HomeMy WebLinkAbout10A - Deerfield Project - Resolution 99-140
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DECEMBER 20, 1999
lOA
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR fio
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99-* MAKING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE NEED FOR AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
DEERFIELD PROJECT
History: D.R. Horton has applied for approval of a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) preliminary plan and a preliminary plat for the
property located south and west ofCSAH 21, south ofFish Point Road
and Wilderness Trail and east of the Ponds Athletic Facility. The
proposed development consists of 78 detached single family dwellings
and 462 attached dwelling units.
Because of the number of units, this project was subject to the
mandatory preparation of an Environment Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) under Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, subp. 19D. Under
Minnesota Rules, the City Council is designated as the Regulatory
Governmental Unit (RGU) charged with preparing and making the
decisions on the EA W.
The City hired WSB Engineering to prepare the EA W on its behalf.
The EA W was completed in October and distributed to the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested
parties on October 21, 1999. Notice of the EA W was published in the
Prior Lake American on October 23, 1999, and in the EQB Monitor on
November 1, 1999. The comment period on the EA W expired on
December 1, 1999.
Comment letters were received from the Minnesota Historical Society,
the Department of Natural Resources, Scott County Soil and Water
Conservation Service, the City of Savage, Professional Engineering
Consultants, David and Nancy Pinke, Edward Widner and Thomas
Stanley before the comment period deadline. Additional comments
were received from Scott County and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency after December 1, 1999 after the expiration of the comment
l:\92file!i\9~ubdiv\99prelirllideCJ:fld\eqw\ccrpt.doc PJi,ge 1
162uu cagle LreeK AVe. ::;.1::., I-'rior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax lOlL) 447-4245
A!\ EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
period. Copies of the letters and the responses to these comments are
attached to this report.
Current Circumstances: Minnesota Rules 4400.1700, subp. 2,
requires a decision on the need for an EIS be made within 30 days of
the expiration of the comment period. The decision must be based on
the following criteria:
a) The type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects;
b) The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future
projects;
c) The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to
mitigation by an ongoing public regulatory authority;
d) The extent to which the environmental effects can be anticipated
and controlled as a result of other environmental studies
undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or ofEIS's
previously prepared on similar projects.
Each of these criteria is discussed in detail in the attached Exhibit A
labeled "Findings of Fact and Conclusions."
The Issues: The major issue identified in the EA Wand in the
comments submitted pertains to the runoff generated by this
development, and, specifically, the impact on Markley Lake. The
project is designed so runoff from the 54 acres ofthis site that
previously drained to Markley Lake is diverted to DNR Wetland #70-
188W at the southern boundary of the Deerfield development. The
stormwater analysis for this development prepared by BDM,
consulting engineers for the project, concludes the net effect of the
runoff from this project to the DNR wetland has a negligible effect on
Credit River. The diversion of this runoff must be approved by the
DNR through the permitting process. This process provides for the
participation of the affected governmental jurisdictions. The DNR
permit, which can only be issued after the Council has made a negative
declaration on the EA W, will also address the control of the diversion
structures.
There were also several comments on the cumulative effect of future
development in this watershed. Scott County is in the process of
preparing a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan that will
include this area. The plan will most likely be completed at the end of
2000. The City of Prior Lake, as well as other cities, are participating
in the preparation of this plan. As other areas develop, the
recommendations of this plan will be incorporated into the
development plans.
I: \99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\ccrpt.doc
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
This project is also subject to permit review and approval from several
other agencies, including the DNR, the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Scott County and the Minnesota
Department of Health. These permits will assess the impacts of the
project based on current statutes. Like the DNR permits, these permits
will only be issued after a negative declaration on the EA W, and after
City approval of the development.
Conclusion: All comments from the state and local agencies note an
EIS is not necessary for this development. The environmental impacts
of this project will be addressed through the standard permitting
process. The staff therefore recommends the City Council make a
negative declaration on the need for an EIS.
Budget Impact: There is no budget impact as a result of this action.
The City Council has two alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution 99-XX making a negative declaration on the need
for an EIS for this project.
2. Determine there is a need for further environmental review of this
project. In this case, the Council must direct the staff to prepare a
resolution declaring the need for an EIS based on specific findings
of fact.
The staff recommends Alternative #1. A motion and second approving
Resolution 99-XX making a negative declaration on the need for an
EIS is appropriate.
1:\99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\ccrpt.doc
Page 3
RESOLUTION 99-JlKI If ()
DETERMINING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE NEED FOR THE
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) FOR
THE DEERFIELD PROJECT
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, D.R. Horton, Inc. has proposed to construct a residential development
west of the Ponds Athletic Complex and southwest of CSAH 21 on 165
acres ofland; and
WHEREAS, this development proposes to construct 78 unattached units and 462
attached units; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 19D, the City of Prior Lake has
prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for this
proposed proj ect; and
WHEREAS, the Deerfield development is expected to comply with all the City of
Prior Lake standards and review agency standards; and
WHEREAS, based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project
does not have the potential for significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not
have the potential for significant environmental impacts.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR
LAKE, as follows:
1. The preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) and the
comments received on the EA W have generated information adequate to determine
whether the proposed development to be known as Deerfield has the potential for
significant environmental effects.
..l:\99files\99:;ubdiv\99Qrelil;Q\deerfld\eaw\rs99xeaw doc. Baged
16200 cagle CreeK Ave. ::;:r.., I-'nor Lake, Mmnesota ~5372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (6L~) 4 7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the Deerfield development.
3. The attached Findings of Fact and Conclusions are incorporated herein as Exhibit A
as if fully set forth.
Passed and adopted this 20th day of December, 1999.
YES
NO
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
{Seal} City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
1:\99fi1es\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\rs99xeaw.doc Page 2
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMP ACT STATEMENT (EIS) FOR THE PROPOSED DEERFIELD DEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
D.R. Horton, Inc. has proposed to construct a residential development west of the Ponds Athletic
Complex and south west of CSAH 21 on 165 acres of land. This development proposes to
construct 78 unattached units and 462 attached units. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp.
19D, the City of Prior Lake has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for
this proposed project. As to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the
project and based on the record in this matter, including the EA Wand comments received, the
City of Prior Lake makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
Findings of Fact
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Proj ect
The Deerfield Residential Development project proposes the construction of78
unattached units and 462 attached units on 165 acres. This site is also anticipated
to contain approximately 32 acres of wetland, and 12 acres of wooded area.
B. Project Site
The proposed project is within a 165 acre area west of The Ponds Athletic
Complex southwest ofCSAH 21 in Prior Lake, MN. The project is located within
the NW 1/4 Section 12, T114N, R24W. Portions of this site have been cropped in
the past and currently contain 32 acres of wetland, 15.4 acres of wooded area, and
34.1 acres of grassland.
II. PROJECT HISTORY
A. This project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EA Wunder
Minnesota R. 4410.4300, subp. 19D.
J.:\9<.Uiles\99&ubdiv\99prelirrndeel:fld\eaw\findi,ru(s.doc Ea,!1;e L
162uo-Eagle"CreeK Ave. 5.-t.:, l"nor LaRe, lvnnnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 42tr-4L45
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
B. An EA W was prepared on the proposed project and distributed to the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on
October 21, 1999.
C. A press release containing the notice of availability of the EA W for public review
was published in the Prior Lake American on Saturday, October 23, 1999.
D. The EA W was noticed in the November 1, 1999, EQB Monitor. The public
comment period ended on December 1, 1999. Comment letters were received on
or before the deadline from the Minnesota Historical Society, the Department of
Natural Resources, Scott County Soil and Water Conservation Service, City of
Savage, Professional Engineering Consultants, David and Nancy Pinke, Edward
Widner, and Thomas Stanley. Letters from Scott County and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency were received after the comment deadline. Copies of
the letters are hereby incorporated by reference. Responses to the comments are
also incorporated by reference.
III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Minnesota R.441 0.1700, subp. I states that "an EIS shall be ordered for proj ects that have
the potential for significant environmental effects." In deciding whether the project has
the potential for significant environmental effects, the City of Prior Lake must consider
the four factors set out in Minnesota R.4410.1700, subp. 7. With respect to each of these
factors, the City finds as follows:
A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The first factor that the City of Prior Lake must consider is "type, extent and
reversibility of environmental effects," Minnesota R.441O.1700, subp. 7.A. The
City's findings with respect to each ofthese issues are set forth below.
1. The type of environmental impacts anticipated as part of this project
includes:
a. Increased municipal water use
Increased water use will be accommodated by the expansion of the
watermain trunk system.
b. Increased wastewater discharge
The additional 63 mgy of normal domestic sewage will be treated
at the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Blue Lake
Treatment Plant. This plant has the capacity to accommodated the
additional discharge.
1:\99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\findings.doc
Page 2
c. Increased noise due to traffic within the area
Based on traffic and noise modeling, the additional traffic will not
have a significant impact on the area and the noise levels will be
within the MPCA standards
d. Wetland impacts from filling
Wetland filling will be mitigated through on-site wetland
mitigation. Further, wetland impacts will be evaluated through the
permitting process.
e. Increased pollutants in stormwater runoff
Treatment ponds designed to NURP guidelines have been included
in the plans for this development to mitigate the effects of
pollutants in the stormwater runoff.
f. Increased stormwater runoff rate and volume.
This project has been designed to limit discharge rates to pre-
project levels. As with any type of development, the project does
increase the volumes of stormwater runoff. The stormwater
analysis for the project has shown this project will not create a
significant bounce in the water bodies. The net effect on Credit
River is insignificant if even detectable. Scott County is in the
process of preparing a Comprehensive Stormwater Management
Plan which will include this watershed. The stormwater analysis
for this project will be incorporated into the that plan, along with
the potential effects of any future development proposals.
Further, these impacts will be minimized and mitigated through the local,
state, and federal permitting and plan approval processes.
2. In general, the extent of environmental impacts are consistent with those
of residential development.
B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED
FUTURE PROJECTS
The second factor that the City of Prior Lake must consider is "the cumulative
potential effects of related or anticipated future projects", Minnesota R.441 0.1700.
supb. 7.B. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below.
1. The construction of the Deerfield Residential Development will be in
phases over the next 4 years based on the local demand for housing. The
use of Best Management Practices and the NPDES General Stormwater
Permit will be implemented and maintained throughout all phases ofthese
projects to ensure the effects of erosion and sedimentation are mitigated.
1:\99fi1es\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\findings.doc
Page 3
It is anticipated that the adjacent parcels will develop in the future,
although no plans have currently been developed. While this development
alone has minimal impacts, the cumulative impact of regional
development has potentially significant impacts on stormwater volume,
quality, and rate. Scott County is in the process of preparing a
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan which will include this
watershed. The stormwater analysis for this project will be incorporated
into the that plan, along with the potential effects of any future
development proposals. Once the plan is complete, most likely by the end
of 2000, the City will incorporate the plan recommendations into future
development proposals.
C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO
MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY
1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:
Unit of Government
Federal:
US Corps of Engineers
State:
DNR
DNR
MPCA
MPCA
MPCA
MN Dept. of Health
Local:
City of Prior Lake
City of Prior Lake
LGU - Prior Lake
Scott County
City of Savage
Permit or Approval Required
Wetland Impact
Dewatering permit .
Impact to DNR W aters/W etlands
NPDES Permit; General Storm Water Permit
Sanitary Sewer Permit
401 Certification
Water Extension System
Grading and platting plan approval
Building Permit
Wetland Impact for Wetland Conservation Act
Stormwater Management Plan approval
Stormwater Management Plan review
2. The City finds that the potential environmental effects of this project are
subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities; therefore, an EIS
need not be prepared.
D. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE
ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR
THE PROJECT PROPOSER, OR OF EIS 's PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON
SIMILAR PROJECTS.
1:\99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\findings.doc
Page 4
The fourth factor that the City must consider is "the extent to which
environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other
environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of
EIS's previously prepared on similar projects," Minnesota R.4700.1700, subp.
7.D. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below:
The environmental impacts of the proposed project have been addressed in the
following plans:
1. City of Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan
2. City of Prior Lake Comprehensive Local Surface Water Management Plan
3. Traffic Impact Study for the Deerfield Development
4. Deerfield Stormwater Analysis (August, 1999 completed by BDM
Consulting Engineers)
The City finds the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and
controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and permitting
processes. This process has determined a regional stormwater management plan
outlining allowable discharge rates in the area is needed prior to additional
development beyond this project. Scott County is in the process of preparing a
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan which will include this watershed.
The stormwater analysis for this project will be incorporated into the that plan,
along with the potential effects of any future development proposals.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The preparation of the EA W and comments received on the EA W have generated
information adequate to determine whether the proposed development has the potential for
significant environmental effects.
2. The EA W has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist.
Appropriate mitigative measures have been incorporated into the project plan with respect to
utilities, wetlands, traffic, noise and stormwater runoff. The Deerfield development is
expected to comply with all City of Prior Lake standards and review agency standards.
3. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R.4410.1700, the potential impacts of this
project can be addressed through the regular permitting process. The preparation of a
regional stormwater management plan outlining allowable discharge rates in the area is
needed prior to additional development beyond this project. Scott County is in the process of
preparing a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan which will include this watershed.
The stormwater analysis for this project will be incorporated into the that plan, along with the
potential effects of any future development proposals.
4. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
I: \99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\findings.doc
Page 5
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Britta L. Bloomberg, Minnesota Historical Society
Thomas W. Balcom, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Tim Ramerth, ScoU County Soil and Water Conservation District
David E. Hutton, P.E., City of Savage
Brian R. Dobie, P.E., Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc.
David and Nancy Pinke, Credit River Township Resident
Edward L. Widner, Jr., Credit River Township Resident
Thomas Stanley, Credit River Township Resident
Lynne Kolze, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Scott Allen, ScoU County
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
December 15, 1999
Deerfield Residential Development EA W Comments
Enclosed, please find responses to comments received as part of the EA W process for the
Deerfield Residential Development, Prior Lake, MN. Comments were received on or before the
30-day comment deadline from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Minnesota Historical Society (MHS), Scott County Soil and Water Conservation District
(SWCD), the City of Savage, Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc., David and Nancy
Pinke, Edward L. Widener, Jr., and Thomas Stanley. Comments were received after the
comment deadline from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and Scott County.
A. Comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
1. Comment:
Items 6, 10, and 12 offer information of potential project-related wetland impacts,
specifically that approximately 1.03 acres offill is proposed within some of the
Type II wetlands located at the site. Because this fill will be regulated under the
Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) at an onsite 2:1 replacement ratio, the wetland
values listed in the "before" and "after" columns in Item 10 should not be equal.
Response:
The wetland mitigation plan from the developer indicates that the 1.03 acres of
wetland fill will be mitigated through 1.05 acres of new wetland creation and 1.01
acres of public value credits for storm water treatment basins, as allowed in the
Wetland Conservation Act. Therefore, a total of32.05 acres of wetland will exist
at full development. Therefore, the acreage shown in item 10 is correct. Once a
wetland impact application has been prepared by the developer, it will be
reviewed by the US Corps of Engineers, the DNR, and the LGU to assure that the
plan is in conformance with federal and state laws.
B. Comment:
Also regarding wetland issues, the text in Item 11 indicates that "[i]mpacts to fish
and wetlands will be minimized and mitigated through the preservation of upland
buffers of 30 to 120 feet and through the addition of storm water ponds to treat
162blj~~W~~V~~R''.&.~e~~~F~~~~mRR~g8ta 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4~~4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-.--. .----.----- --..- --- .--
- rr
storm water prior to discharge." We commend the preservation of upland buffers
as a project feature and recommend that buffer presentation take the form of a
conservation easement or deeded to the City.
Response:
The City Subdivision Ordinance requires a 30' setback for the 100 year flood
elevation for all structures. Through the plat and PUD approval process, the City
will ensure that the setback requirements are met.
C. Comment:
The discussion of woodland conversion and related habitat impacts, which is
found in Items 10 and 11, appears to underestimate how the proj ect changes
forest/woodland values at the site. Except for the agricultural fields, the entire
project area is contiguous wetland-upland habitat area that does have some local
habitat value. The EA W indicates that both parkland and greenways will be
interspersed in the development, along with the dedication of 12.5 acres of
woodland as preserved open sF-ace. Although a desirable project feature, any
forest habitat that is present WIll be replaced by a residentIal landscape that favors
species tolerant of a human presence. Also, we believe the estimate that 15.4
acres of woodland is present is too low; our review would lead to an estimate of
approximately 25 acres being present at the site prior to project initiation.
Response:
Based on this information, we re-evaluated the developer's estimate of the
wooded areas on the property. From this review, the 15.4 acres of woodland that
were estimated in the pre-project conditions in the EA W was found to be low and
that approximately 21 acres of wooded area is present on the site. Further, based
on a telephone conversation with the DNR that provided additional clarification of
this comment, the City acknowledges that the wooded area on the site does have
local habitat value. Although revegetation with tree species and preservation of
parts of the forested areas will be undertaken with this project, this project is
anticipated to change the habitat present on the site to one that is more tolerant of
human presence.
D. Comment:
Trees removed from the site should be utilized to their fullest extent for
commercial forest products. These products may include sawlogs, veneer logs,
firewood, pulpwood, woodchips, and mulch. Piling and burning is an undesirable
option of last resort. In fact, lar~e scale burning is discouraged and it should not
be assumed that a burning permIt will be automatically issued. We recommend
consultation with a professional forester or arborist to ensure that little or no
resource waste occurs with the project. There are commercial contractors that can
harvest and utilize these trees, thus compensating the proposer at market rates for
the wood taken at the site.
Response:
This information will be passed on to the developer. The City will encourage the
developer to utilize the practices recommended by the DNR.
E. Comment:
Regarding project-related vegetation and wetland issues in general, it should be
noted that runoff management could change local water levels at the site.
Specifically, the use of wetlands for temporary water storage will likely elevate
water levels around these same wetlands. This can be a concern for the existing
vegetation because plants have highly variable tolerances to inundation, ranging
from a few days to a few weeks during the growing season, while causing very
1:\99files\99subdi v\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page 2
little effect during the dormant season. For upland vegetation, elevated
subsurface water levels can kill surrounding vegetation if the root systems are in
saturated soils. As such, wetland mitigation should not involve wetland creation
in the midst of an upland forest area, nor should upland forest be converted to
wetland. Likewise, changing or fluctuating water levels can affect the current
vegetation in these wetlands.
Response:
Item 12 states that increased Water levels will be temporary after rainfall events
and will be controlled by the installation of storm sewer outfalls designed to
prevent water levels from rising more than one foot from the ordinary high water
level for a 100-year event. Wetland creation is proposed to take place adjacent to
existing wetlands. The wetland mitigation plan will be reviewed and permits
secured by the US Corps, DNR, and LGU prior to final plan approval.
F. Comment:
The discussion of Cumulative Impacts in Item 29 notes that the area east of the
site is expected to undergo industrial-type development while it is possible that
development to the south will be residential. How this proj ect, as well as other
possible development, manages runoff to avoid further water level problems with
Markley Lake is a potential cumulative effect meriting consideration. The City's
strategy is to divert runoff from Markley Lake; for this project, the runoff that
normally goes there will be diverted to protected wetland #70-188W. We assume
that runoff from future, adjacent development will be directed away from Markley
Lake to wetland #70-188, too. The nature ofthe cumulative impact results from
the total increase in water quantity and the change in water quality (likely
negative) resulting from all three of these projects, and any other existing projects,
that direct water to this wetland. The Deerfield Development project will result in
a water level bounce in wetland #70-188W of approximately 1.75 inches for an
unspecified time period. This may not be significant for this project. However,
the total bounce and duration resulting from all projects could be significant
relative to this wetland. Given the water management issues confronting the City
in this area, impervious surface creation should be minimized and storm water
runoff management should attempt to capture, store, and treat runoff in ways that
do not exacerbate these conditions.
Response:
We agree with the concern brought forth in this comment. The stormwater
analysis prepared by BDM, consulting engineers for the project, has shown this
project will not create a significant bounce in the water bodies. The net effect on
Credit River is insignificant, if even detectable. However, as the remaining areas
continue to develop, the cumulative effect of development may have a more
significant impact. Scott County is in the process of preparing a Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan which will mclude this watershed. The City is
participating in the preparation of this plan. The stormwater analysis for this
project will be incorporated into that plan, along with the potential effects of any
future development. Once the plan is complete, most likely by the end of 2000,
the City will mcorporate the plan recommendations into future development
proposals.
G. Comment:
These comments on cumulative effects are offered in an advisory capacity only.
We take this opportunity to note that the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) will
likely be undertaking the generic environmental impact statement (GElS) process
in the near future to understand the cumulative effects of urban and suburban
development. We recommend that the City of Prior Lake follow the GElS
1:\99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page 3
process closely because it will likely provide valuable guidance to responsible
governmental units (RGU's) on how to assess cumulative effects in project
specific environmental reviews.
We also note that cumulative effects can be examined in the Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR) process. In an AUAR, a study area is defined for
environmental analysis where the likely end use development profile is well
understood. Essentially an extension of comprehensive planning, the study area is
"developed out" where potentially significant environmental impacts have been
avoided, either through specific project design features, known permits and
approvals, or other available mechanisms, (e.g. open space dedication; easements;
covenants). Projects that do occur are subject to an adopted Mitigation Plan that
lays out clearly how development must happen to avoid adverse environmental
effects. In addition, not only are potentially significant cumulative impacts
identified and avoided, but future development that meets the underlying
assumptions of the AUAR is exempt from further project-specific environmental
review. DNR supports use of the AUAR process and is willing to assist RGU's in
scoping potential natural resource issues meriting investigation in the AUAR.
Please contact Bill Johnson of my staff if you wish to discuss DNR's perspectives
further; he can be reached at (651) 296-9229.
Response:
The City is aware of these environmental review processes and appreciates the
assistance offered by the DNR. The City will follow the progress of the GElS
process. As larger tracts of land become available for development, the City will
consider the possibility of an AAUR.
H. Comment:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. We do not recommend
preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) based upon natural
resource consideration. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and
responses to comments at the conclusion of the environmental review. Minnesota
Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4&5 require you to send us your Record of
Decision within five days of deciding this action.
Response:
No response is necessary.
II. Comments from SSWCD
A. Comment:
Item numbers 12 and 17 discuss the issues relating to water resources impacts and
water quality aspects. In both items, there is discussion of treatment of storm
water runoff. It is stated that the storm water runoffwill be treated prior to
discharging to the wetland basins. It is unclear as to whether all the runoff will be
treated or if only the water that discharges to the wetlands will be treated. Are
there any areas that drain offsite that contain one or more acres of created
impervious area? If so, has this runoff been accounted for in a NURP basin
offsite or will this runoff be treated prior to discharging from the site?
Response:
Some runoff is anticipated drain offsite through overland flow. These areas
include the backyards of some of the residential lots. The majority of the storm
water will be directed to on-site storm water basins and treated before discharge to
on-site and off-site wetlands.
I: \99fi1es\99subdi v\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page 4
B. Comment:
The City of Prior Lake should approve the erosion and sediment control plan prior
to plat approval.
Response:
The City will approve the erosion and sediment control plan prior to plat
approval.
III. Comments from the Minnesota Historical Society
A. Comment:
There are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places,
and no known or suspected archeological properties in the area that will be
affected by this project. Therefore, in our opmion, the "no" response to question
25a is appropriate.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures
ofthe Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic
properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal
permit or license, It should be submitted to our office with reference to the
assisting federal agency.
Response:
No response is necessary.
IV. Comments from David & Nancy Pinke (resident):
A. Comment:
Runoff from development and roads south of Markley Lake are currently causing
serious flooding problems on Markley Lake.
The EA W appears to address only excess runoff during a 100-year storm,
ignoring the volume of normal seasonal precipitation.
Only rate of flow is discussed, when it is obvious that both the rate and volume of
water runoff from development in Prior Lake's portion ofthe Markley Lake
watershed is causing flooding on Markley Lake - making the sale of our home
impossible.
While rate is important, volume is critical with a closed basin such as Markley
Lake - it is the accretion of run-off from several building projects in Prior Lake
that has caused the flooding problems that are occurring on Markley Lake.
The EA W states that much of the water would be diverted to Cleary Lake - how
much? Has the City of Savage given approval for diverting run-off during 100-
year events? The temporary pumping of Markley Lake was only approved by
Savage when Credit River was at a very low level, and had to be dIscontinued any
time there was a one-inch rainfall!
The DNR pumping permit was for only two years, with the understanding that a
long-term solution would be in place after that time - what is that long-term
solution? Without the pumping, these last two years, our house would have
several feet of water in the basement!
The EA W does not specify who would control the mechanical diversion of water
during floods.
1:\99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page 5
Response:
The City appreciates these comments since they address many of the issues
related to development in this area. The City is aware of the flooding problems
associated with Markley Lake and that these problems are related to both storm
water discharge rate and volume. For this reason, the City has required the
developer to redirect runofftothe south to wetland 188W. The developer's storm
water analysis (completed by BDM Consulting Engineers) stated that the project
can redirect the runoff to the south to eliminate 54-acres tributary to Markley
Lake and divert 9.9. acre feet of runoff to the south in the 100-year event.
Savage has not approved this diversion and has also expressed concerns (see
Savage's comments below). The developer has applied for a permit from the
DNR that includes this diversion. The DNR permitting process provides for the
participation of the all affected government jurisdictions. Control of the diversion
structure will be determined as part of the permit.
The comment identifies that it has been the accumulation of development that has
impacts Markley Lake. The City agrees as this has been a problem throughout
much of Scott County. The County is currently in the process of developing a
storm water management plan that would include this area. See response to DNR
Comment A6.
B. Comment:
Is Markley Lake a DNR-controlled lake? If so, what is their position on draining
more run-off into Markley Lake? Since Markley Lake is a closed drainage basin,
all pollutants from roads, parking lots and yards will accumulate in the lake. We
have already had excessive deposition of sediments from run-off in the Prior Lake
portion of the drainage basin.
Response:
Markley Lake is a DNR protected lake (No.21 W). The DNR comments are
included in this memo.
C. Comment:
How can Prior Lake justify any additional run-off into Markley Lake, when the
current run-off has caused identifiable flooding (article 27) and no long-term
solution for the current flooding is proposed?
The EA W only seems to address the Prior Lake portion of the Markley Lake
Watershed and not the impact this development will have on Credit River
Township and Savage.
Response:
The City intends to work with Scott County to develop a long-term solution to the
Markley Lake flooding problems as well as the impact of regional development
on downstream water bodies such as Cleary Lake and Credit River. Through this
process, the impacts of additional water volumes can be mitigated. (See response
to DNR Comment A6)
V. Comments from Professional Engineering Consultants. Inc.
A. Comment:
It does appear that the site area is served by two watersheds. For this reason, we
believe that the RGU should have both watershed authorities listed or both
I: \99fi1es\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page 6
authorities identified as having reviewed the document. This might require a joint
powers agreement for the EA W.
Response:
The proposed Deerfield Development lies within the old Credit River WMO.
Scott County has taken over the watershed district role for the now defunct Credit
River WMO. A copy ofthe Deerfield Residential Development EA W was sent to
the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District for review on October 21, 1999.
No comments were received from this watershed district. A copy of the EA W was
also sent to the Scott County Soil and Water Conservation District. Their
comments have been received and are included in this memo. Scott Allen, the
County Water Planner obtained a copy of the EA W from the City and has
commented on the EA W. The City acknowledges that a joint powers agreement
with the City of Savage and/or the County may be necessary for the discharge of
water across municipal boundaries at sometime in the future.
B. Comment:
In item #8, noting permits and approvals required, we believe that the Authority
for the Credit River Watershed should have been listed.
Response:
The Credit River Watershed Management Organization is no longer in existence.
However, the County will review the plan during the permitting process. While
thi~ was inadvertently omitted from item #8, it has been noted through the EA W
reVIew process.
C. Comment:
In item #12, the runoff identified was a 100 year storm event, with no other storm
runoff tabulations noted. We understand the appendix does not contain additional
runoff calculations or information. Markley Lake does have problems and does
not have a natural outlet. Any runoff increase for any storm event would not
make good engineering sense. In fact, we think that ultimately, Highway 21
should not have any culverts but should serve as a boundary line between the
watersheds.
Response:
BDM Consulting Engineers has prepared a Stormwater Analysis for the project.
This document identifies runoff for a I-year event. Based on this analysis, the
runoffvolume does increase from the existing to the proposed conditions.
However, the developer is being required to divert runoff to the south away from
Markley Lake. (See response to DNR Comment 6)
D. Comment:
In item #17, regarding surface water runoff does need additional engineering
information.
Response:
BDM Consulting Engineers prepared a storm water analysis for this development
It is included with this memo. Also, see response to DNR Comment 6.
E. Comment:
The EA W copy given to us does not have a signature or date. This should be
clarified.
1:\99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page 7
Response:
The Deerfield Residential Development EA W documents which were distributed
to the various agencies and available to the public contained a signed and dated
final page. In "Review of Materials" ofthe comment letter it is stated that an
incomplete EA W document was provided. It appears that you may have received
a draft copy of the EA W.
VI. Comments from Thomas Stanley (Resident)
A. Comment:
The first of my concerns regards the information contained in this EA W as it is
related to water management.
. Reference the EA W Article 12, 3rd paragraph: The wording of this
paragraph indicates that regulation will only occur during the "100 year
floods" and then diverts 9.9 acre feet of the [peak] level of this event.
Article 12 is silent in regards to every day water events. These everyday
water events are the main thing that are devastating the residents on the
Credit River Township side of Markley Lake.
I personally heard the development engineer assure the City Council that
the current rates going into Markley Lake would not be increased. This
engineer was very careful not to comment on the duration or volume of
runoff during these everyday events.
. Reference the EA W Article 17b: Final statement; all promises made here
are referenced to Article 12, thereby setting the parameters of the promise
at the "100 year flood" level.
. Reference the EA W Article 27, second paragraph: This paragraph
promises aid within the city but is silent on conditions outside the city,
also the final sentence of the paragraph states "the city has identified a
problem with flooding at Markley Lake; re-routing of storm water from
this development will reduce the impact of increased runoff to the lake".
This states the development and its water management system will reduce
the impact of increased runoff, not reduce the runoff.
. Lany Leichty also stated that the how and when of how the dam will be
regulated has yet to be discussed. It would seem clear to me that since the
City of Savage has already exercised the right to stop the pumping of
Markley Lake into the Credit River during high water events on the Credit
River, that they would also have jurisdiction over when water can be
diverted from Wetland #70-187W into the Credit River Watershed via
Wetland #70-188W. (precedent had already been set) Given that
jurisdiction, it would seem clear that the only time that water could be
diverted would be when water is low on the Credit River and that there
would be no diversion precisely when we needed it the most. There is no
other information regarding the runoff from Deerfield in the EA W.
Response:
These comments bring forth some very legitimate concerns. From the issues that
have been raised as part of the EA W process, it is evident that storm water
management plan for the area and Credit River is needed. The County is
currently in the process of developing such a plan. See response to DNR
Comment 6A..
1: \99fi1es\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page 8
B. Comment:
My second concern regards the completeness ofthis EA W.
· Article 12 proposes moving water from Wetland #70-187W to Wetland
#70-188W. The EA W does not provide any particulars on how this will
be accomplished or on when the diversion wIll occur. There is also no
information regarding runoff figures concerning this development, in the
EA W. Also, there are :J;lO figures showing the impact this development
will have on Markley Lake.
My concern is that the parties reviewing this EA W cannot make a proper
judgment without the proper information. This EA W is incomplete, and
will remain so until the particulars of the water management system are
hammered out.
Response:
BDM Consulting Engineers has completed a Stormwater Analysis for the
development. This document provides runoff figures for the development. This
document has been included as an attachment to this memo. This document
indicated water will be diverted by blocking the existing outlet that flows to
Markley Lake and creating an outlet on the west side of Wetland #70-187 that
would direct water through the storm sewer system. Also, see DNR Comment
A6.
C. Comment:
My third concern regards the need for additional 30 days of response time for
input into this EA W.
· Since the major impact ofthe runoff from the development will be felt
outside the boundaries of Prior Lake, and since the Scott County
government has assumed jurisdiction over the affected watersheds, the
government of Scott County should have received the EA W for the
Deerfield residential development. I have contacted Al Frechette and
Scott Allan from Scott County and neither one received this EA W. They
have assured me that they are the parties in Scott County that review such
EA W's. Both Mr. Frechette and Mr. Allan expressed interest in reviewing
this EA W. I am requesting an extension ofthe deadline so that both
parties may review the EA W and supporting documents.
Res.J?onse:
CopIes of the EA W were sent to the Prior Lake - Spring Lake Watershed District
and the Scott County Soil and Water Conservation District for review of potential
water resource impacts. While Scott County was included through the SWCD,
neither Scott Allen nor Al Frechette were sent copies ofthe EA W. However,
Scott Allen did request a copy ofthe EA W from the City. His comments are
included in this memo. The City does not intend to extend the 30-day comment
period.
D. Comment:
My fourth concern regards the need for the RGU responsibility to fall on the
shoulders of Prior Lake and Scott County jointly.
· Since the runoff into Markley Lake is such a delicate matter, since the City
of Savage has expressed concern over added water flowing into the Credit
River, and since Scott County has jurisdiction over both Markley Lake and
the Credit River, I am requesting that Scott County should have joint
1:\99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page 9
authority of the RG.U. for Deerfield residential development. My goal
here is to have a body of government with the bigger picture review and
develop the assessment of whether an environmental Impact statement is
called for. The greater needs of the people of Scott County need to be
addressed.
Response:
Based on the Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules as published by
the EQB and as stated in MN Rules 4410.4300 subp. 19, the Local Government
Unit (LGU) is Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this type ofproject.
The LGU is the City of Prior Lake. Any decision to change the RGU would need
to be made by the Environmental Quality Board.
VII. Comments from Edward Widener~ Jr. (resident)
A. Comment:
My first and largest concern is on how the level of water trapped in Markley Lake
is going to be impacted by this proj ect. Markley Lake does not have any outlet,
other than evaporation and absorption into the ground under the lake.
Article 12 of the EA W identifies the DNR Protected Water Inventory #70-187W
& 70-188W (north and southeast of the development, respectively) as being
affected by this project. Water flow from #70-187W now combines with the
runoff from CR21 and drains into Markley Lake. Now "...at the City's request,
additional runoff is proposed to be diverted from DNR wetland #70-187W to
wetland #70-188W to help manage flooding problems in Markley Lake."
This sounds positive for my family and my neighbors close to Markley, however:
· What ensures that the water flow will be controlled to manage the flooding
problems in Markley identified by the City of Prior Lake?
· If excess water is diverted into PWI #70-188W, which drains into Clearly
Lake and then into Credit River, and leave Markley with the majority of
the water from Deerfield?
· Even if the water flow rate into Markley is managed to Markley's benefit,
what will happen if the total water volume draining into Markley
continues to increase, and causes flooding? The water resource impact
studies only calculate the changes of flow rates, and do not calculate
volume changes for a lake with no outlet. I am convinced that this
analysis method is not correct for Markley Lake.
Response:
These, as well as the issues brought forth by other residents and agencies, are very
important. There are no definitive answers to these questions, until a storm water
management plan for these areas is completed. The County is currently in the
process of developing such a plan. See response to DNR Comment 6A.
B. Comment:
My second concern is the local traffic impact. Article 21 of the EA Westimates
total average daily traffic (ADT) generated by Deerfield to be 3,994 trips per day.
For the 632 new dwellings, the EA W only estimates 270 trips out of the areas
during the morning rush hour. I think this is an extremely low estimate, unless
the entire development is a welfare or retirement community. I believe a stop
light at the CR 21 - Fish Point Road intersection will be needed immediately upon
or even before completion of this project, and that traffic on adjoining roads
feeding into Prior Lake and toward downtown will also be significantly impacted.
I: \99fi1es\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page 10
Response:
The trip generation rates used for predicting the traffic generated by the Deerfield
development are from the Fifth Edition ofthe Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, including the February 1995 update.
This is a nationally accepted manual and, therefore, we feel the traffic predicted
according to this manual is reasonable.
A signal system warrant analysis was performed for the intersection of CSAH 21
at Fish Point Road to determine if a signal system would be required at this
intersection upon the full development of Deer field. Assuming full development,
projected for 2005, a traffic signal system at the intersection ofFish Point Road
and CSAH 21 may be warranted.
The impact of the development traffic on surrounding roadways was examined in
greater detail as part of a Traffic Impact Study for the surrounding area. In 2020,
the intersections ofCSAH 2l at TH 13 and CSAH 21 at CSAH 39 will operate
during the PM peak hour at a level of service ofF and D, respectively, both with
and without the development traffic. Therefore, it can be concluded that the trips
generated by the proposed Deerfield development will not significantly impact the
traffic operations of surrounding areas.
VIII. Comments from the City of Savage
A. Comment:
The 165-acre high density development proposes to divert the runoff from DNR
Wetland 187 to DNR Wetland 188, effectively reducing the Markley Lake
watershed by 54 acres in an effort to reduce the flooding potential of Markley
Lake. The existing 100-year peak flow of the 100-year storm out ofthe 54-acre
area is 155 cfs. This information was not included in the EA W but was obtained
from the Deerfield Stormwater Analysis prepared by BDM Consulting Engineers,
PLC, dated August 1999.
Response:
Based on the BDM study, this information is correct.
B. Comment:
Markley Lake is currently landlocked, and to alleviate flooding over the last two
years has been allowed to be pumped to the Credit River through a temporary
DNR permit. The 54-acre watershed in question is proposed to be re-dlrected
from Markley Lake to the Credit River watershed. The City of Savage has some
concern about the impact of adding additional drainage areas to the Credit River
watershed, because ofthe flooding-related problems our City has already
experienced with the Credit River.
Response:
The City of Prior Lake acknowledges the City of Savage's concern over this issue.
The developer has applied for a permit from the DNR that includes this diversion.
The DNR permitting process provides for the participation ofthe all affected
government jurisdictions. Control of the diversion structure will be determined as
part of the permit. The County is also currently in the process of developing a
storm water management plan that would include this area. See response to DNR
Comment A6.
1:\99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page II
C. Comment:
I recommend that there be further discussion between the Scott County Water
Planner, DNR, and the two Cities before the project proceeds as planned. I
request that additional studies be performed to estimate the potential downstream
impacts, and that an Operation and Maintenance Plan be created to minimize the
downstream impacts. I believe these things can be handled through the permitting
process.
In summary, the City of Savage does have some concerns about the proposal to
change watershed boundaries but does not feel that the proj ect warrants the
preparation of an EIS.
Response:
The City shares the concerns of the City of Savage. A comprehensive storm
water management plan for the development ofthis subwatershed and its impacts
downstream is needed in order to assess the impacts of development and to
formulate policies that will direct how the area will develop. The County is
currently developing such a plan.
IX. Comments from the MPCA (received December 3, 1999)
A. Comment:
Item 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources
· In order to better assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife on site
and to the wetlands, additional information is needed. What types of
wetlands are present? Exactly how will runoff be routed through the site?
A map showing the DNR Wetlands and the route of storm water through
the site would be beneficial. Without this information, it is nearly
impossible for the reviewer to draw any conclusions about the potential for
significant environmental effects.
· The document indicates that a total of 1.03 acres will be filled and that
remaining acres will be impacted by the project. The document mentions
the impacts from water volumes and fluctuations in water levels as one
impact. Are other impacts expected? Any existing wetlands that are
converted, altered by excavation or otherwise changed have had their
function and designated use altered and are generally considered to be
adversely impacted.
· An avoidance evaluation and compensatory mitigation is require to offset
that impact. A mitigation plan to replace the function and designated use
of that altered wetland must be undertaken. If these issues are not resolved
now they must be resolved during the permitting and certification phase of
the proj ect.
Response:
The nine wetlands on the site are as follows:
Wetland Type Number of Wetlands
Type 2 1
Type 3 5
Type 4 1
Type 6 1
Type 7 1
1:\99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page 12
Storm water will be pretreated to NURP guidelines prior to discharge into
wetlands. Other than filling 1.03 acres of wetland, the impact will be additional
runoff volumes, as stated in the EA W.
A wetland impact and mitigation plan application will be required to be submitted
by the developer, as required by federal and state rules. It is anticipated that
through the wetland permitting process, the impacts to the wetlands will be
adequately mitigated.
2. Comment:
Item l7 - Water Quality - Surface Runoff
· A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
permit for construction activity is required from the MPCA before
construction can begin at the site. A storm water plan for this site must be
submitted to the MPCA prior to applying for this permit. For more
information about the MPCA's NPDES General Stormwater Permit,
contact Mr. Keith Cherryholmes at 612-296-6945.
· It is not clear whether temporary sedimentation ponds will be used. The
MPCA General Stormwater Permit states that if ten or more acres of site
drain to a discernible point (which we suspect will be the case on a 165
acre site), temporary detention ponds must be used during construction.
Please refer to l" 9 of the MPCA NPDES permit for more information on
temporary erOSIOn and sedimentation control.
· Exactly what is meant by NURP Guidelines? The MPCA would like
additional information regarding the design of the proposed storm water
ponds, including expected removal efficiencies for phosphorus and
suspended solids. The ponds should be designed in such a way that they
treat runoff from 2, 10, or 100-year storms equally effectively. The ponds
s~ould also be designed to remove particles that are 5 microns or larger in
SIze.
· From the map provided in the EA W, it appears that some of the lots are
immediately adjacent to wetlands. Should homeowners improperly apply
lawn chemicals to their yards, the wetland vegetation and bIota could
suffer from chemical runoff or drift. In addition, some property owners
may attempt to "beautify" their back yards by removing vegetation at the
wetland edge. We recommend that the city create a permanent easement,
if it has not already done so, between homes and wetlands to create a zone
of protection for these important ecosystems.
Response:
The need for the NPDES permit was noted in the EA W. Ponds that are designed
to NURP guidelines are anticipated to remove at least 60% of the phosphorous
and at least 90% of the suspended solids. Design criteria is available for review in
the MPCA's publication "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" with dead
storage equal to or greater than the runoff from a 2.5 inch storm over the drainage
area in full development.
The City Subdivision Ordinance requires a 30' setback from the 100 year flood
elevation of all wetlands. Through the plat and PUD approval process the City
will ensure the setback requirement is met.
1: \99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page 13
3. Comment:
Item 19 Geological Hazards and Soil Conditions
· How suitable are these soils for building? Are any soils on the site
particularly susceptible to settling? It appears that the homes adjacent to
wetlands and ponds could experience water problems during wet years.
Does the City of Prior Lake have setback requirements governing
construction of homes adjacent of stormwater ponds and naturally
occurring wetlands?
Response:
Prior to final plat approval, the City will ensure that the plan is in conformance
with all City ordinances and setback requirements. The Scott County Soil Survey
indicates that the soils on the site are generally favorable for development.
4. Comment:
Items 21 and 22 - Traffic and Air Emissions
· An Indirect Source Permit (ISP) is not required for the project since the
number of proposed parking spaces does not exceed the parking space
threshold requirement needed for an ISP.
· The EA W has adequately addressed the traffic and air quality impacts
expected from the proposed project. The traffic study includes ADT
generated, trip generation and distribution estimates, and a level of service
analysis. Based on the estimated ADT volumes and peak hour traffic
generated by the proposed project, it is anticipates that the traffic impacts
resulting from the project are expected to be minimal, and therefore, no
significant air quality impacts are expected as a result ofthis project.
Additionally, the air quality analysis conducted fort the project shows that
both the one-hour and eight-hour maximum carbon monoxide
concentrations for the year 2005, one year after proposed completion, are
well below state ambient air quality standards.
Response:
No response is necessary.
5. Comment:
Item 29 - Cumulative Impacts
· This section should address, at least in general terms, the cumulative
impacts projects such as these have on a local or regional level. The
document should discuss the ways in which the Deerfield development
may contribute to an overall increase in traffic, surface water runoff,
habitat loss, and air pollution in the area.
Response:
From the development of the EA Wand public review process, regional impacts
on storm water volume are a concern for the area. See response to DNR
Comment A6.
J. Comments from Scott County (received December 3~ 1999)
A. Comments:
I am writing concerning the City of Prior Lake's Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EA W) for the proposed Deerfield Residential Development. As the
Water Management Organization (WMO) for the affected area, Scott County was
mistakenly omitted from the EA W's distribution list. As Scott County's WMO
staff contact, I first became aware of the EA W this Monday, November 29, 1999,
I: \99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page 14
and requested and received a copy from City staff at that time. Under the
extremely limited time constraints, I was able to complete only a cursory review
of the EA W, and I wish to present the following pertinent concerns.
In general, I concur with the similarly written comments offered by Mr. Tim
Ramert, Scott SWCD, on November 5, 1999, and Mr. Dave Hutton, City of
Savage, on December 1, 1999. Primarily, the EA W, in items 12 and 17, refers to
"much of the area" having surface water drainage diverted outside of the
preexisting minor watershed (i:e. Markley Lake Watershed) and into the Credit
River Watershed, which is currently under the water mana~ementjurisdiction of
Scott County. Although the specific area proposed to be dIverted and supporting
calculations were detailed in the Deerfield Stormwater Analysis of August 1999,
the full impact of artificially manipulating the watershed boundaries remains
unclear and uncertain. This, it would be advisable to review further the
anticipated impacts ofthe proposed watershed alteration.
Response:
The City agrees and further review ofthe anticipated impacts will be undertaken.
See response to DNR Comment A6.
B. Comment:
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my concerns at your convenience,
and I look forward to playing an active review role in the upcoming permitting
process for this project. In addition, Scott County eagerly anticipates supporting
positive, collaborative watershed management efforts among all of the
stakeholders county-wide, the City included. Scott County also sincerely
appreciates and enjoys the active preparation from City staff in Scott County's
watershed management planning and projects.
Response:
No response is necessary.
This concludes the responses to comments generated by the Deerfield Residential Development
EAW.
Attachments
1:\99files\99subdiv\99prelim\deerfld\eaw\respmemo.doc
Page 15
~~/~9 MON 14: 46 FAX 6124474245
12/03/99 FRI 16:1S FAl 612 296 7782
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
METRO MANAGERS OFFICE
141002
~uu~
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
December 3,1999
Ms. lane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
16200 Eagle Creek A Vf!J1ue
Prior Lake. MN 55372-1787
Re: Deerficld Development EnWoDDlental Assessment Worksheet (BA W)
Dear Ms. Kansier:
The staff of the Minnesota pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has reviewed the above-
referenced Enviromnental Assessment Worksheet for the Deerfield Development. The project
involves construction ora residential dcvelopment on 165.03 acres in in pnor Lake, MN. The
MPCA offers the following comments for your review and consideration.
Item 11. Physical bnpa~ts 0'0 Water Resour~e.
. In order to better assess potential impacts to fish and wildlife on site and to the wetlands,
additional information is needed. What types of wetlands arc present? Exactly how will
runoIIbe routed through the sitc? A map showing DNR Wetlands and the route of
stotmwater through the site would be benoficial. Without this infonnation, it is nearly
impossible for the :reviewer to draw any conclusions about the potential for significant
environmental effects.
. The docLlIllent indicates that a total of 1.03 acres will be filled and that remaining acl'es will
be impacted by the project. The document mentions the impacts from water volumes and
fluctuations in water levels as oue impact. Are other impacts expected? Any existing
wetlands that are converted, altered by excavation or otherwise changed have had their
function and designated use altered and are generally considered to be adversely impacted.
-An-avoidance evaluation and compensatory mitigation is required to offset that impact. A
mitigation plan to replace the function and designated use of that altered wetland must be
undertaken. If these issues are not resolved now 'they must be resolved during the pennitting
and certifica.tion phase of the project.
. Item 11- Water Quality - Surfac:e Runoff
,
. A National pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General permit for
construction activity is required from the; MPCA before construction can begin at the site. A
stOIIO.water plan for this site mUst be submitted to the MPCA prior to applying for this
permit. For more information about the MPCA's NPDES General Stormwater Permit,
contact Mr. Keith Cherryholl1les at 612-296-6945.
520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155.4194; (651) 296.6300 (Voice); (651) 292-5332 (TTY)
St. Paul . Brainerd . Detrolt Lakes . Ouluttl .. Mankato · Marshall . Rochester . Wlllmar. www.pca.statB.mn.us
..~.._. "__~."._,,.. ~..."I"u..' . p,ln,~rl nn recveled DIlDor cOllla;nlng .t IIl&eI20% lIbar!: Irom paper reeyclad by consumers.
.J2/06/99 MON 14:47 FAX 6124474245
12/03/99 FRI 16:19 FAX 612 ~96 7782
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
METRO MANAGERS OFFICE
f4l on 3
~uu..
i'
Ms. Jane Kansier
Page 2
. . It is not clear whether temporary sedimentation ponds will be used. The MPCA General
Stormwater Permit states that if ten or more acres of a site drain to a discemable point (which
we suspect will be the case on a 165 acre site), temporary detention ponds must be used
during construction. Please refer to p. 9 of the MPCA NPDES permit for more information
on temporary erosion and sedimentation control.
. Exactly what is meant by NURP Guidelines? The MPCA would like additional information
regarding the design of the proposed stonnwater ponds. including expected removal
efficiencies for phosphorus and suspended solids. The ponds should be designed in such a
way that they t,reat runoff from 2, 10 or 100 .. year storms equally effectively. The ponds
should also be designed to remove particles that are 5 microns or larger in size.
. From the map provided in the EA W, it appears that some of the lots are immediately adjacent
to wetlands. Should homeowners improperly apply lawn chemicals to their yards, the .
wetland vegetation and biota could suffer from chemical runoff or drift. In addition, some
property owners may attempt to "beautify" their backyards by removing vegetation at the
wetland edge. We recommend that the city create a permanent easement, ifit has not already
done so, between homes and wetlands to create a zone of protection for these important
ecosystems.
Item'19 Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions
. How suitable are these soils for building? Are any soils on the site particularly susceptible to
settling? It aI,lpears that the homes adjacent to wetlands and ponds could experience water
problems dunng wet years. Does the City of Prior Lake have setback requirements
governing construction of homes adjacent to stonnwater ponds and naturally occming
wetlands? .
Items 21 and 11- Traffic. and Air EmissioD!!
. An hldirect Source Permit (ISP) is not required for the project since the number of proposed
parking spaces does not exceed the parking space threshold requirement needed for an ISP.
. The EA W has adequately addressed the traffic and air quality ilnpacts expected from the .
proposed project. The traffic study includes ADT generated. trip g~eration and distn"bution
estimates, and a level of service analysis. Based on the estimated AnT volumes and peak
hour traffic generated by the proposed project, it is anticipated that the traffic imp~cts
resulting from the project are expected to be minimal, and therefore. no significant air quality
impacts are expected as a result of the project. Additionally, the air quality analysis .
conducted for the project shows that both the one-hour and eight-hour maximum carbon
. lIlonoxide concentrations for the year 2005. one year after proposed proj ect completion, arc
well below state ambient air quality standards.
Item 29 - Cumulative Impacts
. This section should address, at least in general tenns, the cUl)1ulative impacts projects 'Such ~
these have on a local or regi~allevc1. The document should discuss the ways in which the
...,- .~.
,
__}2/06/9~__~!ON 14: 47 FAX 6124474245
12/03/99 FRI 16:20 FAX 612 296 7782
Ms. Jane Kansier
. Page 3
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
METRO MANAGERS OFFICE
!4]004
~\,I"'"Jl
. :~. :.: Dcerfield development may contribute to an overall increase in traffic, surface water runoff,
. . habitat loss. and air pollution in the area.. .
Thank you fOI the opportunity to review this project. As the responsible governmental unit for this
environmental review, the city of Prior Lake is required to prepare specific responses to comments on
the EA W. The city is also required to provide notice of its decision on the need for an
EIS to all persona on the EA W distn"bution list and a copy of the responses to all persons who
submitted timely and substantive comments' (ref. Minn. R 4410.1700. subp. 4 & 5). The MPCA
must receive notice of a negative declaration for this project before being able to proceed with
permitting. We also seek the opportunity to review the resp.onses to comments on the EA W prior
to the issuance of the MPCA pennits or approvals for the project so that pertinent information
may be reflected in these decisions. If you have any questions concerning our review of this
EAW, please contact me at 651-282-5992.
Sincerely,
~~
LK.:lcva
cc: Larry Zdon. Metro Division. MCP A
"'.
.._. 12106/99 MON_.H: 48 FAX 6124474245
12/02/1999 THU 16:19 FAX 8124988365
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
SCOTI' CTY. PUBLIC WORKS
~oos
'161 "" "=-
. .::~ i::': ~ ";
,":?>:~':,;<
. ',.. ..'.. .'. '.',' " .
I. . .
~,' ..' ,,' :.....
~.
I
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DMSION
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(612) 496-8346
Fax: (612) 496-8365
BRADLEY J. LARSON
ASSOCIATE "DMJN]STR.ATOR
December 2. 1999
City of Prior Lake
Ms. Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake. MN 55372
RE: STAFF COMMENTS ON DEJ!:RF1ELD RESIDENllAL DEVELOPMENT EA W
Dear Ms. Kansier:
I am writing concerning the City ofPrlor Lake's Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EA W) for the proposed Dccrlield Residential Development. As the water management
organization (WMO) for the affected area, Scott County was mistakenly omitted from
this EA W's distribution list. As Scott County's WMO staff contact. I first became aware
ofthe EA W this Monday, November 29, 1999, and requested and. received a copy from
City staff at that time. Under the extremely limited time constraints, I was able to
complete only a cursory review of the EAW. and I wish to present the following pertinent
concerns.
In general, I concur with the similarly written comments and questions offered by Mr.
Tim Ramert. Scott S.WCD. on November 5, 1999and Mr. Dave Hutto~ City of Savage,
on December I. 1999. Primarily. the EA W, in items 12 and 17, refers to "much of the
area" having surface water drainage diverted outside of the preexisting minor watershed
-(i':e., Markley Lake Watershed) and into the Credit River Watershed. which is currently
under the water management jurisdiction of Scott County. Although the specific area
proposed to be diverted and supporting calculations were detailed in the Deemeld
StOImwater Analysis of August. 1999. the full impact of artificially manipulating the
watershed boundaries remains unclear and uncertain. Thus, it would be advisable to
review further the anticipated impacts of the proposed watershed alteration.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my concerns at your convenience. and I look
fmward to playing an active review role in the upcoming permitting process for this
proj ect. In addition, Scott County eagerly anticipates supporting positive, collaborative
watershed management efforts among all of the stakeholders county-wide, the City
included. Scott County also sincerely appreciates and enjoys the active participation
(page 1 of 2)
An Equal OpportunirylSa/ery Awar'l! Employer
12/06/99 .MO~ 14:48 FAX 6124474245
12/02/1999 THU 16:19 FAX 6124968365
CITY OF PRIOR LtiCE
sCOTT CTY. PUBLIC WORKS
\
[4]006
':r>> ,""VoJ
from City staff in Scott County's watershed m~agement planning and projects.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Scott Allen
Scott County Water Planner
cc:
Sue Mc.Derolort, City of Prior Lake AJsistant Engineer
Brad Larson. Scott County Public W o~ Director
Tim Ramertb. Scott SWCD Engineeriqg Technician
Dave Hutton, City of Savage Public W10rks Director I Engineer
Greg Halling, Credit River Township Engineer
i
. ,
.........- -~.
W:\WORD\ScottA\Lettera\Deerfield RAW R.eview.doe
(page ~ of 2)
11/30/99 TUE 14:05 FAX 6124474245 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
1I..---__~--..~..a;,;.__....rI2:llli QJ,l:i
~L.Io!;JeZ --.n::f~."Clfmr.a"1:""l.IJ:'IO'~"""ilI("'.... -=..n_.["..-.
PROF. ENGR. CONSULT. 4909265
~Q05
p.el
.
~OJ I.ITTL.II CANADA ftOAll
S VITI! no
SAINT I'AUL
MIf'/I'lBSOTA. 55117
TeL: 651..9D_9266
MX: 1151..490.9263
Mr. Thomas.Stan1ey
6221 Sue Ann Lane
Prior Lake) MN 55372
'.
.
: ~. : : :- \ !.' ~
~'~OFESSJON^,L ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
HICUI\I'O,""TED
Engineering Review of.
Deerfield Residen~ial
Develop~ent- RAW
Prior Lake, Hinpe8ot~
To
November 29, 1999
PEe #3980
INTRODUCTION
This report concerns our recent engineering revie~ of ~n
Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared for a proposed
residential development identified as Deerfield Development
proposed by 0 R Horton I Inc. Mr. Thomas stanley is a neighbor to
the proposed development site and ilves adjacent to Markley Lake.
Since tbe development has the potential for impacting Markley Lake
Mr. Stanley requested that our firm review the "Worksheet for
purposes of evaluating the drainage impac't to Markle)' Lake. O\ll.'
focus was to be only surface water drainage concerns at this time.
REVIEW OF MATERIAL~
On November 23, 1999, ~e r.eceived a 12 page document which carried
a title sheet from the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota. The document
had 31 numbered review i terns with teehnical comments. No
.ppendices were attached. Mr. Stanley reported that no surf~ce
water calculations were included i.I1 the appendices of the pre:pared
document.
.....
We ~lso had available certain technical feferences in our office
such as USGS quadrangles) soils data documents, a copy of the City
of Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan J and City of Prior Lake St OrlJ1Wat.er
Management Pl~n,
ENGINEERING OPINIONS
Based on our review of. the documents, 'We have the following
opinions:
1. It does appear th~t the site area is served by two w~tersheds.
For this reason, 'We believe t.ha.t the J!.GU should have' both
watershed authori ties listed or both authorities identi. fied as
having revi.ewed the document. This might require 8. jo int
powers ag~ee~ent f.or the EAW.
- . '.
11/30/99 Tlm 14:05 FAX 6124474245 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
...~~-:---_. . . ,""..."...., :,,;'....r-M; 490e2~ -> OFF:I:CEMAX BURNsvrLLE
PROF. EN~R. CONSULT. 4909265
p,gge :2
.
P~ge Two
Z. In i.tef'll #8J noting pe:rmlts and a.pprovals required, 'We believe
that the Authority for the Credit River Watershed ~hould have
been listed.
3. In item ~12. the runoff identified was a 100 year storm event,
with no other storm runoff tabulations noted. we understand
the appendix does not contain additional runoff calculations
or' information. Markley La.ke doelS have problems and docs not
haves. natura) outlet.. Any runoff increase for a.ny storm
event would Dot make good engineeri ng sense. In fact) 'We
think that ultimately, Highllay 21 should not ha.ve any culverts
but should serve as a boundary line between the ~atersheds.
4. I~em #17, regarding surfac~ ~ater runoff does need additional
engineering informa~ion.
5. The lAW copy given to us does not have a signature or date.
This should be clarified.
}lEMARKS
It does not make any sense to ru.n additional. ~atE:T toward Mar~ley
l.s.ke under a.ny circumstances. unless le.rge eva.pora:t.ion basins are
established.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINE.
/ft-:/l:
PX'esident
BllD / frn-.;"
~006
P.82
11/30/99 TUE 14:04 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
~Q02
November 29, 1999
~
.~
Jane A. Kansier
Planning Coordinator
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Jane,
I am writing to you regarding my concerns about the E.A. W. for the Deerfield Residential
Development in Prior Lake. My concerns are four fold.
1. The information regarding the management of run off from this development.
2. The completeness ofmis E.A. W. regarding the management of run off of this
development.
3. The oeed for an additional 30 days of response time for input into this E.A W.
4. The need for the R.O.V. responsibility to fall on the shoulders of Prior Lake and
Scott County jointly.
Before I address my concerns regarding the water management of the development I would like
to describe to you what is being proposed for water management by the developer and the City of
Prior Lake.
There are two major wetlands that this higb-density development feed. WetJand #70-188W is
within the Cleary Lake! Credit River Watershed and accepts runoff from the south side of the
propo:;ed development. Wetland #70-187W is within the Markley Lake watershed, outlets into
Markley Lake, and accepts ronofffrom the northern portion of the proposed development Due to
flooding on Markley Lalc.e, a water regulating system is being proposed by the developer, for the
Wetland #70-187W.
The proposed system would consist of a manually controlled dam at the northern end of Wetland
-#79-187W where it outlets into Markley Lake. At the east end of Wetland #70-1 87W, a culvert
would be installed, with a control structure allowing given amounts of water to flow from
W etland #70-1~7W, into WetIand #70-188W. The culvert would cross the boundary between the
Markley Lake watershed and outlet into Wetland #70-188W in the Cleary Lake\ Credit River
Watershed. As told to me on 11.23.99 by Prior Lake Engineer Lany Leichty: The height of the
darn could be regulated at any time to diven water from Wetland #70-187W to Wetland #70-
188W.
The fU'St of my concerns regards the information contained in this E.A.W. as it related to water
management.
. Reference tbe E.A.W. Article 12, 311i paragraph: The wording of this paragraph
indicates that rcgulatl()n will only occur during "100 year floods" and then diverts 9.9
acre feet oftbe peeklcwel of this event.
1
11/30/99 TUE 14:04 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
I4J 003
Article 12 is silent in regards to everyday water events. These everyday events are the
main thing that are devastating the residents on the Credit River Township side of
Markley Lake.
I personally heard the development engineer assure the city counsel that the cWTent
~ going into Markley Lake would not be increased. This engineer was very
careful Dot to comment on the duration or volume of nmoff during these everyday
events.
· Reference the E.A W. Article 17 b: Final statement; all promises made here are
referenced to Article 12, thereby setting the parameters of the promise at the "100
year flood" level.
. Reference the E.A. W. Article 27: second paragraph: This paragraph promises aid
within the city but is silent on conditions outside the city, also the final sentence of
this paragraph states" the city has identified a problem with flooding at Markley
Lake; re-routing of storm water from this development will reduce the impact of
increased ronoffto the lake". This states the development and it's water management
system will reduce the impact of increased runoff, not reduce the runoff
. Lany Leichty also stated that the how and when of how the dam will be regulated
has yet to be discussed. it would seem clear to me that since the city of Savage has
already exercised the right to stop the pumping of Markley Lake into the Credit River
during high water events on the Credit River, that they would also have jurisdiction
over when water can be diverted from Wet1and -JJ70-187W into the Credit River
Watershed via Wetland 70-188W. (precedent had already been set) Given that'
jurisdiction, it would seem clear that the only time that water could be diverted would
be when water is Iowan the Credit River and that the1'e would be no diversion
precisely when we needed it the most There is no other information regarding the
runoff from Deerfield in the E.A.W.
My second concern regards the completeness of this E.A. W.
. Article 12 proposes moving water from Wetland #10-187W to Wetland #70-188W.
TbeE.A.W. does not provide any particulars on how this will be accomplished or on
-.._ . "'. when the diversions will occur. There is also no information regarding runoff figures
concerning this development, in the E.A.W. Also, there are no figures showing the
impact this development will have on Markley Lake.
My concern is that the parties reviewing this E:A.W. cannot make a proper judgment
without the proper information. This E.A.W. is incomplete, and will remain so until
the particulars of the water management system are hammered out.
My third concern regards the need for additional 30 days of response time for input into this
E.A. W.
. Since the major impact of the runoff from the development will be felt outside
the boundaries of Prior Lake, and sin~ the Scott COUDty government has
assumerl jurisdiction over the affected watersheds, the government of Scott
2
11/30/99 rUE 14:05 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
~004
County should have received the B.A. W. for the Deerfield residential
development. I have contacted Al Frechette and Scott Allan from Scott County
and neither one received this E.A W. They have assured me that they are the
panies in Scott Couniy that review such E.A. W. 's. Both Mr. Frechette and Mr.
Allan expressed interest in reviewing this E.A W. I am requesting an extension
of the deadline so that both parties may review the E.A. W. and supporting
documents. .
My fourth concern regards the need for the R.G.U. responsibility to fall on the shouJders of Prior
Lake and Scott County jointly.
· Since the runoff into Markley Lake is such a delicate matter, since the city of
Savage has expressed concern over added water flowing into the Credit River,
and since Scott County has jurisdiction over both Markley Lake and the Credit
River, I am requesting that Scott County should have joint authority of the
R..G.U. for Deerfield residential development. My goal hero'is to have a body
of government with the bigger picture review and develop the assessment of
whether an environmental impact stat~ment is called for. The greater needs of
the people of Scott County need to be addressed.
I am including a letter from my engineer Brian Dobie of Professional Engineering Consultants to
support my concerns. Mr. Dobie also-expresses seveAJ. ofms own concerns about this E.A W. I
wish to have all of my concerns and Mr. Dobie's concerns addressed in writing to me.
Sincerely,
Thomas Stanley
6221 Sue Ann Lane
Prior Lake, MN 55372
612-440-7661
enclosures
~._:JI.--
3
- ~..
lit;
12/02/99' THU 10:01 FAX 6124474245 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE l4J002
..,,,,,, ....y. ....Llt ur "'....VAL:lt: tl12BB22656j 12/01/99 15:38; Jerfax #642;P2ge 2/3
CITY OFFICES
6000 McColl Drive (County Road 16) . Sava~(!. M~ 55378-2464
'felephone: 612-~U~l660. f'a:c: fl1 Z-M82-2656
Deccl11bc!l.t I, 1999
Ms. .lane K..ansle.r
Planning Coordinator
City ofPriol' La.ke
1.6200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1787
RE: Deerfield Development, Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Ms. Kansier:
I ClJ'11 writing in regard to the Environmental Assessment Workshee't prepared lbr the:: proposed
Deertield Development in the City ofPtior take. The City of Savage W~Ulllot requested hy lhe
RGU to comment 011 the EA W, but I w()uld like to provide InY comments on the development as
proposed beci'll.l$e ("f the potential to impact the City of Savage.
The: HiS-acre high density development proposes to di verl t.he nllloff trom DNR wetland 187 to
DNR wetland 188, effectively reducing tbe Markley Lake watershed by 54 acres in an erfort to
reduce tbe flooding potential orMar~ley Lake. The existing 1 OO-yenr peak flow of the 1 nO-year
storm out ofthc 54-acre area is 155 ctl). This infonnation was not included in the RA W, but was
obtainod from t.he Deedield Slmmwater Analysis prepared by BDM Consulting Engineers. PLC,
dated August 1999.
Mnrkely Lake is currently landlocked, and to alleviate flooding over the last lWo years has been
allowed to be punlped to the Credit River through a temporary DNR permit. The 54-acre
watersh~d in question is proposed to be re~diT~tt..'(1 from Markely Lake toO the Credit River
watcrmeff. The city of Savage has some concern about the impact of adding additional drainage
arCliS Lo the Credit River watershed, because of the flooding-related problems OLlr city has already
experienced with the Credit River.
r recommend that there be furtheJ' discussion between the Seon County Water Plannel', DNR, and
tho t.wo cities hefore the project. proceeds as planned, 1 requost that additional studies be
performed to estlll1l'lte the potential down"trellm impacLs. and that an Opcratiorl a11d Maint'enance
Plan be created to minimize the dowmitream impacts. I believe these things can be handled
through the pennitting process.
In sunullary, the City of Savage does have: some ooncems aboulthe projJOslll t.o change
watershed boundaries, but docs not feel th.at the project warrants the preparatiol1 of an ElS.
", 'S,'
, ,(
: I
: :!
, :!
,
, i
. "
-:;
, ,
. 1
: ~
. .~
'::1
. ~
'.'
;i
: J
, if
. 't
. ~
: J
, J
, .J
>! '
, ,j
j
i
: :{
: ~
, :j
.~
: ~\
, '1
,.1
:j,
, .:
:!
: J
. ~
. .~
i:
, t
, i
12/02/99 THU 10:02 FAX 6124474245 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ~003
"''''"" 1oJ'I' w"'ll vr ;:'AV~UC: ~12Be2265ej 12/01/99 15:39; Jettax #642jpage 3/3
M.s. Jane Kan.slcr
Deerfield Development EA W
DecembClt 'I, 1999
Page 2
..' 1.
. :}
, .t
.\
.
"
, '1
,j
: ;; .
:.:t
: :1
. :i
, '1
Please ca.1.l.le.ff Sandberg or me at 882-2670 if you have ally questions 01' w\)uld like to discuss
this matter further.
, "
. .~
: :!
: .~
I
, ;i
: :1
<I
Sincerely, ~
~~~ =:-'
David E. Hutton, P. E.
Public Works Directorl City Engineer
cc: Scott Allen /Scott County W.ltel' Planner
Pat Lynch IDNR
JetT Sandberg /Water Resources Engineer
Mike Krass /Assistant City Engineer
File 99-26
, "
. .)
1::\\JSL;R,S'JI!FI1S\W I'IX1CS'~ W ^ 'I'DIS'I"!'I .'$1. Vo'll\MA I~K 1..1W\llBlll:U;Ltl,su. W
. .:
<\
,l
, ~
: J
.:
: :l
. :'t
. ~
, 1
. ~~
:~
: ,~
. ~
.....-. .$-"
: 1
. .;
: 1
, i~
: :J
: 1
: :~
x
. 't
: 1
~
, ,
11/30/99 TUE 12:30 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
l4J 002
November 5, 1999
107 Water Street
Jordan, MN 55352
, " ~'!/(::;r~~-o- wnf} ~~
: ,". i..::; \:::;::1 I <-I \:J [;:.J
~~~8~ ~
Scott Soil and Water
Conservation District
City of Prior Lake
Attn.: Jane Kansier
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Subject:
Location:
Deerfield Residential Development EA W
Section 12, Spring Loke Township, Scott County, Minnesota
Dear Ms. Kansier,
The Scott Soil and Water Conservation District has been requested to review the EA W for the
Deerfield Residential Development. The purpose of the review is to check for water quality
compliance and for erosion and sediment control issues. We have listed our comments and
recommendations regarding the project below:
o Item numbers 12 and 17 discllss the issues relating to water resources impacts and water
quality aspects. In both Items, there is discussion of treatment of stonnwater runoff. It is
stated that the stormwater runoff will be treated prior to discharging to the wetland basins. It
is unclear as to whether all the runoff will be treated or if only the water that discharges to the
wetlands will be treated. Are there any areas that drain offsite that contain one or more acres
of created impervious area? If so, has this runoff been accounted for in a NURP basin offsite
or will this runoff be treated prior to discharging from the site?
o The City of Prior Lake should approve the erosion and sediment control plan prior to plat
approval.
If you have any questions regarding this information or need further information please feel free
to givtt"me a call at 492-2636. - .
Sincerely,
-;::jf2~
Tim Ramerth, Engineering Technician
Scott Soil and Water Conservation District
cc: File
11/30/99 TUE 12:31 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR LAICE
~OOJ
11
MJNNESOTA H ISTOHJCAL SOCIJ1;TY
SrAfE H1STORIC PRESERV ATrON OFFICE
November 19, 1999
Ms. Jane A. Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
- .-,_' Prior take; MN-'55372:1787
,- - -...- -- ....-- -
--.-. -' -~-
RE: EAW - Deerfield Development
T114 R22 S12, Prior Lake, Scott County
SHPO Number: 1999-4055
Dear Ms. Kansier:
Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the
above-referenced project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given to the Minnesota
Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Ad. and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act and
through the process outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.1600.
There are ho properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or
suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Therefore, in our
opinion, the "no" response to question 25a is appropriate.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal
assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office with reference
to the assisting federal agency.
~.,:S-.
Please contact Dennis Gimmestad at (651 )296-5462 if you hewe any questions regarding our review
of this project.
Sincerely I
.t>~i~~
Britta L. Bloomberg .
Deputy S~ate Hi~toric Preservation Officer
',.
't1 -; 1": 1'1.1.0<:1: BOI i l.~:\"\ Ill> \XI 1~1''I' I S"l "IT \'.\l.11.. M IN'....:'O....\ ~~I(Jt 1 'J(llil 'I'1';l.I':r'lllIl',m: ...r: 1 ,:).%-101210
1i/30/99 TUE 12:31 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Nov 29 1999 15:32
P.Ol
l4J 004
Minnesota Department of Natural Resource
~
.500 L:afll)'c:l\c Road 10
Sl. Pnul. Mlnne~olll. S515~-40_
'Jane A. Kansier, Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Cn:ek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1787
ax
Post-it'" Fallt Note
7671 Da18
RE:. .Deerfleld Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (BA W)
Dear Ms. KansieT:
The Department of Natural Rt;sources (DNR) has rcvjc~d the EA W for the Decrfield Dl!lvlllopmont
projeot. We offer the following cornments for your consideration.
Items 6, 10. and J 2 offer information on potential projec.t-related wetland impacts, specifically that
approximately 1.03 at;rc5 offilJ is proposed within some ofthe Type II wetlands located at the site.
Because this fill will be regulated WIder the Wetlands Conservation Act (WC/\.) at an onsite 2: 1
replacement ratio, the wetland values listed in the "before" and "after" columns in Item 10 should not be
equal.
Also reganiing wetland issues, the text in Item 11 indiCAtes that U[i]rnpa.cts to fish and wetlands will be
minimized and mitigated through the preservation of upland buffers of30 to 120 feet and through the
addition of storm water ponds to treat stonn water prior to discharge." We commend the preservation of
upland buffers as a projeQt feature and reoommend that buffer preservation take the form of a
conservation easement or deeded to the City.
The disoussion of woodland conveTsi,on and related habl,tat impacts, which is found in Items 10 and 11.
appears to underestimate how the projea changes forest/woodland values at the site. Except fOT the
agricultural fields, the entire project ilJ'C& is a contiguous wct1and~upland habitat area that does have Soml!l
local habitat value. The EA W indicates that both parkland and grc:enways wllJ be interspersed in the
deveTopIDent, along with t.hC dedication of lZ.' DGr~:i o(woodlalld-a::l pR:scrvcd open Clpfl.ClO. ^hhough a.
desirable project feature. any forest habitat that is present will be replaced by a residential1andscape that
favors species tolerant ofa huma.n presence. Also, We believe the estimate that 15.4 acres of woodland is
present is too low; our r~iew wouJd lead to I1Jl estimate of approximately 25 acres being present at the
site prior to project initiation.
Trees removed from the site should be utilized to their fullest extent for commercial forest products.
These prQducts ma.y include sawlogs, veneer logs. firewood, pulpwood. woodchips.., and mulch. Piling
and burning is all undesirable option of last resort. In fact. large scale burning is discouraged and it
should not be assumed that a burnin~ permit will be automatically issued. We recommend consultation
with a professional forester or arborist to ensure that little or no resource waste occurs with the project.
1
DNR Information: 6S1~296-61~7 · 1-888-646-6367 · TTY: 651-296-5484 . 1-800..657-392.9
An EqIlGl Oppanunity Employer
Who Vallat8 Divtlrlicy
,A "rlnlacllll1 Recycled Peper COI'IIaInln; Q
~ MlnimulII o11Cl'lC. POCl.canlumar waN
11/30/99 TUE 12:31 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Nov 29 1999 15:32
P.OL
l4J 0115
Jane A. Kansier. Planning Coordinator
November 29, 1999
Th~ are commc::rcial controllQ'tors that can harvest and utiliz.e these trees, thus compensating the proposer
at market rates for the wood taken at the site.
Regarding projeot-related vegetation and wetland id\1ea in general. it should be noted that runoff
managoment could change local water leveb at the site. Speoitically. the use of wetlands for temporary
water stOrage will likely elevate water levels around these same wetlands. This can b., a concern for the
existing vegetation because plants have highly variable tolerances to inundation. ranging from a fe~ days
to a few weeks dwing the growing season. while causing very little effect during the d~rrnant season. For
upland vegetation, elevated subsurface water levels can kill surroundin$ vegetation if the root systems are
in sat1lratod soils. As such. wetland mitigation should not involve wetland creation in the tnidst of an
upland forest JU'Ca, nar should upland forest be convcrtc4 to wetland. Likowise, changing or fluctuating
water levels can affect the current vegetation in these w~ds.
The discu6sion of Cumulative Impacts in Item 29 notes that the area east of the site is expected to
undergo industrial-type development while it is possible that developmcot to the south will be residential.
How this.project, as well JLS other possible development, manages runoff to a'Void further water level
problems with Markley Lake is a potential cumulative effect merltiag consideration. The City's strat2gy
is to divert runoff from Markley LeJce; for this project. the runoff that nonnally goes there will bel
div~d to protected wetland #7rJ-188W. We assume that runoff from future, adjaoent development will
be directed away from Markley Lake to wetland #70-188W too. The nature of the cumulative imp~t
results from the total increase in water quantity and the change in water quality (likely negative) resulting
from all three of these projects, and any other existing projects, that direct water to this wetland. The .
DClllrfitlld Development project will result in a water level bounce in wetland #.70- J SSW of appro7d.mately
1.75 inches for IIn unspecjfied time period. This may not be significant for this project. However, the
total boWlce and duration resulting from all projects could be significant relative to this wetland. Given
the watllr management issues confronting the City in this area, impervious surface creation should be
minimized and stann water nmoff management should attempt to capture, store. and treat runoff in ways
that do not exacerbate these conditions.
These comments on cumulative effects are offered in an' adviso!:)' cO!pacity only- We take this oppo:ttunlty
to note that the Environml!lntal Quality Board (EQB) will likely be undertaking the generic environmental
impact statement (GElS) pro~ss in the near future to understand the cumulative effect,s of urban and
suburb3.! development. Wel recommend that the City of Prior Lake follow the GEIS' process closely
because It wUl lIkely prov1dc; vllJunbJcguldzancCl to rc.spon.siblc goy.c:rnmClhtlll units (RGUs) on now to
assess cumulative effects in project specific environmental roviews.
We also note that cumulative effects can be t'Dmined in the Alternative Urban Areawide ReviGW
(AUAR) process. In an AVAR. a stUdy area is defined for environmental analysis where the likely end
use clevelopn1!1nt profile is well understood. Essentially an extension of comprehensive planning. the
study area is "developed out" where potentially significant environmental impacts have been avoid.ed.
either through spocific project design features) 'known pennits and approvals, or other ava.ilable
mechanisms. (e.g.. open s:paoc dedication; easements; covcmants). ProjectS that do occur are subject to an
adopted Mitigation Plan rhat lays out clearly how development must happen to avoid adverse
environmental effects. In addition. not only are potentially significant cumulative impacts identified and
avoided, but future development that meets the underlying assumptions of the AUAR is exempt from
2
11/30/99 TUE 12:32 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR LU{E
Nov 29 l~~~ l~:~~
r-.U,j
[4j 006
Jane A. Kilnsier. Planning Coordinator
November Z9. 1999
further project-specific environmental review. DNR supports use cfthe ADM precess and is willing to
assist RGUs in seoping potential natural resource issues meriting investiiation in the AUAR. Please
contact Bill Johnson afmy staffif)'ou wish to discuss DNR's perspectivrJs further; he can be reached at
(651) 296.9229. .
Thank you for the opportUnity to review this 'project. We do not recommend preparation of an
environmental impact statemrJn1: (ElS) based upon natural resource considerations. We look fOIWard to
rc:celving your record of decision and responses to comments &.t tho conclusion of the environmental
review. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700. subparts 4 & 5, require you to send us your Record of Dc:cision
within five days of deciding thia action. Please conta.ct Bill Johnson at the number previously offered if
you have questions regarding this letter.
Sjncerely,
~~~. ~~~
Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor
Bn"itonmental Planning and Review Section
OffiQe ofMa.nagement and Budget Services
c: Kathleen Wallace
Con Christianson
Joe Oschwald
Larry Westerberg, Metro Fcrest:ry
Russ Peterson. USFWS
Jon Larsen, EQB
Qon Patton, D.R. Horton, Inc. '
#20000 III B-0002
DEIlRf[ELD. WPD
..".,.... -~.
3
11/30/99 TUE 12:32 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
@007
16506 Whitewood Ave.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
November 26. 1999
DY~@~U~~ ~
NOV 2 9_
\1
~
Jane A. Kansier
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
::..- .- -,,- - .Qear .Ms.--KansieJ;-. - - -.'--
,'---. --- -- -- -------:---=---..:.- - - . - ---'--.- -
We are writing in regards to the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for the DeerfieJd Development south of County Road 21
in Prior Lake. As property owners on Markley Lake, we have serious
concerns and questions about the volume of run-off from this new
development into an already flooded land-locked basin:
· run-off from development and roads south of Markley Lake are
currently causing serious flooding problems on Markley Lake
· the EA W appears to address on,ly excess run-off during a 100 year
storm, ignoring the volume of normal seasonal precipitation
.. only rate of flow is discussed, when it is obvious that both the rate
and volume of water run-off from development in Prior Lake's portion of th,e
Markley Lake watershed is causing flooding on Markley Lake -- making the
sale of our home impossible
~..~.
-'
....- whjJe-rat~fis 'ih1poffant, vOTi::Iffle1s crltlcafWilh-a- closeerfiasiii such as
Markley Lake -- it is the accretion of run-off from several building projects in
Prior Lake that has caused the flooding problems that are occurring on
Markley Lake
· the EA W states that much of the water would be diverted to Cleary
Lake -- how much? Has the City of Savage given approval for diverting run-
off during 100 year events? The temporary pumping of Markley Lake was
only approved by Savage when Credit River was at a very low level, and
had to be discontinued any time there was a 1 inch rainfallI
OIl *
11/30/99 TUE 12:32 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR L~ICE
[4]008
. The DNR pu ping permit was for only two years, with the
understanding that a long term solution would be in place after that time --
what is that long t rm solution? Without the pumping these last two
years, our house wo Id have several feet of water in the basement!
. the EA W do s not specify who would contrbl the mechanical
diversion of water d ring floods
. Is Markley L ke a DNR controlled lake? If so, what is their position
on draining more ru -off into Markley Lake? Since Markley Lake is a closed
drainage basin, all p lIutants from roads, parking lots and yards will
accumulate in the la*e. We hav~ already ha~ excessive d.eposition ?f
....sedinTentsiroTTr1Un-<ptf In the PnorLaKe"porttOn otttre-are:mage- b-asm:-.
. How can Pri r Lake justify draining any additional run-off into
Markley Lake, when the current run-off has caused identifiable flooding
(article 27) and no I ng term solution for the current flooding is proposed?
. the EA W onl seems to address the Prior Lake portion of the
Markley lake Water hed and not the impact this development will have on
Credit River Towns ip and Savage
Because of the abo e stated questions and concerns, we feel strongly that
the City of Prior Lak should conduct an Environmental Impact Study
before any further a tion is approved for the Deerfield Development.
...-.--........-...
-.-..-.--. ---.-..-.--.
cc: John Kane - Credit River Township
Pat Lynch - Department of Natural Resources Area Hydrologist
Scott Allen - Scott County Water Planner
Barbara Marschall - Scott County Commissioner
Jeff Sandberg. City of Savage
Lani Lichty - City of Prior Lake
Steve Kelly - Bannigan & Kelly, P. A. Attorneys at Law
12/01/99 WED 14:19 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
~ 00,2
November 30, 1999
16526 Whitewood Ave.
Prior Lake, l\I!N 55372
Jane A. Kansier
Planning Coordinator
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Ms. Kansier:
I am submitting comments regarding the Prior Lake Deerfield Development project Environmen-
tal Assessment Worksheet, dated November 1, 1999.
My :first and largest concern is on how the level of water trapped in Markley Lake is going to be
impacted by this project. Markley Lake does not have any outlet, other than evaporation and
absorption into the ground under the lake.
Article 12 of the EA W identifies DNR Protected Waters Inventory #70-187W & 70-188W (north
and southeast of the development, respectively) as being affected by this project. Water flow from
#70-187W now combines with the runoff from CR21 and drains into Markley Lake. Now "...at
the City's request, additional runoff is proposed to be diverted from DNR wetland #70-187W to
wetland #70-188W to help manage flooding problems in Markley Lake."
This sounds positive for my family and my neighbors close to Markley, however:
1) What ensures that the water flow will be controlled to manage the flooding problems in
Markley identified by the City of Prior Lake?
2) If exoess water is diverted into PWI #70-188W, which drains into Cleary Lake and then into
Credit River, what ensures that Savage, the DNR or others will not foroibly restrict the amount of
water coming into Credit River, and leave Markley with the majority of water from Deerfield?
3)E~i.fthe water flow rate into Markley is managed to Markley's benefit, what will happen if
the total water volume draining into Markley continues to increase, and causes flooding? The
water resource impact studies only calculate the changes of flow tates, and do not calculate vol-
ume changes for a lake with no outlet. I am convinced that this analysis method is not correct for
Lake Markley.
1/2
f2/01/99 WED 14:19 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR L\KE
liZl 00:3
My second concern is the local traffic impact. Article 21 of the EA W estimates total average
daily traffic (ADT) generated by Deerfie1d to be 3,994 trips per day. For the 632 new dwellings,
the EAW only estimates 270 trips out of the area during the morning rush hour. I think this is an
extremely low estimate7 UDless the entire development is a welfare or retirement community. I
believe a stop light at the CR21 - Fish Point Road intersection will be needed immediately upon
or even before completion of this project, and that traffic on adjoining roads feeding into Prior
Lake and toward downtown will also be significantly impacted.
I feel the above issues need to be completely assessed and resolved before any further approvals
are given for the Oeerlield Residential Development.
Thankyo~
E"~ x:1t/~-v /~
Edward 1. Widener, Jr.
....:-. -~.
cc: Prior Lake American
Savage Pacer
Savage Planning Commission
Credit River Township
Scott County Planning
2/2
DEERFIELD STORMWATER
ANAL YSIS
Prior Lake, Minnesota
August 1999
-, fl_-
I V I"'~
.--...-..,.-. -BDM
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLC
-"".
~. ,$a-
rBilitl
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLC
August 24, 1999
RE: Diversion Design
Mr. Bob Weigert, PE
Paramount Engineering and Design
1440 Arcade Street
St. Paul, MN 55106
Dear Mr. Weigert:
We are reporting the results of our analysis and design of the major drainage system of
the Deerfield development in the City of Prior Lake, MN. The overall system includes 3
detention areas and 9 water quality treatment ponds. Weare also accomplishing a
diversion of water from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) wetland
no. 187 to the DNR wetland no. 188. This is significant because it removes drainage area
from Markley Lake as requested by the City of Prior Lake. The rest of this letter reports
our findings in a more detailed manner.
Analysis Methodology
The major drainage analysis is performed with the use of the Soil Conservation Service
Technical Release 20 (TR-20) computer program. We used the TR-20 to calculate the
runoff rates from the site with the soil cover conditions that exist today. We then
determined the basin boundaries for the larger drainage facilities. These include the basin
boundaries to the wetland areas and detention areas. The overall runoff rates were
calculated based on the major drainage system.
.......... ,>>-
The drainage rates and volumes to the water quality pOnds are calculated using Soil
Conservation Service Technical Release 55 (TR..55). We also used the hydraulic module
in Land Development Desktop to calculate the culvert and storm sewer capacities. This is
accomplished with 'computerized' inlet control nomographs and Manning's Formula.
We attached the various calculations to support the analysis of the drainage facilities
design for the major storm drainage system. We also have attached the exhibit that shows
the drainage basins for each catch basin and the calculations that your firm provided for
the inlet design and minor storm sewer design.
4175 LOVELL ROAD, SUITE 112 · LEXINGTON. MN 55014 · (612) 786-4570 · FAX (612) 786-t574
-2-
August 24, 1999
Existing Conditions
The complete project encompasses approximately 168 acres. The City of Prior Lake is
concerned with any increase of flow into Markley Lake. Markley Lake is currently seeing
excessively high water levels that are flooding some septic systems in the area. The City
of Prior Lake set criteria that projects cannot increase the rate or volume of runoff to
Markley Lake.
This area has four general types of land uses. These are croplands, wooded areas,
wetlands, and marshes. The portion of this project that ultimately reaches Markley Lake
is the 54 acres that drain to DNR wetland no. 187. The existing peak flow of the 100-year
stonn out of this 54-acre area is 115 cfs. The peak flow out ofDNR wetland no. 187 was
not calculated as it is the intention of this design to divert the flow from the natural
outfall.
A majority of the site (114 acres) currently flows south to DNR wetland no.188. The
existing peak flow of the 100-year storm out this 114-acre area is 192 cfs. The DNR
wetland no. 188 discharges to Cleary Lake and then to Credit River via a tributary
channel. The DNR wetland no. 188 is about 135 acres at the 940 elevation.
Developed Conditions
The land will maximize the amount of open space within the development..Deerfield will
have a variety of lot types that are included in the following: 78 single family lots, 60
twin home lots, 203 quad units, and 284 villa units. Also included are parks and a trail
system. In recognition of the importance of the quality of the stonn water runoff, this
project includes nine water quality improvement ponds and other 'best management
practices' in the handling of the drainage. The water quality pond drainage areas,
volumes and peak elevations are listed in an attached table.
.""
The Deerfield development is proposing to reduce ~e amount of flow that goes into
Markley Lake. The DNR wetland no. 187 will be diverted to DNR wetland no. 188,
effectively reducing the Markley Lake watershed by 54 acres. The diversion will
eliminate 9.9-acre feet of runoff that flows out of this area at peak level of the 100-year
storm. The development will increase the peak. flow into DNR wetland #188 from 192
cfs to 212 cfs during a 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
The development will create three detention areas, one new area to two wetlands that are
incorporated as detention areas. The wetlands that help detain water are controlled to
prevent the water levels from rising more than one foot from the ordinary high water
level for a 100-year event. The outlets for the wetland areas are controlled with either a
control structure or a culvert. When possible, a culvert is designed to carry the 'historic'
-3-
August 24, 1999
flow while backing up the water in the wetland area. In each case, a NURP pond fust
treats the inflow to the wetland.
In the case of the DNR wetland no. 187, a culvert outlet is not practical for a couple of
reasons. The first is that the natural outlet is to Markley Lake and we propose to divert
the water to DNR wetland no. 188 during periods of high water in Markley Lake. It is I
--.....1
_~P!?~.!._tQ.Je1a.inJh~.~hjl!tyJQ,~<!i!~g~Jl1:e...~~~~E~o.M~~~I,I;~~".4.l1ri1}g~Q!lgh!cycles" .~
In addition, the minimal increase in stage in the Wdhind No. 187 does not allow the
necessary head on a culvert entrance to meet the 1 DO-year flow capacity. The diversion
structure will need to be a stop log type of structure. The weir length needed is 14 feet to
discharge the 1 DO-year flow of 22.6 cfs. This is obviously too long of a weir to house in a
manhole type structure. A control structure will be placed at the natural outlet for
wetland no. 187 and also at the diversion outlet. The diversion outlet is at the western
side of wetland no. 187. Beyond the control structure, the diverted water will be
conveyed by storm sewer south to wetland no. 188.
Wetland no. 188 is about 135 acres in size at an elevation of940 feet above mean sea
level. The additional 19.8-acre feet of runoff volume from the diversion would cause a
stage increase of 0.147 feet if wetland no. 188 did not discharge. This wetland has an
outlet to Cleary Lake, which in turn has an outlet via a tributary channel to Credit River.
Cleary Lake has a surface area of about 145 acres. Between the attenuation of wetland
no. 187, wetland no. 188 and Cleary Lake, it is unlikely that the flow in the Credit River
will be appreciably affected. At the time of this study, insufficient data was readily
available to ascertain the effect.
Conclusions
We conclude that the project can be constructed without adverse impacts to downstream
properties. The diversion provides an opportunity to reduce the hardship to Markley Lake
Residents from the existing drainage system. The minimal increase in runoff rate to
_.MnDNR Wetland No. 188 is dissipated for all practical purposes through the vast area of
the wetland and the surface area of Cleary Lake. The net effect on the Credit River is
insignificant if even detectable. The drainage system design incorporates water quality
improvement ponds on storm sewer outlets wherever physically possible. Another 'best
management practice' is the extensive use of common green space that accommodates
overland flow of the storm water.
-4-
August 24, 1999
We hope that the findings in this letter report are sufficient to support the application to
the MnDNR for the diversion of water to DNR wetland no. 188. The information
presented within also should provide a basis for the design of drainage facilities for the.
development. We will continue to follow the process through the Watershed, the City of
Prior Lake, and the Department of Natural Resources as necessary.
Sincerely,
~ df!~
Brian D. Miller, PE
President
BDM Consulting Engineers, PLC
~..,~-
--, Water Quality Ponds'
2.5 in. event 1- Year event
,-
Pond Drainage Area Runoff Storage Normal Detention Elevation High Water
Needed Elevation Volume Jump Level
# (Acre) (in.) (Acre-Pt) (Acre-Ft) (Ft.)
1 9.488 t.18 0.933 950.20 0.30 1.06 951.3
2 8.820 1.12 0.823 940.50 0.20 0.41 940.9
3 35.406 1.24 3.659 942.00 0.60 0.42 942.4
4 5.209 0.69 0.300 946.00 0.10 0.59 946.6
5 2.293 1.24 0.237 946.00 0.10 0.34 946.3
6 4.040 1.24 0.418 951.00 0.40 0.36 951.4
7 8.969 0.57 0.426 951.50 0.10 0.27 951.8
8 1.965 0.46 0.075 955.20 0.00 0.00 955.2
-
9 6.802 1.12 0.635 948.00 0.40 0.50 948.5
......-. ._~.
Diversion of Runoff from Markley Lake
Operating- Plan Narrative
The Minnesota DNR Wetland No. 187 ultimately discharges Markley Lake during heavy
rainfalls. Prior Lake is experiencing flooding around Markley Lake due to rising lake
levels over the past several years. The DeerfieJd project affords an opportunity to reduce
the volume of runoff reaching Markley Lake during wet periods. With a properly
designed and operated diversion system, runoff can be directed toward Markley Lake
during dry periods.
The proposed diversion system will consist of two structures adjacent to Wetland No.
187. One constructed across the present outlet ofthe wetland, the other at the eastern
edge of the wetland. The eastern structure will release water to a storm. sewer that
transports the water south to MnDNR Wetland No.188. When Markley Lake is near or
above the desired level, the control structure for diverting water to Wetland No. 188 will
be lowered. The other control structure will have the stop logs placed to the 100-year
flood level of the wetland. During dry periods, the stop logs in the eastern control
structure can be placed and the other lowered. This configuration will direct the runoff
from the wetland to Markley Lake.
More specifically, the diversion structures win be concrete walls with slots to receive
stop logs. Smaller structures, such as concrete vaults with slide gates, are inadequate to
address the 1 OO-year runoff rates from the wetlands. The stop log structures will be set
with a minimum elevation for outflow at the MnDNR detemUned ordinary high water
level without the use of any stop logs. The structures will allow stop logs to the 100-year
highwater elevation of951.4 feet. A locking mechanism will be incorporated into the
structure design to discourage unauthorized manipulation of the diversion structures.
........ '.$--'
,
. .' , . .
. .. .TR-l0
, : ".' - . .
HYDROLOGY
~.".~.
1
*****************80-80 LIST OF INPUT DATA .FOR TR-20 HYDROLOGY******************
JOB TR-20 114001 PASS=OOl sUMMARY
TITLE Deerfield Proposed Co'nditions
TITLE Diversion
3 STRUCT 01
8 950.8 0.0 O.
8 951. 4 22.6 10.4
8 952. 64. 19.75
9 ENDTBL
3 STRUCT 02
8 941- 0.0 O.
8 943. 57. 2.9
8 944. 72.3 7.23
9 ENDTBL
3 STRUCT 03
8 942. 0.0 1. 4187
8 944. 79. 3.08
8 946. 133.79 7.01
9 ENDTBL
6 RUNOFF 1 001 1 .0808 85. .53
6 RESVOR 2 01 1 2 950.8
6 RUNOFF 1 002 1 .0570 80. .59
6 RESVOR 2 02 1 3 941.
6 RUNOFF 1 003 1 .0662 83. .77
6 RESVOR 2 03 1 4 942.
6 RUNOFF 1 004 5 .0159 84. .61
6 RUNOFF 1 005 6 .0153 71. .41
6 RUNOFF 1 006 7 .0127 84. .52
6 ADDHYD 4 007 2 4 1
6 ADDHYD 4 008 1 3 2
6 ADDHYD 4 009 2 5 3
6 ADDHYD 4 010 3 6 4
6 ADDHYD 4 011 4 7 5
ENDATA
.......-..~. 7 INCREM 6 0.1
7 COMPUT 7 001 011 0.0 6.0 1.0 2 2 99 99
ENDCMP 1
ENDJOB 2
*******************************END OF 80-80 LIST******************************~
1
TR20 ______________________________________________________-------------- SCS .
114001 Deerfield Proposed Conditions VERSI~
08/24/99 Diversion 2.04TES'
11:22:53 PASS 1 JOB NO. 1 PAGE
--------
NOTE _ TR-20 USER NOTE FILE (TR20NOTE.TEX) NOT FOUND.
--------
1
TR20 _____________-------------~----------------------------------------- SCS -
114001 Deerfield proposed conditions VERSION
08/24/99 Diversion 2. 04TEST
11:22:53 PASS 1 JOB NO. 1 PJ\GE 2
EXECUTIVE CONTROL INCREM
MAIN TIME INCREMENT =
.100 HOURS
EXECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT
STARTING TIME = .00
ANT. RUNOFF CONDo = 2
ALTERNATE NO. =99
FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 11
RAIN DEPTH = 6.00 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
STORM NO. =99 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 1
1
TR20 ______________------------------------------------------------------ SCS -
'J.14001 Deerfie1d proposed Conditions VERSION
08/24/99 Diversion' 2.04TEST
11 : 22 : 53 sUMMARY. JOB NO. 1 pJ\GE 3
sUMMARY TABLE 1
SELECTED RESULTS OF STANDARD AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL IN ORDER PERFORMED.
A CHARACTER FOLLOWING THE pEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE tCFS) INDICATES:
F-FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH T-TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH R-RISING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH
---------------
XSECTION/
STRUCTURE
ID
STANDARD
CONTROL
OPERATION
DRAINAGE
AREA
(SQ MI)
RUNOFF
AMOUNT
(IN)
------------------------------------
pEAK DISCHARGE
ELEVATION TIME
(FT) (HR)
RATE
(CFS)
RATE
(CSM)
RAINFALL OF
6.00 inches AND 24.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT
.0 hrs.
RAINTABLE NUMBER 2, ARC 2
MAIN TIME INCREMENT .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE 99 STORM 99
---------------------------
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .08 4.30 12.19 180 2250.0
STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR. .08 4.28 951.39 13.26 22 275.0
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .06 3!78 12.23 105 1750.0
STRUCTURE 2 RESVOR .06 3.78 943.02 12.56 57 950.0
XSECTION 3 RUNOFF .07 4.09 12.34 110 1571. 4
STRUCTURE 3 RESVOR .07 4.09 944.18 12.60 84 1200.0
XSECTION 4 RUNOFF .02 4.19 12.24 32 1600.0
XSECTION 5 RUNOFF .02 2.90 12.13 27 1350.0
XSECTION 6 RUNOFF .01 4.19 12.19 28 2800.0
XSECTION 7 ADDHYD .15 4.19 12.65 104 693.3
XSECTION 8
XSECTION 9
XSECTION 10
XSECTION 11
1
TR20 ----------------------------------------------______________________ SCS _
114001 Deerfield Proposed Conditions VERSION
08/24/99 Diversion 2.04TEST
11: 22: 53 SUMMARY, JOB NO. 1 PAGE 4
ADDHYD
ADDHYD
ADDHYD
ADDHYD
.20
.22
.24
.25
4.08
4.08
4.01
4.02
12.62
12.49
12.43
12.38
161
180
193
212
805.0
818.2
804.2
848.0
SUMMARy TABLE 3
---------------
STORM DISCHARGES (CFS) AT XSECTIONS AND STRUCTURES FOR ALL ALTERNATES
QUESTION MARK (?) AFTER: OUTFLOW PEAK - RISING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH.
XSECTION/
STRUCTURE
ID
DRAINAGE
AREA
(SQ MI)
STORM NUMBERS..........
99
STRUCTURE 3
.07
---------------------------
ALTERNATE
99
84
........ . .s--
STRUCTURE 2
.06
---------------------------
ALTERNATE 99
57
STRUCTURE 1
.08
---------------------------
ALTERNATE 99
22
XSECTION 1
.08
---------------------------
ALTERNATE 99
180
XSECTION 2
.06
---------------------------
ALTERNATE
99
105
-~--
XSECTION
3
.07
---------------------------
ALTERNATE 99
110
XSECTION 4
.02
---------------------------
ALTERNATE 99
32
XSECTION 5
.02
---------------------------
ALTERNATE 99
27
XSECTION 6
.01
---------------------------
ALTERNATE 99
28
XSECTION 7
.15
---------------------------
ALTERNATE 99
104
XSECTION 8
.20
---------------------------
ALTERNATE 99
161
XSECTION 9
.22
---------------------------
ALTERNATE
99
180
XSECTION 10
.24
---------------------------
ALTERNATE
99
193
XSECTION 11
.25
---------------------------
1
TR20 ______________________________________________________-------------- SCS -
114001 Deerfield proposed conditions VERSION
08/24/99 Diversion 2.04TEST
-l't, 22 , 53 sUMMl\RY, JOB NO. 1 PAGE 5
STORM DIScHARGES (CFS) AT XSECTIONS AND STRUCTURES FOR ALL ALTERNATES
QUESTION MARK (1) AFTER' OUTFLOW pEAK - RISING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH,
sUMMARY TABLE 3
---------------
XSECTIONI
STRUCTURE
1D
DRAINAGE
AREA
(SQ MI)
STORM NUMBERS..........
99
XSECTION 11
.25
---------------------------
1
TR20 _____________------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
ALTERNATE
99
212
114001
08/24/99
Deerfield Proposed Conditions
Diversion
END OF 1 JOBS IN THIS RUN
INPUT
OUTPUT
D.DAT
D.OUT
SCS TR-20, VERSION 2.04TEST
114001 FILES
FILES GENERATED - DATED 08/24/99,11:22:53
FILE D. TMG CONTAINS MESSAGE + WARNING INFORMATION
TOTAL NUMBER OF WARNINGS =
........ .~.
0, MESSAGES
*** TR-20 RUN COMPLETED ***
VERSION
2.04TEST
GIVEN DATA FILE
DATED 08/24/99,11:22:53
o
- --~T-
,,~-
- ., -
. 2.5" RAIN
NURPPOND
STORAGE.
-- >'-'
In.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-15-99
County : Scott' State: MN Checked: Date;..-
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Subarea : wet 1
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways 13.4(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 5.12(85)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush - brush, weed, grass mix poor - 14.1(83)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 13.45.12 14.1
==== ==== ====
SUBAREA: wet 1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 32.62 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 89
o RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-15-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Subarea : Pond 1
Hydrologic SoU Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC 0
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .283(98}
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 9.49(85}
~. ,s--
Total Area (by Hydrologic SoU Group) .283 9.49
--- ====
SUBAREA: Pond 1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.n3 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 85
o RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-15-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Subarea: Pond 7
Version 2.000
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Page 1
;'1'1\
.r-
In.prn
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Impervious heas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .370(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/3 acre 30 - 8.97(12)
Total hea (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .37 8.97
===
SUBAREA: Pond 7 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.34 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 73
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User: fN/ Date: 07-15-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Version 2.000
Subarea #1 - wet 1
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n hea Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ftIsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 100 .02 f 0.255
Time of Concentration = 0.25*
subarea #2 - Pond 1
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n hea Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ftIsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0194 e 0.425
ShalloW Concent'd 640 .0194 P 0.063
Time of Concentration = 0.49*
Subarea #3 - Pond 7
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n hea Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sqlft) (ft) (ftIsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0211 e 0.412
~. Shallow Concent'd 1000 .0211 P 0.094
Shallow Concent'd 200 .0211 P 0.019
Time of Concentration = 0.53*
=====
_ Sheet Flow surface Codes -
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - Shallow Concentrated -
B FallOW (No Res.) G Grass. Burmuda surface Codes
C CultiVated < 20 % Res. H Woods. Ught P Paved
D cultiVated> 20 % Res. I Woods. Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range. Natural
00* _ Generated for use by TABUlAR method
o TABUlAR HYOROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: fN/ Date: 07-15-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Total watershed area: 0.081 sq ml Rainfall type: \I Frequency: years
Page 2
In.prn
Subareas
wet 1 Pond 1 Pond 7 .
Area(sq ml) 0.05* 0.02* 0.01*
Rainfal/(in) 2.5' 2.5 2.5
Curve number 89* 85* 73*
Runoff(in) 1.45 1.18 0.57
Te (hrs) 0.25* 0.49" 0.53"
(Used) 0.20 0.50 0.50
TimeToOutlet 0.00 0.00 0.00
laIP 0.10 0.14 0.30
(Used) 0.10 0.14 0.30
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (efs)-
(hr) Flow wet 1 Pond 1 Pond 7
11.0 2 2 0 0
11.3 2 2 0 0
11.6 3 3 0 0
11.9 16 15 1 0
12.0 31 30 1 0
12.1 58 55 3 0
12.2 65P 59P 5 1
12.3 47 36 8 3
12.4 32 19 9P 4P
12.5 25 12 9 4
12.6 19 9 7 3
12.7 15 8 5 2
12.8 12 6 4 2
13.0 9 5 3 1
13.2 8 5 2 1
13.4 6 4 1 1
13.6 6 4 1 1
13.8 5 3 1 1
14.0 5 3 1 1
14.3 4 3 1 0
14.6 3 2 1 0
15.0 3 2 1 0
15.5 3 2 1 0
16.0 3 2 1 0
16.5 2 2 0 0
17.0 1 1 0 0
17.5 1 1 0 0
18.0 1 1 0 0
19.0 1 1 0 0
20.0 1 1 0 0
22.0 1 1 0 0
26.0 0 0 0 0
...-...- .~.
P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
0
Page 3
2n.pr~
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: WI Date: 07-16-99
County : scott . State: MN Checked: Date:-
SubtiUe: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Subarea: Wet 2
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC 0
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns,parks etc.)
Good condition; grass cover> 75% - 3.05(61)
ImperviouS Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways 3.34(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
118 acre (town houses) 65 - 1.2(85)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 3.34 425
---- ---
SUBAREA: Wet 2 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 7.59 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 81
o RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: WI Date: 07-16-99
County : scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
SubtiUe: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Subarea: Pond 4
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC 0
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns,parks etc.)
Good condition; grass cover> 75% - .35(61)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs. driveways .74(98) .36(98)
Eesidential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/3 acre 30 - 4.49(72)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .74 52
==== =:==
SUBAREA: Pond 4 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 5.94 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 76
o RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project; Deerfield User: WI Date: 07-16-99
County : scott State: MN Checked: Date:
subtiUe: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Subarea: Pond 5
Page 1
2n. prn
Hydrologic son Group
COVER DESCRIPTION' ABC D
. Acres (CN) ,
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Yeg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns,parks etc.)
Good condition; grass cover> 75% - .2(61)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .291(98) .23(98)
Residential dIstricts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
118 acre (town houses) 65 - 1.46(85)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .291 1.89
---- ----
---- ---
SUBAREA: Pond 5 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 2.181 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 86
o RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-16-99
County : scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Subarea: #14
HydrOlogic 5011 Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Yeg Estab.)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - .413(98)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soli Group) .413
SUBAREA: #14 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .413 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 98
o RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-16-99
County : scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Subarea: #15
Version 2.000
....... . ,;.--
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Yeg Estab.)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - .542(98)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .542
====
Page 2
2n.prn
SUBAREA: #15 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .542 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 98
o RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfleld User: fm Date: 07-16-99
County : scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Subarea: Pond 8
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns,par'KS etc.)
Good condition; grass cover> 75% - 5.71 (61)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .645(98)
Residential districts Avg % Imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 1.97(85)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .645 7.68
---- ---
---- ----
SUBAREA: Pond 8 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 8.325 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 70
o RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield . User: fm Date: 07-16-99
County : scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Subarea : Wet 3
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
ImpervioUS Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .5(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acrB (town houses) 65 - 1.46(85)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush _ brush. weed, grass mix poor - 2.05(83)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .5 1.46 2.05
==== ==== ==-=
SUBAREA: Wet 3 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 4.01 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 86
o
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION
Version 2.000
Page 3
2n.prn
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-16-99
County : scott . - -State: MN Checked: Date:
SubtiUe: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Subarea: Pond 6
Hydrologic SoB Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FUllY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .696(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average Jot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 6.23(85)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush - brush, weed, grass mix poor - .559(83)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .696 6.23 .559
=-== ==== ====
SUBAREA: Pond 6 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 7.485 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 86
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-16-99
County : scott State: MN Checked: Date:
SubtiUe: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Version 2.000
Subarea #1 - Wet 2
Flow Type 2 year length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (It) (ft/ft) code (sqlft) (It) (ftlsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 100 .04 e 0.133
Time of Concentration = 0.13*
====
Subarea #2 - Pond 4
Flow Type 2 year length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (It) (ft/ft) code (sqllt) (It) (ftlsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0162 e 0.458
Shallow Concenfd 750 .0162 P 0.081
.....-.. .>>- Time of Concentration = 0.54*
=====
Subarea #3 - Pond 5
Flow Type 2 year length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Tune
rain (It) (ft/ft) code (sqIft) (It) (ftlsec) (hr)
Sheet 3.11 300 .0213 e 0.389
Shallow Concent'd 450 .0213 P 0.042
Time of Concentration = 0.43*
=-==--=
Subarea #4 - '14
Flow Type 2 year length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
Page 4
2n.prn
rain (ft) (ftlft) code (sqlft) (ft) (ftlsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79' 300 .02 e 0.421
ShanoW Concenrd 50 .02 P 0.005
Time of Concentration = 0.43*
====
subarea #5 - #15
FloW Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftl1\) code (sqlft) (1\) (ftlsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .023 e 0.398
Time of Concentration:= 0.40*
00* _ Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sW Date: 07-16-99
County : scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain
_ subarea #6 - Pond 8
FloW Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftlft) code (sqlft) (ft) (ftlsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0213 e 0.411
ShalloW Concent'd 600 .0213 P 0.056
ShalloW Concent'd 600 .0213 P 0.056
Time of Concentration = 0.52*
-----
subarea #7 - Wet 3
FloW Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
, rain (ft) (ftlft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ftlsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .Q166 e 0.454
ShallOW concent'd 300 .0166 P 0.032
Time of Concentration := 0.49*
=====
_ Subarea #8 - Pond 6
FloW Type 2 year Length Slope surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftlft) code (sqlft) (ft) (ftlsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0144 e 0.480
~. ShalloW Concent'd 950 .0144 P 0.108
Time of Concentration = 0.59*
-----
_ Sheet FloW Surface Codes -
A Smooth surface F Grass, Dense - ShallOW Concentrated -
B FallOW (No Res.) G Grass. Burmuda surface Codes
C CUltivated < 20 % Res. H Woods. Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods. Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range. Short J Range, Natural
00* _ Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deer1ield User: '!NI Date: 07-16-99
County : scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Total watershed area: 0.057 sq mi Rainfall type: \I Frequency: 100 years
Subareas
Page 5
2n.prn
Wet 2 Pond 4 Pond 5 #14 #15 Pond 8 Wet 3 Pond 6
Area(sq mQ 0.01* 0.01* 0.00* 0.00* 0.00* 0.01* 0.01* 0.01*
Rainfall(lll) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Curve number. 81* 76* 86* 98* 98* 70* 86* 86*
Runoff(ln) 0.94 0.69 1.24 2.27 2.27 0.46 1.24 1.24
Tc (hrs) 0.13* 0.54* 0.43* 0.43* 0.40* 0.52* 0.49* 0.59*
(Used) 0.10 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50
TimeToOutlet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
laIP 0.19 0.25 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.34 0.13 0.13
(Used) 0.19 0.25 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.34 0.13 0.13
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)
(hr) Flow Wet 2 Pond 4 Pond 5 #14 #15 Pond 8 Wet 3 Pond 6
11.0 0
11.3 0
11.6 0
11.9 4
12.0 10
12.1 17
12.2 19
12.3 19
12.4
12.5
12.6
12.7
12.8
13.0
13.2
13.4
22P 2
21 1
16 1
12 1
10 1
6 1
5 1
5 1
13.6 2 1
13.8 2 1
14.0 2 1
14.3 1 0
14.6 1 0
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
3 0
7 0
11P 1
7 1
2 2
o 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 000 1
1 0 0 0 1 1
1 0 1P 0 1 2
2P 1P 1 1 2 4
2112P36
3P 2 1 1
3 2 1 1
2 1 0 1
2 1 0 0
2 1 0 0
100 0
100 0
100 0
2 4P 7P
247
236
224
123
112
1 1 1
111
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
1
1
1
1
1
o
o
o
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
P - mk~iow * - vaJue(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
o
Page 6
3n.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-15--99
County : Scott' State: MN Checked: Date;-
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain -
Subarea: wet3
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - .5(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 1.46(85)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush _ brush, weed, grass mix poor - 2.05(83)
Total Nea (by Hydrologic Soil Group)
1.96
2.05
---- ---
SUBAREA: wet3 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 4.01 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 86
o RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-15-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain
'Subarea: pond 6
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - .696(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 623(85)
~.~-
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush - brush, weed, grass mix poor
- .559(83)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group)
====
6.92
.559
SUBAREA: pond 6 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 7.485 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 86
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-15-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Version 2.000
Page 1
3n.prn
Subarea #1 - wet3
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp .velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ftIsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 250 .0108 f 0.678
Time of Concentration = 0.68*
=====
Subarea #2 - pond 6
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sqIft) (ft) (ftIsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0169 e 0.451
Shallow Concenfd 350 .0169 P 0.037
Time of Concentration = 0.49*
_ Sheet Flow Surface Codes -
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - Shallow Concentrated -
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass.-Range, Short J Range, Natural
00* _ Generated for use by TABUlAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-15-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
SubtiUe: NURP 2.5 in. rain
Total watershed area: 0.018 sq ml Rainfall type: II Frequency: 100 years
Subareas
wet3 pond 6
Area(sq mQ 0.01* 0.01*
Rainfall(in) 2.5 2.5
Curve number 8~ 86"
Runoff(in) 1.24 124
Tc (hrs) 0.68* 0.49*
(Used) 0.75 0.50
TimeToOutlet 0.00 0.00
laIP 0.13 0.13
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)
(hr) Flow wet3 pond 6
11.0 0 0 0
11.3 0 0 0
1~ .....0 0 0
11.9 1 0 1
12.0 1 0 1
12.1 2 0 2
12.2 5 1 4
12.3 7 1 6
12.4 9 2 7P
12.5 10P 3P 7
12.6 9 3 6
12.7 7 3 4
12.8 6 3 3
13.0 4 2 2
13.2 2 1 1
13.4 2 1 1
13.6 2 1 1
13.8 2 1 1
Page 2
.. ..
3n.prn
14.0 1 0 1
14.3 1 0.. 1
14.6 1 0 1
15.0 0 o. 0
15.5 0 0 0
16.0 0 0 0
16.5 0 0 0
17.0 0 0 0
17.5 0 0 0
18.0 0 0 0
19.0 0 0 0
20.0 0 0 0
22.0 0 0 0
26.0 0 0 0
P - Peak Flow . - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
0
........ '-~'
Page 3
2npond.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerliefd User: sw Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Dat~
SUbtitle: NURP.2.5 IN. rain
Subarea: pond 2
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns,parks etc.)
Fair condition; grass cover 50% to 75% - .867(69)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .493(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 8.82(85)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .493 9.68
==== ====
SUBAREA: pond 2 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 10.18 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 84
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerlield User: sw Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 IN. rain
Version 2.000
Subarea #1 - pond 2
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity TIme
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ftIsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0123 e 0.512
Shallow Concenfd 800 .0123 P 0.099
TIme of Concentration = 0.61.
- Sheet Flow Surface Codes-
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - Shallow Concentrated _
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Gra*Range, Short J Range, Natural
oo~enerated for use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
ProJect: Oeerlield User: sw Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
SUbtitle: NURP 2.5 IN. rain
Total waten;hed area: 0.016 sq mi Rainfall type: II Frequency: 100 years
Subareas
pond 2
Area(sq mi) 0.02.
Ralnfall(ln) 2.5
Curve number 84.
Runoff(in) 1.12
Tc (hrs) 0.61.
(Used) 0.50
TImeToOutlet 0.00
Page 1
2npond.prn
lalP 0.15
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs).;
(hr) Flow pond2
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
11.9 1 1
12.0 1 1
12.1 2 2
12.2 5 5
12.3 8 8
12.4 9P 9P
12.5 9 9
12.6 7 7
12.7 5 5
12.8 4 4
13.0 3 3
13.2 2 2
13.4 1 1
13.6 1 1
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 1
14.6 1 1
15.0 1 1
15.5 1 1
16.0 1 1
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow · _ value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
0
~..,~-
Page 2
9n.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-26-99
County : Scott' State: MN Checked: _ Date:-
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 IN pond 9
Subarea : pond 9
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS ('leg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns.parks etc.)
Fair condItion; grass cover 50% to 75% - .983(69)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots. roofs. driveways .357(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 6.80(85)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .357 7.78
==== ====
SUBAREA: pond 9 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 8.14 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 84
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-26-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 IN pond 9
Subarea #1 - pond 9
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftlfl) code (sq/ft) (fl) (ftlsec) (hr)
Version 2.000
Sheet 2.79 300 .0168 e 0.452
ShaDow Concent'd 650 .0168 P 0.069
Time of Concentration = 0.5T
=====
_ Sheet Flow Surface Codes-
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - ShaDow Concentrated -
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass. Burmuda Surface Codes
C Culllvated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
00* _ Generated for use by T ASULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-26-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: NURP 2.5 IN pond 9
Total watershed area: 0.013 sq mi RaInfall type: \I Frequency: 100 years
Subareas
pond 9
Area(sq mil 0.01.
RainfallQn) 2.5
Curve number 84.
Runoff(lO) 1.12
Tc (hrs) 0.5T
(Used) 0.50
TlmeToOutlet 0.00
Page 1
9n.prn
laIP 0.15
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)
(hr) Flow pond 9
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
11.9 1 1
12.0 1 1
12.1 2 2
12.2 4 4
12.3 6 6
12.4 7P 7P
12.5 7 7
12.6 6 6
12.7 4 4
12.8 3. 3
13.0 2 2
13.2 1 1
13.4 1 1
13.6 1 1
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 1
14.6 1 1
15.0 1 1
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P _ Peak Flow . _ value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
0
~...~.
Page 2
..-..- '.~'
- . ..-
.. 1 YEAR EVENT -
PEAKP.OND ..
ELEVATIONS. .
lyexpl.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: SON Date: 07-18-99
County : scott ' State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year pond 1 Existing
Subarea : pond 1
Hydrologic son Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC 0
Acres (CN)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush - brush, weed, grass mix poor
- 2.64(83)
Woods - grass combination
poor
- 7.13(73)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group)
7.13
2.64
SUBAREA: pond 1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.77 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 76
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User: SON Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 1 Existing
Subarea #1 - pond 1
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity lime
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sqIft) (ft) (ftfsec) (hr)
Version 2.000
Sheet 2.79 300 .019-4 f 0.621
ShaDow Concenfd 640 .019-4 u 0.079
lime of Concentration = 0.70'"
=--===
- Sheet Flow Surface Codes -
A Smooth SUrface F Grass, Dense - ShaDow Concentrated -
B FaHow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
o Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
00. - Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year .pond 1 Existing
Total ~teg;hed area: 0.015 sq mi RainfaD type: II Frequency: 1 yeanl
Subareas
pond 1
Area(sq mil 0.02.
Rainfall(in) 2.-4
Curve number 76"
Runoff(ln) 0.63
Te (hrs) 0.70.
(Used) 0.75
limeToOutIet 0.00
laIP 0.26
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)
(hr) Flow pond 1
11.0 0 0
Page 1
lyexpl. prn
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0-.
11.9 0 0-
12.0 0 0
12.1 0 0
12.2 0 0
12.3 1 1
12.4 2 2
12.5 3P 3P
12.6 3 3
12.7 3 3
12.8 3 3
13.0 2 2
132 2 2
13.4 1 1
13.6 1 1
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 1
14.6 1 1
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P _ Peak Row ' · - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
0 STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.000
Project: Deerfleld User: ftN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked:_ Date:
SubtiUe: 1 year Pond 1 ElQsting
Drainage Plea: 1.526563E-02 Sq mDes Rainfall Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff: 0.6 inches
Peak Inflow: 3 cfs
Peak Qutftow: .3001 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.35 inches or 0.3 acre feet
''''0
Page 2
;'1 ~ --
lyprpl.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott . State: mn Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 1 Proposed
Subarea : pond 1
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
ACTes (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
ImpeNious Areas
Paved parldng lots, roofs, driveways - 283(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 9.49(85)
Total Alea (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 9.77
===
SUBAREA: pond 1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.773 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 85
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 1 Proposed
Subarea #1 - pond 1
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sqJft) (ft) (ftIsec) (hr)
Version 2.000
Sheet 2.79 300 .0194 e 0.426
ShaDow Concenfd 640 .0194 P 0.063
Time of Concentration = 0.49-
=====
- Sheet Flow Surface Codes -
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - ShaDow Concentrated -
B FaDow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
00- - Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
ProJect: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County :t(:ott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 1 Proposed
Total watershed area: 0.015 sq mt RalnfaD type: II Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond 1
Area(sq mil 0.02-
RalnfaD(ln) 2.4
Curve number 85-
Runoff(m) 1.10
Tc (In) D.49-
(Used) 0.50
TimeToOUUet 0.00
laIP 0.15
Time Total
Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)
Page 1
lyprpl.prn
(hr) Flow pond 1
11.0 0 O.
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
11.9 1 1
12.0 1 1
12.1 2 2
122 5 5
12.3 7 7
12.4 8P 8P
12.5 8 8
12.6 7 7
12.7 5 5
12.8 4 4
13.0 2 2
132 2 2
13.4 1 1
13.6 1 1
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 1
14.6 1 1
15.0 1 1
15.5 1 1
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Row * _ value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
0 STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.000
Project: Deerlield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State:mn Checked: Date:
SUbtitle: 1 year Pond 1 Proposed
Drainage Area: 1.527031 E-02 Sq miles Rainfa" Frequency: 1 years
RainfaD-Type: II
Runoff: 1.1 Inches
Peak Inllow: 8 cfs
Peak Outflow: 3 cfs
DetentlOh Basin Storage Volume: 0.37 Inches or 0.3 acre feet
o
Page 2
lyexp2.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: gw Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott - State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: pond 2 ~xistin9 -
Subarea: pond 2
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Aaes (CN)
CULTIVATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Small grain Straight row (SR) good - 10.2(75)
Total Area (bY Hydrologic SoD Group) 10.2
SUBAREA: pond 2 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 10.2 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 75
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User: WI Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: pond 2 existing
Subarea #1 - pond 2
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sqlft) (ft) (ftlsec) (hr)
Version 2.000
Sheet 2.79 300 .0123 e 0.512
Shallow Concent'd 800 .0123 u 0.124
Time of Concentration = 0.64*
=====
_ Sheet FloW Surface Codes -
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - ShaDow Concentrated -
B FalloW (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods. Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range. Natural
00* _ Generated fOl' use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: WI Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: pond 2 existing
Tamlwatershed area: 0.016 sq mi Rainfal1 type: 11 Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond 2
Area(sq mil 0.02*
RainfaD(in) 2.4
Curve number 75*
Runoff(in) 0.59
Tc (hrs) 0.64*
(Used) 0.75
TimeToOutlet 0.00
laIP 0.28
Time Total subarea Contnbution to Total FloW (cfs)
(hr) Row pond 2
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
Page 1
lyexp2.prn
11.9 0 0
12.0 0 o.
12.1 0 0
12.2 0 0
12.3 1 1
12.4 2 2
12.5 3P 3P
12.6 3 3
12.7 3 3
12.8 3 3
13.0 2 2
13.2 2 2
13.4 1 1
13.6 1 1
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 1
14.6 1 1
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow . _ value(s} provided from TR-55 system routines
0 STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: pond 2 existing
Drainage Nea: .0159375 Sq miles RainfaD Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff: 0.6 inches
Peak Inflow: 3 cfs
Peak Outflow: .3001 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.33 inches or 0.3 acre feet
o
........ . .S-"
Page 2
lyprp2.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: Wi Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Dat~
Subtitle: Pond ~. proposed
Subarea : pond 2
Hydrologic soa Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns,parks etc.)
Fair condition; grass cover 50% to 75% - .867(69)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking 101s, roofs, driveways .493(98)
Residential cftstric1s Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 8.82(85)
Total Area (by Hydrologic SoD Group) .493 9.68
==== ====
SUBAREA: pond 2 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 10.18 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 84
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User: Wi Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Pond 2 proposed
Subarea #1 . pond 2
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain eft) (ftfft) code (sqlft) eft) (ftlsec) (hr)
Version 2.000
Sheet 2.79 300 .0123 e 0.512
Shallow Concent'd 800 .0123 P 0.099
Time of Concentration = 0.61.
_ Sheet Flow Surface Codes -
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - Shallow Concentrated -
B FaHow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Gra$!i::Range, Short J Range, Natural
00. :"'Generated for use by TABUlAR method
o TABUlAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: fNI Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Pond 2 prC!posed
Total watershed area: 0.016 sq mi RainfaD type: II Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond 2
Area{sq mi} O.O~
RainfaU(1n) 2.4
Curve number 84.
Runoff(m) 1.04
Tc (hrs) 0.61.
(Used) 0.50
TimeToOutlet 0.00
Page 1
lyprp2.prn
laIP 0.16
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Row (cfs)..::
(hr) Flow pond 2
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
11.9 1 1
12.0 1 1
12.1 2 2
12.2 4 4
12.3 7 7
12.4 8P 8P
12.5 8 8
12.6 7 7
12.7 5 5
12.8 4 4
13.0 2 2.
132 2 2
13.4 1 1
13.6 1 1
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 1
14.6 1 1
15.0 1 1
15.5 1 1
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Row * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
0 STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS
Project: Deerfield User: WI Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
SubtiUe: Pond 2 proposed
Version 2.000
Drainage Area: 1.590625E-02 Sq miles Rainfan Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff: 1.0 Inches
Peak lri'ftow: 8 cfs
Peak Outflow: 6.3999 c15
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.18 inches or 0.2 acre feet
o
Page 2
-~ ._-,.
tiT
lyexp3.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerlield User: sw Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:....
Subtitle: Pond ~ existing
Subarea: pond 3
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
CULTIVATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Row crops Straight row (SR) good
- 40.4(78)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush - brush, weed, grass mix poor
Woods - grass combination poor
1(83)
1(86)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group)
40.4
2
==--=
SUBAREA: pond 3 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 42.4 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 78
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Pond 3 existing
Subarea #1 - pond 3
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftfft) code (sqIft) (ft) (ftlsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0088 c 0281
ShalloW Concenfd 1000 .0088 u 0.1M
Shallow Concent'd 300 .0088 u 0.055
Time of Concentration = 0.5T
===--=
_ Sheet Flow Surface Codes-
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - Shallow Concentrated -
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass. Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
D CultiVated> 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
00. _ Generated for use by TABUlAR method
o TABUlAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD VersIOn 2.000
Project: [)eerfield User: sw Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: Pond 3 existing
Total watershed area: 0.060 sq mi RainfaU type: 11 Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond 3
Area(sq mil 0.07*
Rainfall(m) 2.4
curve number 78*
Runoff(in) 0.72
Tc (hrS) 0.5T
(Used) 0.50
TimeToOutlet 0.00
laIP 024
Page 1
lyexp3.prn
TIme Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)
(tv) Flow pond 3
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
11.9 1 1
12.0 2 2
12.1 4 4
12.2 10 10
12.3 17 17
12.4 22P 22P
12.5 22 22
12.6 19 19
12.7 14 14
12.8 11 11
13.0 7 7
13.2 5 5
13.4 4 4
13.6 4 4
13.8 3 3
14.0 3 3
14.3 2 2
14.6 2 2
15.0 2 2
15.5 2 2
16.0 2 2
16.5 1 1
17.0 1 1
17.5 1 1
18.0 1 1
19.0 1 1
20.0 1 1
22.0 1 1
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * - vaJue(s) prollided from TR-55 system routines
o STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Pond 3 existing
Drainage Area: .06625 Sq miles RainfaU Frequency: 1 years
RainfaB- Type: "
Runoff: 0.7 inches
Peak Inflow: 22 cfs
PM!( OtltlIow: 2.2001 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.40 inches or 1.4 acre feet
Version 2.000
o
Page 2
lyprp3.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: SN Date: 01-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:.
Subtitle: Pond ;3 proposed
Subarea: pond 3
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC 0
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open space (Lawils,parks etc.)
Fair cond'rtion; grass cover 50% to 75% - 5.54(69)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking 1015, roofs. driveways 1.42(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 35.4(85)
Total Area (by Hydrologic SoU Group) 1.42 40.9
====
SUBAREA: pond 3 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 42.36 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 83
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Pond 3 proposed
Subarea #1 - pond 3
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sqlft) (ft) (ftIsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0088 e 0.585
Shallow Concent'd 1000 .0088 P 0.146
ShaDow Concent'd 300 .0088 P 0.044
Time of Concentration = 0.77"
====
_ Sheet Flow Surface Codes -
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - ShaDow Concentrated -
B FaUoW (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
-Deutlivated > 20 % Res. I Woods. Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
DO" _ Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfle\d User: SN Date: 07-19-99
County : scott State: MN Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Pond 3 proposed
Total watershed area: 0.066 sq mi RainfaD type: 11 Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond 3
Area(sq mil 0.07"
Rainfall(lO) 2.4
Curve number 83"
Runoff(1n) 0.98
Tc (hrs) 0.77.
(Used) 0.75
Page 1
lyprp3. prn
TimeToOUtlet 0.00
laIP 0.17 ..
Time Total Subarea Contnbulion to Total Flow (cis)
(hr) Flow pond 3
11.0 1 1
11.3 1 1
11.6 1 1
11.9 1 1
12.0 2 2
12.1 3 3
12.2 6 6
12.3 10 10
12.4 16 16
12.5 22 22
12.6 25P 25P
12.7 25 25
12.8 23 23
13.0 16 16
132 11 11
13.4 8 8
13.6 6 6
13.8 5 5
14.0 4 4
14.3 4 4
14.6 3 3
15.0 3 3
15.5 2 2
16.0 2 2
16.5 2 2
17.0 2 2
17.5 2 2
18.0 1 1
19.0 1 1
20.0 1 1
22.0 1 1
26.0 0 0
P _ Peak Flow · - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
o STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS
Project: Deerfteld User: sw Date: 07-19-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: Pond 3 proposed
.-Drainage Area: .0661875 Sq miles RainfaU Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff: 1.0 inches
Peak Inflow: 25 cis
Peak Outftow: 20 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.17 Inches or 0.6 acre feet
o
Page 2
Version 2.000
lyexp4.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott' State: mn Checked: Date:-
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 4 Existing
Subarea : pond 4
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush - brush, weed, grass mix poor
- 5.95(67)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Son Group)
==--=
5.95
SUBAREA: pond 4 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 5.95 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 67
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 4 Existing
Subarea #1 - pond 4
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sqfft) (ft) (ftIsec) (hr)
Version 2.000
Sheet 2.79 300 .0162 f 0.667
ShallowConcent'd 750 .0162 u 0.101
Time of Concentration = 0.77*
- Sheet Flow Surface Codes -
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - ShaDow Concentrated -
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ugh! P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
00* - Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User:!1W Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 4 Existing
Total watershed area: 0.009 sq mi RainfaH type: II Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
-pond 4
Area(sq ml) 0.01*
RainfaDCm) 2.4
Curve number 6T'
Runoff(m) 0.32
Te (his) 0.77*
(Used) 0.75
TimeToOutlet 0.00
laIP 0.41
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)
(hr) Flow pond 4
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
Page 1
lyexp4.prn
11.9 0 0
12.0 0 0-
12.1 0 0'
12.2 0 o.
12.3 0 0
12.4 0 0
12.5 0 0
12.6 1P 1P
12.7 1 1
12.8 1 1
13.0 1 1
13.2 0 0
13.4 0 0
13.6 0 0
13.8 0 0
14.0 0 0
14.3 0 0
14.6 0 0
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow · - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
0 STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 4 Existing
Drainage Area: 9.296875E-D3 Sq miles RalnfaB Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff: 0.3 Inches
Peak Inftow: 1 cfs
Peak Outflow: .1001 efs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.18 Inches or 0.1 acre feet
o
............tS-.
Page 2
---C-,l, 1:"
if .;
lyprp4.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott . State: mn Checked: Date:-
Subtitle: 1 year Pond -4 Proposed
Subarea: pond -4
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns,parks etc.)
Good conartion; grass cover> 75% - .35(61)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .74(98) .360(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/3 acre 30 - 4.49(72)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .74 5.2
====
SUBAREA: pond 4 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 5.94 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 76
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond -4 Proposed
Subarea #1 - pond 4
Row Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ftlsec) (hr)
Version 2.000
Sheet 2.79 300 .0162 e 0.-458
ShaDow Concenfd 750 .0162 P 0.081
Time of Concentration = 0.54"
=-===
- Sheet Flow Surface Codes -
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - Shallow Concentrated -
B FaUow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
00" -Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: DeerfieJd User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond -4 Proposed
Total watershed area: 0.009 sq mj RainfaD type: II Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond -4
Area(sq mil 0.01"
RainfaD(ln) 2.4
Curve number 76"
Runoff(ln) 0.63
Tc (hrs) 0.54"
(Used) 0.50
TimeToOUtlet 0.00
Page 1
lyprp4.prn
laIP 0.26
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)..---
(hr) FloW pond 4
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
11.9 0 0
12.0 0 0
12.1 0 0
12.2 1 1
12.3 2 2
12.4 3P 3P
12.5 3 3
12.6 2 2
12.7 2 2
12.8 1 1
13.0 1 1
13.2 1 1
13.4 1 1
13.6 0 0
13.8 0 0
14.0 0 0
14.3 0 0
14.6 0 0
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P _ Peak FloW * _ value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
o STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: fNi Date: 07-18-99
_ County : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 4 Proposed -
~. Drainage Alea: 9.28125E-03 Sq mBes RalnfaB Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff: 0.6 inches
Peak InflOW: 3 cfs
Peak Outftow: 1 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.23 inches or 0.1 acre feet
o
Page 2
lyexp5.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: fI'N Date: 07-18-99
County : scott" State: mn Checked: Date:--
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 5 Existing -
Subarea: pond 5
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTiON ABC D
Acres (CN)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush - brush, weed. grass mix poor
- 2.18(83)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group)
2.18
==
SUBAREA: pond 5 TOTAL DRAINAGE MEA: 2.18 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 83
o TIME OF CONCENTRATiON AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User. fI'N Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 5 Existing
Subarea #1 - pond 5
FloW Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (Wft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ftlsec) (hr)
Version 2.000
Sheet 2.79 300 .0213 f 0.598
ShaDow Concenl'd 450 .0213 u 0.053
Time of Concentration = 0.65*
====
_ Sheet Flow SUrface Codes -
A Smooth Surtace F Grass, Dense - ShaRow Concentrated -
B FalloW (No Res.) G Grass. Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods. Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods. Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range. Natural
00* _ Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: WI Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 5 Existing
To~watershed area: 0.003 sq ml RainfaD type: \I Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond 5
Area(sq mil 0.00.
Rainfall(in) 2.4
curve number 83.
Runoff(lO) 0.98
Tc (hrs) 0.65.
(Used) 0.75
TimeToQuttet 0.00
laIP 0.17
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)
(hr) Flow pond 5
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
page 1
lyexp5.prn
11.9 0 0
12.0 0 0.'
12.1 0 O'
12.2 0 O.
12.3 1P 1P
12.4 1 1
12.5 1 1
12.6 1 1
12.7 1 1
12.8 1 1
13.0 1 1
13.2 1 1
13.4 0 0
13.6 0 0
13.8 0 0
14.0 0 0
14.3 0 0
14.6 0 0
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow · ~ value{s) provided from TR-55 system routines
0 STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.000 .
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: - Date:
Subtille: 1 year Pond 5 Existing
Drainage Area: 3.40625E-D3 Sq miles RainfaU Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff: 1.0 inches
Peak Inflow: 1 cfs
Peak Outflow: .2001 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.45 inches or 0.1 8ae feet
o
~ .$-.
Page 2
lyprp5.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfleld User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott . State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 5 Proposed -.-
Subarea: pond 5
Hydrologic Soli Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns,parla> etc.)
Good condition; grass cover> 75% - .20(61)
ImpervioUS Areas
Paved parlclng lots, roofs, driveways .291(98) .230(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by av~age lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 1.46(85)
Total Area (by Hydrologic SoU Group) .291 1.89
==== ====
SUBAREA: pond 5 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 2.181 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 86
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 5 Proposed
Subarea #1 - pond 5
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocily 1ime
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sqIft) (ft) (ftlsec) (hr)
Version 2.000
Sheet 2.79 300 .0213 e 0.411
Shallow Concent'd 450 .0213 P 0.042
1ime of Concentration = 0.45"
====
_ Sheet FloW Surface Codes -
A. Smooth SUrface F Grass, Dense - ShaDow Concentrated -
B FalloW (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
D C~\tiVated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
~ Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
00" _ Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfleld User: sw Date:,07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: _ Date:
Subtlt1e: 1 year Pond 5 Proposed
Total watershed area: 0.003 sq mi Rainfall type: \I Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond 5
Area(sq mil 0.00"
Rainfall(m) 2.4
Curve number 86"
Runoff(m) 1.16
Tc (hrs) 0.45.
(Used) 0.40
TimeToOutlet 0.00
Page 1
lyprp5.prn
lalP 0.14
Time Total Subarea Contnbution to Total Flow (cfs)-
(hr) Flow pond 5
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
11.9 0 0
12.0 0 0
12.1 1 1
12.2 2P 2P
12.3 2 2
12.4 2 2
12.5 2 2
12.6 1 1
12.7 1 1
12.8 1 1
13.0 0 0
13.2 0 0
13.4 0 0
13.6 0 0
13.8 0 0
14.0 0 0
14.3 0 0
14.6 0 0
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow · _ value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
0 STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 5 Proposed
Version 2.000
Drainage Area: 3.407812E-03 Sq mDes RalnfaU Frequency: 1 years
.BJiI1nfa11- Type: II
Runoff: 12 inches
Peak Inflow: 2 efs
Peak Outflow: 1 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.32 inches or 0.1 acre feet
o
Page 2
lyexp6. prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User. sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott . State: mn Checked: _ Date: -
Subtitle: 1 year P.ond 6 Existing
Subarea: pond 6
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush - brush. weed, graS$ mix poor
_ 6.93(67) - .559(83)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group)
====
6.93 .559
SUBAREA: pond 6 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 7.489 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 68
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : SCXltt State: mn ChecKed: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 6 Existing
Subarea #1 - pond 6
Flow Typ~ 2 year Lenglh Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0278 f 0.538
ShaRow Concent'd 350 .0278 u 0.036
Time of Concentration = 0.57.
=====
_ Sheet Flow Surface Codes -
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Oense - Shallow Concentrated -
B FaUow (No Res.) G Grass. Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods. Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods. Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range. Short J Range. Natural
00. _ Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 6 Existing
Total watershed area: 0.012 sq mi Rainfan type: II Frequency: 1 years
.-.. . ~. Subareas
pond 6
Area(sq mil 0.01.
Rainfall(in) 2.4
Curve number 68.
Runoff(in) 0.35
Tc (hrs) 0.5r
(Used) 0.50
TimeToQutIet 0.00
laIP 0.39
Time Total Subarea contribution to Total Flow (cfs)
(hr) Row pond 6
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
Page 1
lyexp6. prn
11.9 0 0
12.0 0 0
12.1 0 O.
12.2 0 o ..
12.3 1P 1P
12.4 1 1
12.5 1 1
12.6 1 1
12.7 1 1
12.8 1 1
13.0 1 1
13.2 0 0
13.4 0 0
13.6 0 0
13.8 0 0
14.0 0 0
14.3 0 0
14.6 0 0
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow .. - value(s) provided from TR-55 system' routines
0 STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.000
Project: DeerfieJd User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 6 ExistIng
Drainage Area: 1.170156E-02 Sq miles RalnfaU Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff: 0.3 Inches
Peaklnfl~ 1 cf.s
Peak Outflow: .1001 efs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.19 inches or 0.1 acre feet
o
......_ . .""'0
Page 2
lyprp6.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfleld User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott . State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 6 Proposed -.-
Subarea : pond 6
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
ImpervioUS Areas
Paved parldng lots, roofs. driveways - .696(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 6.23(85)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush _ brush, weed, grass mix poor - .559(83)
Total Area (by Hydrologie Soil Group)
==
6.92
.559
====
SUBAREA: pond 6 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 7.485 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 86
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.000
Project: Deerfleld User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott state: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 6 Proposed
Subarea #1 - pond 6
Row Type 2 year Lenglh Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ftIsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0169 e 0.451
ShaDow Concent'd 350 .0169 P 0.037
Time of Concentration = 0.49.
===
_ Sheet Flow Surface Codes -
A Smooth SUrface F Grass. Dense - ShalloW Concentrated -
B FaDow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes
~ CUltivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range. Short J Range. Natural
00. _ Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABUlAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Cheeked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 6 Proposed
Total watershed area: 0.012 sq mi RainfaD type: II Frequency: 1 years
SUbareas
pond 6
Area(sq mi) 0.01.
Rainfal(in) 2.4
Curve number 86*
Runoff(in) 1.16
Te (hrs) 0.49*
(Used) 0.50
Page 1
lyprp6. prn
TimeToOutlet 0.00
laIP 0.14 -.
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (efs)
(hr) Flow pond 6
11.0 0 0
11.3 ., 0
11.6 0 0
11.9 1 1
12.0 1 1
12.1 2 2
12.2 4 4
12.3 6 6
12.4 7P 7P
12.5 7 7
12.6 5 5
12.7 4 4
12.8 3 3
13.0 2 2
13.2 1 1
13.4 1 1
13.6 1 1
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 1
14.6 1 1
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17 .5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
~ . $-.
P _ Peak Aow · - vaJue(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
o STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.000
Project: oeerfield User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 6 Proposed
Drainage Area: 1.169531 E-02 Sq mnes RainfaR Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff: 12 Inches
Peak In~ 7 cfs
Peak Outflow: 1 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.59 Inches or 0.4 acre feet
o
Page 2
lyexp7.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfleld User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott state: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 7 Existing
Subarea: pond 7
Hydrologie Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
OTHER AGRICUL ruRAL LANDS
Woods - graS$ combination poor
- 2.20(13)
Farmsteads
- 7.14(74)
Totsl Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 9.34
==--=
SUBAREA: pond 7 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.34 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 74
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Cheeked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year pond 7 ExistIng
Subarea #1 - pond 7
Flow Type 2 year Lenglh Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ftIsec) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0211 f 0.600
ShaDow Concent'd 1000 .0211 u 0.119
ShaRow Concent'd 200 .0211 u 0.024
Time of Concentration = 0.74.
-=-=
_ Sheet Flow Surface Codes-
A Smooth surface F Grass. Dense - Shallow Coneentrated -
B FaUOW (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods. Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods. Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range. Short J Range, Natural
00. _ Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfleld User. SN Date: 07-18-99
C.R..~' : scott State: mn Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 7 Existing
Totsl watershed area: 0.015 sq mi RaInfall type: 1\ Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond 7
Area(sq mil 0.01.
Rainfan(in) 2.4
Curve number 74*
Runoff(m) 0.55
Te (hrs) 0.74*
(Used) 0.75
TimeToOutlet 0.00
laIP 0.29
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (efs)
(hr) Flow pond 7
Page 1
lyexp7.prn
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 O.
11.9 0 0
12.0 0 0
12.1 0 0
12.2 0 0
12.3 1 1
12.4 1 1
12.5 2 2
12.6 3P 3P
12.7 3 3
12.8 3 3
13.0 2 2
13.2 1 1
13.4 1 1
13.6 1 1
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 1
14.6 0 0
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow . _ value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
0 STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Cheeked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 7 Existing
Drainage hea: 1.459375E-02 Sq mUes RalnfaH Frequency: 1 years
Rainfa&- Type: "
Runoff: 0.6 inches
Peak Inflow: 3 cfs
Peak OUtflow: .3001 cfs
. Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.31 inches or 0.2 acre feet
',$0--
o
Page 2
~-
I:r
lyprp7.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Cheeked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 7 Proposed
Subarea : pond 7
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .373(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/3 acre . 30 - 8.97(72)
Total Area (by Hydrologie Soil Group) .373 8.97
SUBAREA: pond 7 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.343 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 73
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 7 Proposed
Subarea #1 - pond 7
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp VelOcity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ftIsee) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0211 e 0.412
Shallow Coneent'd 1000 .0211 P 0.094
Shallow Concent'd 200 .0211 P 0.019
Time of Concentration = 0.53.
_ Sheet Flow Surface Codes -
A Smooth Surfaee F Grass, Dense - Shallow Concentrated -
B FaUow (No Res.) G GraS$, Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods. Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
00. - Generated for use by TABULAR method
o .-..~. TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Cheeked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 7 Proposed
Total watershed area: 0.015 sq mi Rainfall type: II Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond 7
Area(sq mil 0.01.
Rainfall(1n) 2.4
Curve number 73.
Runoff(in) 0.51
Te (hrs) 0.53.
(Used) 0.50
TimeToOutIet 0.00
laIP 0.31
Page 1
lyprp7. prn
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Aow (cfs)
(hr) Aow pond-7
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
11.9 0 0
12.0 0 0
12.1 0 0
12.2 1 1
12.3 2 2
12.4 3P 3P
12.5 3 3
12.6 3 3
12.7 2 2
12.8 2 2
13.0 1 1
13.2 1 1
13.4 1 "1
13.6 1 1
13.8 1 1
14.0 0 0
14.3 0 0
14.6 0 0
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 '0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P _ Peak Flow · - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
o STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS
Project: Deerfleld User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 7 Proposed
Drainage Area: 1.459844E..{)2 Sq miles RainfaB Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: \I
Runoff: 0.5 inches
Peak In~ 3 efs
PeaKoUfflow: 2.3999 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.09 inches or 0.1 acre feet
Version 2.000
o
Page 2
lyexp8.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: WI Date: 07-18-99
County : scott . State: mn Cheeked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year pond 6 Existing - ~
Subarea: pond 8
Hydrologie Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush - brush. weed. grass mix poor
Woods
poor
- 1.23(67)
- 7.10(83)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group)
123
7.1
===
SUBAREA: pond 8 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 8.33 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 81
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deemeld User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 6 Existing
Version 2.000
Subarea #1 - pond 8
Flow Type 2 year Lenglh Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sqlft) (ft) (Wsee) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0213 f 0.598
ShallOWConcent'd 1000 .0213 u 0.118
Shallow coneent'd 200 .0213 u 0.024
Time of Concentration = 0.74.
====
_ Sheet FloW Surface Codes-
A Smooth Surfaee F Grass, Dense - ShaRoW Coneentrated -
B FalloW (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes
C cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods. Ught P Paved
o Cultivated> 20 'Yo Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range. Short J Range. Natural
00. _ Generated for use by TABUlAR method
o TABULAR HYOROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: sw Date: 07-18-99
CQI.Jnty-. : scott State: mn Checked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year pond 6 Existing
Total watershed area: 0.013 sq ml RainfaU type: II Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond 8
Area(sq ml) 0.01.
RainfallQn) 2.4
curve number 81.
Runoff(ln) 0.87
Te (hrs) 0.74*
(used) 0.75
TimeToOutlet 0.00
laIP 020
Time Total Subarea Contnbution to Total Row (cfs)
(hr) FloW pond 8
Page 1
lyexp8.prn
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 O.
11.9 0 0
12.0 0 0
12.1 0 0
122 1 1
12.3 2 2
12.4 3 3
12.5 4P 4P
12.6 4 4
12.7 4 4
12.8 4 4
13.0 3 3
132 2 2
13.4 1 1
13.6 1 1
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 1
14.6 1 1
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
0 STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: Wi Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Cheeked: Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 6 Existing
Drainage Area: 1.301563E-D2 Sq miles RalnfaD Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: "
Runoff: 0.9 Inches
Peak Inflow: 4 cfs
Peak Outflow: .4001 cfs
Detention Basin storage Volume: 0.48 Inches or 0.3 acre feet
o
.......__ .oS-.
Page 2
lyprp8.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfleld User: sw Date: 07-18-99
County : scott . State: mn Checked: Date:-
Subtitle: 1 year p.ond 8 Proposed -
Subarea: pond 8
Hydrologie Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns,parks etc.)
Good eondition; grass cover> 75% - 5.71 (61)
ImpervioUS Areas
Paved parldng lots. roofs, drivews'jS - .660(98)
Residential districts Avg % impefV
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 1.96(85)
Total Area (by Hydrologic SoH Group) 8.33
====
SUBAREA: pond 8 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 8.33 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 70
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 8 Proposed
Subarea #1 - pond 8
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp VelOcity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ftIsec) (hr)
Version 2.000
Sheet 2.79 300 .0213 e 0.411
ShaDow Coneent'd 1000 .0213 P 0.094
ShanowConeent'd 200 .0213 P 0.019
Time of Concentration = 0.52*
====
_ Sheet Flow Surface Codes-
A Smooth Surfaee F Grass, Dense - ShaDow concentrated -
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes
.-C-Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods. Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range. Natural
00* _ Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: DeerfieJd User: SN Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 8 Proposed
Total watershed area: 0.Q13 sq mi Rainfall type: 11 Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond 8
Ares(sq mQ 0.01*
RainfaD(In) 2.4
curve number 70.
Runoff{'m) 0.41
Te (hrS) 0.52*
(used) 0.50
Page 1
lyprp8 . prn
TimeToOullet 0.00
laIP 0.36'"
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)
(hr) Flow pond 8
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
11.9 0 0
12.0 0 0
12.1 0 0
12.2 1 1
12.3 1 1
12.4 2P 2P
12.5 2 2
12.6 2 2
12.7 1 1
12.8 1 1
13.0 1 1
13.2 1 1
13.4 1 1
13.6 0 0
13.8 0 0
14.0 0 0
14.3 0 0
14.6 0 0
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow · - vaJue(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
o STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS
Project: Deerfield User: fNi Date: 07-18-99
County : scott State: mn Cheeked: _ Date:
Subtitle: 1 year Pond 8 Proposed
Drainage Area: 1.301563E-02 Sq mUes Rainfalt Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Rurlbff.$-o 0.4 inches
Peak Infl~ 2 cfs
Peak Outflow: 1.6 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.07 inches or 0.0 acre feet
Version 2.000
o
Page 2
---,-
'J1~
lyexp9.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION version 2.000
PToiect: Deerfield User: SN Date: 07-26-99
CountY : scott' State: MN Checked: _ Date:--
Subtitle: Pond 9.existlng
Subarea : pond 9
Hydrologie Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open spaee (Lawl'IS,par\(s etc.)
Fair condition; grass cover 50% to 75% - .983(69)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Woods _ grass combination fair
- 7.16(65)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group)
8.14
SUBAREA: pond 9 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 8.143 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 65
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.000
Proiect: Deerfield User: fNi Date: 07-26-99
County : Scott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
SUbtitle: Pond 9 existing
Subarea #1 - pond 9
FloW Type 2 year Lenglh Slope Surface n Area . Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftIft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ftIsee) (hr)
Sheet 2.79 300 .0168 e 0.452
ShallOW Concent'd 650 .0168 P 0.069
Time of Concentration = 0.52"
=====
_ Sheet Flow Surface Codes -
A Smooth surface F Grass, Dense - ShaDow concentrated -
B FalloW (No Res.) G Grass. Burmuda Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods. Ught P Paved
D Cultivated> 20 % Res. I Woods. Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range. Short J Range. Natural
.-.. woO _ Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Proiect: Deerfield User: fN{ Date: 07-26-99
County : Scott State: MN Checlted: _ Date:
Subtitle: Pond 9 existing
Total waterShed area: 0.013 sq mi RainfaD type: \I Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond 9
Area(sq mil 0.01.
Ra!nfall(lO) 2.4
curve number 65.
Runoff(in) 0.26
Tc (hrS) 0.52.
(Used) 0.50
TimeToOutlet 0.00
laIP 0.45
Time Total
Subarea conlJibution to Total FloW (cfs)
Page 1
lyexp9. prn
(hr) Flow pond 9
11.0 0 O'
11.3 0 O.
11.6 0 0
11.9 0 0
12.0 0 0
12.1 0 0
12.2 0 0
12.3 0 0
12.4 1P 1P
12.5 1 1
12.6 1 1
12.7 1 1
12.8 1 1
13.0 0 0
13.2 0 0
13.4 0 0
13.6 0 0
13.8 0 0
14.0 0 0
14.3 0 0
14.6 0 0
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
'22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * _ value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
0 STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.000
Project: Deerfield User: SN Date: 07.26-99
County : Scott State:MN Cheeked: Date:
Subtitle: Pond 9 existing
Drainage Area: 1.272344E-02 Sq miles RainfaU Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: "
Runoff: 0.3 inches
Peak 1nfI~ 1 cfs
Peak Outftow: .79001 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.05 Inches or 0.0 acre feet
o
Page 2
lyprp9.prn
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.000
Project: Deerfleld User: SN Date: 07-26-99
County : Scott . State: MN Checked: Date:-
Subtitle: Pond 9 Proposed -
Subarea: pond 9
Hydrologie Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION ABC D
Acres (CN)
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open spaee (Lawns,parl<s etc.)
Fair condition; grass cover 50% to 75% - .983(69)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .357(98)
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town hoUses) 65 - 6.80(85)
Total Area (by HydroJogie Soil Group) .357 7.78
=--==
SUBAREA: pond 9 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 8.14 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 84
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project: Deerfield User: SN Date: 07-26-99
County : Seott State: MN Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: Pond 9 Proposed .
Subarea #1 - pond 9
Row Type 2 year Lenglh Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ftlft) code (sqIft) (ft) (ftIsee) (hr)
Version 2.000
Sheet 2.79 300 .0168 e 0.452
ShaDow Concent'd 650 .0168 P 0.069
Time of Concentration = 0.52"
=====
_ Sheet Flow Surface Codes-
A Smooth surfaee F Grass, Dense - ShaDow Concentrated -
B FaUOW (No Res.) G Grass. Burmuda Surfaee Codes
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Ught P Paved
~ultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range. Short J Range, Natural
00. _ Generated for use by TABULAR method
o TABUlAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.000
Project: Deer1leld User: SN . Date: 07-26-99
CountY : Scott State: MN Cheeked: _ Date:
Subtitle: pond 9 Proposed
Total watershed area: 0.013 sq mi Rainfall type: \I Frequency: 1 years
Subareas
pond 9
Area(sq mil 0.01.
Ralnfall(lO) 2.4
Curve number 84.
Runoff(lIl) 1.04
Te (hrs) 0.52.
(Used) 0.50
TimeToOutIet 0.00
Page 1
lyprp9. prn
laJP 0.16
Time Total Subarea Contribution to Total Row (cf.s)
(hr) Row pond9
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
11.9 1 1
12.0 1 1
12.1 2 2
122 3 3
12.3 6 6
12.4 7P 7P
12.5 6 6
12.6 5 5
12.7 4 4
12.8 3 3
13.0 2 2
132 1 1
13.4 1 1
13.6 1 1
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 1
14.6 1 1
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow · - vaJue(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
o STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS
Project: Deerfield User. sw Date: 07-26-99
County : Scott State: MN Cheeked: _ Date:
Subtitle: Pond 9 Proposed
Drainage Area: 1.271875E-02 Sq miles RalnfaU Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: "
Runoff: 1.0 Inches
Peak Intiow: 7 cf.s
Peak Outflow: 1 cf.s
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.53 Inches or 0.4 acre feet
Version 2.000
o
Page 2
- . -
. CULVERT
..-.., -
CALCtJLATIONS.
....-.$-.
. ~ " .HEADWATr:R DEPTH FOR
cONe.RETE PIPE CULVERTS
., . WITH INLET CONTROL
.....au 0' ~IC llOA~ .IAIL ISa
.-....- .
..
- . -'~
..
.R~.5eruor D2
IOY'. I. I 91\ .
DRAINAGE MANUAl.
tJ ~+ ~
36" p,'PL rJ
E7 ,.~.~-
110
'1"
15~
.44
e"A!! 2 5-29lJ.:
r-
~ ~
132
120
'01
'I
14
1ft 72
...
=
u
~ 10
~
-
e M
~
c
...
>
...
::)
U
...
0
C
III
~
III
:I
c
Q
CHART 2
'0,000 A ~..o n
1,000 EXAMPLE !!) (3)
1,000 0... -... IJ.' '''!I
5,000 '.120 d.
4,000 y.' ... rl.
.... .
3,000 (11 I.S .... ~5.
CII 1.1 7.4 .-
ra &.1 7.7 - :-. 4.
'0 ill ,.., ~
;..
.
1,000 F-3.
t
"f!:..-:- --
./ ~
/
./
...~
,,~
/"
ZOO ./
/"
:,/
~ SCALE ENTRANCE
D TYPE
.(11 ...... .... eo",
1lM,_I!
20 IZI ~ '54 .;..
...._11
131 .,.... ...
tNlle:l..
::: r- 1.5
...L
2,'
c ~
Qj
z..
-I
=
~~
IL .
a.;
.::1
C L..: 1.0
... .
... -
c'
~ .S
ir.
r .1
--- ~.
.7
I .T. _ ..... (21 ., (JI .,.,", t
II S ............, .. ..... U I. ,...
4 ... .".1", i..ll", .... ""....
. e.4 0 ....".., ,....... "
i1__re'H. I
3 ~
II I
I . l
15
1.0 t- .5
II
1.5
1.0 1.0
.S .,
.1 .1
.7 .7
.1 .1
.5 .5
" .HEADWAT r:R DEPTH FOR
cONe.RETE ?IPE CULVERTS
., . WITH INLET CONTROL
....au _ ~oC 110&" _..u
..
. ,:.;:~~.~-
,.....-.-
. :;t~~~;:
Re ServO r 0.3
.Oy'. I. 191'.
Pc)/,d #~
/ LJ'1 .\
3b" Dr 1f1..
79 (,. t s -
~ .$-"
DRAINAGE MANUAL
~
C"A1.T 2 5-29'. ~
., r~
-
CHART 2
A ~lO n
EXAMP~! !!) (3)
O*CI -... 13.' '''!I
.-110 ct.
1f' - r"
.... .
fIJ I.' 1.1 :- S.
c:a 1.1 .,.. :-
m 1.1 T.7 --4.
.0 ie feet ,..
...
.
r
1,000 rJ.,
en
III
::
c.:l
!:
~ .11: _.
- :::I.'
e ~~
~ 01
IE
III z~
> -I
.... ::
~ ~~
c.:l ...
... So.:
2 SCALE ENTRANCE Cl
0 IE L..: 1.0
IE D TYPE 16:.
III ~ - .,
~ .111 s.-. .... _111 c'
III ""...11 ~ .S
:IE ir
c lZI ~ ts' ...
a ......"
(31 .,-. ... r ..
".1..:1..
.
II
T. ... MN Clt .. C31 ".,",
...,q......, te ..... lIl. t...
... ..r.l... ;.ell... '... _....
. .... . Met"... ,...,.. ..
iI"'t,..~
I.
I
L
IS
1.0
t.. .5
II
1.0
.t
..
.1
.1
.1
.5
.5
.'
.. .HEADWAT~R DEPTH FOR
cONe.RETE PIPE CUL.VERTS
. WITH INLET CONTROL
....._ W ~tC 110I" ...... IMI
. ,
...
~e..$~rJor ()L(
IOV'. I , USP, DRAINAGE MANUAL eJtl!! 2 1-29'.;
"... ,- .
P 011 ~ #1- .
.1 P CHART 2
JLf fifL
lao 10,000 A ;J.'O n
C2 L- VS- III . !! ) (3)
',000 EXAMPL.E
I~. 1,000 D..a -- C:S.~ '.')
5.000 0.120 ct.
144
IU 4.000 y' "W rl.
.... ,
3.000 II) I.S t.' :- 5.
120 I.' 7.' :-
III
2,000 ra La 1.7 - :... 4.
loa
'0 Ie teet ,.
...
,. 1.000 r3.
aoo
14
100
500 -'
n 400 c :- 2.
In ~..
lAI 300 %l"
% ;1" I.S
g 1.5
~ In c'"
II.
~ Q :: ~ C.5
~ lAIL
e - 2,'
2 ~ ~
~ 0,
II: . /tAI 100
tAl .,/'" .: Z"
> 10 . -I
~ /" c ::
;:) ~r
g :: 10 0..; 1.0
42 g \10
II. eft 50 !!:!. SCAL.E ENTRANCE c'
0 Q c l.:, 1.0
II: 40 D TYPE
tAl 110: . .,
~ -
~ 30 .(11 ...... Nee .,. c'
tAl ~ .S
2 ...,..I! i r.
c 20 em
Q .,... ts' ..... .1
..... .."
13) .,... ,.. [ .1
".,tc:i..
10
.T .1
--- ~.
.T
I T. ... ..... lit., I" .......,
5 _Ia......, .. ...t. Ill, ,.... t
4 ... ........ ...,.... '... ttN....
D ... , ........, "...... .. .1 ..1
3 it....,.,... ,
~
Ie I
2 . L
IS
~ .5 .5 .5
LO
II
. .
.
.HEADWATr:R DEPTH FOR
cONC.RETE ?IPE CULVERTS
. WITH INl.ET CONTROL
. ,
euecau QlI' ~IC _Ot _ fM,I
..
w~tlollJ
#b
IOY'. I, Isn.
DRAINAGE MANUAl.
CJlA1.!' 2 s.;.29" ~
J7 r~
3D'\
:;. 5'.
P:f~ ~.
C.tS.
.,
III
::
u
~
~
0'
-
EXAMPLE
0-41.... 13.t ''''1
0-'10 If,
y'
fl.
....
...
T..
7.7
CI)
lZJ
ra
I.'
1.1
1.1
'0 It! 'lit
-
2
. ..............
./" .=
,,/ c
:z:
42 ~
C
~
C
III
>
~
::t
U
~
o
C
III
~
...
:I
c
Q
~_:S-'
21
..
15
12
s.-. .... _,.
...1...,
121
..... u. "iflt
......n
...... ".
,"lac"..
(3)
T. _ ..ate II' . IJI ......,
_lz....., .. ..... tll. ,...
... ....,... i..lI... .... _....
o ... 0 ...."... ..",,'.. II
i11_'.....
.
1.0
CHART 2
A;'tOn
0)
(3)
r I.
o
~5.
.-
-~4.
,.
;..
.
i
,3.
t
.e ;... z.
j'-
:: ~
;r
a::~
~ ,... 1.5
..,:.
~.
c ~
OJ
z;.
- I
::
a.;
ko:
cl
C L.: 1.0
.., .
~ -
c'
~ .S
~r
r .1
1.0
1.0
.1
.S
.S
.1
.1
.T
.T
.T
t
I
po-
.1
I
L
L .5
.5
.5
.. .HEADWATr:R DEPTH FOR
cONe.RETE ?IPE CULVERTS
., . WITH INLET CONTROL
----- 01' ~ ~oa ........u
..
_ P D (l d # ~ J- ~c+ll:i" J. :#- r
JOY. I. un.
'>u '1
0< 1 p"pe...
Jd- '-~ -?' ::...
~ -~.
rJ
. .
In
III
::
Co)
~
~
-
S
l-
e
III
>
...I
::>>
g
...
o
c
...
I-
...
:I
c
a
DRAINAGE MANUAL
10,000
',COO EXAM Pl.!
1,000 D.41 __ I'.t ,..!)
5,000 0.120 d.
4,COO ~. ...
fM"
3,000 111 1.1 1.1
CI) S.. '1..
l,COO (JI 1.1 1.'1
.0 ill ,.
l,cOo
100
100
500
400
300
. ,...........
/" -~
/" c
::
42 ~
a
~ seA I.!
D
ENTRANCE
TYPE
.(1)
tnew. ... -
".Inri..
ZI
T. ... ..... II' ., 131 "..",
..,........, ,. M". III. ,...
... 1t;.I... ;M"'" .... .......
o ... 0 ........, ,..".. ..
i....."....
..
.
15
1.0
,-
CHART 2
A ;)lon
! ! ) (2) (3)
I.
r I. 5.
.
;- 5. 4.
.-
- :.... 4.
'"" 3.
...
.
i
r~'
-'
c -I.
"i-;"
::~
;r
a:~
== ,... 1.5
...L
:L'
c _
oj
z~
-.
::
I-~
L'
a.:
cl
C ~I.O
. c'
~ .,
it
r ..
t
.
-
i
L
~ .s
1.5
1.5
.----.- --
/~ _ I.
/' ..
,......../
pV
\.~
/"
2CO /
/'
,........
z:-
1.0 1.0
., .t
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1
.1
.S
.5
.5
. -, .. .HEADWATi:R DEPTH FOR
cONe.RETE ?IPE CULVERTS
., . WITH INLET CONTROL
IZ
eu-cAol _ ~IC IIOADS .......,
..
ClfA1.! 2 ~29'.;
F-
fJDrld #- 1
IOY'. I. 19n.
;}1j" f'''~ f5
/:z c- r'5_
DRAINAGE MANUAL
ellAU 2 5-29\.
,-
r-
..
CHART 2
A~ton
EXAMPLE !! ) (3)
D- 41 ;."... n.s '''!I
O-IZO If,
y. M' rl.
.... .
(II I.' I., ;- 5.
II) 1.1 7.4 .-
~ LI 7.7 -~4.
'0 Ie ,.., ,.
...
.
1.000 F- s.
t
.. .HEADWATC:R DEPTH FOR
cONe.RETE ?IPE CULVERTS
. WITH INLET CONTROL
110
II"
I'.
144
132
120
II
. .
. .
. ,
.....au _ ~ lI04l" --. ..a
..
~ .l----~ 'Jr--';-
all. txt
Culvert Calculations
Reservor 01
Culvert CalcuJator
Entered Data:
Shape ........................... Circular
Number of Barrels ............... 1
Solving for ..................... Headwater
Chart Number .................... 1
Scale Number .................... 1
Chart Description ............... CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT; NO BEVELED RING ENTRANCE
Scale Decsription ............... SQUARE EDGE ENTRANCE WITH HEADWALL
FJowrate ........................ 22.0000 cfs
Manning's n ..................... 0.0120
Roadway Elevation ............... 956.0000 ft
Inlet Elevation ................. 949.5000 ft
Outiet Elevation ................ 940.0000 ft
Diameter ........................ 36.0000 in
Lenglh .......................... 1400.0000 ft
Entrance Loss ................... 0.0000
Tailwater ....................... 3.0000 ft
Computed Results:
Headwater ....................... 951.6868 ft From Inlet
Slope ........................... 0.0068 ftIft
Velocity ........................ 7.7971 fps
Reservor 02
Culvert Calculator
Entered Data:
Shape ........................... Circular
Number of Barrels ............... 2
Solving for ..................... Headwater
Chart Number .................... 1
Scale Number .................... 1
Chart Description ............... CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT; NO BEVELED RING ENTRANCE
Scale Decsription ............... SQUARE EDGE ENTRANCE WITH HEADWALL
F10wrate ........................ 72.3053 cfs
Manning's n ..................... 0.0240
Roadway Elevation ............... 945.0000 ft
Inlet Elevation ................. 940.5000 ft
Outiet Elevation ................ 939.5000 ft
Diameter ........................ 36.0000 in
Lenglh .......................... 80.0000 ft
Entrance Loss ................... 0.0000
Tailwater ....................... 3.0000 ft
~ .~.
Computed Results:
Headwater ....................... 942.7037 ft From Outiet
Slope ........................... 0.0125 ftIft
Velocity ........................ 5.1146 fps
Reservor 03 or Pond 3
Culvert Calculator
Entered Data:
Shape ........................_.. Circular
Number of Barrels ............... 2
Solving for ..................... Headwater
Chart Number .................... 1
Scale Number .................... 1
Chart Description ............... CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT; NO BEVELED RING ENTRANCE
Page 1
all. txt
Scale Decsription ............... SQUARE EDGE ENTRANCE WITH HEADWALL
Flowrate ......";..........;...... 79.0000 efs
MaMing's n ..................... 0.0120
Roadway Elevation ............... 946.8000 It
Inlet Elevation ................. 941.5000 ft
OuUet Elevation ................ 939.0000 ft
Diameter ........................ 36.??oo in
Length .......................... 230.??oo ft
Entrance Loss ................... 0.0000
Tailwater ....................... 3.0000 ft
Computed Results:
Headwater ....................... 944.7551 It From Inlet
Slope ........................... 0.0109 ft/ft
Velocity ........................ 10.8008 fps
Reservor 04 or Pond 2 .
Culvert Calculator
Entered Data:
Shape ........................... Circular
Number of Barrels ............... 1
SoMng for ..................... Headwater
Chart Number .................... 1
Scale Number .................... 1
Chart Description ............... CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT; NO BEVELED RING ENTRANCE
Scale Decsription ............... SQUARE EDGE ENTRANCE WITH HEADWALL
Flowrate ........................ 8.0000 cf.s
Manning's n ..................... 0.0120
Roadway Elevation ............... 944.??oo ft
Inlet Elevation ................. 940.5000 It
Outiet Elevation ................ 939.5000 ft
Diameter ........................27.0000 in
Length .......................... 30.0000 ft
Entrance Loss ................... 0.0000
Tailwater ....................... 2.0000 ft
Computed Results;
Headwater ....................... 941.8418 ftFrom Inlet
Slope ........................... 0.0333 ft/ft
Velocity ........................ 10.6480 fps
Pond 6
Culvert Calculator
Entered Data:
Shape ........................... Circular
Number of Barrels ............... 2
SoMng for ..................... Headwater
Chart Number .................... 1
Scale Number .................... 1
Chart Description ............... CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT; NO BEVELED RING ENTRANCE
Scale Decsription ............... SQUARE EDGE ENTRANCE WITH HEADWALL
Flowrate ........................ 25.0000 cfs
Manning's n ..................... 0.0120
Roadway Elevation ............... 953.5500 ft
Inlet Elevation ................. 951.5000 ft
Outlet Elevation ................ 900.??oo It
Diameter ........................ 24.0000 In
Length .......................... 150.0000 It
Entrance Loss ................... 0.0000
Tailwater ....................... 2.0000 ft
Page 2
all.txt
Computed Results:
Headwater ..............;........ 953.1303 ft From Inlet
Slope .........:................. 0.3433 ftIft
Velocity ........................ 28.0n1 fps
Pond 8 and wetland 19
Culvert Calculator
Entered Data:
Shape ........................... Circular
Number of Barrels ............... 1
Solving for ..................... Headwater
Chart Number .................... 1
Scale Number .................... 1
Chart Description ............... . CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT; NO BEVELED RING ENTRANCE
Scale Decsriptlon ............... SQUARE EDGE ENTRANCE WITH HEADWALL
Rowrate ........................ 12.0000 cf.s
Manning's n ..................... 0.0120
Roadway Elevation ............... 955.0000 ft
Inlet Elevation ................. 951.5000 ft
OUtlet Elevation ................ 941.1000 ft
Diameter ........................ 24.??oo In
Length .......................... 200.0000 ft
Entrance Loss ................... 0.0000
Tailwater ....................... 2.0000 ft
Computed Results:
Headwater ....................... 953.3655 ft From Inlet
Slope ........................... 0.0520 ftIft
Velocity ........................ 14.1n4 fps
Pond 9
Culvert Calculator
Entered Data:
Shape ........................... Circular
Number of Barrels ............... 1
Solving for ..................... Headwater
Chart Number .................... 1
Scale Number .................... 1
Chart Desaiptlon ............... CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT; NO BEVELED RING ENTRANCE
Scale Decsrlptlon ............... SQUARE ECGE ENTRANCE WITH HEADWALL
Flowrate ........................ 15.0000 c:f$
Manning's n ..................... 0.0120
Roadway Elevation ............... 952.0000 ft
Inlet Elevation ................. 946.??oo ft
ouUet ElevatIon ................ 941.0000 ft
DIameter ........................ 24.0000 in
Length .......................... 180.??oo ft
EnIAInce'"Loss ................... 0.0000
Tailwater ....................... 2.0000 ft
Computed Results:
Headwater ....................... 948.2293 ft From Inlet
Slope ........................... 0.0278 ftIft
Velocity ........................ 12.0125 fps
Page 3
STORM SEWER DESIGN
PROJECf NAME: Prior Lake
Number
From
I PipeLen.
To ft
ae
Area
C
7~(,~~f~~~1t!~
~~~~\~~;~~~~t "~~.f~~f; ~~~~~~~lt~
.i'I~{t~{i.~V;~tf,l~~i~6;it:~~ijrfii
" ,.,:, ".<"'.l.\:'lQ.....Mil.i<i:.~;II'r.:.'nit'/i;,. ,".' n:aii..""''' 0 370
';'.. .'\~~Wh~~( f;;;'f.4i:~(.I.'~i lfl~\t~.i~'). .
~'" ':~i~ t ,'~L. .".J h~~t(f,~~ ~tfl....,:. 0.425
, . t.M '...~"';' ~~~j~X~.~.{\~t'i.,hl B~ _ i/ ;Mt! l.,_~
, l~IIi.' ,,' ~i'~olW :~'~'.'" '.' ;~., ,
1 A ' :.r&'t.Wf~~. Wf~j .' 0.480
., .it<<:~1\~ ; @t~{'~~; !l~I'J~i~IW~ifi .
f,~ ,:." 1>: .~ii.~ 9'~~~ ", . >> ;'t~t~A~1 ~". i 1.215
.I.'t',s; '':fH'"u.~ ~ ,-,..t .'.' ,.;qv~ -T_.- ~~"
*< X "..,~ r.:t;;-~~;W,i1iir!!1!1j~1}.' 0.210
: ~lQiJg~\2! $Yl.~mq~~~P8~ ~~. . .! 0.125
.l.,~...'.~.... ';~ 'L"'l;ol"i1' .,.....'~.I. '.,;;- . ..t.' i.JaiI.J tE.... "..:.....~.~~,f..nni..l!i.^ ""'.~"'..'." 0115
,,~;, \. - ' '::.;,. 4~ J!o :'" ';~ ml: ~. '. / . ?i'!"'i::. -t, ti\ ,., 'b- " .,l\ ~.~i~~-' .
N,!".rii'1t~~~,.r:',\i,.' ",!',r,,, ~. ",!",j~1r~.:.'lU( ;~ ..i.ttft'ilN.i'l,1" 0.300
ffi$-I@I'R~:\"1I.. _t.1~ ~. y.... JR"~;.c?!(~( _~~~~j "
>)li""",>.'n,..,,!, ". ,. . " i'r.',~i,}.to'M~ \,:'\.!"tllfijfil .
Hi>l!D'~' .~, '''' ,,; r ,: it?cijJl,.'(~~ ti.~~Jf i1 0.415
'?Z{~~0'~~
'_.~._. 0325
~.~.~..Id.. ....1~. ~~~ ;;i;J ;"'~'..;'.';'-~..'~'~W.('.li< ~.'='''~.'. ".~ .~~..:...~~.~J.l.'."t....~.,_..-'~. ...".....'..~r..;v..~!$5i. '.: .
~)1J1;1.1J. ~'~<'. _~ ~~q~,; ~,!:,'. .,~ 0.345
~~i:~ir:~ .~~\. ;~~i ~ta~', ~. J \);f!~t..' ! 0.165
',.' 'fi:?~ -:, t.'./!.''ill!i~'''' '. . ';,!""..." \ i"toy'.
,;?!s:~:l...t.~" 'I~~~~l' ~'&.. .!",~i:lrJlQ), ~\ 0.480
i)(f,~:,;n{:titi \i,,:'ib>.i.\:.l' '?,".!r';--','1If;nn': ~}~~,62! ;~}.ii~H'~t~ 0.704
'.8~fWJ,.r;.v' .l"l~.', ..:~7...u-?Ji; -b,"',I/e"5.'if,~~,.; ':l.;;:tft';ft.#,I,~YJ.. ..';"((~~!~~;~
~~%i~.; ~t?? : ~\:.f~~m;;Wi ~~,f;A7{~Jf~$ ~~~~~(~~~ 0.415
I.~,{:~:~.y.ti ~1~~~1a "\11; ~~.;~~~;: ;~~~~~~fi ~~~~l~ 0.484
""'1?'J';;~r '~(.. .~.1;j~N." :,.$;1" ;:).;;,...."'Il~. ""'~ll1n}. 0 275
Ji;~{~:F.r4~ gM'~;'~~~..:,: }~.tt!i1' . ,..~ ~r:t,)!~~~~,~:~ r~4KY~,~~~i .
~$~~!'~~O.68'
., '12"'~' ,1;, '.i )J.~"A .., ". ;(#'::~f"'f(.8'$; W)..; Gu.;~.)tiiji ^:. ..p'...
!~~ . . fit$ &.~~ .. ''!J..:j~ ~~~\.O'.; . ',.' .~i;j;~~.... ; ;C:if; . 0.683
.~.' '~.'~h: ...~. "_ .tp"'",'\'.., ,r.v j,.' .l',.-.....,.-( ~ :~"......
l .:' _ - ... ',-'. . - . _".,.. -: . '. ,;, ... . :. ~ _. _.~, .>.. ,"", ,., . _,. , ,..'
tJ~~J~~: ~!~1j;'~i*~~~\ itt\.~l11.m) ;~1tI~{~; 0.000
[I...~~~~~M' ~t~~~~ 0.288
~l~.. r,.' l~" '.;'~, , ;, ~it\1~t l4M~~ 0.396
8/24/99
Total
CxA
Sum
CxA
Teto
Inlet
Time
in Pipe
0.370 15.00 0.12 4.69
0.795 15.12 0.48 4.67
0.480 15.00 0.12 4.69
1.215 15.12 1.25 4.67
1.425 16.37 0.35 4.50
1.550 16.72 0.65 4.46
1.665 17.37 0.39 4.37
1,965 17.76 0.10 4.33
2.380 17.86 0.42 4.32
0.325
0.670
0.835
1.315
15.00
15,12
15.73
16.48
0.704 15.00
1.119 15.12
0.484 15.00 0.12
0.759 15.12 0.57
0.683 15.00
1.365 15.00
1.365 15.10
0.288 15.00 0.12
0.684 15.12 0.12
0.12
0.61
0.75
0.28
0.12
0.49
0.04
0.10
0.26
4.69
4.67
4.58
4.49
4.69
4.67
4.69
4.67
4.69
4.69
4.67
. i .
irVbr
YEAR STORM: 10
MANNINC'S"N" 0
Runoff
(eta)
1.73
3.71
Slope Pipe
% in
?1Q~.~!4J~~
~~1vr~{h ~~!}.~~~~~;i1t~f1i
:~,4J.,: ~- ~i,~. ;~1{~*L~i
i;,~~ '.,t : .!!t<'~J<;li\,
~iIii '" " .M.,..;!i&"!,*
~I~~~: ' "'ir '.1if:
;,p~" .,.f ,.
~".."P:' .~f : 41liJl
"..l~lJ 6.231
;, ";t~fl~; 6.730
~f.l'~~lt~f!~' 7.195
i~;P.:~~,II:~r7Ji~~~ 8.044
~~-\~@ i'4.iii~~~]. 9.518
'*"X<ir'# '. ,,~.'. ...,' ~~l
:'1gJ"'(fr~~r~~lJ.)<lt~j~ 11.225
3.451 4.40
8.083 6.59
4.45
13.62
5.91
DES'N. BY: TAE
CHK'D BY:
Capacity
Q (eta) V (fpa)
;:~'1~~~~~ '~)bt~~J
Elevations
T.C. Out. Int.
58.44
55.72
55.92
54.73
54.45
53.81
53.28
53.06
51.50
55.67
55.04
54.47
51.50
57.24
51.50
57.22
51.50
59.52
54.47
51.50
4.69 1.35 .,. It'~ 3.451 4.40 i~~t~~\~~ ~;~fM~~:~ 48.64
.. " ;.
4.67 3.19 n~~" ,~. .. 7.193 5.86 i~1~~~ ~t~~~~~ 48.00
2.25
3.451
5.67
6.41
6.91
7.28
8.51
10.27
1.52
3.13
3.83
5.90
'~h?l:l1t,.,. .~",;i!r.\"". 3 451
1'~~~;;II:'&a~~ 4:139
.> 2,' ~\. . 4.255
\7' ' :",~ ~~~,";~\^~J1..:;.' 10.256
-- ..111. ,4'iL..."'1i!~'"
3.30
5.22
*q~~ f$~
'Jl~~~~$,~~
3.451
6.752
2.27 ~~~~ r~\~~!.'1" 3.451
3.54 rt;(f~%; ,~fi:~~~~~ 6.404
3.20
6.40
6.38
t:.,.Qj.I..~._." ...... ..{ 3A~
f.~t. ~; ;~':' " ii 16.702
t~;y ~'~$\. 7.254
;~~~~~~~;.~.J~j
I~;~;!~~Q.!;~~-t
4.40
".;1.i.,~~, ,.,. "', ,\\ij'!
~~. ~ftt,~"r. ,~~ '';-;. ;t~
";;:''fJ?I$.?fIf1lk,'' Wg~ . ~~)\.;
~~,,~~ii ~.k:'Jt{
!j)<<...ii:.;ifi;f.' rhi
.,,"':~#i~11 "lll,. ;.,..,~
tjl:l.~~i~~{~~~~
~ifSli:~:<M\1 >"JJ.'FJ<J:l1~";.'%1
"i,'.!'J1J~~ttI\1
'f6t\t~~~.
]~lm~~ ~~~!~
';~;~M;1:.".~<l'i~, ;u,;iitifFiO-i'!;i:..
P;r.....,_,....~ti':!ljt... ..~.:.;;;~~f.;:*~
l~t~!;l~~!I{~g,8~m
~f'~!1V~~~ '.~i'.,~~!~.?
~'I<'M!f,.~Si~'.'.< 'JI'{"!.f>i!~..,l;i(,
3.53
3.81
4.07
4.55
5.39
6.36
4.40
3.37
3.47
8.36
~.o/
<;~:.M...~l;?,.:~.~}'. ,)f}i .,~..,.".~~..r., ~.~';.f!
~~j~t.. .' ", ...'.. .~J"41'
,~d.''',~'' #.Jt~"IU;\(d
l~fl~i\'!J. ..:;.;._ ~ ~~~:t~)
~$.ci~tr.lfl: ',.; " "7Ayg~
4.40
5.51
~'i'l;:oi\M'''~l, ,~, '~'i'b\~di:
:.$~' "M.~MM,filf~ ~I~ - ,t{.~~:i'~'~;'.l
:'~4m~"'^'~i )' *!<;;\'nA:~i"
~ii;l:~~~i~J;_.~; W;:;:r~""~i.::\":
4.40 ~]W;~~'>~~,fi~t~4
5.22 \";;;n!nI>.'i"I'..'~'i!...:M;.'."'
~~~~!~h?} :~4~,^,+i~)
!ft.t~'ilQ~~l k!5?~.!f.4:
: ,-:r.J;'1~i,~"! .li1:j;tt1"$l'!,
"~" ..,:.~ . ......"';1;..~.:..."
'~';I,.., .,~ 'M"~~).'i'~<~~~ .. ..' ''''''i
~'-". .......<,i" ,AJ '. ,\~,.'.
~. - ,.,1.." .-..t....-" :..r!;'..., . ~.' ...!'..':"
~
Build
Pipe
Cover
3.50 2.50
3.96 2.71
3.50 2.50
4.16 2.66
6.78 5.28
6.98 5.48
6.87 5.37
6.90 5.40
7.1:q 5.62
3.50 2.50
3.96 2.71
4.79 3.54
4.63 3.38
3.50 2.50
8.00 6.75
3.50 2.50
7.98 6.73
3.50
3.88
5.50
2.50
2.63
4.25
3.00
3.46
2.00
2.21
STORM SEWER DFSIGN
DES'N. BY: TAE
CHK'D BY:
PROJECf NAME: Prior Lake
YEAR STORM: 10
MANNINC'S "N" 0
Number
From To
PipeLen.
ft
Area
C
Total
CxA
Sum
CxA
Teto
Inlet
Time
in Pipe
" i.
Runoff Slope
(ds) %
Pipe
in
Capacity
Q (ds) V (fps)
Elevations
Out. Inl.
ae
infhr
T.C.
{". '~ft.g. .' ;\,;,1 :~fi~~~{ r.~f,1iji; "~1);M"l" ' . 0.294 0.294 15.00 0.47 4.69 1.38 II~ 3.832 3.12 '~. 46.79
,.~~;,', .?~l.:, " ~;.. .'.kJ'
'. .. ,......_ ~..~ j ~.(1; . _.~l.
I..~'~I 0.126 0.420 15.47 0.83 4.62 1.94 t;\f. ,.j...: 0".:. '~" 3.832 3.12 r%t~'.,~:. 46.33
'.~\'l' Y ;ip: .. ~.;.,' . . . 0 . ,1\1. ,.,' "~ 'tiil .1;-.., :.\\-,$1;
,};f:M. ;:-;1, r\\}~l' . ~ ~~.. ,..m\'~ ~~i i.. . .of, 0.102 0.522 16.30 1.12 4.51 2.35 . ,.~. Ii$ 3.832 3.12 ,~fIlfl~~ ~~ 45.70
f,gt ..,' .'.:~ -"', ~!. -, ".~",,).. ., ).
'4\f' ,";' ~:o! "'~...-! M.\-'~:ll:'~_...J '.n"~t~?..; h j.. 0.546 1.068 17.42 0.13 4.37 4.67 , .~.~Pf!<~ 4.947 4.03 I~~~t~f~ ~l!4$j.. "~ 45.54
r,.:.4' _~.~ .' J', ". . :.;: i' " . ..i. .~ .'
~/~~: ,;~, ~t~~~ 1ft', 'f ,:~ ,1i'~' ,,". I,; ';-,~ ~;t;l! f .'~ ":;: ~i',~" ;_ltf' 0.228 1.296 17.55 0.16 4.35 5.64 (.,Ii 6.925 5.65 l.fii.~~ _if; 45.00
~,f~j;l!~~I~':i~, ,_ ',~ '.~l~,,' . /, !1{fil~~~.;..I,.~'.,,;, 4'':'.' "'~ ..;!,;o.: f~_'....J~. .,.~,:_, ,,: '~-:1.,.,.-~J~;:~
-~p.~~~ .$1:~1~~~i~. r-r,:~'1,~ ~~I~tm~1~ ~'1(Il>>j~~ 0.865 0.865 15.00 0.12 4.69 4.05 ~r~J. 3.451 4.40 "11~~'m1~1i~~~~ 48.24
'.,'" _', _ ~~. w. 'I'.~.. ,":".;..,~: ,"; f,,#><'~,",- ~,~ I ~
.'.~ ~~~ (Sf~~;OOI '~1fflij~1 :~fi.\~M 0.185 1.050 15.12 0.22 4.67 4.90 t~~~..~[iJJ;~ .: 9.760 7.96 '~iJJ.~'lHJJi!i !~J~~~ 46.00
;,~~,' ~~..'"'
,~. . ,.!"...j'#{ .~},~... .! ." 1lI:.~, .,.'" ~li ,....,... 'I ~.'!l',._,. """
>'l~ 11 .~ ~~;~~~~~ 0.085 0.085 15.00 0.12 4.69 0.40 '~',O~&~~~U7a1': 3.451 4.40 ~~~:~~'~~~l~ :'I.~98.'i;i\', SO.72
..~~ "~ *- ,~
..t.~ "'.' ,., - " . . .... . '. ~ ... ,,_.' ... .~. ,<<.....,t. ." ,,,.. . ,.< ,I .... '., oj;. ~~!. .. ,. .\,~.j)
_""l."~ ';.~'?~~. ' . 'fJ) ~~~.'. ',,',j !'~J.'~ i~P~i 1.072 1.157 15.12 0.74 4.67 5.40 t!(fifi. . . ~.~~ 6.7.57 5.10 i~~~~~~Si~~;S2~~.1 48.72
.. ~. ~;,' .:'. "f}f1,' ~" _:.:,: ,,,,,,!,,,,. \',:'~f;
...'.;:.....~'t"' ,~/'l~- . ..::~~~K~ll~\ ~i.~,Q~' 0.572 1.729 15.86 0.04 4.57 7.90 '~~. :,:' '; " 16.238 13.24 !~~M~t~l/,~ ~~~~~~ 47.00
';"" 'Q:;itf " '~r' 1~,(f.,(l\;~WJ.;A~t~~fJ~~ ;;\~1PlM'i;~! 0.Q15 1.744 15.90 0.11 4.56 7.96 ~<~:.'1~:. 'f~~~t '~~~5 9.609 7.83 r*ii~~~~" .;s~lt4~~~1 46.00
~l!l.>,..' ..~- --, ~., ....r
B1J..ild
Pipe
Cover
3.00 1.75
4.57 3.32
4.65 3.40
4.78 3.53
4.94 3.69
3.50 2.50
3.96 2.71
\
3.50 2.50
3.96 2.71
6.78 5.53
8.50 7.25
"'~1.9fr,~ }~'f4' , ;'j>:;r~~~;oo[ ~~~nl . i~l'\ 1.294 1.294 15.00 0.10 4.69 6.06 II~ 6.257 5.10 !$:i5..9~1i'~ ;~J~~;J9;i~i\ 46.54 3.50 2.25
~""1JJ' , .-" ',1, it~ !.~~~~jI~ ..1,:
....1. '. J.t'.1 1;.1.,~<IO . '" . ." '~'" -s 0
~~'~a~~~~ #'\~'i.rt)jW; {~~r,[~$iJ~.i ~~?1~~$i1 :~~~1~~ 0.748 2.041 15.10 0.41 4.67 9.53 ~v~~ '. . ~~~mt 9.852 5.58 ~~$:v.~ !~:r.~.M,",. 45.31 3.96 2.46
i',',~ j~' ~~ '. ~:,',:' ~~';" ~ ~.$, ....m!
~i1J;i~~~1; s''.~~l\~ .. '~V~fM"" ;~jl!1~~~ .~ .~~~~,~~~~~ ~. <;J'r&i~ '~r~ij~~ji'f. $.P.~;~i!!I\~~~~:
;i~1l;:';i.~,'lI"'-~lr. ;~~, .f"~~ ,Jif' :... ~. . "1 ., i- '.-:' .' , IJ;~... . 'll.".....~,: .!'i."...'(fti'it,,,:
it-i'l$~!1f ~. .i11t&~~t fj{fi~~;<<1~ ~l~~.(jf~!~iiiU;M;!~ 0.800 0.800 15.00 1.07 4.69 3.75 i!~~$P;~~ '~~~f 3.451 4.40 i/J, ,"It' "~I. ~~: -'. ~~~" ~..~:!+~: 46.55 3.50 2.50
...".,.:.. .....,..,. ~ ;.... ,';"'.. 11... .... '., .. ~. /....... 1 ,~H ~ "; ,._ '..t~~ t - ":'.~;~"~ ->~ r.:$:,.:.....-.:....,iJ;;: 1\;...
)1i:1Wf~"i '~~.Dfj1/ .1;i~~<i\~11~~~ fcf!$~~tNt ~~;~1~~JlW ".j~~ I\'.\~~)rl~ ~i~.~~ ~'1p;\[lp.:"1!''''
0:-'" ..~. 'f', ..:. it''';
'oj iffil..... .1;; - },*).'~,~~~.~~~.l
". it ':., Jt~\, 'i !"" ~~~~~\'It{~l(~';,',,' I .ft.,' .",' ;iCi..:!I>\,,".,..).IJ~r .", cr... .ji.'i~', .
~1~~J s.i1fE>i ~(S!, ,;,.1J.t.;~ ~~,t\_:,.;,i 0.624 3.465 16.07 0.15 4.54 15.73 1,\Q:;R ~~~~~~iiJii 16.279 6.77 ~'f'!lli~W;jjl';l J;iA~~~~~'~, 44.75 3.35 1.60
.~ (. ...J :t~~~Y"'..'" }'..:; ;.,fr,...... ;),,"'lII'. ,.;o,..tr"'.,~ .-J ." ,_ ......'Ut, ..,;,:;... ...,.. ..-J....
.\~~~~~m:j~l ~~.~;,;~. f>>1iljii} ~:f~~~~~il~ '~~~lf~ ~1.~ ~~1li~f1f& iJ.\~~l~~\:i ...)!tf~~;~'ii:~;I:~:
t ,',..t. .';'A,:I'I; ., :r.:'~-'" . .rJJ, .\;_ ~~'f ,I;' 'fI ~~ ~~ '. ~"ll: ., ~~~.f'M'+ ~ Mi" !-,. ..: ~ 'H)'l;......... :., ...~.;,Hl ,\5~.
~l~~?J~ :*~l1lij~~~i fi'!~~9~9.f 'm~~i(~t 0.254 0.254 15.00 0.12 4.69 1.19 :~Qi~t. ~~~~~ 3.451 4.40 ~~~t~~~; ;~ll~i~~;: 44.59 3.50 2.50
,... ~
'~*~iW;.t: Jtl ~?~t~,#\t ~~!~I~~!'!'t '~f.{~~t(.ii~: !ff~~rt~ ~<!fi\f~~~? ~t!:if~~~~~~~~~i~
;" . .'or.-,,t.. ~.:. .' -.
~~~l~~~1~ .~~.. f!;IM![~{'f'l,; ...~;\}t{~' ..'ti~~,.;.:iJi:, 3.738 16.22 4.52 16.89 '(Q1" .. . '1$iif; 21.075 6.71 43.80 4.00 2.00
,;~;t. .. ~\:t I~i'.... m.' 0.020 0.18 ~l ;7J:.;j '."1 "~j. .k~1M;:'h ,.~" ",
:(;';,(~f!~. .. -' . t ':tl'Ji~~. ,.,) ,<:,,"""" .",.',..'
t~t.lPJ:~ JU'f !J'ji *,~!$,{~:.oo' ';~f~:~;.Q.$J. ~~~~~11 0.163 3.900 16.40 0.10 4.50 17.53 rM!~i. " ':'::.:i " 18.169 5.79 ~\t\t~~~jf>l~i8d"~f\ 43.62 4.00 2.00
~.,,", ,'t. 1. ."'" ..,....,. " ..~_....,.~.,S',
,l~rjJ;0.~~:~ '3J;1ii~;~1i}I~~' ,~;: .,r.(~!:~~t~~ijt~1), ~r~t~j.fi~:~1-~~ ~f~*j~?:.{j~i,:.} .~ ~J!i;~{qi~~~ ~.~;;~~\?:\~~1~~1.
f~~it4Yl.~f.t II {~~'i~~~~ ;fW&t9t ~&W~~1;\f 0.657 0.657 15.00 0.12 , 4.69 3.08 ~:' "~':' 3.451 4.40 I~~~t ]f!~Mi,~t: 46.14 3.SO 2.50
'" .... ,_41:,\ .€,~~..-',,; ,;1,11~'.
~'!J.. ~;~: );' .';tI/I rt.f.~l !~~~~iq~~; 'if~,MJt 0.637 1.294 15.12 0.41 4.67 6.04 ~:\Q1"';~1 Fl .(,~~;,: 62.57 5.10 ~/~~!?!~ ~~~'Y" 44.94 3.96 2.71
j.~ ., \. . ;-t... 1m: ~..~ ~. .,...;j'lf.~-
e. ~ ij... ,N' ". ".., ~ ..' .... .... ,}. ....,. ~'., .. ,.
k~? ~Jfi& :i(t~if.~l ~t~W)~~ Kt!Vt~t{~\~1 &if~%"j~t ~~'~Wi1~!'!I:;\ ,;;;. :~jt~I~J.~~~?J.~t;'i~i;
".' ,.,,~ li,..~..IHt
l~t~t Ii.~l.~~' iMf;mlf))Q~ '~f,.))~~p';j$; r!l~'ir\!: 0.104 5.298 16.50 0.36 4.48 23.75 ~.r2i ;~'i!ffti7e;~' 24.185 6.09 ';~~:~"'[:.19.llW ;~;;~~'~;~j 42.73 4.28 2.03
a. ~' "~~"".\' . ~l).~): t.. .....,,; I; r:.;\.f!-"iir~'
. _." ,,~... ~ -, '-' .,; -,,<;.-
8124/99 2
STORM SEWER DESIGN
PROJECT NAME: Prior Lake
Number
From To
PipeLen.
ft
Area
ac
C
;~*J.,~~J1i\ij~~~~~ f;r~1.;Wmt ~~~~tg'4\1 ~~;~, 'tH.. 0.150
7I~~~~ t1t~ :ip<'~f;W~tj':t~ ~~~1tL)t$.r:RfI,~*' .'
i:.i;iu:tiAW ::; ~ ,i'I: 1') I Z'" .[i:rr-w,p. "ia~.!'.<.: '.~iJ 0.162
YI,.~r?~. ..y~~ ._ : r..~'. ...... .,. .,', ,~,_ ',"~J ~~ ._,_1 ~~:i
~4 ~,.i~i ..__ .~. ~"4 ~ 1ft ~ ' I' 0.150
~k. . . . .~, ...: , ~'." ~";. . 0.358
~w "'~.:~ ... 'j i,.... . I ,," 0.221
~'i.. . '!til "i, '. .' i~ :"". )~; 0.371
";~"".... ',.,.\w. .,f..', :,,'IJ' 'of ,- ~. ., ':/Kil;," ," .". ~rfrq:r
1- "', ~ - ~ :' ,jii Vi "fe!., .~."'~ ~"";'~;':. '1:1.,. " _'."'''' 3:).,:f~"k
m( ,. ~ ~~. . .~~ ;~1u ...., f:;~. ':~~l~l~ 0.403
.. "~ :~1!l~., j " .,~;. ~~ '~~,':. 'S' 0.774
'.< .~~J.~~, 'i..t~IJt.\i!'" .l:;iJ;la,:
~jJ'iJ. l~> '. Ii.. ..' ,~.:::,' t '. ':!I;, :', "
'r~'~~V~~_~ . '.d~~ f.~t~ t"'(,',i~~~~~~;~~~~~~
Z"'~ ' . "ifi~' ',,'1 .' 1 ~ . '" U!".i1l'1tf~I~~:ft'~~\'''lli
".'J!'. . .' .!. ~.. .,. . .' ";r"r.:!<m'lYll'~\~.~<<c".
::~'ffi" '.'~' _~ - i~l: . _. _f..' ,tt~fftnjri&, mf~~i\Ii~f'~~~
r.~i,J,",~,,"~ ~"., . ~ ~!" .. ,vIf!t!ll'f.oi\N.;f li'~,~!W~
L..~ 'HIJ~'tt~.~ ':";;;#.~~.i~il
~ ~J;~.~ ~, .' ':.7 :~!t~~Jr~~ ," ::" "~i
ri~1 "~ .~~ iF ~ ,^ ~J~ l~ ~~,<<t~ ~t~%~T9~7!! ~~~~j~f
~:~~~~ ~I'X" . \Wt $it:i!t~i~, :fJ€~;~~'.',~ '?~~Q'~jf11i\ 0.709
~'~~&f.m~~1}~ . ,,' 'lid, l.\tr.~~l7.ifJi1~' ~1~g~tl~ 1 ,;~!1~.it~ 0.936
l!,!~~'I:~~i~'1f' :.zit,' .1'i,i'!Jii{'N;a1:~*'f;1(i."'.1ij!,Wf~ h'J1.~.:l:!!'{'<>Ili;I~'l~
...~(:~,t_f. ',1~t.J!. "fl!'~;:1J;;~,. '!'o~;t!f,~,f,.~~a:r~. ,,_,"'./~1~~tlJ:'t 1::~;1~~~~:s'
;t.:~.""fiii, $f', ~,.~:t.~..;m; . ."',n ,~'.' }ti;:A' . '}.1\i~\i...:tO!t~'~\,,frli~,"''<l!i!%'lii.,l,.: 0 774
. ~~".!!; <.' '" ?o1;'Wy~,1~,. .s~1.... ,.,""';'~~?J ,,="~'i''''' .
iit;,;?A lItl:({(~N~~~i141);;~. ,~~ ~{~~:t~"J~ ~~~~t*ft4~
":~'79' ,l'f;~;j~~t ~~'~1s.m'..: .~liY.~(~m! !::~q;~t#~ 0.995
.:J\:io:'~"iH~l'<I~. ~;",~~'. ~ j[dJ.~ 7:-!;!!.<0!it:;~~lJ. ;!.~'l;~'H~t!..:,j;...:"'I.\ \ ~}J!~'-'!;'iti;;:4:~,i.
!1iit~~.....;,I':.f!'<I~~~~, ,{i,.jlQ. ,t";i~!'N::.r "f....-~: . ~",f.l', "'''''' _~ ',"'1' .~.f'!~r....",~
r'~:,.;"*",,,~- '" . - ..,,~ .... :ill'MI ;:,"(-"""..'4 "ii' "'r'..,1!l "
~~~t~~~~~: ~~l', ~'i\'+ ~~t~;':~~~.~ \1i;l~;~~,1.R.i ~~;tfQ.~~~~1 0.754
;,i!?;I{;~YJj! ,>.t~ .~~ %t~'1:1l~i&~'\f~ff!1N~n' ,~~ ~1i
~. .':. ~" ;l,~ ~ ',-a~;WL~;,~~UGf.~ ~I~ 0.819
.~ > ~ . ~;Il " t'-~ ;tf$;;;~.1ij{.[1I1: I',{~'; ~':
'. l " ~ ~ __, ~ fii::Jf4~~ 0.709
,10. · . . '. l<"''''~' IK
;4~' ~~' ff I . .'~~i~iF.~'l"t .
8/24199
Total
CxA
Sum Tc to Time
C x A Inlet in Pipe
5.447 16.86 0.26
0.162 15.00 0.35
0.312 15.00 0.13
0.669 15.00 0.69
0.890 15.00 0.41
1.261 15.00 0.11
7.111 17.12 0.11
0.774 15.00 0.11
0.689 0.689 15.00 0.03
0.689 2.152 15,11 0.39
0.000 2.152 15.50 0.22
0.300 2.452 15.72 0.81
0.255 2.707 16.53 0.97
0.235 2.942 17.50 0.67
0.709 15.00 0.12 4.69
1.645 15.12 0.51 4.67
0.774 15.00 0.11 4.69
3.413 15.63 0.37 4.60
0.754 15.00 0.11 4.69
4.986 16.01 0.36 4.55
0.709 15.00 0.11 4.69
Wi"
iJVhr
4.44
4.69 0.76
4.69 1.46
4.69 3.13
4.69 4.17
4.69 5.91
4.40 31.32
4.69 3.62
4.69 3.23
4.67 10.05
4.62 10.05
4.59 11.24
4.48 12.12
4.36 12.82
15.69
3.53
22.67
3.32
YEAR SfORM: 10
MANNING'S "N" 0
Runoff Slope Pipe
(cfa) % in
24.17 ~P:~W i~~t.~;
'r.ffl1r$$~ ,~~~)~}';j~
~J"~~~iif'Ei?:kw}
b.~ . 'l;;' ~
.,
.lU.
;;"
'" l/ '..~~
~;
ij}:'
i.' .~_
DES'N. BY: TAE
CHK'D BY:
Capacity Elevations Pipe
Q (cia) V (fpa) T.C. Out. Inl. Build. Cover
24.417 6.14 ~,~tilt(~\&:f~t3~t 42.22 4.43 2.18
~- . .~-~ '- .'-- ~.., '. .t.,~.., ,..._. ~ .~.~1"\.
l(.,.w~~1j~\t&~t~;g~~~~,
3.451 4.40 It'fitjfOO~''I:fi "," i 46.75 3.50 2.50
i!ol.~: .., . ~:'!' ~ -jm~"
...., ". , -' -....~, ~,~.. A~~~
3.832 3.12 , " , ,~~ 46,48 5.55 4.30
, ",'
4.139 3.37 '. '. '. '''to " 45.99 5.62 4.37
:J~' .... " .,~.."
8.986 7.33 ,!' ~l" J.fi~ 43.02 4.01 2.76
6.058 4.94 E ~,'~~'~l~: ~ ~.~ 42.78 3.66 2.41
~. .. .. .
!f. . I .'.'-'..~J;.:(
~. ,
31.796 6.48 i;;>;!;"" ." ~: ,,'..~~ 42.00 4,46 1.96
i!i .
".
~. ..; ..~' 3.858
t~~..:(to..
:-"r.<YtI'a
~~t " 3.858
~!"I."t~'. .,'~~l.;:"
;~W,.., .i: t" ':l~~\f 13.292
~~~~~~.~~\1 21.016
'Ir'O".'....jl;...... .'.I........I..'..f.. 11.749
~",~....,~". .:j,W,~
~. : '?!~, ~Jl:t!.1': 12.492
~~';...".;~ t~~l~j 13.279
3.32
7.68
~1i\jll^1~l:: ~~ ::""":',~Jt
J!!!!!!){'~ ...... .,;;:"
~,. 'J "ij' ". ~.{ ~;J:
3.62
'i\:.~j, '"
".~.fl.
)~~r.~~ ·
'.i.1ll...,',,' ~~\dit:;../, ~
.:)I,~ ;~'~'-'_,.{\
rti~~l>' ~ .' ""I,~1
~. . ..J. ~ " ~~ .~\I
; : '\ '~.?'~ 3.858
-, -.~
~~1~' .
.., .~...~~ ,.,' 25.979
i. "..
:o. ."', .J>'lt..t"J', ~.
. Oi: ,.~,~ < .
." ,
3
3.451
8.436
3.858
16.279
3.858
4.92 l~g~1J ~~~~ 46.06 3.00 2.00
' ,.J _" h_:.>: ...
i~r:~~~ ~l~:1r~t~t*i~f
4.92 J'J'I9,,;} :~{f~ 46.28 3.00' 2.00
... ~". ..-.....
~f~;~J~$~!. .
5.53 ~~~~jr" ~.W!.~lf: 45.29 3.32 1.57
>. >,',< ;,!.tl'
8.74 i,~!I~!i,;mk':i'li,~ii~~J{!~1' 43.52 2.71 0.96
~...~,~; .", .,::-.~; ilI'~,-'.'" ..'. './$1
3.74 ~~iJJi~ ~.~~.t, 43.10 2.48 0.48
. ;.,. ,. . . ~rt1
3.98 '~.~~~[f#;:Vf.~i'~ 42.50 2.90 0.90
t'-Jio:',',..._..t..,. ....... ~:.....,.. ~_.,.. ,..~
4.23 ~lmi't~ i4~~r(j' 42.00 3.50 1.50
....11 ~,~~- ~ .;;: .:.~~,i
4.40
4.78
. ~;'i~,';.~ ~'}9Ri~fl~. ,'~&.:
~!.'Ito:i<,m!;..'tt ~ Z'iA~1a';t:j.*-,
w~~~~~~~1.. '~:'~~;f\:-.~
~~~tfljJi~ ~~i~~~~~;~~_
~fJi~9.J~~$1iti 1~l'8.:4.Qf'4;1
g~l~f~~iji~J~~ .~t~{lf,~~;!~~t~~'
'~~!~i'mu*)~ ~~ii~7.~}~i)"::
~f~~~l*j~;;.~~). ;.;;~~~~;{~~~~&~
46.51
49.74
48.54
3.50 2.50
4.16 2.66
3.50 2.50
4.07 2.32
3.50, 2.50
5.84 3.59
3\50 2.50
4.92
48.08
6.77
4.92
~~~i~f~~ ~t{!l{l~~W
iit."ii~@'4~~~;;tJl;'~I'l'h;
;M~!t.~i~f~!. ~~:<?!f..~...,...:,;,~~~
48.08
6.54
.
""'_'II.' . >..,m!'..!~..~~.i.~ _'Jt!.'._~..~_:_'~~. "<.'.:."
'., " ~. .'~l.It~'i,.
~ . ..',,,,,. . :' ~i ~. ~~I~!,?,i
:~-..s~....-~." ~~~:. ,M~
~}~i1-... ~. . ~,_f.,~' .:~~t~~~€fl*
47.03
45.25
4.92
STORM SEWER DESIGN
PROJECT NAME: Prior Lake
Number Pipe Len. AreA
From To ft ac
W;1{!~~\!! l~~WJti' ~~~t~'ilP.,OO\,'\{,1,\ftq~i if/bi~~:f~; 0.569
>, . ""~!l..),I,," ....~oi\l':III'iM" "~~I" . . ~ ''''lJ'i'i' 'fit
~~~rl~: ~t:fifi '&"1.~{v!'~(" ,~~1~~-~\a~,.~r ;?i-i*}/q~$~ ~f;:~i:"',~'?~~~ 0.569
~;;;i!~t.'~.~.. ~.r".......~.~,:,s.,J. '.". fl.'. ., j'.i~.'.'~i.;i;~,.f..;.'.!.;..f:.;'~.,.~.r.{~.:'.,. ~.~..j,;~~.~.'.i~...;.'~\'..',..".,~..~n~.'?"f!.".;k........i:;..~...'.t...,~:I:.,..:...
;{{;(~~~ ~..:~' /~ W\it\~~J)Qi ;ltf{(t~~1J~9.~J;k 0.761
1Iii/,ilii... .. "" lMl~ ~
~~~1J.r1t: :t1~~~I~*,~~~I'?l~~~;: .': . 0.647
i::t!ti.,,*A:.~, ~ " . t"'. ",Hf~...-j;IVfJ ~\i5l\l'A;nnf' ,Ii' 0647
14.j;~"l~"._ ~ .,~ ~~ l~:~~~i l:!~i.p~: ;~!>y.~( ~ .
;.iW~lIAY6~~: t~t . -~~' J~i ~ 1, ~' 'ff J.~ ~~'I~~fi~~~~1 :~~1\~ra(It~1J
'w~'*.'IiK!;.....j!'tll x~.~.' "." "~,_.,,, i/J.,",,:t,~,...itlkt '..:p~\il!il-1~~ 0.735
_t'_>;iiJ.~9"~'{1:O~ ~,':\l "'. tii'it". .~~ .... i.~,I.fOI;~'
{;;l~'!t~\1;&~ Jl~' ff,;~@';: .\..: ~:,~W~,l 0.436
. ' .f:t",~, ,,".;~ . . \i\' ..""'."...., 'ij.,& '''' '.~' ,="",
".''''''''..''''':'';'I[ ,~'" I~'" ,.... '" !t';,;frl~~"'"''''i~\i';;'!:",'''
""!~~:\l,.r,.~~~1;'H' !O':.:<l!. ,., .:If. ,.'i.,t.~ w':.WJl3Mt..l _';'~.~'t<fk,+'< -. 'MI
1.;?}'16f~"'it f.irJl ., '~.l ~~l*;q$;l'; " < '~'r)^"" . '~(~i;M 0.430
[~~i~i~f ~~:.i1!i ;fi(~ .~~~~i~:~j i.i 0.260
i'.~}j,$l}:&~ S3'~~~~\~: ki~&lAAl~;,,;!:~f~~~Q;~j :\liM~;~~~\l
ifj,~~."9'I.J,.~ :Y4'\\fl;iD!~~J\ o~ '. . ..)!: ';~~~I~i~t.24t~'(ri'"~~,~~
.\; -.'t,.~ ;jT, 1i<'. . !B!, ...., '. . . ,>0 "''''';_' ,~~!: ~". " t~~[.r.~1
~;..:,';1~'It.~~ ".. ~/'~~'<iiV~;~1"i'~.:"'-flf,;.'~';'it.~l;;O'.1'12.N~)'f;
"""''''..,' 11.1'.\ .. ; .,. -,... - {(f~; .' . -.'., _ jXi...~, '!:t ; ~J ,."...,/1' ,"h.
.. '>ij' .~1;~U3;?;J>1 W~~~~Jt) _. :7:"
~.~", '. +. ; ~.: ~ .~ l: '~~lf' ., J ~~,. 1(." .,'~)~:
t~~.~l,,~, ~,~1. ,,' ;,~ >,; .;~$~.i~ft.. ~rWit,it!:~ 1!ii1i'; ~f~:
~l"~'''fl'.l''~;: 'lii;^'f.:'~," . .if.{l!t;Q),m;~ 1Jj)#"~if1j '.
tf...;'1;'."ifl.t:.fi.~~j l"P ;- '~. '~.:j.\!(.\ ~lr",,~: ~}~:'?F'., :ij;;'1i ;t.f~.' ,~~~'.
Ir~~.'fi~'\' .' .~. ~~.~1ii,"'.~>;~il ~1!?1l~fi!r~~j '!'IV~."~~~. ..
::0>,:. '.~11 'I~'/'~dt ~~';i1Q~ ';~;~~~~l ;'~f,(f~~;
~....tti~.'f/il!Jj;: 'i '*.;<1' '."1 ~"i;~'." .;. ..;tIi., i.l~i;f!4 ''Jr..';;''''f.'['.'/' ,"" !f~.:1;.; ~.". .... '1<i..''kit~i~. .....V:"i1.'
1.~~11.j~" .... .~~1,. ~~""'I,l1r~~" ;rj!'l,~~ ..........If.. ',,- ,"'(;f~,.\'1.
.t.~ ''OJ. ..~;. ~~.. .-\(,/,', '-~".' " " ~.rp.:J:J.:~j- t., ;:"! ;~
,~ .. ..11: ~.'M.~~
~'''. <;:;;' < .i":: . ~ j.1 ~~~ ~h~_
~"'", .0:.-0;.. ~i~ iI:~ :.r.-(.t'tt, . } 't', ;J~. ]. ,rt~J t_ "';'4-'~
,~j'~ .'~~~~ """'. ." .l!:...:0> , .- :~~l~..!.QQ, ",r..~;'l'"
i,;l[t!~f '}J;~l$Jill~: 1t.-~~;: ~i;'?,ig~ ~{9.~~] 0.384
S:~~i~~/'/ltl~~ ~~~y~~~ ~j~~~~~ftf{t~ ;~~'&1~~~:!J:~: ~~WX~;~~
.'I...L.~~. ".' .::~if~.!. ::ii9$.:,~} ;'ir.;~.'... li.it 0.429
;~~'1.. f!.~~ r....' , '. "~' ff$j,IlIJ.&'~ '(,~*i~J12:t ~fXO#!~ 0.338
;;;;. ~~,i.' 'T"~; " . .-". .~ ""<I1.?,:/,Jl)'~l.%~':;';fjft\.t;)'iit'l1- J,i~Mti}I~;,[,'.;t ;
.. ( . -" '. , .\:_.' I If.J!til.... ,.4~'r,lr"'.r.:1"",,J. .". .. _. ,
;~ . .; ,,;'.', ~.: l~ ~ ?fi;/f.l. . ,~~)9.~11;',: 0.455
8124199
C
Total
CxA
Sum Tc to
CxA Inlet
0.569 15.00
1.138 15.11
6.455 16.37
8.239 16.54
8.886 16.56
0.735 15.00
1.170 15.11
10.486 16.91
10.746 16.98
Time
in Pipe
0.03
0.09
0.16
0.02
0.35
0.11
1.12
0.08
0.64
0,449 0.449 15.00 0.98
0.806 1.255 15.98 0.79
0.312 0.312 15.00 0.12
0.891 1.203 15.12 1.22
0.397 0.397 15.00 0.78
0.728 2.327 16.34 0.56
0.598 4.180 16.90 0.09
0.540 4.719 16.99 0.34
0.000 4.719 17.33 0.22
0.384 15.00 0.08
0.813 15.08 0.94
1.151 16.02 0.58
0.455 15.00 1.10
4.50
4.48
4.48
4.69
4.67
4.43
4.42
4.69
4.55
4.69
4.67
4.69
4.50
4.43
4.42
4.38
4.69
4.67
4.55
4.69
· i ·
in/hr
4.69
4.67
YEAR STORM: 10
MANNINC'S "N" 0
Runoff
(cis)
2.67
5.31
Slope Pipe
% in
~k~miW i!JJ~IIa)~$,;!~
i;4fl~~V; ~r.\~~~$'?f~'f
'~~{~1~!~:~J.~'
Capacity
Q (cfs) V (fps)
3.858 4.92
6.996 5.70
DES'N. BY: TAE
CHK'DBY:
Elevations
T.C. Out. Inl.
~'t$\);~1~g; :f';~47;~t~f.: 47.30
')Eif5D.;9q:!:1{ Y./,4~~ 46.51
!ii\i~;(i~MN}, :1,if);~:~~,
;~~;f$~~~11i~~~W$ 44.66
i~tl~~~~;~ ~ff~l~f~}~
fi~i~$,1~l~~~?t~J 44.39
liii~ ~~l~~$.~ 43.48
~~P. '~1f.tI~tJ.\
~It'i,jD)>:~" ''',~~~'i\. '~i~~ 48.18
t~:t~.',,~ ,t:r...';t~., f,if. '. _.~~l",,:r-:I,
;gi'lig;wt~ ~1iiZ~\~ 45.48
~i.i~~if't.lt\i/.', .:~.~,':;t,~;i~,\~~,
~{~!f~,t;m,r!inf~ ~~:."i~1"'~i~;~t~_~;.:.;r.4
J!t~~lll\-~~~4hsr~! 43.13
I~$.t~j;s.i~i," 'o/J\~~$:~' 42.00
Pipe
Build. Cover
3.50 2.50
4.07 2.82
5.60 3.35
6.44 3.94
6.71 3.96
3.50 2.50
4.02 2.77
8.87 5.87
9.42. 5.92
2.10 MJfjiif)I~~~'~l~ 2.728 3.48 ri~$.Mli.~~ :,:iE~~~~Yi:' 47.48 3.50 2.50
5.71 tl. i~5,~! ..~. ~!R:~, ; ~~:~~ 7.631 4.32 <<f~~:ifii ;~I'l' 46.16 4.93 3.43
r..,.>. ,~~, :'.....,AT~
i~ ~ ~. ; .~~;,.- I~Wf~ti~' '?I1l"
, ~ +~'(.~.,; ,,_'. _" '. ,'lit
1.46 ,....; , '. 3.451 4.40 '1$ii!1i8~fi) "\,,4fj~ " 47.52 3.50 2.50
,. .~' '~ ;fi!...: ,'. ,.',VJ; ;~:l. .', ,,'~~
5.61 ~'\Ii: ~~ .:. l~.w 5.640 4.60 l!fi.t~);m'~l '~,,~i{~"'." 45.13 3.96 2.71
!'~. . :(tJi: "t ~rfJ;
'r*~ "~~'~~'li ~~~i\~ql
',:, ': ;;. ~'~1~~~': k._ '. " ,'.,'" ..'.:." .~~1
1.86 a~ 3.451 4.40 :~. aJ' \~~~~Wi\ 46.24 3.50 2.50
~.,Jl':
t~ '. ff."~:~' .~ ;WI~i~l(~
;0;:,;' ..,'.,. ,.,,!i.~,
10.48 !.or: '9.Qili,1 ~": ;~ 10.792 6.11 ~li~l~ ~.93~~t..~~ 43.09 6.45 4.95
Y:.
)':', ~r"r 'j- ~ ~'.' ." .~~ ;'1:)'.':...", ~\.. .~~-11~
i':I/ , .. . :it~j:. tfkJ4r~~.~~'J~
,,0'. o'Ill'.: .~., ,-..
18.52 I~'. j .~' r4~~. 18.333 5.84 lj~';i '~~:1~~;~%~ 41.42 10.40 8.40
f!..... ~ ?,.' '. ".".....<.1.1.,'1;;
20.86 . ~ 21.212 5.34 .~. - ~1:'1.~,0.l\ 40.78 10.78 8.53
,
20.67 ii\~..,@Qti.: if!,' ,--". ~ 21.212 5.34 (~~;~;1j: d:%4~~Ul3~\ 40.51 11.22 8.97
29.04
~~'.
~r~~,9;V&i
~Ifl~ ;;1!~[4l:,i'.. ',j~
!~t.. ~~:. i..", .I!!~.
~~OmIl ~i~f.::
~il'. ..~~
l~it't.>;\ :~a:B ~~
.::~{ ;l~~r ,.' ..j~
"',ft"''i;'~'' "~'~1jf",'" r,o''''
l:i!!'if..,.'gj'. ~ (!\~.;~~~:;;
!W~t:l~~~ . "~~~~W"~:;;'i
.,\~,\.;/f'WJ. ,. "r" ..t~;!t,f:!it.l!;dl
&;'ltt"'l!~ 't.~~~~~#
~~L;-. 4 "....",.)'i?;;:ll';y~
""riW;il;:(< ~ ~~*1;'1;rA>l;
i~~~~;~~U~ ;~:. ~~~"4R;t~:'r)F
48.989 6.93
60.162 6.26
29.998 7.55
36.90
39.77
37.164 7.57
40.498 6.82
3.44
5.46
3.858 4.92
6.058 4.94
46.47
47.52
1.80 ~~~ ~ '" 3.858
.;~~m !~,f ,.$ii'"
3.80I1"';9"t~ 1; .,'~j~ 3.800
5.23!Ri ~ '5.235
~~ ~lI'ti ~ "'~ ,,~~~>:~
2.13 ~!Jr ~ ~1 ~~~~iv~1 3.182
4.92 l1;#.R~iQg;~ :~~1.?'.mi~$; 53.78 3.00' 2.00
~~1dfb1fj~~~~ iit~~t{;:mf~:
I .lH rlli'~~W~ ~~5M2J~t; 53.77 3.40 2.40
4.27 ~~~tP2l?tt I!;~\~~;;~~ 52.74 3.45 2.20
~~11if:ld,~ ~1.!l~;~~t;r~lt I
4.05 ;".i......~{;. :~r:.~~~~.~ 52.68 4.20 3.20
4
STORM SEWER DESIGN
PROJECT NAME: Prior Lake
YEAR STORM: 10
MANNING'S "Nil 0
Number
From To
PipeLen.
it
Area
al:
f!i~S~1~W.~:e.J.~g~1~ ~f,%~'~;'~'J#~ '!\f$iiif.4'git~ 1~J:~Jtli}fi!.
.~ 11(, MIlS! ";W 'I'. ~:.., .~;
~.,:~r~ ,t~~~Mitftl; ;:iI-X:+'J"'~., 1 :~~ ~..' ~ ;"~, '.::' 1. ".
;.;)~:.~:~,".;tfJiq J'''',~~ i=,I.~ fl'"/ '~'-'~~:J}il&~: \J:'~ _":'-.:i~ ;1-1:;l:~. :."-Ji-t
~"'>\:"'~. :-t,: .~..r; ~','_ .ff;;\;!""",," .~r:..;r ,<,~t'~,.,. ,1;
,~rJ~~?i~ . I:. 'f;' ~ ,,-. . ,!~~(~..." r~_Jf: ~
t:~~~11M: [~)I . " 'i<c'tf\1'f: ~. .;Gfi'~,!i~1}t.{~~I$~~r;l).
~.,> ;,. .";:.;,,
~,ttl~~~' '7!l.<i: ',~i Ji'l~ti " ; ft,'rqmx'. 'lij,
t~Jt~":~~1.:.i,. ijl,: 'f.r.~ ~~ ~ :''< '~~~ .~! ,-if.:' t -. ": :;'rl'
,..WJ'''J!l;;/..'I~c''l>. ...., .. '~'..." . , ,'~, ....'.i\i!(1'
:';'f~~;}~'i~:;11::n " 'j' '.,~ ,';."',~~jl~~iJ.~1~
;.~~~1~~~ '!J'.,f ;!l~~t ';Us h ~ A~
~'~'1$f~l,;". l~ f ~%f.' .i.OOJ ",~~ig:;,ft
I I
8/24/99
C
Total
CxA
Time
in Pipe
Sum
CxA
Telo
Inlet
0.644 2.249 16.60 0.26 4.47
0.332 2.581 16.86 0.07 4.44
0.462 0.46 '~l.[.m;; 0.93 4.69
0.280 0.280 15.00 0.72 4.69
0.384 0.663 15.72 0.64 4.59
1.190 4.895 16.94 0.13 4.43
0.462 5.356 17.07 0.08 4.41
0.234 5.590 17.15 0.08 4.40
Ii'
Runoff Slope I Pipe
(ds) % I in
-
10.05 ';)'.,1"', :'. ':- :~~"i 13.698
11.45 ;;.lUr?iil !".~:;,'1IEV; 17.149
~l/!!~ ~~.~~:
2.16 ~_ ::~1;
!II "'W!~'
1.31 ,j , "~E .' 4.331
3.047\1,.'",~J <.:.,:$'\~ 4.796
r~'. ". ~',:
21.67 ~g' ".,~, 22.185
23.63 1~IQr,." ~. ~ 25.979
24.60 !gOC )1l. :~4:,~':'~ 27.860
I
DES'N. BY: TAE
CHK'D BY:
Capacity
Q (ds) V (fps)
in/hr
4.101
5
Elevations
T.e. Out. In!.
7.76
5.46
fi~t~11 t~~ft~~~~;
;WfM:im!~~~T~ SO.72
i-:;('Z~:~;'~~~ ~t!~i$,~<?i. 50.40
~}{},~~.;~ ~~~~~)l~
~~~~~i I~~;~t~~t SO.59
R\~,~~jt~4i f.~~1'&~~~
~,~,. "'~~?:ii,i 51.50
. 'Z'" .\.f!,lil~}~~ SO.60
fJj'i>. ..' .~~~$,f~
." h,~l?P~;::mf: 49.93
,,~., ;;~;~~~I; 49.54
.fl:. ... .!\?l" ..-} i.:I'I.4~~ 49.30
5.22
5.52
3.91
7,(17
6.54
7.01
~
Pipe
Build Cover
,
3.20 1.70
3.33 1.33
3.00 2.00
3.00 2.00
3.20 1.95
3.45 1.45
3.70 1.45
3.89 1.64