2003-11-07 MNDNR Mud Lake Permit App%4,
Shc hIRo, .
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
DNR Waters
940 Industrial Drive S., Suite 103, Sauk Rapids, MN 56379
320/255-2976
November 7, 2003
Peter J. Carlson, City Engineer
SEH Inc.
1200 25th Avenue S
St. Cloud MN 56301-4806
Dear Mr. Carlson:
permit Application, Proposed Outlet Structure, Mud lake (8 2M,`Wright county'
Our office has received your permit application for the above mentioned project located in the NW'/<, Section 36, T121 N,
R24W, Wright County.
The proposed project involves placement of an36" CMP outlet culvert with an invert elevation of 945.7 feet. The proposed
structure will be located 350 feet south of 70 Street. Based on an email received from Shannon Smith with SEH, it is
understood that the proposed project has recently been modified from a 36" CMP to a 30" CMP in order to accommodate
concern the City, of Otsego had with. the original proposal. The email indicated that the 30" CMP would allow you to
notinclude outlet;rate of 1 Z.4: cfs It is assumed that the proposed control invert elevation has not changed. The email did
not include any other detail or supporting modeling information.
In your application you explain that an existing 42" CMP (originally authorized under permit 92-3117) located in the middle
of the lake outlet area is blocked with vegetation and is essentially controlling water levels. You also mention that the
upstream side of the channel was cleaned out this past summer as authorized by permit 2003-3073. The Department is
aware that the work that was done this past summer may have exceeded what was authorized. The existing natural runout
or control for Mud Lake is located approximately 400-500 feet upstream from 70th street and is at an elevation of 945.9 feet.
It is unclear if the natural runout control has been altered.
It is the goal of the Department to maintain natural water level conditions to the maximum extent feasible as established
under MN Rule 6115.0220. If the natural runout has been changed or if the city is proposing to change the runout then the
proposed structure would be the control for the lake. As mentioned in your application, the proposed invert of the culvert
will be at 945.7 feet. This would be 0.2 feet lower than the natural condition and would not be supported by the
Department. The city should look at other alternatives for controlling peak surface water elevations.
The Department is requesting clarification on the issue of the natural runout condition including any work that has or may
potentially impact the natural runout as it relates to the proposed structure before we are able to proceed with review of
your permit application.
If you have any questions or need any assistance, please contact me at the above listed number.
Sincerely,
NOV 14 2003 I /
UOU'HRIJRICKS(iN
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 e ITY 651-296-548 4 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled P
Who Values Diversity Y spar Containing a
Minimum of 200% Post -Consumer Waste
c�wA0V.,
NA-026620-03A (V.2.01 for MS WORD)02/14/03 q(1.3(03
Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects
For Internal Use Only
j Application No. Field Office Code Date Initial Application Received Date initial Amvlication Deemed Complete
PART I: BASIC APPLICATION
"See HELP" directs you to important additional information and assistance in Instructions, Page 1.
1. LANDOWNER/APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION (See Help 1)
Name: Ms. Linda Goeb, City Administrator Phone: 763-497-3384
Complete mailing address:
City of Albertville
5957 Main Ave. NE. P.O Box 9
Albertville, MN 55301-0009
IA. AUTHORIZED AGENT (See Help 1A) (Only if applicable; an agent is not required)
Name: Peter J. Carlson, City Engineer Phone: 320-229-4300
Complete mailing address:
SEH INC.
1200 25't' Ave. S.
St. Cloud, MN 56301-4806
2. NAME, TYPE AND SIZE OF PUBLIC WATERS or WETLANDS IMPACTED (Attach Additional Project Area sheets if needed)
Name or I.D. # of Waters Impacted (if applicable; if known):
(Check all that apply): ®Lake ®River ❑Wetland type ❑ 1 ❑ 1L ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ 8
Indicate size of entire lake or wetland (check one): ❑ Less than 10 acres (indicate size: ) ❑ 10 to 40 acres ® Greater than 40 acres
3. PROJECT LOCATION (Information can be found on property tax statement, property title or title insurance):
Project street address: Fire #: City (if applicable):
1/a Section: NW Section: 36 Township #: 121 N Range #: 24W County: Wright
Lot #: Block: Subdivision: Watershed (name or #) Otsego Creek
Attach a simple site locator map. If needed, include on the map written directions to the site from a known location or landmark, and provide
distances from known locations. Label the sheet SITE LOCATOR MAP.
4. TYPE OF PROJECT: Describe the type of proposed work. Attach TYPE OF PROJECT sheet if needed.
Replace Mud Lake (86-26) outlet culvert
5. PROJECT PURPOSE, DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS: Describe what you plan to do and why it is needed, how you plan to construct
the project with dimensions (length, width, depth), area of impact, and when you propose to construct the project. This is the most important part
of your application. See HELP 5 before completing this section; see What To Include on Plans (Instructions, page 1). Attach PROJECT
DESCRIPTION sheet.
see attached sheet
Footprint of project: acres or 3000 ( 75x40 ft) square feet drained, filled or excavated.
6. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: What alternatives to this proposed project have you considered that would avoid or minimize impacts to
wetlands or waters? List at least TWO additional alternatives to your project in Section 5 that avoid wetlands (one of which may be "no build" or
"do nothing"), and explain why you chose to pursue the option described in this application over these alternatives. Attach PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES sheet if needed.
see attached sheet
7. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: For projects that impact more than 10,000 square feet of water or wetlands, list the complete mailing
addresses of adjacent property owners on an attached separate sheet. (See HELP 7)
8. PORTION OF WORK COMPLETED: Is any portion of the work in wetland or water areas already completed? ❑ Yes ®No. If yes,
describe the completed work on a separate sheet of paper labeled WORK ALREADY COMPLETED. (See HELP 8)
9. STATUS OF OTHER APPROVALS: List any other permits, reviews or approvals related to this proposed project`oat are either pending or
have already been approved or denied on a separate attached sheet. See HELP 9.
10. I am applying for state and local authorization to conduct the work described in this application. I am familiar with the information
contained in this application. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information in Part I is true, complete, and accurate. I possess the
authority, to undertake the work described, or I am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant.
Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects Form
Page 1
Signature of applicant (Landowner) Date Signature of agent (if applicable) Date
This block must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity and has the necessary property rights to do so. If only the Agent has signed,
please attach a separate sheet signed by the landowner, giving necessary authorization to the Agent.
Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects Form
Page 2
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT (33 CFR 325) OMB APPROVAL NO.0710-003 Expires Dec 31, 2004
The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require 5 hours or less. This includes the time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service
Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork
Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to
comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of these addresses. Completed
applications must be submitted to the District engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT: Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404,33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine uses: This information may be shared
with the Department of Justice and other Federal, state, and local government agencies. Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the permit
application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued.
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
YOU DO NOT NEED TO COMPLETE ITEMS 6-10 and 12-25 in the SHADED AREAS.
All applicants must complete non -shaded items 5 and 26. If an agent is used, also complete items 8 and 11. This optional Federal form is valid
for use only when included as part of this entire state application packet.
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
City of Albertville
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
Peter J. Carlson, City Engineer
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION (if applicable; complete only if authorizing an agent)
I hereby authorize Peter J. Carlson, City Engineer to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:
DATE:
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly
authorized agent of the applicant.
Signature of applicant Date
Signature of agent (if any) Date
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant), or it maybe signed by a duly authorized agent if
the statement in Block 11 has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any
department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up with any trick, scheme, or disguises a material factor
makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false,
fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW-OR)
Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects Form
Page 3
t0002
AA-026SY43
AM IMI
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATER PERMIT APPLICATION FEES
Use this sheet to determine your permit application fee if the project will be in DNR public waters or public waters wetlaru
Fees must be paid with a check or money order payable to the "Department of Natural Resources" -
Cash cannot be accepters:
Fee for the appropriation of rwatir ........ . - .................. .. _ ................ $75.00
(Annual water use report processing fee is based on volume appropriated)
Fee for the construction or repair of a dams ............... ..... ......................
...... . $75,00
(Under Minnesota's Dam Safety Rules, M.R. 6115.0300-6115.0520)
Fee for the placement of riprap shore proteetim ..... ..... .......... ...........
.. - .. - . . S75.00
(or place fill to recover shoreland lost to erosion)
Fee for all other projects ............................ . .........................
. See Below*
Minimum Fee: ....................... .... _ ........... ......
. A) $75.00
Project Cost: $ ,000 x 1%= ..................... ....... ........
B) S iW0
Length of Shoreline Affected:
feet x 75 cents per foot = _ ......... .......
. C) S�
(For channel excavation projects, the shoreline affected is the difference
in length between the existing channel and the new channel.)
Volume of Material Filled or Excavated:
1054 cubic yards x 75 cents per cubic yard= .....................
D) $ J C 2
(For channel excavation projects, the volume is only
the material filled or excavated in public waters or public waters wetlands.)
MaximumFee: ...................................................
. E) $500.00
*DETE NE YOUR FEE AS FOLLOWS:
► If B, C, and D are all less than ..........:............. .........
. the fee is $75.
► If B, C or D is more than $75 but less than $500,
the fee is the lareest amount of B. C. or D.
► If B, C, or D is more than $500 ............... ............. .....
. the fee is $500.
► If you represent a Township applying for a road,
bridge, or culvert project ............................. . the maximum fee is $100
--- NOUCE
If a DNR permit is required for the work proposed, your application will not be processed unless the appropriate fee is
submitted. Applications sent with no fee or an inadequate fee will be considered withdrawn after 30 days and no further
action will be takers. The permit application fee for work partially pr wholly completed prior to this permit application is
double the normal fee; if a field inspection is also required, the application fee will be double plus the actual cost of the field
inspection (not less than $100).
ALL FEES ARE— NONREFUNDABLE
09/19/03 FRI 09:42 [Tg/R% NO 93591
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SHEET
The Mud Lake (86-26) outlet will be replaced with a 36 " RC culvert located 700 ft
downstream from the current outlet culvert (Fig. 1). The main reason for replacing the
culvert is so that Albertville can better control the water level in Mud Lake. The existing
42" CMP outlet is located in the middle of the lake outlet area that has filled in with
cattails and other vegetation. The vegetation has been holding back the lake water and is
essentially controlling the Mud Lake water level. The existing outlet is not accessible for
maintenance.
The new outlet culvert will be placed through a new road that will be constructed as a
part of a development project south of 70`h St. (Fig. 1). This road will have wetland
impacts that will be addressed in a separate permit application from the developer. The
replacement culvert itself will have no additional wetland impacts.
The 36" concrete culvert is the same size as the 70`h St. culvert. The inverts are proposed
to be at 945.7 ft (inlet) and 945.5 ft (outlet). Figure 2 shows a profile of the proposed and
November 1986 channel configuration.
The wetland between Mud Lake and 70L" St. is included as part of Mud Lake in the DNR
Hydrographic Work Report for Mud Lake (11/24/86). A copy of this report is attached.
The runout location for Mud Lake is identified as downstream of the wetland (Fig. 1).
The proposed culvert invert elevation (945.7 ft) is 0.2 ft lower than the established runout
elevation (945.9 ft). The impact of this culvert replacement to the wetland and to the
downstream Otsego Cr. should be negligible.
City of Albertville 9/16/03
Mud Lake Outlet
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES SHEET
A hydrologic study was recently completed that studied the Otsego Creek watershed in
Albertville and alternatives for the. Mud Lake outlet. Several outlet scenarios were
modeled with the HydroCAD model. The outlet choices were limited by constraints on
high water levels, the outlet elevation (NWL, normal water level), and outflow rates.
Table 1 shows the results of this study and some of the outlet configurations tested.
Condition 6B shows the results with the proposed outlet configuration for a 24 hour, 100-
yr storm event (5.8" rain). The peak outflow for this condition is 19.4 cfs and the peak
water level is 947.5 ft. This is within the range of other modeled conditions.
The study also looked at replacing the outlet culvert with a staged outlet structure. This
type of structure would have a smaller 12" outlet pipe for low flow conditions and an
overflow weir to route larger flows or storm events. Modeling of a staged outlet structure
showed that there is no advantage in regulating outflows with this type of structure
compared to using a 36" RC culvert. The reasons for this are:
• Mud Lake and the wetland are so large (about 95 acres) that small rain events
don't produce a large enough outflow to be retained by a 12" compared to a 36"
outlet pipe.
There is not enough allowable elevation bounce to enable a flow advantage from
a drop inlet weir structure.
(The outlet invert is at about 945.7 ft, the DNR OHWL is at 947.3 ft, and the
lowest property edge elevations in the new Towne Lakes development are at
about 950-951 ft. The recently measured (past 1-2 years) high water level is 948.7
ft. The maximum design high water elevation would be about 948 ft to stay below
the surrounding property elevations.)
There is not enough allowable elevation bounce to even build a staged outlet
structure with a 36" outlet pipe.
STATUS OF OTHER APPROVALS
A DNR Public Waters permit (2003-3073) was approved on 11/22/02 for cleaning out the
channel leading up to the existing 42" CMP outlet culvert. This work was completed
during the summer of 2003.
City of Albertville 9/16/03
Mud Lake Outlet .
Albertville Hydrologic Study
Table 1 - Proposed Conditions XP-SWMM Modeling Results
AALBEV0314.00
Wetland (Upstream of loth)
946.9 37 cfs
36" RCP 945.5
944.9
Wetland (Downstream of Mud)
36" RCP 946.2
945.5
Mud Lake
36" CMP 945.9
946.2
School Lake
36" CMP 946.2
946.7
,• .�
Wetland (Upstream of loth)
'O
3, g._ -
947.1 46
947.5 20
as
��� , �St�e� „. [7S.In�ezi `
36" RCP 945.5
.--.:_ � Iztve
944.9
Wetland (Downstream of Mud)
36" RCP 946.2
945.5
Mud Lake
947.6 20
949.0 30 it
36" CMP 945.9
946.2
School Lake
36" CMP 946.2
946.7
I?9
Wetland (Upstream of loth)
e�attit� F - .
946.6 76
947.4 76
I.... Saz6,141,
3' x 6' 945.5 944.9
Wetland (Downstream of Mud)
3' x F-T 946.2
945.5
Mud Lake
947.5 76
947.9 96
3' x 8' 946.2
946.2
School Lake
3 - 3' x 8' 946.7
946.7
I ��cla rge7
947.1 43
947.1 12
:00 tI
Wetland (Upstreamof7oth)
4k$jzek iAOInue t .
. 17S'In
36" RCP 945.5
944.9
Wetland (Downstream of Mud)
36" RCP 945.5
945.5
Mud Lake
School Lake _
947.8 12
949.0 30
15 "_RCP 945.7
36" CMP 946.2
945.5
946.7
947.0 40
947.3 23
Wetland (Upstream of loth)
US Inyt
36" RCP 945.5
944.9
Wetland (Downstream of Mud)
36" RCP _ 945.5
945.5
Mud Lake
947.3 20
949.0 31
36" RCP 945.7
36" CMP 946.2
945.5
946.7
School Lake
36" RCP 945.5
944.9
Wetland (Upstream of loth)
946.8 31.5 cfs
Mud Lake
947.5 19.4 cfs
36" RCP 945.7
945.5
School Lake
36" CMP 946.2
946.7
P Size
RAY a,
Pon I iii
Wetland 5 (Upstream of loth)
Neva o a k. hard
946.4 17 cfs
36" RCP 945.5
944.9
Wetland (Downstream of Mud)
946.8 11 cfs
36" RCP 945.5
945.5
Mud Lake
School Lake
946.8 11 cfs
947.9 9 cfs
36" RCP_ 945.7
36" CMP _ 946.2 _
945.5
946.7
Notes:
1- All models run for 100-yr event.
2. Proposed Condition 1 = Maintain existing NWL - Do not exceed OWHL.
I Proposed Condition 3 = Lower Mud Lake NWL - Do not exceed a final discharge of 17.4 cfs.
Starting water surface of Mud lake = 946 for Pr 3, 6, and 7.
4. Proposed Condition 6 = Lower Mud Lake NWL - Keep sizes of existing outlets
5. Proposed Condition 6B = Mud Lk. and Downstream wetland are one pool; delete one culvert
6. Proposed Condition 7 = Same as Pr 6 except 3 - 2.5" storms modeled instead of a 100-yr event
-1
965
960
M0 -0450
0400
0+50
1.w
1110
10+50
11400
11.50
12.00
12K0
960
L
I
- —
I
-
'
- -
—I-
!
-tit
I
955f-'f"-It
55
i
950rim-
F'tj!t
r
_
no
940
4
!
940
935
910
!
9]0
925,
�0+00
�1,0o
-t.00 -0.50 0`50 to0� 1ono� 11M0 11r50^ uwo u+so
NOTE: CHANNEL PROFILE ELE\
NOVEMBER 1986 DNR HYDROGRAPI-
0 50 100
Ar
&A EH09/19/03
OUTFLOW CHANNEL
PROFILE
FILE NO.
ALBEV0314.00
FIGURE
NO.
2
DATE
y�OZ630-01
3d-84)
INNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATERS
PROJECT: School (86-25) & Mud (86-26 ) Lake LAKE NO.
A,TX/NEAR Albertville - Wright. COUNTY R EO. No. 86-101
PURPOSE SURVEY FXJ INVESTIGATION a MAINTENANCE ❑
TYPE: LEVELS FXI TOPOGRAPHY f-] N 0 H W / 0 H W Q RECONNAISSANCE a
HYDROGRAPHIC WORK REPORT
Survey date: 11/13/86
Survey crew: Scherek, Potocnik, Young
Datum: NGVD 1929
Vertical control: By double turn levels,from 10/15/70 Div.
of Waters T.B.M. - top upstream end of 36" C.M.P. under
township road over Mud Lake outlet; Elev. = 948.27
Our survey work at this time included elevations'at the connection between the
two lakes, a profile of the Mud Lake outlet and OHW investigations of both
lakes. We found the following pertinent elevations:
Water surface, School Lake
Top west end of 36" R.C.P. thru farm drive between
West invert of 36" R.C.P.
Centerline of drive
Top east end of 36" R.C.P.
East invert (present runout of School Lake)
Water surface, Mud Lake
Water surface at downstream edge of heavy cattail
Mud Lake outlet
947.27
lakes 949.31
945.80
950.1
949.43
946_32
947.27
fringe at
947.23
Present runout of Mud Lake - centerline of ditch 132' downstream
(north) of a E-W fenceline (also 664' downstream of downstream
edge of cattail fringe) 945.9
Water surface at same location 947.11
Note: A noticable ditch begins at the downstream edge of the
cattail fringe. For the initial 532' the ditch is contained
within a wider marsh area. At that point the ditch cuts
through some higher ground and the defined ditch banks begin.
Headwater at E-W township road (north line of Sec. 36)
Top upstream end of 36" C.M.P. thru road
Upstream invert
Centerline of road over culvert
Top downstream end of 36" C.M.P.
Downstream invert of 36" C.M.P.
Tailwater at township road
�
November 24, 1986 qo4hn'MMSer e
0 A T E 3 1 G N E 0
945.92
948.27
945.28
951:2
948.27
945.22
945.89
.Survey Crew Supervisor
TITLE
During our OHW investigation we obtained the ground -elevation at 16 trees (ash,
elm & oak) on Mud Lake and 8 trees (ash, elm & willow) on School Lake. The
average reduced elevation of all the trees on School Lake indicated an.OHW-of'
947.9. The average reduced elevation of the 12 best trees on Mud Lake indicated
an OHW of 947.3.
The tree evidence on Mud Lake was much more significant in size and species than
what we found on School Lake and we found no other water level marks on either
basin. Since the lakes were meandered as one basin and are presently equalized,
they should be considered as one basin with the same OHW level. Therefore based
on the best available evidence ( the 12 trees on Mud Lake), we determined the
OHW of Mud and School Lakes to be 947.3.
In conjunction with this survey we established two T.B.M.s:
At farm drive between lakes - 3/8X8" spike in the NE side of a power pole, 23'
west of drove and 64' south of 36" R.C.P.; Elev.= 950.42
At E-W township road north of Mud Lake - 3/8X8" spike in the north side of a
power, pole, pole is on right bank of outlet ditch and on south side of township
road; Elev. = 947.71.
COMPARATIVE MUD LAKE OUTLET PROFILES TO BE PLOTTED.
Project:
Subject:_
Date:
Checked By:
E
By: _
Date:
I-
I '
VV[[E i
SEH #:
Office: File #:
6
o