....... ............... ....... ......... 13
1
As of 9-27-05
26. Personnel Requirements .... ...... ............. ...................................... .......... ... ...... .... ....... 14
27. Licenses and Permits... ...... ............... ................. ... ..... ........... ... ... ..... ...... ......... ... ........ 14
28. Performance monitoring............. ......... ........ ........ ............. .... ......... .... ...... ...... ....... ... ... 14
29. Liquidated damages..... ..... ....................... ............. ................. ......... ..... ...... ........ ........ 14
CURBSIDE COLLECTION REQUiREMENTS..................................................................15
30. Weekly Collection .............. ...... .... ......... .... .... ................. ....... ................ .... ................. 15
31. Point of collection............ ...... .... .... ................ .............. ..... ... ..... .... ......... ...... ............... 15
32. Curbside collection schedule deadline....................................................................... 15
33. Procedure for handling non-targeted materials.......................................................... 15
34. New Materials to be Added in 2006...........................................................................16
MULTI FAMILY COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS ........................................................... 16
35. MFD building owners may elect to subscribe to recycling service under the City's
contract ..... ...... ..... ......... ..... ..... .... ............ ......... ..... .... .... .... ..... ........ ..... ...................... 16
36. Multi-family collection stations....................................................................................16
37. Multi-family container location(s)..... ......... ........ .... ......... ... .... ..... .............. ................... 16
38. Multi-family service standards.......... ..... ...... ...... .... ..... ........ ..... .... ......... ... ........ ........... 17
39. Multi-family recycling container requirements ............................................................ 17
40. Responsibility for providing and maintaining multi-family recycling containers .......... 17
41. Public education information for tenants with multi-family recycling service .............. 17
42. Other public education tools to residents with multi-family recycling service ............. 17
43. Annual report to MFD building owners....................................................................... 17
INSURANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ....................................................18
44. Insurance ..... ........... ................. .... ............ ..... ....... .......... ........... ..... ...... .... ..... ............. 18
45. Transfer of interest.... ........... ......... ..... ... .... ............ .......................... .................. ......... 19
46. Non-Assignability and Bankruptcy ............................................................................. 19
47. Dispute resolution and arbitration procedures ...........................................................19
48. Performance bond .......... ........ ... .... ........ .... .................... ...... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ....... ........ 19
49. General compliance...... ..... ........ .... ..... .............. .............. .... .............. ..... .............. ......20
50. Independent contractor....... .... .... .... .... ........ ........ ........... ......... ...... .............. ...............20
51. Hold harmless.... ........ ...... .................. ..... .......... ....... ...... .......... ................. ..... ... .........20
52. Accounting standards ....... ............ ............ .... ........ ......... ........................... ..... ... .........20
53. Retention of records........ .... ............. ....... ......... ........ ......... ..... .... .... ..... .......... ........ ..... 20
2
As of 9-27-05
54. Data practices.. ..... ... ......... ....... ... ..... ..... .... ..... ... ..... ...... ... .............. .... .................. .......21
55. Inspection of records...... ..... ....... .... ... ..... ............. ..... ..... .... ........ ............ ............... ...... 21
56. Applicable law....... ................ .......... ... ......... ..... ..... .... ..... .................... ........................ 21
57. Contract termination...... ....... ............. ................ ...... ...... ............................ .......... ....... 21
58. Employee working conditions and Contractor's safety procedures ............................21
59. Contract amendments............... .... ... ..... ....... ..... ..... ............ ...... .............. ....................22
3
As of 9-27-05
This Agreement is made this _ day of 2005, between the City of
Maplewood, 1830 East County Road B, Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 (the "City") and The
Neighborhood Recycling Corporation, Inc. (D/B/A "Eureka Recycling"), a Minnesota non-profit
corporation, with its current local place of business at 2828 Kennedy Street NE, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55413 (the "Contractor").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City supports a comprehensive residential recycling program and
desires that high-quality recycling services be available to all its residents; and
WHEREAS, the City supports curbside recycling as part of an overall landfill
abatement program; and
WHEREAS, the City supports multi-family recycling services as another part of an
overall landfill abatement program; and
WHEREAS, Ramsey County has funding available for such residential recycling
services; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor has submitted a proposal for comprehensive recycling
services to the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Contractor mutually agree as follows, in
consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein:
1. Definitions
1.1 HAluminum cans"
Disposable containers fabricated primarily of aluminum, commonly used for soda, beer, juice,
water or other beverages.
1.2 "City's annual recycling public education flyer"
The City publishes an annual public education flyer that contains the following recycling
information for City residents:
. Annual calendar and map of curbside recycling districts for "single family
dwellings"
. List of materials to be included for recycling
. List of materials excluded that cannot be recycled in the City's program
. General information about curbside recycling and multi-family recycling
instructions
. How to prepare materials.
1.3 "City's designated contact person"
The City has designated the City's Environmental Management Specialist, DuWayne
Konewko, as the City's current contact for management and administration of this
Agreement.
4
As of 9-27-05
1.4 "City-designated recye/ables" or "Recye/able materials" or "Recye/ables"
The following recyclable materials: aluminum cans; steel cans; glass jars and bottles; paper
recyclables; plastic bottles; textiles; and corrugated cardboard as defined and further
described in the "City's annual recycling public education flyer". This list of.recyclable
materials can be amended through negotiation between the City and its Contractor at any
time within the duration of the contract term. Such negotiations must be reduced to a written
amendment to this Agreement and duly executed before it shall go into effect.
1.5 Heal/ection"
The aggregation and transportation of recyclable materials from the place at which it is
generated and includes all activities up to the time when it is delivered to a recycling facility.
1.6 nContractor"
The City's recycling service Contractor under the new contract beginning operation on
January 1, 2006.
1.7 "Corrugated cardboard"
Cardboard material with double wall construction and corrugated separation between walls
but not plastic, wax or other coated cardboard.
1.8 "Curbside recye/ing bins"
Uniform curbside recycling bins (e.g., red, plastic recycling "tubs") supplied by the City in
which recyclables can be stored and later placed for curbside collection, as specified by the
City. The recycling containers remain the property of the City.
1.9 "Curbside recycling service"
The recycling collection service, together with related public education and other customer
services, specified within this RFP utilizing curbside recycling bins. Multi-family dwellings
may receive curbside recycling service as selected by the City and the Contractor.
1.10 "Glass jars and bottles"
Glass jars, bottles, and containers (lids/caps and pumps removed) that are primarily used for
packing and bottling of food and beverages.
1.11 "Market demand"
The economic and technical capacity of markets to use recyclable material to make new
products.
1.12 "Markets"
Any person or company that buys (or charges) for recycling of specified materials and may
include, but are not limited to: end-markets, intermediate processors, brokers and other
recycling material reclaimers.
1.13 "Multiple family dwellings (MFD) "
A building or a portion thereof containing two or more dwelling units.
5
As of 9-27-05
1.14 "MFD recycling containers"
Recycling containers used for multiple family dwellings (MFD) including any bin, cart,
dumpster or other receptacle for temporary storage and collection of designated recyclables
from residents in MFD's prior to collection. Such recycling containers must be separate,
explicitly labeled as to recyclables included, and colored differently from other containers for
mixed solid waste or trash.
1.15 "Multi-family recycling service"
Recycling collection service, together with related public education and other customer
services, provided to multi-family residents that utilize multi-family recycling containers (Le.,
carts) and use multi-family recycling stations.
In general, multi-family recycling service shall be provided to MFD's with eleven (11) units or
more per building. In general, MF dwellings with two (2) to ten (10) units per building shall be
provided with curbside collection service utilizing curbside bins.
1.16 "Multi-family recycling stations"
The location of multi-family recycling containers designated by the recycling Contractor with
agreement of the MFD building owner. Multi-family recycling stations will likely be a cluster of
recycling carts and/or recycling dumpsters (e.g., for old corrugated cardboard).
1.17 "Non targeted materials"
Non-recyclable materials that are not included in the City's recycling program. Examples of
typical non-targeted items include (but are not limited to): pumps on plastic bottles, ceramic
material in glass streams, pizza cartons in corrugated cardboard streams, etc.
1.18 npaper"
Paper includes the following' newspapers (including inserts); household office paper and
mail; boxboard; old corrugated cardboard; phone books; Kraft bags; pop/beer boxes and
magazines/catalogs. No boxboard containers used for food product storage in refrigerators
or freezers are included.
1.19 "Plastic bottles"
Plastic bottles shaped with a neck. Plastic lids, caps, rings and pumps are not included.
Recyclable plastic bottles shall be identified on the bottom with the SPI plastic codes #1
(PETE) and #2 (HDPE) including bottles containing: liquor; milk; juice; soft drinks; water;
certain foods; soap and cosmetics.
1.20 "Process residuals"
The normal amount of material that can not be economically recycled due to material
characteristics such as size, shape, color, cross-material contamination, etc. and must be
disposed as mixed municipal solid waste. Process residuals include subcategories of
process residuals including but not limited to bulky items, contaminants, sorted tailings, floor
sweepings and rejects from specific processing equipment (e.g. materials cleaned from
screens, etc). "Process residuals" does not include clean, separated products that are
normally processed and prepared for shipment to markets as commodities but are of
relatively low-value because of depressed market demand conditions.
6
As of 9-27-05
1.21 "Processing"
The sorting, volume reduction, baling, containment or other preparation of recyclable
materials delivered to the processing center for transportation or marketing purposes.
1.22 "Processing center"
A recycling facility in which recyclable materials are processed. The facility will conform to all
applicable rules, regulations and laws of state, local or other jurisdictions.
1.23 lISteel cans"
Disposable containers fabricated primarily of steel or tin used for food and beverages.
1.24 "Textiles"
Textiles include unwanted but reusable Linens: towels, sheets, blankets, curtains, tablecloths
and clothes: including belts, coats, hats, gloves, shoes and boots that are clean and free of
mold, mildew and excessive stains. Textiles must be dry.
1.25 "Work Plan from Contractor"
The annual work plan proposal for recycling system improvements submitted from the
Contractor and approved by the City.
2. Term of contract
The term of the new recycling contract will be a period of five (5) years from January 1, 2006
through December 31, 2010.
3. Annual Work Plan
The Contractor shall submit an annual work plan proposal no later than October 1 for the
upcoming calendar year to outline key priorities for system improvements. Public education
tools shall be itemized and approximate timelines described. Other service improvements
may also be included in the work plan. The City shall review and approve the work plan by
no later than November 1 each year. The annual work plan shall be incorporated by
reference as an amendment to this contract.
4. Annual performance review meeting to discuss recommendations for
continuous improvement
Upon receipt of the Contractors annual report, the City shall schedule an annual meeting with
the Contractor and the City's Environment Committee. The objectives of this annual meeting
will include (but not limited to):
. Review Contractor's annual report, including trends in recovery rate and
participation.
. Efforts the Contractor has made to expand recyclable markets.
. Review Contractor's performance based on feedback from residents to the
Environment Committee members and/or City staff.
. Review Contractor's recommendations for improvement in the City's recycling
program, including enhanced public education and other opportunities as contained
within the annual work plan for the upcoming year.
7
As of 9-27-05
. Review City staff recommendations for Contractor's service improvements.
. Discuss other opportunities for improvement with the remaining years under the
current contract.
5. "Dual Stream, Plus" collection I processing system
Dual stream recyclables collection and processing services shall be the basic service system
design for this contract. Under this dual stream design, residents shall continue to be
instructed to separate recyclables into two primary groups of materials: (1) all food and
beverage containers, including: glass, metal and plastic bottles; and (2) all paper fiber
products, including: newspapers, boxboard, magazines, pop/beer boxes, mixed mail,
catalogs, phone books, Kraft bags and corrugated cardboard.
In addition, residents may place clean, reusable textiles out separately in plastic bags as
outlined in Section 34 of this Agreement. Under this "dual stream plus" system design,
processing shall also be by the categories as collected: paper separated from containers
separated from textiles.
The Contractor shall not make any changes to the dual stream collection or processing
systems without written approval of the City.
6. Payment Terms
The Contractor will invoice the City of Maplewood on a monthly basis and the City will pay the
contractor no later than net 30 days of receipt of the invoice. The billing system will include
the following elements:
6.1 Per Ton Fee
A charge for collection services calculated by multiplying the estimated tons to be collected in
that month by the per ton collection fee of $110. The collection fee to be adjusted annually
using the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis annually published Consumer Price Index or
2.0%, whichever is lower.
The Contractor shall provide a summary of tons collected each month by route. Truck scale
receipts for all materials as collected and scaled at the Contractor's processing facility must
be kept on file for a period of three years and made available to the City upon request.
6.2 Reconciliation from Previous Month
A subtraction or addition of a reconciliation of the previous month's estimated tons as
compared to the actual tons.
6.3 Materials Sales Revenue Share
A composite credit for the following material sales revenue share:
6.3.1 All Paper Grades
Paper prices shall be based on the Official Board Markets (OBM) "Yellow Sheet," Chicago
region for Old Newspapers (ONP) # 8, high side of range. The Contractor shall pay the City
60% of this OBM index for all grades of paper collected after a processing fee of $50 per ton.
8
As of 9-27-05
6.3.2 Aluminum
Aluminum prices shall be based on the American Metal Market (AMM), Aluminum (1 st issue
of the month), high side nonferrous scrap prices: scrap metals, domestic aluminum
producers, buying prices for processed used aluminum cans in carload lots., f.o.b. shipping
point, used beverage can scrap. The Contractor shall pay the City 50% of this AMM
aluminum index after a processing fee of $90 per ton.
The Contractor shall provide copies of the referenced OBM market index and AMM market
index with each monthly statement. The Contractor shall provide a detailed explanation of
how the material splits are calculated to derive the paper and aluminum tonnage estimates.
The City or the Contractor may propose other revenue sharing commodities and
corresponding proposed pricing formulae, at any time during the duration of the contract.
The parties shall enter into negotiations in good faith and any new revenue sharing
agreement shall be reduced to writing in the form of an amendment to the contract.
6.4 Monthly Fuel Price Adjustment
A subtraction or addition of a reconciliation of the Department of Energy's monthly published
index for "Weekly Retail On-Highway Diesel Prices" composite diesel price for the Midwest
region as compared to the baseline price of $2.328 per gallon established on July 4, 2005.
The difference between the monthly index and the baseline price will be applied to an agreed
upon number of City of Maplewood recycling truck miles per month and miles per gallon.
6.5 Other
Any other mutually agreed upon charges or credits.
7. RFP and Contractor's Proposal
The contents of the City's RFP (as of June 13, 2005) and the Contractor's proposal are part
of the contractual obligations and are incorporated by reference into this contract. If any
provision of the contract is in conflict with the referenced RFP or proposal, the contract shall
take precedent.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL COLLECTIONS
The following general requirements are pertinent to all recycling collections (i.e., both
curbside recycling collection and multi-family recycling collection services). However, the City
acknowledges that collection service frequencies and other factors will vary between
residential and multi family collection programs.
8. Missed collections
The Contractor shall have a duty to pick up missed recycling collections. The Contractor
agrees to pick up all missed collections on the same day the Contractor receives notice of a
missed collection, provided notice is received by the Contractor before 11 :00 a.m. on a
business day. With respect to all notices of a missed collection received after 11 :00 a.m. on
a business day, the Contractor agrees to pick up that missed collection before 4:00 p.m. on
the following business day.
9
As of 9-27-05
9. Severe weather
The Contractor may postpone recycling collections due to severe weather at the sole
discretion of the Contractor. "Severe Weather" shall include, but shall not be limited to those
cases in which the temperature at 6:00 a.m. is minus twenty (-20) degrees Fahrenheit or
colder. If collections are so postponed, the Contractor shall notify the City. Upon
postponement, collection will be made on a day agreed upon between the Contractor and the
City.
10. Collection hours and days
The City requires all such collections to begin no sooner than 7 a.m. and shall be complete
by 7 p.m. Furthermore, the City requires scheduled collection days to be Monday through
Friday and pre-selected Saturdays during holiday weeks. The Contractor may request one
time City authorization of exceptions to these time and day restrictions (e.g., pursuant to the
"Severe Weather" section 9 above). The Contractor must request such exception prior to the
requested collection event and specify the date, time and reason for the exception.
11. Customer Complaints
The Contractor shall establish and maintain, in a location approved by the City, an office with
continuous supervision for accepting complaints and customer calls. The office shall be in
service with continuous supervision during the hours of 7 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on all days of
collection as specified in this Agreement. The address and telephone numbers of such
office, and ten (10) days prior notice of changes therein, shall be given to the city in writing.
The address of this office as of the execution of the contract is 2828 Kennedy Street NE,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413. The Contractor shall also establish a link to the City's
website so complaints can be made electronically.
Each month the Contractor shall provide the City with a list of all customer complaints, the
nature of these complaints and a description of how each complaint was resolved. The
names of the complainants and contact numbers or e-mail addresses must also be included.
Complaints on service will be taken and collected by the City and the Contractor. The City
will notify the Contractor of all complaints it receives. The Contractor is responsible for
corrective actions. The Contractor shall answer all complaints courteously and promptly.
12. City retains right to specify resident preparation instructions
The Contractor shall agree that it is the City's sole right to clearly specify the resident sorting
and setout requirements. The City shall publish and distribute, on an annual basis, the
detailed recyclables preparation instructions for its residents as part of its annual public
education flyer. However, the City agrees to confer with the Contractor before the annual
flyer distribution.
13. City shall approve Contractor's public education literature
The Contractor shall conduct its own promotions and public education to increase
participation and improve compliance with City-specified resident preparation instructions as
per the public education elements of the annual work plan At a minimum, this shall include:
production and distribution of an annual flyer to each home; and (2) distribution of "resident
education tags" to be left by curbside collection crews if any non-targeted material is rejected
10
As of 9-27-05
and left at the curb. The Contractor shall submit a draft of any public education literature for
approval by the City, at least one (1) month before printing and release of any such literature.
14. Weighing of loads
Contractor will keep accurate records consisting of an approved weight slip with the date,
time, collection route, driver's name, vehicle number, tare weight, gross weight, net weight,
and number of recycling stops for each loaded vehicle. Collection vehicles will be weighed
after completion of a route or at the end of the day, whichever occurs first. A copy of each
weight ticket shall be kept on file and made available for inspection upon request by the City.
15. Monthly and annual reports
The Contractor will submit to the City monthly reports and annual reports. At a minimum, the
Contractor shall include the following information:
. Gross amounts of materials collected, by recyclable material (in tons).
. Net amounts of materials marketed, by recyclable material (in tons).
. Amounts stored, by recyclable material, with any notes as to unusual conditions (in
tons).
. Amounts of "process residuals" disposed (in tons).
. Recycling service fee (based upon contracted price per ton).
. Revenue share credits back to the City (if any).
Monthly reports shall be due to the City by the 15th day of each month. Annual reports shall
be due by January 31. The Contractor will be encouraged to include in its annual report
recommendations for continuous improvement in the City's recycling program (e.g., public
education, multi-family recycling, etc.).
16. Ownership of recyclables
Ownership of the recyclables shall remain with the person placing them for collection until
Contractor's personnel physically touches them for collection, at which time the ownership of
the recyclables shall transfer to Contractor.
17. Scavenging prohibited
All recyclable materials placed for collection shall be owned by and are the responsibility of
the occupants of residential properties until the Contractor handles them. Upon collection of
the designated recyclable materials by the Contractor, the recyclable materials become the
properly and responsibility of the Contractor.
It is unlawful for any person other than the City's recycling Contractor or owner's independent
hauler to collect, remove, or dispose of designated recyclables after the materials have been
placed or deposited for collection in the recycling containers. The owner, owner's
employees, owner's independent hauler's employees, or City's recycling Contractor's
employees may not collect or "scavenge" through recycling in any manner that interferes with
the contracted recycling services.
11
As of 9-27-05
18. Cleanup of spillage or blowing litter
The Contractor shall clean up any material spilled or blown during the course of collection
and/or hauling operations. All collection vehicles shall be equipped with at least one broom
and one shovel for use in cleaning up material spillage. Designated recyclables shall be
transported in a covered vehicle so that the recyclables do not drop or blow onto any public
street or private property during transport.
19. Recyclable materials required to be transported to markets; Disposal
prohibited
Upon collection by the City's recycling Contractor, the City's Contractor shall deliver the
designated recyclables to a recyclable material processing center, an end market for sale or
reuse, or to an intermediate collection center for later delivery to a processing center or end
market. It is unlawful for any person to transport for disposal or to dispose of designated
recyclables in a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility. The Contractor shall not
landfill, incinerate, compost or make fuel pellets out of the recyclable materials.
20. Designated primary glass market
The City and Contractor hereby agree that Anchor Glass Corp. (Shakopee, MN) shall be the
primary market of choice for glass bottles and jars collected from the City's recycling
program. The Contractor shall develop a proposed glass marketing contingency plan in
writing for review, comment and approval by the City. This contingency plan shall be based
on recycling glass into markets with the highest and best use of this commodity. The
Contractor shall provide an annual assessment of the Anchor glass market as part of its
annual report to the City.
The Contractor shall provide as much notice as possible if the Anchor glass plant closes,
stops accepting recyclable glass cullet, or otherwise becomes economically unfeasible as the
primary glass market outlet. If Anchor is no longer a viable primary market for glass, and if
the Contractor must adjust its glass processing and/or marketing operations, the Contractor
may submit a proposed per ton fee amendment to the City. This per ton fee amendment
proposal must include a detailed cost justification for any fee increase. Once the fee
amendment proposal is submitted, the City shall have 30 days to negotiate a final fee
amendment with the Contractor for approval by the City Council.
21. Processing facilities must be specified
The Contractor shall assure the City that adequate recyclable material processing capacity
will be provided for City material collected. The Contractor shall provide written notice to the
City at least 60 days in advance of any substantial change in these or subsequent plans for
receiving and processing recyclables collected from the City.
22. Estimating materials composition as collected
The Contractor shall conduct at least one materials composition analysis of the City's
recyclables each year to estimate the relative amount by weight of each recyclable
commodity by grade. The results of this analysis shall include: (1) percent by weight of each
recyclable commodity by grade as collected from the City; (2) relative change compared to
the previous year's composition; and (3) a description of the methodology used to calculate
12
As of 9-27-05
the composition, including number of samples, dates weighed, and City route(s) used for
sampling. The Contractor shall provide the City with a copy of each such analysis.
23. Estimating process residuals
The Contractor shall provide the City a written description of the means to estimate process
residuals derived from the City's recyclables. This written description shall be reviewed and
approved in writing by the City. This written description shall be updated by the Contractor
immediately after any significant changes to the processing facilities used by the Contractor.
The Contractor shall record the weight and generator for all materials entering the processing
facility on a daily, monthly and annual basis. These records shall be made available to the
City upon request.
The Contractor shall report total weight of material disposed as shipped out to a mixed
municipal solid waste facility compared to the total material shipped out each month form its
processing facility.
24. Lack of adequate market demand
In the event that the market for a particular recyclable ceases to exist, or becomes
economically depressed that it becomes economically unfeasible to continue collection,
processing and marketing of that particular recyclable, the City and the Contractor will both
agree in writing that it is no longer appropriate to collect such item before collection ceases.
The Contractor shall give the City as much notice as possible about the indications of such
market condition changes. The Contractor may then initiate the formal process by sending a
letter to the City notifying the City that the recyclable item should be discontinued from
collection. Upon receipt of the Contractor's notice, the City shall have 14 days to review and
negotiate a contract amendment relating to disposal of such a recyclable commodity that
does not have adequate market demand.
After this 14 day period, the City shall pay the costs of all disposal of any item collected that
is deemed not recyclable by Contractor and the City due to lack of adequate market demand
until the City has approved that collection be discontinued for those materials. After the City
agrees to discontinue collection of those materials, the Contractor is responsible for the costs
of all disposal of any item collected that is deemed not recyclable by Contractor and the City
due to lack of adequate market demand. The City and Contractor shall specify a date in this
written contract amendment to cease collection of the recyclable item in question. The
Contractor shall at all times be under a duty to minimize recyclables ending up in landfill or
disposal at other facilities receiving mixed municipal solid waste. If disposal of any recyclable
commodity becomes necessary, upon receiving written permission from the City, the
Contractor shall dispose of the recyclable materials at a facility specified in writing by the City
or an alternative agreed upon by the City and the Contractor.
25. Vehicle requirements
Each collection vehicle shall be equipped with the following:
. The Contractor's vehicles shall be marked with the name and telephone number of
the Contractor prominently displayed on both sides of the truck. The lettering must
be at least 3 inches in height.
13
As of 9-27-05
o 2-way radio.
o First aid kit.
o Approved fire extinguisher.
o Warning flashers.
o Warning alarms to indicate movement in reverse.
o Sign on rear of vehicle which states "This vehicle makes frequent stops".
o Broom and shovel for cleaning up spills.
All of the required equipment must be in proper working order. All vehicles must be
maintained in proper working order and be as clean and free of odors as possible.
26. Personnel Requirements
Contractor shall retain sufficient personnel and equipment to fulfill the requirements and
specifications of this Agreement. Contractor's personnel shall:
o Conduct themselves at all times in a courteous manner with the general public.
o Make a concerted effort to have at all times a presentable appearance and attitude.
o Perform their work in a neat and quiet manner and clean up all recyclables spilled
in collection and hauling operations
o Avoid damage to property.
o Not perform their duties or operate vehicles while consuming alcohol or illegally
using controlled substances or while under the influence of alcohol and/or such
substances.
27. Licenses and Permits
The Contractor shall ensure that all driver and truck licenses and permits shall be current and
in full compliance with local, state and federal laws and regulations. Any processing facility
used to handle material from the City of Maplewood must have current permits and licenses
as required by the appropriate city, county, state and federal laws and ordinances. Contractor
shall make available for inspection all such licenses and permits upon request by the City.
28. Performance monitoring
The City will monitor the performance of the Contractor against goals and performance
standards required within this RFP and in the contract. Substandard performance as
determined by the City will constitute non-compliance. If action to correct such substandard
performance is not taken by the Contractor within 60 days after being notified by the City, the
City will initiate the contract termination procedures.
29. Liquidated damages
The Contractor shall agree, in addition to any other remedies available to the City, that the
City may withhold payment from the Contractor in the amounts specified below as liquidated
damages for failure of the Contractor to fulfill its obligations:
1. Failure to respond to legitimate service complaints within 24 hours in a reasonable
and professional manner - $50 per incident.
14
As of 9-27-05
2. Failure to collect properly notified missed collections - $250 per incident.
3. Failure to provide monthly and annual reports - $100 per incident.
4. Failure to complete the collections within the specified timeframes without proper
notice to the city - $100 per incident.
5. Failure to clean up from spills during collection operations - $250 per incident.
6. Failure to report on changes in location of recyclables processing operations -
$250 per incident.
7. Failure to provide written description of the means to estimate relative amount of
process residuals derived from the City's recyclables - $100 per incident.
8. Exceeding any maximum process residuals rate that may be negotiated as part of
a final contract agreement - $1,000 per exceedence.
9. Failure to receive City written approval of changes to the "dual stream" collection
and processing systems prior to implementing any such change - $5,000.
10. Failure to conduct annual composition analysis - $100 per incident.
These amounts will be for liquidated damages for losses suffered by the City and not
penalties.
CURBSIDE COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS
The following collection requirements are for curbside recycling services only and do not
pertain to multi-family recycling services.
30. Weekly Collection
The Contractor shall collect curbside recycling materials weekly. Recyclables shall be
collected on the same days corresponding to City garbage collection days whenever possible
(with the exception of curbside collection on Saturdays within agreed-upon "holiday weeks").
31. Point of collection
All curbside collection service will occur at the curbside (i.e., no alley collections of residential
recyclables are allowed for residents with curbside collection service).
32. Curbside collection schedule deadline
If the Contractor determines that the collection of recyclables will not be completed by 6:00
p.m. on the scheduled collection day, the Contractor shall notify the City by 4:30 p.m. that
same day and request an extension of the collection hours. The Contractor shall inform the
City of the areas not completed, the reason for non-completion and the expected time of
completion. If the City's contract-designated contact person cannot be reached, the
Contractor will request the City Manager.
33. Procedure for handling non-targeted materials
If Contractor determines that a resident has set out non-targeted materials, the driver shall
use the following procedure:
15
As of 9-27-05
1. Contractor shall leave the non-targeted materials in the resident's curbside
recycling bin and leave an "education tag" indicating acceptable materials and the
proper method of preparation.
2. The driver shall record the address and the Contractor shall report the address to
the City within the monthly report.
34. New Materials to be Added in 2006
The City and the Contractor have agreed to add two new materials to the curbside collection
program: pop/beer boxes and textiles.
The pop/beer boxes shall be added to the paper stream. These items should be flattened and
placed by the resident unbundled with the other papers (newspaper, magazines, etc.)
Residents shall place textiles separately in plastic garbage bags or other bags as determined
by the City. Each bag or set of bags will have a identifying marker clearly identifying the
materials for collection. Residents will be instructed to avoid the use of paper bags and
boxes; however, materials set out in these containers are acceptable provided that the
materials have not been exposed to rain or snow. If the textiles are wet the Contractor will
not collect those items.
MULTI FAMILY COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS
The following collection requirements are for multi-family recycling services only and do not
pertain to curbside collection services.
35. MFD building owners may elect to subscribe to recycling service
under the City's contract
MFD building owners will be able to use the City's recycling Contractor to provide the
recycling services. Alternatively, MFD building owners may independently contract with
another licensed recycling contractor to provide the recycling services at the owner's
expense.
36. Multi-family collection stations
Multi-family recycling stations will be specified with agreement of the MFD building owner on
a case-by-case basis. MFD recycling stations will likely be a cluster of recycling bins, carts
and/or recycling dumpsters (e.g., for old corrugated cardboard). The number and location of
MFD recycling stations shall be adequate to be reasonably convenient and accessible to all
MFD residents.
37. Multi-family container location(s)
Multi-family recycling containers shall be placed in a location(s) on the MFD premises which
permits access for collection purposes but which does not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular
traffic and shall comply with the City's zoning and other ordinances.
16
As of 9-27 -05
38. Multi-family service standards
At a minimum, multi-family recycling services shall be available on the premises and shall be
provided on a regularly scheduled basis of at least twice a month or as the City and
Contractor agree is adequate. The collection schedule and recycling containers' capacity
shall provide for regular removal of the recyclables such that there is adequate storage
capacity available in the recyclable containers to avoid overflowing containers.
39. Multi-family recycling container requirements
The recycling containers for buildings of 11 units or more shall be:
1. Sufficient in number and size to meet the demands for recycling services created
by the occupants.
2. Equipped with hinged lids.
3. Equipped with standardized labels identifying the type of recyclable material to be
deposited in each container and colored differently from other containers for mixed
solid waste or trash.
4. Maintained in proper operating condition and reasonably clean and sanitary.
5. Repaired or replaced on a reasonable schedule if broken due to regular wear and
tear.
6. Replacement of stolen containers or containers that have been damaged beyond
normal wear and tear shall be the responsibility of the City.
40. Responsibility for providing and maintaining multi-family recycling
containers
If the MFD building owner uses the City's Contractor, adequate multi-family recycling
containers shall be provided and maintained by the City's Contractor under the conditions
provided in Section 39 of this Agreement.
41. Public education information for tenants with multi-family recycling
service
At least once per year, the City's recycling Contractor shall supply the MFD building owner
with the sufficient number of recycling fact sheets with instructions for the tenants in their
building(s).
42. Other public education tools to residents with multi-family recycling
service
The Contractor shall specify other public education tools that the Contractor will provide, in
cooperation and coordination with MFD building owners, as part of the annual work plan.
43. Annual report to MFD building owners
The City's Contractor shall provide an annual report by January 31 of each year to the MFD
building owners served by the City's contractor. A copy of each report to the MFD building
owners shall also be submitted to the City. The report shall contain, at a minimum, the
following information:
17
As of 9-27-05
1. Name of owner, building manager and contact information (mailing address, phone
numbers, e-mail, etc.)
2. Street address of each MFD served.
3. Number of dwelling units for each MFD.
4. Description of collection services made available to occupants, including number of
multi-family recycling stations, number of multi-family recycling containers, location
of stations (or curbside service provided for MFD's under twelve units per building)
and dates of collection.
5. Description of public education tools used to inform occupants of availability of
services.
6. Tonnage estimates for each type of material recycled.
7. Recommendations for future improvements (e.g., specific public education tools).
INSURANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
44.Insurance
Insurance secured by the Contractor shall be issued by insurance companies acceptable to
the City and admitted in Minnesota. The insurance specified may be in a policy or policies of
insurance, primary or excess. Such insurance shall be in force on the date of execution of
the contract and shall remain continuously in force for the duration of the contract. The
Contractor shall have the City of Maplewood named as an additional insured on each
insurance policy specified below, unless the Contractor submits in writing this is not feasible
for a specific insurance policy. The Contractor shall then provide certificates of insurance to
the City by approximately December 15 of each year. The Contractor and its sub-contractors
shall secure and maintain the following insurance:
44.1 Workers Compensation Insurance
Workers Compensation insurance shall meet the statutory obligations with Coverage B-
Employers Liability limits of at least $100,000 each accident, $500,000 disease - policy limit
and $100,000 disease each employee.
44.2 Commercial General Liability insurance
Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at the limits of at least $1,000,000 general
aggregate, $1,000,000 personal and advertising injury, $1,000,000 each occurrence $50,000
fire damage and $1,000 medical expense for anyone person. The policy shall be on an
"occurrence" basis, shall include contractual liability coverage and the City shall be named an
additional insured.
This insurance includes up to $10,000 expenses to extract pollutants from land or water at
the "premises" if the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, escape or emission of
the pollutants is caused by or results form a covered cause of loss.
18
As of 9-27-05
44.3 Commercial Automobile Liability insurance
Commercial Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned and hired
automobiles with limits of at least $1 ,000,000 per accident. This insurance includes a cause
of loss where there is a spill of fuels and lubricants used in the vehicle for its operation.
44.4 Director's & Officers Insurance or Errors & Omissions
Director's & Officers Insurance or Errors & Omissions insurance providing coverage for
"wrongful act" any actual or alleged error, misstatement, misleading statement, act or
omission, neglect or breach of duty. The insurance policy provides $1,000,000 each
occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate limit of liability for each year.
Acceptance of the insurance by the City shall not relieve, limit or decrease the liability of the
Contractor. Any policy deductibles or retention shall be the responsibility of the Contractor.
The Contractor shall control any special or unusual hazards and be responsible for any
damages that result from those hazards. The City does not represent that the insurance
requirements are sufficient to protect the Contractor's interest or provide adequate coverage.
Evidence of coverage is to be provided on a City-approved Insurance Certificate. A thirty-
(30) date written notice is required if the policy is canceled, not renewed or materially
changed. The Contractor shall require any of its subcontractors to comply with these
provisions.
45. Transfer of interest
The Contractor shall not assign any interest in the contract, and shall not transfer any interest
in the contract, either by assignment or novation, without the prior written approval of the City.
The Contractor shall not subcontract any services under this contract without prior written
approval of the City. Failure to obtain such written approval by the City prior to any such
assignment or subcontract shall be grounds for immediate contract termination.
The Contractor currently subcontracts to provide service to old corrugated containers (OCC)
customers that require dumpster capacity. This subcontract is annual and the Contractor will
notify the City in writing if there is a change in providers.
46. Non-Assignability and Bankruptcy
The parties hereby agree that the Contractor shall have no right to assign or transfer its rights
and obligations under said agreement without written approval from the City. In the event, the
City its successors or assigns files for Bankruptcy as provided by federal law, this agreement
shall be immediately deemed null and void relieving all parties of their contract rights and
obligations.
47. Dispute resolution and arbitration procedures
The parties agree that any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement or
the breach thereof, shall be settled, at the option of the Contractor by arbitration in
accordance with the Rules of the American Association of Arbitration and judgment upon the
award by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court with jurisdiction thereof.
48. Performance bond
This contract specifies requirements for a performance bond in the case of the Contractor's
failure to perform contracted services. The performance bond shall be an annual bond for
19
As of 9-27-05
$25,000 or whatever actual cost is incurred up to $25,000. The responsibility for renewal is
the responsibility of the Contractor.
49. General compliance
The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and
regulations governing funds provided under this contract.
The Contractor pays its employees a prevailing wage based on the recycling industry in the
state of Minnesota and Hennepin County. The Contractor does not use temporary labor
arrangements to avoid paying a living wage. All of our employees, permanent and temporary,
receive a paycheck that meets or exceeds living wage standards. Additionally, the contractor
provides health insurance for all fulltime employees and a pro rata share for employees
working more than 20 hours but less than 40 hours a week.
50. Independent contractor
Nothing contained in this agreement is intended to, or shall be construed in any manner, as
creating or establishing the relationship of employer/employee between the parties. The
Contractor shall at all times remain an independent Contractor with respect to the services to
be performed under this Contract. Any and all employees of Contractor or other persons
engaged in the performance of any work or services required by Contractor under this
Contract shall be considered employees or sub-contractors of the Contractor only and not of
the City; and any and all claims that might arise, including Worker's Compensation claims
under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota or any other state, on behalf
of said employees or other persons while so engaged in any of the work or services provided
to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of Contractor.
51. Hold harmless
The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and
employees, from any liabilities, claims, damages, costs, judgments, and expenses, including
attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission of the Contractor, its
employees, its agents, or employees of subcontractors, in the performance of the services
provided by this contract, any resulting environmental liability that is a result of this contract or
by reason of the failure of the Contractor to fully perform, in any respect, any of its obligations
under this contract. If a Contractor is a self-insured agency of the State of Minnesota, the
terms and conditions of Minnesota Statute 3.732 et seq. shall apply with respect to liability
bonding, insurance and liability limits. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466
shall apply to other political subdivisions of the State of Minnesota.
52. Accounting standards
The Contractor agrees to maintain the necessary source documentation and enforce
sufficient internal controls as dictated by generally accepted accounting practices to properly
account for expenses incurred under this contract.
53. Retention of records
The Contractor shall retain all records pertinent to expenditures incurred under this contract
for a period of three years after the resolution of all audit findings. Records for non-
20
As of 9-27-05
expendable property acquired with funds under this contract shall be retained for three years
after final disposition of such property.
54. Data practices
The Contractor agrees to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all
other applicable state and federal laws relating to data privacy or confidentiality. The
Contractor must immediately report to the City any requests from third parties for information
relating to this Agreement. The City agrees to promptly respond to inquiries from the
Contractor concerning data requests. The Contractor agrees to hold the City, its officers, and
employees harmless from any claims resulting from the Contractor's unlawful disclosure or
use of data protected under state and federal laws.
All Proposals shall be treated as non-public information until the proposals are opened for
review by the City. At that time the Proposals and their contents become public data under
the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. C. 13.
55. Inspection of records
All Contractor records with respect to any matters covered by this agreement shall be made
available to the City or its designees at any time during normal business hours, as often as
the City deems necessary, to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts of all relevant
data.
56. Applicable law
The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all interpretations of this contract, and the
appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation which may arise hereunder will be in
those courts located within the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, regardless of the
place of business, residence or incorporation of the Contractor.
57. Contract termination
The City may cancel the Contract if the Contractor fails to fulfill its obligations under the
Contract in a proper and timely manner, or otherwise violates the terms of the Contract if the
default has not been cured after 60 days written notice has been provided. The City shall pay
Contractor all compensation earned prior to the date of termination minus any damages and
costs incurred by the City as a result of the breach. If the contract is canceled or terminated,
all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, maps, models, photographs,
reports or other materials prepared by the Contractor under this agreement shall, at the
option of the City, become the property of the City, and the Contractor shall be entitled to
receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such
documents or materials prior to the termination.
58. Employee working conditions and Contractor's safety procedures
The Contractor will ensure adequate working conditions and safety procedures are in place to
comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. The City reserves
the right to inspect on a random basis all trucks, equipment, facilities, working conditions,
training manuals, records of claims for Worker's Compensation or safety violations and
standard operating procedures documents.
21
, ,.
As of 9-27-05
59. Contract amendments
Any amendments to this Agreement shall be valid only when reduced to writing, and duly
signed by the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have subscribed their names as of the date first written.
The Neighborhood Recycling Corporation, Inc.
(D/B/A "Eureka Recycling"): City of Maplewood:
By
By
Chief Executive Officer
City Manager
By
By
Chief Operating Officer
Mayor
APPROVED TO FORM
By
City Attorney
22
Agenda Item 5.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Kohlman Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Draft Report
September 16, 2009 for the September 21 ENR Meeting
BACKGROUND
The Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 requires states to adopt water quality standards to
protect water bodies from pollution. These standards define how much of a pollutant
can be present in a water body and still allow it to meet designated uses such as
drinking water, fishing, swimming, irrigation or industrial purposes. An "Impaired water"
is a water body that does not meet one or more of these water quality thresholds for
certain pollutants.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is charged with assessing and
evaluating the state's water bodies and publishing Minnesota's list of impaired water
bodies. Data collection for water quality may include tests for turbidity, heavy metals
and bacteria levels.
After assessing a lake, the next step is to set pollution reduction goals for the lake. This
. is typically done through a Total Maximum Daily Load allocation study or TMDL. A
TMDL lists the allowed amount of a certain pollutant that can enter a water body any
given day. TMDL goals are typically set through an engineering study of past and
present land uses and potential pollution sources. Typically, TMDL studies are
performed by the area watershed district, but can be done in conjunction with local
cities.
Maplewood has 11 lakes and one creek on the impaired waters list. Impairments range
from excessive phosphorus, heavy metals (Mercury), PFOS (industrial chemical), and
excessive chloride (road salting can create excessive chloride in lakes). The watershed
districts are preparing TMDL studies for Maplewood's impaired waters. Once complete,
an implementation strategy will be drafted that describes the best way to clean up our
impaired waters.
Clean up will be the responsibility of all pollution "contributors," which means the city
would share responsibility with the county, Minnesota Department of Transportation,
watershed districts, or others. Strategies could range from additional street sweeping,
rain gardens, or education to more complex and costly projects such as dredging,
regional ponds, or alum treatment systems. Clean up or our impaired waters will be
dependent on a cooperative approach by all within the coming years.
DISCUSSION
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is requesting comments on the city's first
TMDL study which was recently completed for Kohlman Lake (refer to MPCA letter -
Attachment 1). Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District completed the draft
TMDL study for Kohlman Lake, which is impaired with excessive phosphorus (refer to
draft study - Attachment 2). The study assesses the phosphorus concentration in
Kohlman Lake and determined the amount of phosphorus the lake could receive and
still meet water quality standards in the future.
In summary, the Kohlman Lake draft TMDL study indicates that a phosphorus reduction
of 38 percent will be needed to meet the water quality standards during summer
growing conditions, corresponding to the time when violations of the aquatic recreation
standard were likely to occur. Implementation strategies will be needed by the
watershed district, contributing cities, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation
to guide future phosphorus reduction efforts. Cliff Aichinger, Ramsey-Washington
Metro Watershed District Director, or another watershed district representative, will be
available during the September 21 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
meeting to review the study.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the Kohlman Lake draft Total Daily Maximum Load study and offer comments
and feedback, which will be submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency by the
public comment period deadline of September 30, 2009.
Attachments:
1. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Public Comment Letter
2. Kohlman Lake July 20, 2009, Draft TMDL Study
f\itqdJmellt I
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North I St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 I 651-296-6300 I 800-675-3843 I 651-282-5332 TTY I www.pca.state.mn.us
'P.
:'\'!l:C'?:lVz:;
AUr " 2)
. '.t] lOOP
August, 2009 .'11",," "
'p~ 'Ftett'Oo:[
"bfi .
r.cUV~
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Regional Division
Notice of Availability of draft Kohlman Lake Excess Nntrients Total Maximum Daily Load
Report and Request for Comment.
Public Comment Period Begins: August 31, 2009
Public Commeut Period Ends: September 30, 2009
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is requesting comments on the draft report for
the Kohlman Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The draft TMDL report for Kohlman
Lake is available for review at: http://www.pca.state.mn.lIs/wlcter/tindlltmdl-draft.html
Following the comment period, the MPCA will revise the draft TMDL report and submit it to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) for approval.
A TMDL isa scientific study, conducted on waters designated as impaired, required by the
federal Clean Water Act. A TMDL study calculates the maximum amount ofa pollutant that a
water body can receive and continue to meet water quality standards for designated beneficial
uses. It is a process that identifies all the sources of the pollutant causing the impairment and
allocates necessary reductions among them. This multi-year effort results ina pollution reduction
plan and engages stakeholders and the general public. An approved TMDL is followed by
implementation activities for achieving the necessary reductions.
The Kohlman Lake watershed comprises a total of 7,484 acres (excluding the lake surface area)
and drains portions of the cities of Gem Lake, White Bear Lake, Vadnais Heights, Maplewood,
North St. Paul, Little Canada, and Oakdale. The shallow 74-acre lake has an average depth of
about four feet. Shallow lakes are more susceptible to excessive phosphorus pollution, which can
degrade lake water quality and contribute to summer algae blooms. Low-density residential
housing (1-4 units/acre) is the dominant land use (approx. 41 percent) in the Kohlman Lake
watershed. The remaining breakdown is natural/park/open space/agriculture at 21 percent,
commercial and wetlands (9 percent each) comprise 18 percent, and 20 percent "Other" land
uses.
Kohlman Lake has been found to be impaired for aquatic recreation because of excess nutrient
levels, particularly phosphorus, and violates Minnesota water quality standards based on water
quality monitoring conducted during the last several years. The excess phosphorus makes the
water unsuitable for aquatic recreation, like swimming. As a result, it was placed on Minnesota's
list of impaired waters. Because of the exceedance, the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed
St. Paul I Brainerd I Detroit Lakes I Duluth I Mankato I Marshall I Rochester I WiIlmar I Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper
Page8of11
Attachment 3.1
District conducted a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study. The TMDL study assessed the
phosphorus concentration in Kohlman Lake and determined the amount of phosphorus the lake
could receive and still meet water quality standards. Sources of phosphorus were evaluated,
including watershed runoff, internal loading, and atmospheric load.
The draft TMDL report indicated that a phosphorus reduction of 38 percent will be needed to
meet the water quality standard during summer growing season conditions, corresponding to the
time when violations of the aquatic recreation standard were likely to occur. Implementation
strategies in the draft TMDL report will be used to generally guide future phosphorus reduction
efforts. A more detailed implementation plan is being developed to identify specific measures
needed to achieve the desired reductions.
Preliminary Determination on the Draft TMDL Report: The MPCA Commissioner has
made a preliminary determination to submit this TMDL report to the EPA for fmal approval. A
draft TMDL report and fact sheet are available for review at the MPCA office at the address
listed below, and at the MPCA Web site: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl/tmdl-
draft.html
Written Comments: You may submit written comments on the conditions of the draft TMDL
Report or on the Commissioner's preliminary determination. Written comments must include the
following:
1. A statement of your interest in the draft TMDL report;
2. A statement of the action you wish the MPCA to take, including specific references to
sections of the draft TMDL that you believe should be changed; and
3. The reasons supporting your position, stated with sufficient specificity as to allow the
MPCA Commissioner to investigate the merits of your position.
Written comments on the draft TMDL report must be sent to the MPCA contact person listed
below and received by 4:30 p.m. on the date the public comment period ends, identified on page
1 of this notice. Suggested changes will be considered before the final TMDL report is sent to the
EP A for approval.
Agency Contact Person. Written comments and requests for more information should be
directed to:
Roger Ramthun
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
Phone: 651-757-2663 (direct)
Minnesota Toll Free: 1-800-657-3864
Fax: 651-297-8676
E-mail: roger.ramthun@State.mn.us
TTY users may call the MPCA teletypewriter at 651.282-5332 or 1-800-657-3864.
Petition for Public Informational Meeting: You also may request that the MPCA .
Commissioner hold a public informational meeting. A public informational meeting is an
Page9of11
Attachment 3.1
informal meeting that the MPCA may hold to solicit public comment and statements on matters
before the MPCA, and to help clarify and resolve issues.
A petition requesting a public informational meeting must include the following information:
1. . A statement identifying the matter of concern;
2. The information required under items I through 3 of "Written Comments,"
identified above;
3. A statement of the reasons the MPCA should hold a public informational meeting;
and
4. The issues that you would like the MPCA to address at the public informational
meeting.
Petition for Contested Case Hearing: You also may submit a petition for a contested case .
hearing. A contested case hearing is a formal evidentiary hearing before an administrative law
judge. In accordance with Minn. R. 7000.1900, the MPCA will grant a petition to hold a
contested case hearing if it finds that: (1) there is a material issue of fact in dispute conceming
the draft TMDL report; (2) the MPCA has the jurisdiction to make a determination on the
disputed material issue of fact; and (3) there is a reasonable basis underlying the disputed
material issue offact or facts such that the holdiIlg of the contested case hearing would allow the
introduction of information that would aid the MPCA in resolving the disputed facts in making a
final decision on the draft TMDL report. A material issue of fact means a fact question, as
distinguished from a policy question, whose resolution could have a direct bearing on a final
MPCA decision.
A petition for a contested case hearing must include the following information:
I. A statement of reasons or proposed findings supporting the MPCA decision to hold a
contested case hearing according to the criteria in Minn. R. 7000.1900, as discussed
above; and
2. A statement of the issues pr9posed to be addressed by a contested case hearing and the
specific relief requested or resolution of the matter.
In addition and to the extent known, a petition for a contested case hearing should also include
the following information:
1. A proposed list of prospective witnesses to be called, including experts, with a brief
description of proposed testimony or summary of evidence to be presented at a
contested case hearing;
2. A proposed list of publications, references, or studies to be introduced and relied upon
at a contested case hearing; and
3. An estimate. of time required for you to present the matter at a contested case hearing.
MPCA Decision: You may submit a petition to the Commissioner requesting that the MPCA
Citizens' Board consider the TMDL report approval. To be considered timely, the petition must
be received by the MPCA by 4:30 p.m. on the date the public comment period ends, identified on
page I of this notice. Under the provisions of Minn. Stat. S 116.02, subd 6(4), the decision
whether to submit the TMDLReport and, if so, under what terms will be presented to the Board
for decision if: (I) the Commissioner grants the petition requesting the matter be presented to
Page 10 0111
the Board; (2) one or more Board member& request to hear the matter b~fore the time th~ ..
Commissioner makes a final decision on the TMDL Report; or (3) a timely request for a
contested case h~aring is pending.
You may participate in the activities of the MPCA Board as provid~d in Minn. R. 7000.0650.
The written comments, requests, and petitions submitted on or before the last day of the public
comment period will be considered in the final decision on this TMDL report. .
If the MPCA does not receive written comments, requ~sts, or petitions during th~ public
comment period, MPCA staff as authorized by the Board, will make the final decision on the
draft TMDL report. .
Attachment 3.1
Page 11 of11
wq-iwll-Olb
Kohlman Lake
Total Maximum Daily Load Report
Final Draft
Prepared for
Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District
July 2009
~1t0tL/;Vl1ef1t Z
Kohlman Lake
Total Maximum Daily Load Report
Final Draft
Prepared for
Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District
July 2009
Kohlman Lake
Total Maximum Daily Load Report
Final Draft
July 2009
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................... .............. ................... 7
2.0 Description of the Water Body, Pollutant of Concern and Pollutant Sources ..................................... 10
2.1 Overview of Kohlman Lake and Its Watershed........................................................................ 10
2.2 Kohlmau Lake Pollutant of Concern and Pollulant Sources..................................................... 14
3.0 Description of Applicable Water Quality Standards and Numerical Water Quality Target................16
3.1 Historical Water Quality in Kohlman Lake ..............................................................................17
4.0 Source Assessment and Reduction Options.........................................................................................26
4.1 Water Quality Modeling of the Phalen Chain of Lake Watersheds.......................................... 26
4.1.1 P8 Urban Calchment Model.........................................................................................26
4.1.2 In-Lake Mass Balance Modeling of Kohlman Lake.................................................... 29
4.2 Modeling Results...................................................................................................................... 33
4.3 Reduction Options ..... ...................................................................................................... ......... 38
5.0 TMDL Allocation Analysis .................................................................................................................39
5.1 Wasteload Allocations to Point Sources ...................................................................................40
5.2 Load Allocations to Nonpoint Sources ..................................................................................... 41
5.3 Margin of Safety .......................................................................................................................41
5.4 Reserve Capacity ............................................... .......... ............................................................. 42
5.5 Seasonal Variation ........................................ ............................................................... ......... .... 46
5.6 Reasonable Assurances....................................................................... ............ .......... ................ 46
6.0 Monitoring Plan to Track TMDL Effectiveness .................................................................................. 48
7.0 Kohlman Lake TMDL Implementation Plan (Summary) .................................................................... 50
7.1 Annual Load Reductions.................. ......................................................................................... 50
7.1.1 External (Watershed) Sources-Reduction Goal of 209 Pounds of Phosphorus over the
Growing Season.......................................................................................... ................. 50
7.1.2 Internal Sources-Reduction Goal of 255 Pounds of Phosphorus over the Growing
Season....................................................................................... ................................... 52
7.1.3 Overall Cost Estimate for Implementation .................................................................. 54
7.2 MS4 Responsibilities......................................... ....................................................................... 54
7.3 Long Term Planning 55
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft FiJes\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July 2009 i
ELA.doc
8.0 Public Participation........... ........... .................................................................. ............ ................. .........56
9.0 Submittal Letter.............................................................................................................. .... .................58
References ...................... ................................... .............. ................ ................................ ....................... ..... 59
P:\M.pls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July 2009 11
ELA.doc
EPA TMDL Summary Table .............................................................................................................1
List of Tables
Table EX-l
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Appeudix A
Koblman Lake 10-Year Average Water Quality Parameters..........................................5
MPCA Shallow Lake Eutrophication Standards for Total Phosphorus, Chlorophyll a
and Secchi Disc (North Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion).....................................16
Kohlman Lake Historical Nutrient Related Water Quality Parameters.........................25
Water, Total Phosphorus and Net Internal Load Budgets in Kohlman Lake for Wet, Dry
aud Average Precipitatiou Conditions .................. ....................... ................................33
Maximum Measured Internal TP Load, and Estimaled Internal TP Loads iu Kohlmau
Lake for Wet, Dry aud Average Precipitation Conditions............................................35
Kohlman Lake Growing Season External (Watershed) Phosphorns Budget and
Wasteload Allocations by Drainage District ...............................................................43
Kohlmau Lake Growing Season Total Phosphorus Budget with Wasteload Allocations
by MS4 and Load Allocations ....................................................................................44
List of Figures
Site Location Map...... ........... ........... ................................... ................. ........................9
Kohlman Lake Bathymetry... .......... ....................................................... .....................12
Drainage Districts ..... ........... .......... ....................................... ............... ......................13
Kohlman Lake Walershed Existing Land Use .............................................................15
Kohlman Lake Growing Season (June through September) Mean Total Phosphorus
Concentrations 1981-2006................... .......................... ........ ............... ......................19
Kohlman Lake Growing Season (June through September) Mean Total Chlorophyll a
Concentrations 1981-2006.................. ............................................ .......... ..................20
Kohlman Lake Growing Season (June through September) Mean Secchi disc
Transparencies 1981-2006..................... ......................................... .......... .................. 21
Kohlman Lake Secchi Disc Transparency-Total Phosphorus Relationship 1981-200622
Kohlman Lake Growing Season Chlorophyll a-Growing Season Total Phosphorus
Relationship 1981-2006.............................................................................................. 23
Kohlman Lake 2002 Isopleth Diagram for Tolal Phosphorus ......................................24
Continuous Flow aud Water Quality Monitoring Station.............................................31
Drainage Districts aud TP Contributions (Avg. Year) .................................................34
Effect of Kohlmau Basin Area Water Quality Euhancement ProjeClS Infiltration and
Reductiou of Inlernal Phosphorus Load on Lake TP ...................................................37
MS4 Eutities in Kohlman Lake Watershed .................................................................45
List of Appendices
Phaleu Chaiu of Lakes Strategic Lake Managemeut PIau: Improvement Options
aud Recommendatious
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July 2009 Hi
ELA.doc
EPA TMDL Summary Table
EPA/MPCA Required Elements Summary TMDL
Page #
Location Upper Mississippi Drainage Basin, Maplewood,
Minnesota, Ramsey County 10
303(d) Listing Information Waterbody: Kohlman Lake DNR ID 62-0006
Impaired Beneficial Use: Aquatic Recreation
ImpairmentiTMDL Pollutant of Concern: Excessive
Nutrients (Phosphorus) 16
Priority Ranking: 2004 Target Start, 2008 Target
Completion
Original Listing Year: 2002
Applicable Water Quality MPCA Shallow Lake Eutrophication Standards
Standards/Numeric Targets (North Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion):
60 Ilg/L Total Phosphorus
20 Ilg/L Chlorophyll a 16
1.0 m Secchi disc transparency
Source: Minnesota Rule 7050.0222 Subp. 4. Class 2B
Waters
Loading Capacity (expressed as Total Phosphorus Loading Capacity for critical
daily load) condition
6.31 ibs/day
Critical condition summary: MPCA eutrophication 39
standard is compared to the growing season (June
through September) average. Daily loading capacity
for critical condition is based on the total load during
the growing season.
Wasteload Allocation (WLA) Source Permit # Individual WLA
(Ibs/day)
Permitted City of White 1.05
Bear Lake
Stormwater (MS4 (MS400060)
Cities): City of Vadnais 40
Heights 0.77
(MS400057)
City of Oakdale 0.33
(MS400042)
City of North SI. 2.51
Paul
(MS400041 )
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 1
EPA TMDL Summary Table
EPA/MPCA Required Elements Summary TMDL
Page #
City of 0.72
Maplewood
(MS400032\
City of Little 0.12
Canada
(MS400029\
MnDOT 0.47
(MS400170)
Ramsey County 0.04
(MS400191 )
Reserve Capacity 0
Load Allocation (LA) Non-point Sources LA
(Ibs/day)
Internal Loading of 0.23
Phosphorus from Lake
Sediments and from 41
curlyleaf pondweed
senescence
Atmospheric Deposition 0.06
of Phosphorus
Margin of Safety The margin of safety for this TMDL is largely provided
implicitly through use of calibrated input parameters 41
and conservative modeling assumptions in the
development of allocations.
Seasonal Variation TP concentrations in the lake vary significantly during
the growing season, generally peaking in August. The
TMDL guideline for TP is defined as the growing
season mean concentration (MPCA, 2004). 46
Accordingly, existing and future water quality scenarios
(under different management options) were evaluated
in terms of the mean growing season TP.
Reasonable Assurance The overall implementation plan (Section 7.0) is
multifaceted, with various projects put into place over
the course of many years, allowing for monitoring and 46
reflection on project successes and the chance to
change course if progress is exceeding expectations or
is unsatisfactory.
Monitoring The monitoring plan to track TMDL effectiveness is 48
described in Section 6.0 of this TMDL report.
P;\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\Juoe 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Pinal Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 2
EPA TMDL Summary Table
EPA/MPCA Required Elements Summary TMDL
Page #
Implementation 1. The implementation strategy to achieve the load
reductions described in this TMDL is summarized In
Section 7.0 of this TMDL report.
50
2. A cost estimate of all of the activities involved in
implementing this TMDL is described in Section 7.0 of
this report.
Public Participation On November 7, 2007 a TMDL stakeholders meeting
was conducted between District staff and
representatives from the various MS4 permittees that 56
are responsible for loads within the Kohlman Lake
watershed.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Pinal Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 3
Executive Summary
Kohlman Lake is currently listed on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA)
Draft 2008 303(d) Impaired Waters List due to excessive nutrients (phosphorus). Kohlman
Lake is the most upstream of the four lakes that make up the Phalen Chain of Lakes in
Maplewood, Little Canada and St. Paul, Minnesota. The lake has a surface area of 74 acres,
a maximum depth of approximately 9 feet, and a mean depth of 4 feet. Most of the lake is
less than 6 feet deep, with the littoral area covering the entire lake surface. Kohlman Lake is
a fishing lake used primarily for motor boating, canoeing, fishing, picnicking, and aesthetic
viewing. Kohlman Lake provides some limited wildlife habilat.
The Kohlman Lake watershed comprises a total of 7,484 acres and drains portions of the
St. Paul suburbs of Gem Lake, White Bear Lake, Vadnais Heights, Maplewood, North
St. Paul, Little Canada, and Oakdale. The population of the Kohlman Lake watershed is
approximately 35,000 (from census tract data).
Kohlman Lake is localed in the North Central Hardwood Forests ecoregion. The lake's
historical growing season water quality (lO-year average) compared to the MPCA's shallow
lake eutrophication standards for this ecoregion are shown below.
The MPCA's projected schedule for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report
completions, as indicated on Minnesota's 303(d) impaired waters list, implicitly reflects
Minnesota's priority ranking of this TMDL. The Kohlman Lake TMDL was scheduled to
begin in 2004 and be completed in 2008. Ranking criteria for scheduling TMDL projects
include, but are not limited to: impairment impacts on public health and aquatic life; public
value of the impaired water resource; likelihood of completing the TMDL in an expedient
manner, including a strong base of existing data and restorability of the
waterbody; technical capability and willingness locally to assisI with the TMDL; and
appropriate sequencing of TMDLs within a watershed or basin.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\]une 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Pinal Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 4
Table EX-1 Kohlman Lake 10-Year Average Water Quality Parameters
Water Quality
Parameter
Total Phosphorus (\lg/L)
Chlorophyll a (\lg/L)
Secchi disc m
MPCA Shallow Lake
Eutrophication
Standards (North Central
Hardwood Forest
Ecore ion)
60 IL
20 IL
1.0 m
Kohlman Lake
10-year (1997-2006) Growing
Season,
(June through September)
Avera e
98 IL
34.5 IL
1.0 m
A significant source of backgronnd information for this TMDL report is the Ramsey
Washington Metro Watershed District's Phalen Chain of Lakes Strategic Lake Management
Plan (SLMP): Improvement Options and Recommendations (Barr Engineering Company,
2004) study, coupled with the follow-up studies recommended by the SLMP. The SLMP is
included as an appendix to this report.
The TMDL equation is defined as follows:
TMDL = Wasteload Allocation (WLA) + Load Allocation (LA) + Margin of Safety
(MOS) + Reserve Capacity.
For Kohlman Lake, the Load Capacity is 769 pounds (lbs) of total phosphorus (TP) per
growing season.
The TMDL equation used to derive this Load Capacity for Kohlman Lake is:
Expressed as growing season (June through September) totals:
TMDL = 734 lbs. TP (WLA) + 35 lbs. TP (LA) + 0 lbs. TP (MOS) + 0 lbs. (Reserve
Capacity) = 769 lbs per year
Expressed in dailv terms (growing season loadll22)
TMDL= 6.02lbs/day (WLA) + 0.29 (LA) +0 (MOS) + 0 (Reserve Capacity) = 6.311bs
per day, on average, over the growing season
The Wasteload Allocation represents a 22% reduction in the external load from the entire
tributary area to Kohlman Lake. The external load TP reduction efforts will be focused
within the lake's "Main" drainage district - a 25% TP reduction in the "Main" drainage
district is necessary to meet the entire tributary load reduction. This external load reduction
will be achieved through a series of BMP implementation projects and programs sponsored
by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. The cities and other entities with
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) within the Kohlman Lake watershed will
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 5
commit their support of these efforts through a memorandum of uuderstauding (MOU) with
the Watershed District. A copy of the MOU will be included in each MS4's Storm Water
Pollulion Preventiou Plan (SWPPP).
The Load Allocation represents an 88% Iotal phosphorus reduction. This will be achieved
through a reduction in the lake's interual phosphorus load, by herbicide treatment of the
curlyleaf pondweed and through chemical (alum) treatment to inactivate the sediment TP
load.
The Margin of Safety is implicilly included in the equation as a result of calibrated modeling
parameters, conservalive modeling assumptions and the fact that the lake is being managed
for the "worst-case scenario" water quality condition when wet, dry and average precipitation
and internal load conditions are considered.
The Reserve Capacity is 0 lbs because ultimate land use conditions were used in modeling
watershed loads and because the District's stormwater volume reduction standard for
redeveloping areas assures that future loads will be equal to or less than loads under exisling
land use conditions.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 6
1.0 Introduction
The Phalen Chain of Lakes (Figure I) is located in the upper portion of the Mississippi River
Basin and is comprised of: Kohlman Lake (DNR ill 62-0006), Gervais Lake
(DNR ill 62-0007), Keller Lake (DNR ill 620010), and Lake Phalen (DNR ill 62-0013).
These lakes are within the North Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion. The Phalen Chain of
Lakes and its tributary watershed cover areas in Maplewood, Little Canada, North St. Paul,
St. Paul, Vadnais Heights, While Bear Lake, Gem Lake, Oakdale and are part of the Ramsey
Washington Metro Watershed District (District).
The District is a special purpose unit of local government that manages water resources on a
watershed basis and was established in 1975 nnder the Minnesota Watershed District Act.
The Watershed Act provides Districts across Minnesota with planning, regulatory, and taxing
authority to carry ont water management activities within the watershed. The mission of the
District is to protect and improve water resources and water relaled environments in the
District. More information can be found about the District on their website
(www.rwmwd.org).
Kohlman Lake is currently listed on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) 2008
303(d) Impaired Waters List due to excessive nutrients (phosphorus) and requires a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report. The lake was first listed on the MPCA's 303(d) list in
2002. The TMDL report has a target start date of 2004 and a target completion date of 2008.
The MPCA's projected schedule for TMDL completions, as indicated on Minnesota's 303(d)
impaired waters list, implicitly reflects Minnesota's priority ranking of this TMDL. Ranking
criteria for scheduling TMDL projects include, buI are not limited to: impairment impacts ou
public health and aquatic life; public value of the impaired water resource; likelihood of
completing the TMDL in an expedient manner, including a strong base of existing data and
restorability of the waterbody; technical capability and willingness locally to assist with the
TMDL; and appropriate sequencing of TMDLs within a walershed or basin.
In 2004, the District completed a 3-year study that resulted in a Strategic Lake Management
Plan (SLMP) for the Phalen Chain of Lakes and its watershed. The SLMP is entitled Phalen
Chain of Lakes Strategic Lake Management Plan: Improvement Options and
Recommendations (Barr Engineering Company, 2004). The purpose of the SLMP was to
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Drafl Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 7
establish priorities and provide guidelines for the cities withiu the lakes' tributary
watersheds, Ramsey County, the Ramsey-Washington Metropolitan Watershed District, aud
citizens to meet the water quality goals set for the Phalen Chain of Lakes.
As a part of the study, the District completed an inventory of all ponds and wetlands
thronghout the watershed tributary to Kohlman Lake and Ihe remainiug lakes in the Phalen
Chain. Using the inventory, the DistricI couducted an extensive survey of each pond and
wetland, measuring available storage volumes, overflow elevations, and inlet and outlet
pipelines and channels. The survey included measurements that allowed for the calculation
of live storage volume, dead storage volume, overflow capacities, and potential inflows and
outflows. In addition, the study evaluated the existing and future land uses throughout the
tributary watershed. Also, the District conducted extensive monitoring of several lake inflow
points and of the lakes themselves. All of this information was used to create and calibrate
water quality models for the lakes and their watersheds. The District ran the calibrated water
quality models using actual rainfall years that reflect weI, dry, and average precipilation
conditions. The results of the modeling were used 10 identify watershed best management
practices (BMPs) and in-lake management practices thai would help achieve the goals for
each lake. The District also estimated costs for various management practices and made
recommendations for the most cosI-effeclive improvements and practices. In addition, the
SLMP contained recommendations for a number of feasibility studies aimed at determining
which BMPs the District should ultimately pursue in order for the lakes to meet their water
quality goals.
The SLMP is included in its entirety as Appendix A to this TMDL report. The SLMP and the
conclusions of its subsequent feasibility studies provided the information needed to make the
management decisions that are ultimately set forth in this TMDL report for Kohlman Lake.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiJes\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 8
.!i
Ii:
"
"
V
N
iri
~
iri
m
0_
o
"
v
'"
.
"
o
~
o
o .
~
.
m
o 0.5 1
Miles
2
Figure 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
Kohlman Lake
Total Maximum Daily
Load Report
D District Legal Boundary
_ Kohlman Lake Watershed
Outlet of Kohlman Basin:
Flow and Water Quality Monitoring Station
Q
........... ...........
2.0 Description of the Water Body, Pollutant of
Concern and Pollutant Sources
2.1 Overview of Kohlman Lake and Its Watershed
Kohlman Lake is a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-protected water
(#62-0006) located in the city of Maplewood (Figure 2). The lake has a surface area of
74 acres, a maximum depth of approximately 9 feet, and a mean depth of 4 feet. Most of the
lake is less than 6 feet deep, with the littoral area covering the entire lake surface (DNR Lake
Data). By MPCA definition, Kohlman Lake is considered to be a shallow lake (a maximnm
depth of less than 15 feet and/or at least 80 percent of the lake less than 15 feet deep). The
lake's tributary watershed area in comparison to the lake's surface area is relatively large
(101: 1). Kohlman Lake is a fishing lake used primarily for motor boating, canoeing, fishing,
picnicking, and aesthetic viewing. Komman Lake provides some limited wildlife habitat.
Kohlman Lake is polymictic; it mixes multiple times throughout the year. The lake stratifies
only for short periods throughoUI the growing season, followed by destratification that mixes
the water column. At times, this mixing can entrain phosphorus that is released from the lake
sediment into the water column, making more phosphorus available to algae. Another
internal source of phosphorus to Kohlman Lake is curlyleaf pondweed. This macrophyte
proliferales in the early-summer and dies off in mid-summer, releasing substantial amounts of
phosphorus into the water column.
The Kohlman Lake watershed comprises a total of 7,484 acres (excluding the lake surface
area) and drains portions of the cities of Gem Lake, White Bear Lake, Vadnais Heights,
Maplewood, North 8t. Paul, Little Canada, and Oakdale.
The Kohlman Lake watershed can be described in terms of four different "drainage districts."
A drainage district is described here as a network of drainage areas whose runoff drains to a
common point before entering the lake. Each Kohlman Lake drainage district is shown in
Figure 3 and is described below:
. Kohlman lake Main Drainage District-This 6,83l-acre drainage district, located
east of the lake, represents the majority of the Kohlman Lake watershed. Runoff
from this drainage district flows through a series of ponds, wetlands and/or storm
sewers; and, ultimately, Kohlman Basin (the wetland system directly upstream of the
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiJes\Kohlman Lake TMDL\Jllne 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 10
lake, located directly south of Beam Avenue and east of Highway 61) before reaching
Koh1mau Lake.
. Kohlman Lake North Drainage District-This l07-acre drainage district, north of
the lake, represents a very small portion of the Kohlman Lake watershed. Runoff
from this drainage district flows to a flow splitter, where low flows are routed to a
wetland system that discharges to Kohlman Lake. High flows by-pass the splitter and
discharge directly into Gervais Lake.
. Kohlman Lake South Drainage District-This 83-acre drainage district, south of the
lake, also represents a very small portion of the Kohlman Lake watershed. Runoff
from this drainage district is routed to two ponds, neither of which has constructed
outlets-therefore, water from these ponds only flows to Kohlman Lake during high
water conditions, when the ponds overtop. Under typical conditions, these ponds are
landlocked.
. Kohlman Lake Direct Drainage District-This 463-acre drainage district consists of
Ihe area that drains directly to Kohlman Lake wilhout passing through relention
ponds or any significant pretreatment. The runoff from this area generally sheet
flows directly into the lake with little or no treatment.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 11
<
>'
~
"
u
g
"
"
E
E
"
m
ID
~
.
~
"
E
"
o
~
~
o
~
~
~
t
o
~
ID
~
~
o
~
\;
t
o
~
ID
'!j
i.}
~
!
.
E
"
o
~
w
~
1'i
1l
~
~
tj
"
'6
.
E
.
~
jg
."
g
ft~J'T)$ov~W,a$hJnjitl:t::m. Metro:
~ ~A(~D..tr.,t
~ ",""";} ,
.
m
2006 Aerial Photography
e
Figure 2
KOHLMAN LAKE BATHYMETRY
Kohlman Lake Total Maximum
1,000 Daily Load Report
Bathymetry _ 7 - 8 III 3 - 4
Depth (feet) _ 6 - 7 2 - 3
_9-9.5 11I5-6 1-2
_8-9 11I4-5 0-1
o
250 500
Feet
12
'"
~
c
~
J
u
x
E
"
"
1jj
o
~
.
o
ID
~
.
~
C
~
"
o
~
M
o
~
~
o
o
.
~
~
o
"
~
t
o
o
.
~
o
.
~
~
C
.
E
"
~
~
00
I
Jl
~
1j
1j
15
~
!
~
g
r-t RWMWD
L-..I. Legal Boundary
_ Lakes
Drainage Districts
J~ Kohlman Lake Direct
~ Kohlman Lake Main
D Kohlman Lake North
D Kohlman Lake South
jptIiIiI!I!IIRWMWD
..,. Hydrologic Boundary
e
o
1.500 3,000
Feet
6,000
Figure 3
DRAINAGE DISTRICTS
Kohlman Lake
Total Maximum Daily
Load Report 13
2.2 Kohlman lake Pollutant of Concern and Pollutant
Sources
The pollutant of concern in Kohlman Lake is phosphorus, measured as Total Phosphorus
(TP). The Phalen Chain of Lakes' largest source of phosphorus is stormwater runoff from its
tributary watershed. Figure 4 shows the land use used to model TP loads from the tributary
watersheds for KoWman Lake. P8 modeling is described in detail in Section 4.
The land uses in the Kohlman Lake tributary watershed can be summarized as follows:
. Low Density Residential (1-4 nnits per acre) 40.8%
. Natural/Park/Open/ Agricultural 20.8%
. Commercial 8.9%
. Wetland 8.9%
. Institutional5.2%
. High Density Residential (> 8 units per acre) 5.1 %
. Industrial/Office 4.3%
. Highway 3.5%
. Open Water (including KoWman Lake itself) 2.5%
In Kohlman Lake, other phosphorus sources are significant in affecting water quality-
internal loads of phosphorus from the lake sediment and senescing macrophytes (cudyleaf
pondweed). Carp excretion is also expected to contribnte significantly to the lake's internal
phosphorus load, although only rough, highly variable estimates of the TP load due to carp in
Kohlman Lake have been made to date.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlrnan Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 14
~
~
~
~
u
g
51
,
u
c
.
~
rn
~
X
W
u
~
~
~
~
c
.
E
,.
o
~
;l
.
,
rn
u:
"
8.
.
oc
~
o
"
'i;
I
'::;
~
.
"
!
~
,.
o
~
"
w
"
"
.
"
Ji
~
"
is
~
.
E
.
oc
"
.,
g
.!:!!
u:
Highway C Kohlman Lake Watershed
Commercial r---1 Kohlman Lake
L......J Drainage Areas
Agricultural ~ Industrial/Office
~ RWMWD
Low Density Residential _ Open Water ~ Legal Boundary
High Density Residential Wetland .... RWMWD
_ .. I ImmiI Hydrologic Boundary
Instrtutlona
e
o
1,500 3,000
Feet
6,000
Figure 4
KOHLMAN LAKE WATERSHED
EXISTING LANDUSE
Kohlman Lake
Total Maximum Daily 15
Load Report
3.0 Description of Applicable Water Quality
Standards and Numerical Water
Quality Target
Impaired waters are listed and reported to the citizens of Minnesota and to the EPA in the
305(b) report and the 303(d) list, named after relevant sections of the Clean Water Act.
Assessment of waters for the 305(b) report identifies candidates for listing on the 303(d) list
of impaired waters. The pnrpose of the 303( d) list is to identify impaired water bodies for
which a plan will be developed to remedy the pollntion problem(s) (the TMDL-this
docnment).
The basis for assessing Minnesota lakes for impairment dne to entrophication is the narrative
water qnality standard and assessment factors in Minnesota Rnles 7050.0150. The MPCA
has completed extensive planning and research efforts to develop qnantitative lake
entrophication standards for lakes in different ecoregions of Minnesota that wonld resnlt in
achievement of the goals described by the narrative water qnality standards. The MPCA's
shallow lake entrophication standards for the North Central Hardwood Forests ecoregion
(Kohlman Lake's location) are shown in Table 1. To be listed as impaired by MPCA, the
monitoring data must show that the standards for both total phosphorus (the causal factor)
and either chlorophyll a or Secchi disc depth (the response factors) are not met (MPCA,
2004).
Table 1
MPCA Shallow Lake Eutrophication Standards for Total Phosphorus,
Chlorophyll a and Secchi Disc (North Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion)
MPCA Shallow Lake Eutrophication Standard
(North Central Hardwood Forests Ecore ion
60
20
1.0
303(d) Classification
Source: Minnesota Rule 7050.0222 Subp. 4. Class 2B Waters
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake 1MDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 16
3.1 Historical Water Quality in Kohlman Lake
Kohlman Lake's historical (1981 to 2006) concentrations of TP, chlorophyll a (chi a) and
Secchi disc (SD) are discussed below. This range of data was chosen for the 5lLMP to reflect
more recent development conditions in the Phalen Chain of Lakes tributary watershed. 2002
was the last year evaluated in the SLMP. For the purposes of this TMDL report, growing
season mean (June through September) concentrations of TP, chlorophyll a and Secchi disc
were used 10 evaluate water quality in Kohlman Lake. This time period was chosen because
it spans the months in which the lakes are most used by Ihe public, and the months during
which water quality is the mosllikely to suffer due to algal growths. For the SLMP, only
summer mean (June through August) concentrations were evaluated.
Figures 5 through 7 show the growing season means (June through September) of Kohlman
Lake's total phosphorus (TP), chlorophyll a (chi a), and Secchi disc (SD) measurements,
respectively. Each column in each graph shows the number of readings (n) that resulted in
the growing season average. For each sampling event, the measurements for TP, chi a and
SD were taken at the same time from the same original water sample.
The mean surface water concentrations of TP in Kohlman Lake have ranged from 66 flg/L (in
2002) to 171 flg/L (in 1982) over the past 26 years, giving the lake a hypereutrophic
classification. The mean growing season TP concentration over the last 10 years (1997 to
2006) is 98 flg/L.
The growing season average chi a concentrations have ranged from 12 flg/L (in 2002) to
74 flg/L (in 1996) over the past 26 years, giving the lake a hypereutrophic classification in
some years and an eutrophic classification in others. The mean growing season chi a
concentration over the last 10 years (1997-2006) is 34.5 flg/L.
The growing season average SD measurements have ranged from 1.4 feet (in 1982) to
5.4 feet (in 2002) over Ihe past 26 years, giving the lake a hypereutrophic classification in
some years and a eutrophic classification in others. The mean growing season SD
transparency over the last 10 years (1997-2006) is 3.2 feet (1.0 meter).
Figure 8 shows the relationship between SD and TP measurements taken throughout the year
(1981-2006) in Kohlman Lake. At lower TP concentrations (less than 60 flg/L), changes in
the lake's TP result in significant changes in the lake's transparency. At higher TP
concentrations, changes in lake TP result in relatively smaller changes in the lake's
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 17
transparency. This fignre also shows the typical timing of higher and lower lake TP
concentrations Ihronghont the year in Kohlman Lake. Lower TP concentrations are typically
seen in the lale spring and early snmmer, while higher TP concentrations typically occur later
in the snmmer months (typical of lakes with internal sonrces of phosphorus loading).
Figure 9 shows the relationship between chi a and TP concentrations thronghont the year in
Kohlman Lake. The relationship between growing season averages of chi a and TP are
shown here in order to rednce some of the scatter in the data.
Isopleth diagrams represent the change in a parameter relative to depth and lime. For a given
time period, vertical isopleths indicate complete mixing and horizontal isopleths indicate
stratification. Isopleth diagrams can be particularly useful in visually detecting the presence
(or absence) of an inlernalload of phosphorus in a lake. In 2002, a more rigorous lake water
quality survey provided enough samples to create isopleth diagrams of Kohlman Lake's TP
concentrations, indicating the dynamic nature of TP in the lake throughout the growing
season (Figure 10). The increase of phosphorus concentrations seen during the temporarily
stratified conditions in late August and early September, 2002 indicate the presence of
internal sediment loading in Kohlman Lake.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Piles\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 18
Figure 5
KOHLMAN LAKE
Growing Season (June through September) Mean Total Phosphorus
Concentrations
1981 to 2006
180 If I.n~( Average (198110 2006) -111fl9/L
160 MPCA's Shallow Lake Averaae 119971a 20061 = 98 ua/L
- Slandard far TP = 60 fl9/L 149, 94g, n05
143,0=4 142 0=6
140 - . <0" _7 f--
-
127,0=6 128, n=4- 127,0=
17, n=
1201 11~ ~ - - - - - f--
. - 105, -2
06,0=1 103,0=6
~ 100 - 5,0=3 - - - - - f-- 191,0=6 89,n=6
~ 1L,n~ 85,0=6 89,0=6
80,n=6 81,0:=6 79 n-
D- 80 - - - - - - - ~ f-- f-- f-- - - 1- 1-'
I- 66,n==6
60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I-
40 - - - - - - - - - ~ f-- f-- I- f-- f-- f-- f-- f--
20 - - - - - - - - - - - f-- f-- f-- f-- I- f-- f-- f-- I
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~*~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~0000000000~~~~~~~
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\_MovedFromMpls_P\2362797\Conversion to TMDL report\Historical Water Quality\Kohlman_alldata TMDL thru
2006.xlsChrt_ TP 19
80
70
60
50
::J
C,
"
~ 40
'"
:E
u
30
20
10
Figure 6
KOHLMAN LAKE
Growing Season (June through September) Mean Total Chlorophyll a
Concentrations 1981 to 2006
-- ---.------
Average (1981 to 2006) = 38.2 ug/L 74,n=7
Average (1997 to 2006) = 34.5 ug/L 71,n=6
66,n:::S
MPCA's Shallow Lake Standard for Chi a = 20 J!g/L
60,n:::S 59 n-6
54,n:=:7 53,n=4
- 46,n_B
- 36,n_5 37,n 2 -
36,n=5
> n=7 30,n=6
r- - - - - 29,n=6
26,n_B
22,n=7 21, n=2 I'Q n~d 20,n=6 20, n= 21,n=6
p... ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ - - .,.,.-
16.n~3 . 16, n=
12,n~6
f- - - - - - - - - - -
'-r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3
o
~#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\_MovedFromMp!s_P\2362797\Conversion to TMDL report\Historical Water Quality\Kohlman_alldata TMDL thru
2006.xlsChrt_CHLa 20
Figure 7
KOHLMAN LAKE
Growing Season (June through September) Mean Secchi Disc Transparencies
1981 to 2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o
r- r- r- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -'- -L -L -L -L -L -L -L ~ ~ r- r- r- r- ~
I-- I-- - - - - - - - - I-- I-- I-- I-- -
.4,0=2
1.6, n= 1.6,0=5
- I-- rJr, n2Ji - - - - - --'--- - - ;.1, n ti i- i- - ,- -
1.8, 0=23 .9, 0=26
2.2, n=24 2.4,0=5
2.5, 0=2 2.5, 0=6 2.6, 0=6
2.6, 0=22 2.5, n=5 .5,0=7
- 3.0,n~ l- I- ~ -
- - - / l- I- - -
3.5, 0=6 .4,.0= .4. n~E
3.5,0",6 ~.6. n~6
3.6, 0=6
0.0. n '0 / I-
Average (1981 to 2006) = 2.8 It (0.9 meters) 4.3, n
Average (1997 to 2006) = 3.4 It (1.0 meters) 4.5, 0=6
MPCA's Shallow Lake Standard for SO = 3.3 feet (1 meter) /
5.4,0=6
~
is
>-
g 2
"
~
01
Q.
III
<:
l!! 3
....
I)
III
is
:E 4
I)
I)
"
en
6
5
6
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\_MovedFromMpls_P\2362797\Conversion to TMDL report\Historical Water Quality\Kohlman_alldata TMDL thru
2006.xlsChrt_SD 21
8
{Wi
~
-
-
~ 6
c
en
4
Figure 8
KOHLMAN LAKE
Secchi Disc Transparency-Total Phosphorus Relationship
1981-2006
. January
12
., February
* April
10
May
c June
*July
2
jli.... .~
. August
September
. October
. ,..
,.
Trendline Equation
for June through
September data:
@i
,.
e"
o
o
so = 66.132 (TP) -0.7171
2
300 R = 0.5339
150
TP(119/L)
50
100
200
250
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\_MovedFromMpls_P\2362797\Conversion to TMDL report\Hlstorical Water Quality\Kohlman_alldata TMDL thru
2006.xlsChrt_ TP _so ELA 22
Figure 9
KOHLMAN LAKE
Relationship Between
Growing Season Average Total Phosphorus and
Growing Season Average Chlorophyll a Concentrations
1981-2006 data
80
70
60
:J 50
C,
~
.. 40
:E
0
30
20
10
0
0
Chi 8= 0.0205 (TP) 1.5615
R' ~ 0.506
tIiI
III
20
40
60
80 100
TP(119/L)
120
140
160
180
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\_MovedFromMpls_P\2362797\Conversion to TMDL report\Historical Water Quality\Kohlman_alldata TMDL thru 2006.xlsGS Tp.
Chla Rei Chart 23
1.0
if>
:u
" 1.5
::;,
~
"-
ID
0
2.0
Figure 10
Kohlman Lake (2002)
Total Phosphorus Isopleth (lJg/L)
0.0
0.5
2.5
3.0
05/01/02
08/01/02
09/01102
10/01102
06/01102
07/01102
Figure 10 Kohlman Lake 2002 Isopleth Diagram for Total Phosphorus
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Filcs\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July 2009 ELA.doc
24
Table 2 summarizes this historical water quality iuformatiou compared to the recommended
shallow lake listing criteria. Because the causal water quality factor (TP) and one of the
response factors (chlorophyll a) exceed the Listing Criteria on average over the last 10 years,
Kohlman Lake is listed as "Non-Supporting" on the 2004 305(b) lisI and as "Impaired" on
the 303(d) list (Kohlman Lake was first listed in 2002.)
Table 2
Kohlman lake Historical Nutrient Related Water Quality Parameters
MPCA's Shallow
lake Kohlman lake
Eutrophication Kohlman lake
Standards Historical 10-Year
(1981-2006) (1997-2006)
(North Central Growing season Growing season
Hardwood Average Average
Forest
Water Quality Parameter Ecoreaion)
Total Phosphorus (uQ/L) 60 111 98
chlorophyll a (Uq/L) 20 38.2 34.5
Secchi disc (m) 1.0 0.9 1.0
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Drafl July
2009 ELA.doc 25
4.0 Source Assessment and Reduction Options
4.1 Water Quality Modeling of the Phalen Chain of Lakes
Watersheds
Water quality modeling provided the means to estimate the TP sources to each lake in the
Phalen Chain and their effect on lake water quality. Water quality modeling was two-fold,
involving:
. A stormwater runoff model (P8 Urbau Catchment Model; IEP, Inc., 1990) that
estimated the water and TP loads from each lake's tributary watershed
. An in-lake mass balance model that took the water and TP loads from each lake's
watershed and generated the resultant lake TP concentration
The P8 Urban Catchment Model and the in-lake mass balance model are described in more
detail below.
4.1.1 P8 Urban Catchment Model
The P8 (Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage through Pits, Puddles and Ponds)
Urban Catchment (computer) Model (Version 2.4) was used to estimate watershed flow and
total phosphorus loads from each lake's tributary watershed. All existing BMPs in the
walershed were incorporated into the model. The model was calibrated to monitoring data
and the model results were used to estimate the water and phosphorus loads reaching each
lake over a range of climatic conditions. The model and its supporting information can be
downloaded from the internet at http://wwwalker.net/p8/.
P8 is a useful diagnostic tool for evaluating and designing watershed improvements and
BMPs because it can estimate the treatment effect of several different kinds of potential
BMPs. P8 tracks stormwater runoff as it carries phosphorus across watersheds and
incorporates the treatment effect of detention ponds, infiltration basins, flow splitters, etc. on
the TP loads that ultimately reach downstream water bodies. P8 accounts for phosphorus
attached to a range of particulate sizes, each with their own settling velocity, tracking their
removal accordingly.
P8 also uses long-term climatic data so that watershed runoff and BMPs can be evaluated for
varying hydrologic conditions. In this study, P8 was used to generate a range of waler and
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doo 26
phosphorus loadings from each lake's watershed during three different water years
(October 1 through September 30) with varying climatic conditions: a wet year (2001-02:
41.7 inches of precipitation); a dry year (19SS-S9: 26.6 inches of precipitation); and a year
with near-average precipitation (2000-01: 34.4 inches ofprecipitation)l.
It is not always clear whether a wet, dry or average year will result in the highest lake TP
concentration. For example, wet years result in larger volumes of runoff to the lakes; if the
runoff has high phosphorus concentrations, a wet year will result in a higher lake phosphorus
concentration. If the runoff has low phosphorus concentrations, a wet year will likely result
in a relatively lower lake phosphorus concentration. The impact of internal phosphorus loads
are also affected by climatic conditions. Larger volumes of runoff entering the lake can
"flush out" the lake, moving the elevated mass of phosphorus, dne to internal loading, out of
the system. The converse can be true of dry years; the impact of internal phosphorus loads
may be magnified as phosphorus released from the sediment remains in the water colnmn
longer. Therefore, by evaluating a range of climatic conditions, a more realistic range of
potential lake TP concentration estimates can be made.
PS-estimated runoff volumes and phosphorus loads were calibrated using observed flow and
water qualily dala collected by RWMWD staff from April to September, 2002. Figure 11
shows the location of the monitoring sIation. FLUX was used to eslimale the overall water
and TP loads from the outlet of Kohlman Basin over the monitoring period. PS water
volumes and TP loads were calibrated to within 5 percent of the observed valnes calculated
by FLUX from the monitoring data. A storm event-based look at the agreement between PS
results and monitoring data was also used in calibrating the PS model. PS tracked the flow of
water and particles over Ihe tributary watershed and through ponds and wetlands on a 10
minute time step. Detailed information on the input and calibration parameters used for the
Kohlman Lake watershed PS model can be found in the SLMP (Appendix A of this TMDL
report) .
1 There are two reasons why the average year precipitation used in this study may appear higher than
expected. During the 2001-2002 water year, the rainfall measured at gauges close to the Phalen Chain
of Lakes was 2% higher than the rainfall measured at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
Also, only precipitation depths from 1981 to 2002 were used in calculating the average precipitation
for this study. Because the last several years have been relatively wet, the average precipitation depth
defined for this study is higher than an average precipitation depth calculated from a longer period of
record.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 27
Key input parameters nsed in the P8 model of Kohlman Lake's watershed were:
. Drainage area information: size, impervious area (both directly and indirectly
couuected), depression storage
. Bathymetry of ponds and wetlands within the watershed
. Hourly precipitation, obtained from the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, adjusted by the
rainfall depths observed at more local gauges
Key calibration parameters in modeling the Kohlman Lake watershed were:
. Particle composition: (TP Particle Fraction 1 = 52,000 mg/kg, TP Particle Fraction 2
through 4 = 12,000 mg/kg)
. Growing season antecedent moisture conditions AMC-II = 1.4, AMC-IIII00
. Particle removal scale factor for detention ponds and wetlands based on the depth of
the waterbody: 0.3 if the waterbody was less than two feet deep, 0.6 if the waterbody
was between 2 and 3 feet deep and 1.0 if the waterbody was 3 or more feet deep
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 28
4.1.2 In-Lake Mass Balance Modeling of Kohlman Lake
In-lake modeling for Kohlman Lake was accomplished through the creation of a daily time-
step mass balance model that tracked the flow of water and phosphorus throu&h the lake over
a range of climatic conditions. Essentially, a modified version of Vollenweider's (1969)
mass balance equation was used:
TP = (L + Lint) / (.z* (p + cr) )
Where:
.z
p =
(j =
L =
Lint =
average lake depth in meters
flushing rate in yr-1
sedimentation rate in yr-I
areal loading rate in mg/(m2*yr)
internal loading rate in mg/(m2*yr)
A significant difference between Vollenweider's eqnation and the model used for this TMDL
is that the parameters in the above equation were used on a daily timestep basis as opposed to
an annual basis. Also, the magnitude of the net internal phosphorus load to the lake's surface
waters was dednced by comparing the observed water quality in the lake to Ihe water qualily
predicted by the in-lake model under existing conditions.
Key input parameters to the in-lake model included the external load of total phosphorus
(from the watershed only) obtained from P8 model ontpnt for wet (2001-02), dry (1988-89),
and average (2000-01) water years. Also, daily values for average lake depth, lake volume,
and the flushing rate were calcnlated nsing a daily water balance in an Excel spreadsheet that
incorporated P8 ontpnt for watershed inflows, observed daily precipitation data, observed
lake level measurements, and daily evaporation rates that were estimated nsing the Meyer
Model (Barr Engineering Company, undated) for the wet, dry, and average precipitation
years.
Key calibration parameters for the in-lake model inclnded selection of the apparent
sedimentation rate and estimation of the net internal load that affecls the lake's snrface
waters during the growing season. The internal load from Kohlman Lake's sediments is
intermittent. Lake mixing and anoxic conditions in Kohlman Lake can create an environment
in the lake that is conducive to interualloads at times. At other times, the lake does not
experience a significant internal load. Isopleth diagrams and monitoring data provided useful
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 29
information in determining when the lake experienced an internal load of phosphorus and
when it did not.
The sedimentation rates for Kohlman Lake were calibrated using in-lake TP monitoring data
from stratified (non-internally loaded) periods. At these times, the in-lake model only allows
changes in the phosphorus concentration in the surface waters of the lake to be affected by
sedimentation; flushing and incoming external loads of phosphorus from the watershed and
atmosphere.
Internal load could be estimated for deslratified (internally loaded) periods by calculating the
difference between the predicled lake TP (using the sedimenlalion rate that assumes no
internal load) and Ihe observed lake TP. In this manner, a predictive model could be created
and used to evaluate the effects of current and potential future CIPs. The selection of these
parameters is discussed in greater detail, below.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDLVune 2009 Draft Files\KoWman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 30
.
w 2006 Aerial Photography
* Flow Monitoring Locations
Flow Direction
D Kohlman Lake Watershed
D Kohlman Lake Drainage Areas
e
Figure 11
CONTINUOUS FLOW AND
WATER QUALITY
MONITORING STATION
2,000 Kohlman Lake Total Maximum
Daily Load Report 31
o
500 1 ,000
Feet
Calibrating the Apparent Sedimentation Rate
The term Z"cr is an apparent sedimentation rate in rnlyr that can be assumed to fall within the
range cited by O'Melia (1974). Sedimentation rates were calibrated for the wet (0.100
rnlday), dry (0.050 rnlday), and average (0.075 rnlday) summers in the lake during periods
when the lake was assumed to have only negligible internal TP loads. O'Melia cites a rauge
from 0 to over 20 m/day; the rates that the fit to models in his 1974 paper, however, fall on
the low end of this range, from 0.1 to 0.27 rnlday.
A linear regression evaluating the relationship between the lake's summer overflow rate (q,
in rnlday) during the wet, dry aud average years aud their corresponding calibrated
sedimentation rates were performed. For Kohlman Lake, higher overflow rates resulted in
higher calibrated sedimentation rates. The equation relating Kohlman Lake's summer
overflow rate and calibrated sedimentation rates for each of the modeled years is:
Z"cr = 0.0648Ln(q,) + 0.2298
Calibrating the Internal Load of Phosphorus from the Lake's Sediments
For the SLMP, internal load was calculated by deduction, using the in-lake mass balance
model at times when TP and dissolved oxygen (DO) isopleth diagrams (charts of TP or DO
over depth and time in the lakes) indicated the presence of an internal load.
In 2005, sediment cores from Kohlman Lake were collected and analyzed for mobile
phosphorus (mobile P content). Knowing the mobile P concentration and depth distribution,
a regression equation relating mobile P and the maximum possible sediment TP release rate
was used to estimate sediment release rate of TP during anoxic conditions at the sediment
surface. This method is presented in a research article by Pilgrim et al. (2007). This
maximum possible release rate was compared to the rate calculated by deduction to confirm
that the deduced load was reasonable.
Also, a recent macrophyte survey indicates the potential for internal phosphorus loading from
curly leaf pondweed in Kohlman Lake. The implementation section of this TMDL report
shows how this new information will be explored further, to shed more light upon the
magnitude of internal phosphorus load in Kohlman Lake and to identify management options.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohhnan TMDL Report Pinal Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 32
4.2 Modeling Results
P8 and in-lake modeling of the Phalen Chain tribntary watershed generated nseful dala that:
. Characterized the existing watershed loadings
. Estimated the performance of existiug BMPs and
. Indicated where future BMPs should be located
Many different types of figures were created for Kohlman Lake's watershed to higWight
different information (see the SLMP, Appendix A).
For example, Figure 12 shows the different drainage districts in the Kohlman Lake watershed
and the percent of the annual TP load that each drainage district contributes to the lake during
an average year of precipitation. It should be noted that each drainage district's TP
contribution is after any TP treatment that currently occurs within the drainage district. Also,
any internal load of phosphorus from Kohlman Lake itself is not factored into these
percentages.
Table 3 presents the existing water, external and internal TP budgets in Kohlman Lake that
were calculated for Kohlman Lake using the P8 and in-lake models.
Table 3
Water, Total Phosphorus and Net Internal load Budgets in Kohlman lake
for Wet, Dry and Average Precipitation Conditions
Water load External Total Internal Total
Precipitation Year Over the Phosphorus load Phosphorus load
Over the Growing Over the Growing
Growing Season Season Season
(A F) (Ibs) (Ibs)
Wet (Calibration Year) 4,868 2,317 65
(2002)
Dry 1,639 666 70
(1989)
Average 2,185 943 283
(2001)
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Pinal Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 33
~
>'
9
Figure 12
DRAINAGE DISTRICTS AND
TP CONTRIBUTIONS (AVG YEAR)
Feet Kohlman Lake
6.000 Total Maximum Daily 34
Load Report
.
.
"
~
~
<
~
~
o
o
~
~
~
<
.
.
o
is
.
~
..
is
.
~
.
~
<
.
E
1>
~
~
~
~
~
t
o
~
.
~
~
o
"
Ii;
6
\}
~
.
~
.
~
.
E
~
o
~
"
"'
"
"
.
~
~
t
is
~
E
&'
~
~
~
~
_ 88.7%
o
1,500 3,000
The magnitude of the lake's internal load value was verified by measuring the release rate of
TP from Kohlman Lake sedimeut and calculating the potential TP load from senescing
curlyleaf pondweed(based on curlyleaf pondweed growths observed in the lake in June,
2005). This iuformatiou was obtained as a part of the Internal Phosphorus Load Study that
was completed for the lakes in 2005 (Barr, 2005). In this study, the maximum possible
loading rate of mobile phosphorus from Kohlman Lake sediment was estimated to be
9.7 mg/m'/day. This loading rate was applied to the growing season months (122 days), to
come up with an existing, combined internal phosphorus load of 780 Ibs per year from the
lake's sediments. The loading rate of phosphorus from senescing curlyleaf pondweed in the
lake was estimated to be 1.54 mg/m2/day. This loading rate was applied only to the months
of July, August and September (the months of curlyleaf senescence- 91 days), to come up
with an existing, combined internal phosphorus load of 92 Ibs. This existing internal load (a
total of 8721bs) can be considered a maximum in any given growing season, regardless of the
level of precipitation. Table 4 compares this maximum internal TP load to the internal loads
deduced for the three precipitation scenarios in the in-lake model. These results are
reasonable, given the different degrees of lake mixing (or not observed) in the lake over the
three different growing seasons.
Table 4
Maximum Measured Internal TP load, and Estimated Internal TP loads in
Kohlman lake for Wet, Dry and Average Precipitation Conditions
Internal Total Percent of Maximum
Scenario Phosphorus load Measured Internal
Over the Growing Load
Season
(Ibs) (%)
Maximum Measured
(From Sediment Analysis 872 100
and Macrophyte Survey)
Wet 65 7
(2002)
Dry 70 8
(1989)
Average 283 32
(2001)
After the P8 model and in-lake water qualily model were created and calibrated, they were
used predictively to evaluate the effect of different BMPs on in-lake TP concentration. Many
factors were taken inlo consideration in determining where to concentrate load reduction
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlrnan Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Piles\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 35
efforts, such as: the seasonality of the TP loads, particulate uature of the loads and location of
the loads. Detailed information regarding these considerations can be found in the Phalen
Chain of Lakes SLMP (Appendix A).
Figure 13 shows the impact of several capital improvement project (CIP) options on in-lake
TP concentrations, under wet, dry and average precipitation condilions. For Kohlman Lake,
reduction of phosphorus from KoWman Basin's outflows and an in-lake treatmeut of the
internal load are required to hring TP concentration in the lake to below 60 flg/L during the
wet, dry and average precipitation years modeled for the SLMP.
All of the lake concentrations (except for existing conditions) presented in Figure 13 were
obtained through the modeling described in Section 4.1 of this report. The TP concentration
in the lake that is achieved as a result of each management scenario is represented as a bar in
order to convey the range of phosphorus concentrations predicted for the different
precipitation years. The top of each bar represents the lake TP concentration during the
average year of precipitation- this was the most critical condition.
It should be noted that each precipitation year had not only a different external load of
phosphorns, but also a different interna110ad. The internal load assigned to each model run
under existing conditions (wet, dry or average precipitation years) was based on the internal
load that was calculated in the calibrated in-lake model for that year. The internal load
assigned to differeut management scenarios depended on the nature of the management
scenario. If the scenario involved no change to the lake's internal load, the internal load
calculated in the calibrated in-lake model for that year was applied. If the scenario did
involve a reduction in the lake's internal load, the existing conditions internal load was
reduced accordingly in the scenario's in-lake model.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 36
Key to Abbreviations
CIPs: Capital Improvement Projects
PRB: Permeable Limestone Barrier
ESF: Enhanced Sand Rller
HPP: Hazelwood Park Pond Improvements
INT LO: 90% Reduction of Internal
Phosphorus Load
KOHLMAN LAKE
Effect of Kohlman Basin Area Water Quality Enhancement Projects,
Infiltration and Reduction of Internal Phosphorus Load on Lake TP
140
r
f--- * *
I-
e- *
*
'- '- {}-
--
130
120
::J 110
0.
""
g 100
o
"
..
~ 90
~
.
-'
~
$ 80
.
;;
;;
w 70
60
50
40
Conditions
Under Pre-2002
CIPs
PRB,ESF
PRB, ESF, HPP,
INT LD, 20-Year
Impact of Infilt
PRB, ESF, INT
LD
PRB, ESF, HPP,
INT LD
PRB, ESF, HPP,
INT LD, 10-Year
Impact of Infilt
Existing
RWMWD Short-Term
TP Goal = 90
RWMWD Long-Term
TP Goal = 70
MPCA's Proposed
Shallow Lake
Criteria = 60
37
4.3 Reduction Options
There are multiple actions that are shown in Fignre 13 that are needed to rednce phosphorus
concentrations in Kohlman Lake to meet the MPCA's shallow lakes TMDL re.qnirement of
60 Jlg/L. The District's short and long term goals are also shown on this figure. These goals
are intended to be met as the watershed and in-lake improvements are implemented in a
stepwise manner. The District's short term goal (90 Jlg/L) will be met with the
implementation of:
. Permeable limestone barriers (PRB) in Kohlman Basin----designed to reduce external
phosphorus loading by providing sorption sites via binding with calcinm
. Enhanced sand filter (ESF) in a new commercial area upstream of Kohlman Basin-
designed to rednce external phosphorus loading throngh physical filtration and
phosphorus binding with iron
. Internal load reduction measures (INT LD) within Kohlman Lake-designed to
rednce internal phosphorus loading throngh phosphorus binding with aluminum and
curlyleaf pond weed reduction
To reach the District's long term goal of 70 Jlg/L, project implementation inclndes:
. 10 years of infiltration project implementation-designed to rednce external
phosphorus loading Ihrongh runoff infiltration, and, if needed,
. Hazelwood Park Pond improvements (HPP)-designed to reduce external phosphorus
loading throngh increased biological uptake and burial in a wetland system. This
project is an optional project that would be implemented if the infiltration projects are
not successful.
An additional I 0 years of infiltration projects (20 years total) will reduce phosphorus levels
in Kohlman Lake to the point that the lake is expected to meet the 60 Jlg/L phosphorus
requirement. As Figure 13 shows, the estimated lake phosphorus concentration will meet the
goals stated above under the wet, dry, and average precipitation conditions for the lake (the
range shown by the bar for each condition). Further discnssion abont implementation of these
phosphorus rednction options can be found in Section 7.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\KoWman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 38
5.0 TMDL Allocation Analysis
A TMDL is defined as follows (EPA 1999):
TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS + Reserve Capacity
Where:
WLA
LA
MOS
Wasteload Allocation to Point Sources
Load Allocation to NonPoint Sources
Margin of Safety
Load set aside for future allocations from growth or changes
=
Reserve Capacity =
This section will define each of the terms in this equation for Kohlman Lake and will discuss
seasonal variation and reasonable assurauces that the TMDL for the lake will be pursued.
Of the three precipitation scenarios evaluated in this study, the one resulting in the worst
water qualily in Kohlman Lake was the "average" precipitation scenario (the growing season
of 2001). During that growing season, the watershed phosphorus load and the lake's internal
load of phosphorus combined 10 produce higher concentrations than in the other growing
seasons modeled for this study (1989- the dry precipitation year and 2002- the wet
precipitation year).
While it is true that the wet year precipitation scenario results in a greater TP load to the lake,
it does not result in a higher lake TP concentration. In this scenario, the TP is diluted and the
lake's high flushing rate decreases the lake's internal load. During the dry year precipitation
scenario, the wasteload from the watershed is lower, but lake mixing couditious during that
growing season were such that any internally loaded phosphorus from the lake did not reach
the lake's upper layers as much as it did during the average year scenario.
For this reason, the wasteload and load allocations presented in this TMDL are based on the
management scenario required to bring the lake's growing seasou average TP concentration to
below 60 Iig/L during the average precipitation scenario. Also, because it is a year of
average precipitation, it serves as a fair baseline to set wasteload allocations for
municipalities. It is reasonable to expect that, on average, the cities and other entities with
MS4s in the Kohlman Lake watershed will have existing watershed TP loads on the order of
the ones modeled during the growing season of 2001.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA,doc 39
5.1 Wasteload Allocations to Point Sources
All of Kohlman Lake's allocated walershed loads are expressed as wasteload allocations
because the communities and governmental entities in these areas are all defined as cities and
other entities with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), requiring National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharge of stormwater. As
Table 5 shows, all of the wasteload reduction occurs in the "Maiu Draiuage District" - this is
due to the fact that nearly all projecI implementation is expected to occur within this drainage
district.
Figure 14 shows the different MS4 entities that make up the Kohlman Lake tributary
walershed. The permit numbers associated with each of these entities are iucluded below:
. City of White Bear Lake (MS400060)
. City of Vaduais Heights (MS400057)
. City of Oakdale (MS400042)
. City of North St. Paul (MS400041)
. City of Maplewood (MS400032)
. City of Little Canada (MS400029)
. MnDOT (MS400170)
. Ramsey County (MS400191)
The wasteload allocatious for each of the MS4 communities in the Kohlman Lake Walershed
is shown in Table 6. Wasteload allocations for new construction, redevelopment and/or all
other related land disturbances are considered to be minimal because they are regulated under
the District's permitting program. Therefore, loads from construction, redevelopment and/or
other related land disturbances can be considered to be included in the WLAs for the cities.
There are no loads associated with permitted industrial facilities in the Kohlman Lake
Watershed.
By design, the modeling process is based on drainage areas and not municipal houndaries.
Therefore, existing wasteloads were initially calculated by drainage area and then applied to
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 40
each MS4. If a specific drainage area was inlersected by a mnnicipal bonndary, wasteloads
were calcnlated based on the relative amount of directly connected impervious area in each
MS4 within the drainage area (indirectly connected impervious areas were not considered).
Thronghout the Kohlman Lake Watershed, there are many ponds and wetlands that currently
provide reduction of TP loads that would otherwise enter the lake. Credit for these removals
was applied to the MS4 in which the pond or wetland was located.
The remaining TP to be removed by each MS4 (in order to meet the 25% reduction of
wasteload required in the Main Drainage District) was based on the relative amount of TP
supplied to the lake under existing conditions (cities with a higher TP load under existing
conditions were expected to reduce a greater amount of TP).
5.2 Load Allocations to Nonpoint Sources
The load allocations for Kohlman Lake that are presented in Table 6 are attributable to the
internal and atmospheric loads of phosphorus to Kohlman Lake.
Atmospheric phosphorus loads were estimated assuming a 0.3 kg/ha/yr rate (6.6 pounds
during the growing season).
The reduction in the lake's internal load was based on modeling for the average year of
precipitation. During this year, the largest impact from internal load was observed (Tables 3
and 4). The maximum possible internal load calculated for the lake (872lbs) was not used as
a base for the load allocation because it was deemed umealistically high (the surface waters
of the lake receive only a fraction of this maximum internal load due to the intermittent
nature of mixing in the lake).
Modeling results indicated that if the internal load observed during the average precipitation
year was reduced by 90%, and wasteload allocations, as described above, were met, the
average growing season average TP in Kohlman Lake would be less than 60 Ilg/L.
5.3 Margin of Safety
The error involved in any modeling exercise can be significant. However, the calibration
process used in the Phalen Chain of Lakes SLMP minimized the errors associated with
erroneous assumptions. Therefore, the margin of safety for this TMDL is largely provided
implicitly through use of calibrated input parameters and conservative modeling assumptions
P;\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 41
in the development of allocations. The calibration of input parameters is discussed in Section
4.1 of this report.
Examples of conservative modeling assumptions used in this study are descrioed below.
. A range of climatic conditions (wet, dry and average precipitation years) were used to
provide a range of waler and TP loads, and Iheir resulting effect on lake TP, that
could be expected under different management scenarios. Load reduction strategies
that allow the lake to meet the eutrophication criteria are based on the critical
conditions that would produce the highest lake TP concentrations.
. P8 water volumes and TP loads were calibraled to within 5 percent of the observed
values calculated by FLUX from the monitoring data during the calibration year. To
offset this and other errors implicit in the lake modeling for this study, the
management scenario that is ultimately recommended in this TMDL report results in
a lake phosphorus concentration that is 8% lower than the eutrophication standard.
As Figure 13 shows, the recommended management scenario during a wet year of
precipitation and maximum internal phosphorus load results in a maximum growing
season average of 55 ~g/L TP- 5 ~g/L below the standard of 60 ~g/L.
5.4 Reserve Capacity
Because the tributary watershed of Kohlman Lake is essentially fully developed, existing
conditions can be considered ultimate land use conditions. No significant future growth or
change is expected in the watershed. Although redevelopment is expected in some areas,
zoning laws ensure similar types of development, and the District's permitting requirements
dictate that there is no net increase in TP loads after developmenI. Further, in 2006, the
District instituted their new rules for all permitted projects within the District boundary. One
of the new rules now requires storm water volume reduction for every permitted project. (A
permit is necessary for all projects that disturb an acre or more.) The volume reduction rule
requires that infiltration practices be sized to infiltrate one inch of runoff from all (existing
and new) impervious surfaces, which results in a significant reduction in TP loads from all of
these corresponding areas.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 42
Table 5
Kohlman Lake Growing Season External (Watershed) Phosphorus Budget
and Wasteload Allocations by Drainage District
Existing TMDL Percent
Watershed TP Sources TP Load Wasteload
(By Drainaae District) (Pounds) Allocation Reduction of
Existing TP
(WLA) Load
(Pounds) (Percent)
Main 836 627 25
Direct 66 66 0
South 5 5 0
North (SPLIT) 36 36 0
Total Wasteload Sources 943 734 22
Note: Wasteloads are based on average year precipitation model, summed over the growing
season (June through September).
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft FiJes\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 43
Table 6
Kohlman Lake Growing Season Total Phosphorus Budget with Wasteload
Allocations by MS4 and Load Allocations
Daily
TMDL TMDL
Wasteload Waste load
Allocation Allocation
(WLA)
(Ibs/day) Percent
(Growing Reduction of
Existing TP Season Existing TP
Watershed TP Sources Load (WLA) Pounds/122 Load
(By MS4) (Pounds) (Pounds) days) (Percent)
lillie Canada 14 14 0.12 0
Maolewood 98 88 0.72 10
North Saint Paul 407 306 2.51 25
Oakdale 54 41 0.33 24
Vadnais HeiQhts 121 94 0.77 22
White Bear Lake 171 129 1.05 25
Ramsey County 6 5 0.04 17
MNDOT 72 58 0.47 21
Total Wasteload Sources 943 734 6.02 22
TMDL Load TMDL Load
Allocation Allocation
Percent
Internal and Atmospheric Existing TP (LA) Reduction of
Sources Load (Ibs/day) Existing TP
(Pounds) (LA) (Growing Load
(Pounds) Season (Percent)
Pounds/122
. Days)
Kohlman Lake Internal
Sources 283 28 0.23 90
(from sediment release and
curlyleafoondweedl
Atmospheric Sources: 7 7 0.06 0
Total Load Sources 290 35 0.29 88
.
Overall Source Total 1233 769 6.31 38
Note: Wasteload and load allocations are based on the loads estimated by the average year precipitation model.
During that growing season, the watershed phosphorus load and the lake's internal load of phosphorus combined to
produce higher concentrations than in the other growing seasons modeled for this study. Both allocations were
summed over the growing season (June through September). The margin of safety is implicitly included in the way
that modeling was conducted for Kohlman Lake and the selection of its management scenario recommendations.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman 1MDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 44
;;
0;
~ r""""'I1 RWMWD
~ ~ Legal Boundary
~ C Kohlman Lake Watershed
~
. III"""'Ill RWMWD
~ ... Hydrologic Boundary
~CCities
~
.
rn
City of White Bear Lake ~ City of Maplewood
(MS400060) l......C..J (MS400032)
City of Vadnais Heights City of Little Canada
(MS400057) (MS400029)
City of Oakdale MnDOT (MS400170)
(MS400042)
City of North St. Paul
(MS400041 )
Ramsey County
(MS400191 )
o
1,500 3,000
Feet
6,000
Figure 14
MS4 ENTITIES IN KOHLMAN
LAKE WATERSHED
Kohlman Lake
Total Maximum Daily 45
Load Report
6)
5.5 Seasonal Variation
TP concentrations in the lake vary significantly during the growing season, generally peaking
in August. The TMDL guideline for TP is defined as the growing season (Jun.e through
September) mean concentration (MPCA, 2004). Accordingly, existing and future water
quality scenarios (under different management options) were evaluated in terms of the mean
growing season TP.
5.6 Reasonable Assurances
The overall implementation plan (Section 7.0) is multifaceted, with various projects put into
place over the course of many years, allowing for monitoring and reflection on project
successes and the chance to change course if progress is exceeding expectations or is
unsatisfactory. Some of the projects that will help achieve the WLA reductions described in
Section 4.0 have already been constructed in the Kohlman Lake watershed, namely:
. Enhanced Sand Filter north of Beam A venue and east of Hwy 61 (2007)
. Permeable Reactive Limestone Barriers in Kohlman Basin (2007)
These projects are described in detail in the Kohlman Basin Area Water Quafity
Enhancements Study, and are estimated to achieve a 6% reduction in the phosphorus that
would have otherwise traveled from Kohlman Basin into Kohlman Lake. If these projects are
successful in achieving this reduction, all of the cities and other entities with MS4s listed in
Table 5 will be able to take a credit toward achieving their WLA.
The volume reduction rule, only one year after its inception, has proved effective in creating
projects that capture and infiltrate runoff from impervious surfaces in the Kohfman Lake
watershed, providing 3.7 Acre-Feet (AF) of new depression storage, such as rainwater
gardens or infiltration basins as of December, 2007. The District's annual volume reduction
goal, as defined in the Kohlman Creek Watershed Infiltration Study (December, 2007), is 3.2
AF. This goal is defined as the annual runoff volume reduction that must be achieved each
year in order to keep on track with the 10-year and 20-year water quality goals for the lake.
Lastly, the District will be closely monitoring not only the water quality in the lake itself, but
also the runoff from Kohlman Basin. A permanent continuous flow monitoring and water
quality sampling station has been established at Kohlman Basin's outflow point at Hwy 61 in
order to track progress toward the 25% TP reduction goal. As additional data becomes
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman 1MDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 46
available after USEP A approval of the TMDL, WLAs for individual permitted sources may
be modified, provided overall WLA does not change. Any modifications in individual WLAs
will be public-noticed.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Drafl FiJes\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 47
6.0 Monitoring Plan to Track TMDL Effectiveness
The water quality in Kohlman Lake has been monitored for over 50 years, and willcoutiuue
to be monitored for the foreseeabfe future. The RWMWD, with assistance from Ramsey
Couuty, will continue to monitor the water quality in the lake annually. The typical Ramsey
County lake sampling protocol is to visit the lakes 6 to 8 times between May and September
(about every 3 weeks.) The following water quality parameters are measured at each visit.
All parameters except Secchi disc and chlorophyll a are measured at varions depths in the
water column (every I to 2 meters.)
. Secchi disc
. Dissolved Oxygen
. Temperature
. Total Phosphorus
. Soluble Reactive Phosphorus
. Chlorophyll a
. Total Particulate Matter
. Organic Particulate Matter
. pH
. Turbidity
. Chlorides
. Total Alkalinity
. Total Hardness
. Specific Condnctivity
Also, it will be important to monitor the long-term effectiveness of all of the different
projects being constructed in the Kohlman Lake Watershed. A new permanent continuous
flow monitoring and water quality sampling station has recently been installed at the outflow
point of Kohlman Basin, just upstream of the culvert that carries Kohlman Basin ontflows
under Hwy 61 to Kohlman Lake. Now that a specific phosphorus reduction goal has been set
for Kohlman Basin outflows (25 percent), this monitoring station and the P8 models created
for the area as a part of the Phalen Chain of Lakes SLMP can be nsed to determine whether
or not the reduction goal has been met in any given time period.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft FiJes\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 48
The comparison between fntnre monitoring data and P8 resnlts can be condncted as follows:
1. Using monitoring resnlts (continnous flow and water quality sampling data), calcufate
the annual load (or the load over some other time period) of phosphorus leaving
Kohfman Basin.
2. Run the P8 model of Kohlman Basin for same time period and calculate the foad that
the model predicts for pre-project conditions.
3. Compare the two loads, and calculate the percent reduction that was achieved over
the time period of interest.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkPiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Pinal Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 49
7.0 Kohlman Lake TMDL Implementation Plan
(Summary)
7.1 Annual Load Reductions
The TMDL implementation plan focuses on reducing hoth exterual, watershed sources of
phosphorus and interual, in-lake sources of phosphorus. Growing season reductions of 209
pounds (22%) from external loading and 255 pounds (88%) from interual foading sources are
required to achieve the required TMDL threshold of 60 flglL for shallow lakes. Total
phosphorus load reduction (both external and interual) to Kohlman Lake will decrease overall
loading by 464 pounds, or 38% annually (Table 6) in order to achieve the overall TMDL load
allocation of 769 lbs. The projects will be implemented in a stepwise manner, with some
implementation of projects already having occurred prior to this report. It is anticipated that
it will take 20 years to implement all of the projects required to achieve these annual load
reductions.
7.1.1 External (Watershed) Sources-Reduction Goal of 209 Pounds of
Phosphorus over the Growing Season
Under the District's volume reduction rules, permit applicants are expected to achieve
infiltration of 63.7 acre-ft of stormwater runoff through various BMPs installed over a 20-
year period (3.2 acre-ft per year). Those BMPs will include: impervious surface reduction,
infiltration basis, biofiltration basins, permeable pavement and boulevard bump-outs with
infiltration. In 2007, projects designed to infiltrate 3.7 acre-ft of stormwater runoff were
permitted throughout the watershed. Where the permitting program falls short of the
3.2 acre-ft per year goal, the District will make up the difference (to the maximum extent
practicable) with retro-fit volume reduction projects. In addition, other BMPs for phosphorus
removal from stormwater will also be implemented. These include the already constructed
Enhanced Sand Filter and Permeable Limestone Barriers.
Load reductions for construction storm water activities are not specifically targeted in this
TMDL. It should be noted that construction storm water activities are considered in
compliance with provisions of this TMDL if they obtain a Construction General Permit under
the NPDES program and properly select, install and maintain 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 meet local construction
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDLVune 2009 Draft Piles\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 50
stormwater requirements if they are more restrictive than requirements of the State General
Permit.
Task 1. Identify Areas and BMPs for Potential Phosphorus Reduction in Flows through
Kohlman Basin
Use existing information to identify specific BMPs to reduce phosphorus entering and
flowing through KoWman Basin.
1. Responsible Parties
2. Timeline
3. Cost
RWMWD
Completed 2006
$30,000
Task 2. Kohlman Creek Sub watershed Infiltration Study
Identify an annual reduction goal, potential infiltration opportunities, and specific infiltration
BMPs to reduce exterualloading of phosphorus to Kohfman Lake.
1. Responsible Parties
2. Timeliue
3. Cost
RWMWD
Completed 2007
$35,000
Task 3. Implement and Enforce the District's Infiltration Rules Within the Kohlman Lake
Watershed
Through the District's permitting program, implementation projects by applicants are
estimated to cumulativefy infiltrate 63.7 acre-ft of stormwater ruuoff aunually, over 20 year
period. Shortfalls, should they occur, will be made up through implementation of District-
sponsored projects (to the maximum extent practicable) as identified in the study completed
under Task 2.
1. Responsible Parties
2. Timeline
3. Estimated Capital Cost
4. Phosphorus Reduction
RWMWD
2007-2027
$55,000 annually
50 Pounds/Growing Season (expected
minimum)
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 51
Task 4a. Design and Implement Storm water Best Management Practices
Enhanced Sand Filter and Permeable Reactive Limestone Barriers design and constrnction
(does not include maintenance).
1. Responsible Parties
2. Timeline
3. Estimated Capital Cost
4. Phosphorus Reduction
RWMWD
Completed 2008
$395,000
50 Pounds/Growing Season
Task 4b. Improvements to Hazelwood Park Pond to Reduce Phosphorus if Monitoring
Indicates Additional Efforts are Needed
1. Responsible Parties RWMWD
2. Timeline 2015-2017
3. Estimated Capital Cost $914,000
4. Phosphorus Reduction 50 Pounds/Growing Season
Task 5. Implementation of Projects Defined in the Kohlman Creek Subwatershed
Infiltration Study under Task 2.
1. Responsible Parties RWMWD
2. Timeline 2007-2027
3. Estimated Capital Cost $605,000
4. Phosphorus Reduction 59 Pounds/Growing Season
Total cost for all external source phosphorus reduction tasks: $3,079,000.
Total already spent on external source phosphorus reduction tasks by the end of 2008:
$30,000 (Task I) + $35,000 (Task 2), + $395,000 (Task 4a) + $28,000 (Task 5) = $488,000.
7.1.2 Internal Sources-Reduction Goal of 255 Pounds of Phosphorus
over the Growing Season
The reduction of internal sources of phosphorus requires a two step approach. Initially,
macrophyte management of the invasive, nuisance species curlyleaf pondweed and Eurasian
water milfoif will be conducted (Task 2). The reduction of curlyleaf pondweed will reduce
internal phosphorus loading caused by this macrophyte. The reduction of Eurasian water
milfoil and curlyleaf pondweed together is needed for the successful application of aluminum
sulfate (Task 3).
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 52
Task 1. Internal Phosphorus Loading Study
Determine the sources and potential remediation measures for internal phosphorus loading to
Kohlman Lake (does not iuc1ude macrophyte monitoriug).
I. Responsible Parties
2. Timeline
3. Cost
RWMWD
Completed 2005
$20,000
Task 2. Macrophyte Management to Control Curlyleaf Pondweed and Euras/an Water
Milfoil
Treat Kohlman Lake with herbicide to limit the growth of curlyleaf pondweed and Eurasian
water milfoil, to limit internal phosphorus loading from curlyleaf pondweed, and to prepare
the lake for Task 3 - Inactivation of sediment phosphorus.
1. Responsible Parties RWMWD
2. Timeline 2008-2010 (whole fake treatment)
2010-2011 (spot treatment)
3. Estimated Capital Cost $300,000
4. Phosphorus Rednction 78 Pounds/Growing Season
Task 3. Inactivation of Sediment Phosphorus
Based on cnrrent sediment phosphorus data for KoWman Lake, design and apply an
aluminum application to inactivate phosphorus in the sediment and reduce internal
phosphorus loading.
1. Responsible Parties
2. Timeline
3. Estimated Capital Cost
4. Phosphorus Reduction
RWMWD
2009 and 2013
$266,000
177 Pounds/Growing Season
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 53
Task 4. Identify the Potential for Fisheries Management and Carp Control
Implement ongoing research, in cooperation with the University of MN, on carp popnlations
in Kohlman Lake and the potential effects on in-lake phosphorus dynamics. Provide
information to the puhlic on the status of the fishery, and in particular carp, in Kohlman
Lake. Results wifl he used to evaluate the need and methods for carp population reduction
aud the water quality and fisheries management henefits.
I. Responsible Parties
2. Timeline
3. Estimated Cost
RWMWD
2009-2010
$350,000
Total cost for all internal source phosphorus reduction tasks: $936,000
Total already spent on external source phosphorus reduction tasks by the end of 2008:
$20,000 (Task 1) + $50,000 (Task 2) = $70,000.
7.1.3 Overall Cost Estimate for Implementation
The grand total cost estimate for implementing the recommendations in this TMDL,
including tasks that address both external and internal source phosphorus reductions is
$4,015,000. By the end of 2008, $558,000 of this total had already been spent.
7.2 MS4 Responsibilities
The District will initiafly take the lead role in implementing projects to achieve the WLA
defined in this TMDL. However, cities and other MS4s in the Kohfman Lake Watershed are
expected to fulfifl their existing responsibilities in storm water management to help meet the
goals of this TMDL. Specificafly, cities aud other MS4s in the Kohlman Lake Watershed
will:
. Continue to implement volume reduction BMPs on afl City projects to comply with
District rules.
. Look for opportunities to implement voluntary projects to reduce runoff wherever
possible, taking advantage of the District's cost-share program for water quality
improvements.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 54
. Continue to implement their Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and
to improve their public works maintenance practices wherever possible. This work is
facilitated through the District Public Works Forum and District sponsored and co-
sponsored training and education programs.
7.3 Long Term Planning
After the first 10 years, a comprehensive analysis of the program will be conducted to
determine if the projects implemented are achieving the required reductions in phosphorus to
Kohlman Lake. If the goals laid out in this report are not reached within the required time
frame, the District will meet with city and county governmental units to determine future
direction and if additional participation by these groups is needed.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDLVune 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 55
8.0 Public Participation
RWMWD staff and the RWMWD Board of Managers were intimately involved in the
creation of the SLMP and its management recommendations for Kohlman Lake. The
RWMWD's Natural Resources Board was also kept abreast of the contents of the SLMP
during its development.
On November 7,2007 a TMDL stakeholders meeting was conducted between District staff
and representatives from the various MS4 permittees that are responsible for loads within the
Kohlman Lake watershed. Specifically, members from the following entities were in
attendance:
. Ramsey Washington Metro Watersbed District
. Miunesota Pollution Controf Agency
. Minnesota Department of Transportation
. City of White Bear Lake
. City of Maplewood
. City of Vadnais Heights
. City of North St. Paul
. City of Oakdale
. Ramsey County
At the meeting, the District's planned activities for meeting the TMDL criteria for Kohlman
Lake were discussed. District staff explained that the District was willing to take on the task
of implementing the various projects needed to meet the water quality goals for the fake, if
the cities and other MS4s in the lake's watershed are willing to:
. Meet the requirements that are already set forth in SWPPP plans
. Help the District in finding good opportunities for implementation of retro-fit
infiltration projects and provide support for projects within their right-of-ways.
. Commit to a formal understanding of the District's expectations of MS4 cooperation
in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would be included in
each MS4's updated SWPPP after this TMDL report is approved by the MPCA and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft FiJes\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 56
The District, through implementation of the projects outlined in the Implementation Pfan
submitted to the MPCA, assumes the TMDL requirements will be met. If, after these projects
are implemented, the water quality goals for the lake are still not met, further definition of
specific load reductions assigned to each individual MS4 may be necessary.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDLVune 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 57
9.0 Submittal Letter
The submittal letter will explicitly state that the submittal is the final TMDL under 303 (d) of
the Clean Water Act for EPA review and approval when this TMDL has been accepted by the
MPCA.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDL\June 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 58
References
Barr Engineering Company. Undated. Meyer Method of Watershed Yield Compnter
Program.
Barr Engineering Company. 2004. Phalen Chain of Lakes Strategic Lake Management Plan
Heiskary, Steve. MPCA, personal commnnication, June 2005.
IEP, Inc. 1990. P8 (Program for Predicting Pollnting Particle Passage through Pits, Puddles
and Ponds; Urhan Catchment (computer) Model (Version 2.4)
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). January 2004. Guidance Manualfor
Assessing the Quality of Minnesota Surface Waters For Determination of Impairment
305(b) Report and 303( d) List. Environmental Outcomes Division.
O'Melia, C.R. 1974. "Phosphorus Cycling in Lakes." North Carolina Water Resources
Research Institute. Prepared for the Office of Water Research and Technology.
Distributed by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
Pilgrim, K.M., B.J. Hnser and P. Brezonik. 2007. "A Method for Comparative Evaluation of
Whole-Lake and Inflow Alum Treatment." Water Research 41:1215-1224.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Protocol for Developing Nutrient
TMDLs. First Edition.
Vighi, M. and Chiaudani, G. 1985. "A Simple Method to Estimate Lake Phosphorus
Concentrations Resulting from Natural, Background, Loadings." Water Res. 19(8):
987 -991.
Vollenweider, R.A. 1969. "Possibilities and Limits of Elementary Models Concerning the
Budget of Substances in Lakes." Archiv fur Hydrobiologie., 66, 1-36
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362797\WorkFiles\Kohlman Lake TMDLVune 2009 Draft Files\Kohlman TMDL Report Final Draft July
2009 ELA.doc 59
Appendices
Appendix A
Phalen Chain of Lakes Strategic Lake Management Plan:
Improvement Options and Recommendations
Agenda Item 6.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Wind Turbine Ordinance
September 17, 2009, for the September 21 ENR Meeting
BACKGROUND
Over the last few months the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission
has been reviewing issues surrounding wind turbines. Since last fall the city has
received a few inquiries about the installation of wind turbines on commercial, schools,
and residential properties. The city does not have an ordinance which would allow the
installation of wind turbines. The city does have a have tower ordinance which allows
for the installation of cell towers with approval of a conditional use permit. This
ordinance was adopted to address the cell phone technology ten years ago.
A city needs to be prepared for the any new technology by reviewing the positive and
negative aspects, and if deemed enough of an impact on the city, creating regulations to
promote the technology while protecting the rights of adjacent property owners. This is
the case with wind turbines. With the increase in energy costs more businesses and
single family homes are turning to alternative forms of energy, including wind powered
energy. However, wind turbines can be large and intrusive and can cause some
negative impacts such as noise and ice throws. For this reason the city should create
wind turbine regulations which promote this alternative energy source, while ensuring
the city and adjacent property owners are protected from possible nuisances caused by
the turbines.
DISCUSSION
Cell Tower Regulations
The commission should use the city's tower ordinance as a guide for regulations
surrounding wind turbines. Following are the tower ordinance regulations which would
be relevant to a wind turbine ordinance:
1. Allowed on commercial, industrial, government-owned property (Le., schools,
parks, open space), and churches.
2. Requires approval of a conditional use permit.
3. Maximum height is 75 feet, but can be increased to 125 feet if the tower is
designed for more than one wireless communication.
1
4. Setback must equal to the height of tower, plus an additional 25 feet to a
residential property.
American Wind Energy Association
As suggested by Commissioner Yingling, I am including the American Wind Energy
Association (AWEA) model zoning ordinance as a starting point for the creation of the
city's ordinance. AWEA claims that the ordinance is used by localities across the
country and aims to strike an equitable balance among the interests of the consumer,
industry, and community. It is the product of lessons learned over decades of industry
experience and tens of thousands of installations. It includes the important elements an
ordinance should have based on our research including:
1. Commercial versus non-commercial turbines
2. Necessary permits
3. Establish setbacks
4. Establish safety standards
5. Establish design standards
6. Establish other applicable standards, i.e., noise, electrical codes, FAA
regulations
7. Minimize infrastructure impacts
Since the ordinance was written by an organization promoting wind energy, it is very
liberal in its approach to allowing turbines. As an example, the ordinance would allow
wind turbines as a permitted accessory use in any zoning district. There are no
restrictions on height of turbines, as long as the turbine can maintain a setback from
adjacent properties to match the height. If these standards can't be met, a conditional
use permit would be required.
AWEA Model Wind Turbine Ordinance:
Section 1: Purpose
It is the purpose of this regulation to allow the safe, effective and efficient use of small
wind energy systems installed to reduce the on-site consumption of utility supplied
electricity.
Section 2: Findings
The city finds that wind energy is an abundant, renewable, and nonpolluting energy
resource and that its conversion to electricity will reduce our dependence on
nonrenewable energy resources and decrease the air and water pollution that results
from the use of conventional energy sources. Distributed small wind energy systems will
also enhance the reliability and power quality of the power grid, reduce peak power
demands, and help diversify the State's energy supply portfolio.
2
Small wind systems also make the electricity supply market more competitive by
promoting customer choice.
The State of Minnesota has enacted a number of laws and programs to encourage the
use of small-scale renewable energy systems including rebates, net metering, property
tax exemptions, and solar easements. However, many existing zoning ordinances
contain restrictions, which while not intended to discourage the installation of small wind
turbines, that can substantially increase the time and costs required to obtain necessary
construction permits.
Therefore, we find that it is necessary to standardize and streamline the proper
issuance of building permits for small wind energy systems so that this clean, renewable
energy resource can be utilized in a cost-effective and timely manner.
Section 3: Definitions
Small Wind Energy System: A wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind
turbine, a tower, and associated control or conversion electronics, which has a rated
capacity of not more than 100 kilowatts (kW) and which is intended to primarily reduce
on-site consumption of utility power.
Tower Height: The height above grade of the fixed portion of the tower, excluding the
wind turbine itself.
Total Extended Height: The height above grade to a blade tip at its highest point of
travel.
Section 4: Allowed Use
Small wind energy systems shall be allowed as an accessory use in all zoning districts
where structures of any sort are allowed; subject to the requirements of Section 5
below. Small wind energy systems not meeting the performance standards of Section 5
may be allowed by conditional use permit.
Section 5: Use Standards for Small Wind Electric Conversion System
5.01 - Setback: The base of the tower shall be set back from all property lines, public
right-of-ways, and public utility lines a distance equal to the total extended height.
Turbines shall be allowed closer to a property line than its total extended height if the
abutting property owner(s) grants written permission and the installation poses no
interference with public utility lines or public road and rail right-of-ways.
5.02 - Tower Height: So long as the total extended height meets sound and setback
requirements, there shall be no specific height limitation, except as imposed by Federal
Aviation Administration regulations as stated in 5.07.
3
5.03 - Sound: Sound produced by the turbine under normal operating conditions, as
measured at the property line, shall not exceed the definition of nuisance noise. Sound
levels, however, may be exceeded during short-term events out of anyone's control
such as utility outages and/or severe wind storms.
5.04 - Wind Turbine Equipment: Small wind turbines must have been approved under
the state public benefits program or any other small wind certification program
recognized by the American Wind Energy Association.
5.05 - Requirement for Engineered Drawings: Building permit applications for small
wind energy systems shall be accompanied by standard drawings of the wind turbine
structure and stamped engineered drawings of the tower, base, footings, and/or
foundation as provided by the manufacturer. Wet stamps shall not be required.
5.06 - Soil Studies: For standard soil conditions (not including gravel, sand, or muck),
foundations developed by the wind turbine manufacturer shall be acceptable for turbine
installations of 20kW or less and will not require project-specific soils studies or an
engineer's wet stamp.
5.07 - Compliance with FAA Regulations: No WEC shall be constructed, altered, or
maintained so as to project above any of the imaginary airspace surfaces described in
FAR Part 77 of the FAA guidance on airspace protection.
5.08 - Compliance with National Electric Code: Building permit applications for small
wind energy systems shall be accompanied by a line drawing of the electrical
components, as supplied by the manufacturer, in sufficient detail to allow for a
determination that the manner of installation conforms to the National Electrical Code.
5.09 - Utility Notification: No small wind energy system shall be installed until evidence
has been given that the utility company has been informed of the customer's intent to
install an interconnected customer-owned generator. Off-grid systems shall be exempt
from this requirement.
5.10- Insurance: Additional insurance beyond homeowners' coverage shall not be
required.
5.11 - Abandonment: If a wind turbine is inoperable for six consecutive months the
owner shall be notified that they must, within six months of receiving the notice, restore
their system to operating condition. If the owner(s) fails to restore their system to
operating condition within the six-month time frame, then the owner shall be required, at
his expense, to remove the wind turbine from the tower for safety reasons. The tower
then would be subject to the Public Nuisance provisions of the zoning code.
5.12 - Signage: All signs, other than the manufacturer's or installer's identification,
appropriate warning signs, or owner identification on a wind generator, tower, building,
4
or other structure associated with a small wind energy system visible from any public
road shall be prohibited.
5.13 - Lighting: No illumination of the turbine or tower shall be allowed unless required
by the FAA.
5.14 - Access: Any climbing foot pegs or rungs below 12 feet of a freestanding tower
shall be removed to prevent unauthorized climbing. For lattice or guyed towers, sheets
of metal or wood may be fastened to the bottom tower section such that it cannot readily
be climbed.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the American Wind Energy Association model wind turbine ordinance and begin
the process of creating regulations which would allow for wind turbines in the City of
Maplewood.
5
A~et'\&r :rtevn qt,
Join in the
uckthorn