DRAFT Green Lake Subwatershed Retrofit Analysis For Areas Draining Directly to the Lake. Prepared by: Isanti Soil and Water Conservation District

Transcription

1 DRAFT Green Lake Subwatershed Retrofit Analysis For Areas Draining Directly to the Lake Prepared by: Isanti Soil and Water Conservation District

2 DRAFT June 12, 2014

3 4 Executive Summary Map of stormwater catchments referred to in this report. GL-9 GL-10 GL-8 GL-11 GL-7 Green Lake GL-1 GL-6 GL-5 GL-4 GL-3 GL-2 Isanti County Catchments Flow paths Miles E

4 Executive Summary 5 Executive Summary This study provides recommendations for cost effectively improving treatment of stormwater from areas draining to Green Lake, which is located within Wyanett Township of Isanti County, Minnesota. The 866 acre lake has been designated as impaired for not meeting state water quality standards for nutrient eutrophication excess phosphorus. The lakeshore is heavily developed, but the larger watershed is a mixture of rural residential, agricultural, and open space. The lakeshore homeowners have formed a lake improvement district to organize and fund aquatic invasive species treatment and water quality improvement efforts. This report identifies projects that would reduce pollutant loading to the lake from the areas immediately around the lakeshore that drain to the lake, and ranks those projects by cost effectiveness at phosphorus reduction. This stormwater analysis focuses on stormwater retrofitting. Stormwater retrofitting refers to adding stormwater treatment to an already built up area, where little open land exists. This process is investigative and creative. While stormwater conveyances (curbs, gutters, pipes) are largely absent around Green Lake overland channel flow and practices at the water s edge, do deliver pollutants to the lake. Stormwater treatment is largely absent around Green Lake, but the lack of curb and gutter systems means water flows to the lake across sandy soils which provide infiltration in many areas. Stormwater retrofitting success is sometimes improperly judged by the number of projects installed or by comparing costs alone. Those approaches neglect to consider how much pollution is removed per dollar spent. In this stormwater analysis we estimated both costs and pollutant reductions and used them to calculate cost effectiveness of each possible project. Areas that drain to Green Lake were delineated using available GIS subwatershed information. Those areas were then divided into 11 smaller stormwater drainage areas, or catchments. For each catchment, modeling of stormwater volume and pollutants was completed using the software WinSLAMM. Base and existing conditions were modeled, including existing stormwater treatment practices. The total subwatershed analyzed for this project consisted of 489 acres. These areas contribute an estimated 40.5 acre feet of runoff, 60 pounds of phosphorus, and 15,051 pounds of total suspended solids each year. Lakeshore erosion contributes an estimated additional 24.4 pounds of phosphorus and 137,057 pounds of total suspended solids. Potential stormwater retrofits were identified using GIS tools and field investigation. Green Lake Improvement District members identified some of the projects and gave agency staff a tour of these. Concept designs for a variety of projects at each site were developed and modeled to estimate reductions in volume, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids. Finally, cost estimates were developed for each project, including 30 years of operations and maintenance. Projects were ranked by cost effectiveness with respect to their reduction of total phosphorus. A variety of stormwater retrofit approaches were identified. They included: Residential curb cut rain gardens, DRAFT Green Lake Subwatershed Retrofit Analysis

5 6 Executive Summary Diverting water to swales, Land purchase for protection from further development, Permeable pavement, Trench grate sediment traps, Hydrodynamic separators, and Lakeshore restorations. If all of these practices were installed, significant pollution reduction could be accomplished over 25 pounds of phosphorus. This would be a 30% reduction of the phosphorus from the study area. However, funding limitations and landowner interest makes this goal unlikely. Instead, it is recommended that projects be installed in order of cost effectiveness (pounds of pollution reduced per dollar spent). Other factors, including a project s educational value/visibility, construction timing, total cost, or non target pollutant reduction also affect project installation decisions and will need to be weighed by resource managers when selecting projects to pursue. This report provides conceptual sketches or photos of recommended stormwater retrofitting projects. The intent is to provide an understanding of the approach. If a project is selected, site specific designs must be prepared. In addition, many of the proposed retrofits may require engineered plan sets. This typically occurs after committed partnerships are formed to install the project. Committed partnerships must include willing landowners when installed on private property. The tables on the next pages summarize potential projects. Potential projects are organized from most cost effective to least. Reported treatment levels are dependent upon optimal site selection and sizing. More detail about each project can be found in the remainder of this report. The approaches in this report are consistent with the Green Lake Improvement District Management Plan for Portions of that plan that are at least partially accomplished by this study include producing a survey of shoreline conditions to prioritize need for restoration, providing information about rain gardens and prioritizing placement, and moving closer to shovel ready projects for water quality improvement. While this study covered only areas draining directly to the lake due to funding limitations, a similar study of the remainder of the watershed should be done so that all projects for the lake can be judged relative to each other s cost effectiveness.

6 Executive Summary 7 Summary of preferred stormwater retrofit opportunities ranked by cost effectiveness with respect to total suspended phosphorus solids (TP) (TSS) reduction. Volume and total suspended solids (TSS) reductions are also shown. For more information on each project refer to the catchment profile pages in this report. Project Rank Catchment ID Retrofit Type (refer to catchment profile pages for additional detail) Projects Identified TP Reduction (lb/yr) TSS Reduction (lb/yr) Volume Reduction (ac ft/yr) Total Project Cost Estimated Annual Operations & Maintenance (2014 Dollars) Estimated cost/ 1,000lb TSS (30 year) Estimated cost/ lb TP (30 year) 1 GL 9 Rain gardens Feldspar St $29,550 $450 $7,715 $2,050 2 GL 1 Swale public boat parking $15,541 $100 $4,612 $2,060 3 GL 9 Grass swale at bottom of Feldspar St (road not paved) $22,472 $840 $8,149 $2,648 4 GL 3 Land protection 62 acres $611,910 $6,000 $9,648 $2,966 5 Lakeshore Lakeshore restoration All 95 Candidate Sites , $437,770 $21,375 $262 $3,352 6 Lakeshore Lakeshore restoration 15 High Priority Sites , $70,129 $3,375 $274 $3,505 7 GL 9 Permeable asphalt 20% of Fedlspar St $59,334 $1,000 $13,414 $4,254 8 GL 7 Diversion to swale Rhinestone St $11,509 $100 $18,601 $4,836 9 GL 1 Permeable asphalt 20% public boat parking $61,884 $1,200 $10,293 $5, GL 9 Trench grate sediment traps Feldspar St $35,415 $1,000 $34,591 $5, GL 9 Hydrodynamic device Feldspar St Land 0.0 $41,014 $1,500 $75,451 $7,168 Further examination needed 12 GL 10 Settling pond North Branch Creek 1 undetermined Considered but excluded 13 GL 4 Swale 330th Avenue $8,278 $450 no benefit no benefit Notes/Description lake, install 2 rain gardens. Redirect boat landing runoff into the lakeshore swale. A grass swale at the water's edge of Feldspar St, which currently runs into the lake. Purchase fee title or an easement for property on SW side of the lake, currently for sale. Restore all candidate lakeshore restoration sites, or some lesser amount. Offers habitat benefits in addition to water quality. Restore the 15 candidate lakeshores where active erosion and concentrated flow occur. lake, including 20% permeable pavement. Divert street runoff to roadside swale. Some diversion already occurs due to road crowning. Install permeable asphalt on 20% of public boat landing parking. lake, including trench grate sediment traps. lake, including commercial hydrodynamic separator. Would treat runoff from a greater area than the scope of this study. Swale on undeveloped lot at saddle in road. Modeling found no benefit. DRAFT Green Lake Subwatershed Retrofit Analysis

7 8 Executive Summary Potential Water Quality Improvement Projects Flow paths Potential Project Locations Lakeshore Restoration Candidates Good candidate Highest priority Feldspar Rd - various BMPS North Br settling pond Swale- Rhinestone St Pub access swale/perm pave Green Lake Meyer property purchase Isanti County Miles E