Laserfiche WebLink
�We hu�e reviewed the proposed capital projects and have the follow�ing comments: <br /> -1,��. � Praiects CIA-Cl (�Offerman Ditchl, CIP-C�(Casco Point Swale)_CiP-1 (Stubbs Bo��Ravine <br /> Stabilization},and CIP-7 (L,on�,L.akc Ravine Stabili-r_ati�n) <br /> The Direct \�olume method of calculating load reduction by strcam stahilization is an acceptahle <br /> method,however, more detail should be provided to justify�the'`volume voided'�and"years" <br /> variables. Acwal face area measurements and justifiicati�n for recession rates should be provided. <br /> The calculations in the appendix for the Stubbs l3ay pr�ject included only the vegetative <br /> stabilization portion of the project; no calculat.ions are shown Fc�r the pr�posed repair af the <br /> catastrophic failure portion ofthe projeci. <br /> �b_ • C1P-1 I (Contribution lo South Katrina Marsh 4'roject) <br /> Each subwatershed J�lan in the CWRMP includes load reductions from regulation,LGU assigned <br /> load reduction,and nistri�t.e�ternal and internal load prajects. The South Katrina Marsh project <br /> is pari of th'e District's Jennings Bay extemal load reduction plan,thus it cannot be used to satisfy <br /> the LGU load reductions.T'o do so would'`double caunt"the reduction.(Note: The Ciry has <br /> proposed :�dclitional BM7's sufficient to meet the required reduction for the Painter Crcek <br /> sub�vatershed.) <br /> 2�_ — • Ordinance Revisions <br /> The MCWD's Stonmvater Managcmeni Rule is currently undergoing revision and is scheduled to <br /> be completed by the end of the year.'l�he City and MCWD will need to coordinate to detennine <br /> how much of a reduction the City can be credited with for their proposed ordinance. <br /> �_— 3. ldent��Key Conseri�ariori Areus(l.'C:A)n��d ase•ess ndeyaracy of loca!polrcres and cont�•ols to <br /> c�ons�rve their hydrulu��ic al�cl ecr�logical values. A figure showing thc KCAs should be added to the <br /> Plan,as well as additional discussion describinb more specifcallv how lhe City intends to achieve <br /> this management goal. <br /> Minnesota Rules 841U Requirements <br /> �-, -- 4. Panposc. Statute requires each plan to contain a section titled '`Purpose,"whieh explains the purpose <br /> of water management planning. This information is contain�d in section I.1 of the Plan,which could <br /> simply be renamed"Yurpose" instead of"Backg�•ound." <br /> $_ 5. Fina�icia/coiasideratiw7s. The Plan states tl�at the primar��sourc�of funding for the Imple►nentation <br /> Plan(II'}activities is the City's stormwater utility, which currently generates about $135,000 per <br /> year. It is stated that the utility plus otlier funds such as grants should be sufficient to Fund the IP. <br /> Ho�vever,the�nnua!cost of IP activities varies�232,400-$331,400.The Plan should include a <br /> discussion of how the Cit��would prioritize acti�-ities if sufficient funds are noe available,or whether <br /> lhe Giry would consider raising its utility rates to generate more revenue. <br /> �_ 6. Amendmen�procedu�•e. Section 10.3 should note thai the Gity must complete airy amendmcnts to its <br /> Local Plan within rivo years after the adoption of CWRMI'revisions or the next CWRMP. <br /> Additional MCWD CWRMP Reauircmcnts <br /> -�.-- 7. Par•k and operr space integratio�l. Discussion should be added to the Plan desci•ibing how water <br /> resources planning will be incorporated with parks and open space planning. <br /> Pagc z ot3 <br />