The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7 - Shiely Aggregate Quarry AGENDA NUMBER: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: CENSUS '90 . 7 LARRY J. ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CONSIDER PARTICIPATION IN FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE PUMPING OF WATER FROM SHIELY AGGREGATE QUARRY INTO LAKE MARCH 5, 1990 The purpose of this item is to request the Council to consider partial funding of a Feasibility study to pump water from Shiely Aggregate Quarry into Prior Lake. Enclosed is information provided to staff by the Watershed District. Jerry Meysembourg contacted Staff in January concerning options available for augmenting lake levels for Prior Lake and Spring Lake. One of the options discussed was the use of water pumped from the a9Uifer by Shiely in the course of their bus1ness. As part of that option, and to address the concerns raised, Staff requested Valley Engineering to do a rough estimate of the cost to ~ump water from the Shiely gravel pit to Pr10r Lake. The purpose of this was to obtain an approximate cost without an in-depth study to see if this. idea was worth pursuing. The results of this estimate was that five (5) feet of water could be added to Prior Lake from one year's pumping. The initial construction cost would be approximately $2,000,000.00 with annual pumping operation costs of $200,000.00. This information was presented at the February 2 - 4, 1990 Council Retreat. At the retreat, the consensus was that this issue should be pursued further. Staff has discussed this project with Don Benson of the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District. The Watershed District is willing to pursue this project and is solicitatin~ proposals from three f3) firms who are willlng to undertake a Feaslbility Study on this project. The attached materials were given to the consulting engineering firm as a request for proposals. The Watershed District requested proposals from the following three (3) firms: 4629 Dakota 51. 5.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245 DISCUSSION: RECOMMENDATION: ALTERNATIVES: BUDGET IMPACT: ACTION REQUIRED: 1. Barr Engineerin~ Company. 2. Valley Engineer1ng Company, Inc. 3. James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineering, Inc. The proposals are to be submitted on Friday, March 2, 1990. The fee for the proposed study will be presented at the meeting. At this point, the Watershed District has committed $3,000.00 towards the study and may increase that amount if necessary. The Council will be requested to consider funding a ~ortion of the study. Preliminary discussions 1ndicate that the total cost of the study is approximately $7,500.00. Normally, this would not be scheduled until the costs are known; however, in the interest of not delaying this issue the costs will be presented at the meeting. Staff is meeting with Shakopee officials to discuss this pro~ect on Friday, March 2, 1990. Shakopee has an 1nterest in using the Shiely water for (possibly) Deans Lake located north of count~ Road 16 and McKenna Road. A report to Counc1l will be made on the results of this meeting. The recommendation will vary based upon the discussion of the Council, and the information presented at the meeting on the estimated cost of the study. Staff recommends that the City contribute a portion of the cost of the Feasibility study. The alternatives are as follows: 1. Ap~rove a specific amount for funding a j01nt Feasibility Study with the Watershed District. 2. Table this item for a specific reason. 3. Do not fund this project. This item was not budgeted and funding would come from the Contingent Reserve. To date, $4,500 has been spent from the Contingency Fund, leaving a balance of $95,500. will vary based on Council discussion. ~ DRAFI' OurLINE FOR FEASIBILITY REPORT ON SHlELY QUARRYPJ:PELIm: PROJEcr I. INTRODUCTION A. General 7 B. Project Petitions and Resolutions C. Objective II. PROJECT NEED A. Historical Prior Lake Level. B. Low Water Impacts 1. Recreation and Safety 2. Aesthetics 3. Water Quality . "// ;f;I',~"/"" ~ Cf1~.J~?ve:-~e e .r' 5, {/~../". t. ~ r t t;1/ r c:..- L e::.- v ~_ t... .J" PROPOSED PIPELINE ~ r ~ e:~".. tI1' e., ~~ t::- -I- . III. A. Pipeline Route 1. Easements and Right-of-Way a. Preliminary Easement Requirements b. Use of Existing Public Easements c. Easement Acquisition 2. Alternative Discharge Points a. Existing Outlet Structure b. Upper Prior Lake c. Spring Lake 3. Environmental Impacts a. Water Quality Impact on Prior Lake and Spring Lake I 1 i ~ B. Design of Pipeline 1. Pipe Size and Material 2. Pump Requirements a. At Quarry b. Lift Stations (Number, Locaiton) 3. Air Relief Valves 4. Use of Pipeline as an Outlet for Prior Lake 5. Excavation Required ~ i I II I' C C. Financing 1. Funding for Construction of Project 2. Maintenance and Operating Costs 3. Operating Staff 4. Ownership of Pipeline f .. ,.. . ,. D. Economic Considerations and Assessment 1. Anticipated Localized Benefits 2. Anticipated District-Wide Benefits r 1 I j oft r DRAPT OurLINE FOR FEASIBILlTYREPORT ON lJA"I'RI.Y QUABRY PIPELINE PROJECl E. Project Costs 1. Cost Estimates for Alternatives F. Permits 1. Existing Appropriation Permit Held By Shiely Company 2. Other Permits Required 3. Is DNR Appropriation Permit Assignable to Another Party? 4. Potential Liability if Shiely Ceases Operations and Abandons Site 5. Is Operating Plan for System Required? G. Advisory Committee 1. Establishment of Committee 2. Membership of Committee 3. Committee Meetings H. Final Recommendations I , ! ~ \ I I I t THOUGHTS ON SHIELY PUMPING TO PRIOR LAKE AND MAYBE BACK 1. Consider added gravity flow conduit to the western end of Spring lake for purposes of flushing Spring with 11.4 feet of water and Upper Prior with about 14.S feet. Could possibly comply with Intent of Clean Waters Act. Watershed Phase 11 Grant should consider It for that portion extending from Prior at least. Would also benefit Spring lake shoreline owners for cost sharing. Could the pumped water possibly be oxygen loaded enroute! 2. Assessment policy. Consider assessing parcels In categories of greatest benefit to least benefit in a similar matter that was used for the six classes of outlet assessments. Probably only two or three classes on Prior and only one on Spring relating only on water Quality enhancement. 3. Consider pumping into the outlet culvert on the Jeffers property and overflowing at 90' into Prior. Believe a 11 foot rise in the 2350' of culvert. 4. Consider reverse use as conduit for outlet from Jeffers to Shiely area and not using present channels except for excesses. Would probably require some pumping to start but could possibly siphon if properly primed. This consideration would increase the rate of outlet flow greatly and could possibly be considered as an improved outlet as suggested in the Watershed Surface Water Management 509 Plan. 5. Rates of flow. 2.5 billion gallons pumped In a 6 months period equals 21.5 cubic feet per second inflow. If used as outflow it is likely that this rate by gravity flows with a drop of almost 200 feet, thru a smooth conduit would be appreciably higher and probably eliminate the need for the present outlet channel. Considering the $300,000 plus that channel repairs have cost since the outlet has been used, it could have been eliminated at the flow capability of the proposed conduit. Future chann~l maintenance costs could be practically eliminated. 6. Consid~r a smaller, probably SD pipe as a valved-by-pass to Deans Lake for aUJ~>rytation of that level if the residents will consider "small cost ~h.}dng. Pike Lake also if a problem becomes evident. 7. The f(jre~,)if)g considerations would likely reduce, if not el1minat>1, iil~ . fu~.lJre.proPilsed upstream holding ponds that could be very expcns1 'je ",\(j Ci"" . 'overs i ill. 8. If' ff conceb,able that the level of Prior Lake could be maintalnet1 ~~nv.~n a sprlr.g high and fall- low of 901.5' and 900' 'with d .r~sl.llt!ngn. Aid increase of l\1ke Quality and property values. Out I etttny at ')02.5 W(Mld likel.y be too high .to maintain and the _1).N;R. could . t:(il',)111~r I educi ng t'he outlet level-to some figure .b.elow 902.5' If i~eco'Jp.rd~!le tlIlH.ll1t~es-'of iT..llntained levels are probable. Don Benson February 15, ~990