HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-31_COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN PART 1ve" waj4,
es6tArce ry6m,�c�
lam
City of Edina
Comprehensive
Water Resources
Management
Plan-�-
m
b
4
o
It3f3f3
December 2011
®Barr Engineering Co.
4700 West 77th Street
BARR Minneapolis, MN 55435 -4803
�i Phone: (952) 832 -2600 • Fax: (952) 832 -2601
- ` ������|�d^na
, �.~� -,~~_.
' `
Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan
-Table
L��ofAu�ooyum------------_--.-----------_--.-____-________.. xvii
- -
1.0 Executive Summary ' ...... ------------._-_--�-_---.---.----------l-1
' l] Stormwater Management QVub'& Pmlicico'-.-'-. -._.--..----------.l-1
r
�................................................
`
�uudf� 3.D.-----_-_---.---l-1
� ' '
�- r
1.1.2 Wai�rOuuD�' 32 and z'
........................................ .
1l3 Wetland Protection 3�)-----_.---_--_----.-.---.-_-.l-2
�
.
1.2 �l�m�oaodPmt�odal 3ob�b»uo----�_-,-----_--_.-_-----__.-l-3
_ � �
' l2.l Water Resources -.--------_'_-----------'
l-3
12'2 RoomfI Management and Flood Control .................................. ...............................
l-3
1.2.3 Water Quality Management ,---''--_-_'__----_--_-.-----._l-4
2.0 Introduction and Physical Setting ......................................................................................................
2-1
2-1 Plan Purposes —___-_.__--'__..__------._'--_-_-.-__--_-.2-1
22 Physical Setting ....... .............................................................................................................
2-Z
' 2.2'1 Drainage Patterns ...................................................................................................
2-2
2.2.2 Land Use ................................................................................................................
2-3
22.3 SmUo '---_.------._-_--,___-_------._--_---._2-3
.
,
' 22.4 ....................... .-._.._-__--_._---___--.-_-._2-3
-
' �/
2.2.5 Water Quality ----.__---_--.—._-_'-__------.2-4
~� '-'_----�_
lZ� .l Lakes -.---_-_.-__-._---_--_--.-._--_---2-4
� �
22�2 Creeks .................................................................................................
2-4
` 22'8 Parks &c Recreation ................................................................................................
2-6
2.2'7 Public Utilities -._--.._,---------_-----_.--.---_.-_-,--.2-6
'
'
22'8 Fish and Wildlife ..--..-.---..'-_.----^_.---------_--.2-6
' �
'
2.2.9. Unique Feat I ures & 8ucoicAreuu.__-_..`----_,,_-..`__------2-?
` . �
2�.l0� Sources -.�----.�+--.-----.-.-�-..----,,-_------2'7
. `
22.10J Investigation and Cleanup Sdcx ---_- ..................
`
22.10.2 Tank Sites and Leak Sites ....................................................................
2-0 '
`
22.10.3 Individual ............ ......................
2-8
' '
22'll Groundwater ........................................................
/ .
]]3 Policies �r ----.-----_-.------..-------.---3-1
-
3.1 Runoff Management and Flood Control ------'---------.---------.-]'l
'
' '
3l1 Runoff Management and Flood Control Policies ...................................................
3-2
Barr Engineering Company
Mmuruszr1mn Edina Water Resources Mgmt mu mzo11FINAL
4.0 Methodology for Modeling .................................................................................: ............................4 -1
3.1.1.1 Minimum Building Elevations ............................... ............................3 -3
............................4 -1
3.1.1.2 Stormwater Management Design Standards ........... ............................3 -3
3.2
Water Quality .......................................................................................... ............................3 -4
............................4 -1
3.2.1 Background Water Quality Information .................................... ............................3 -4
............................4 -1
3.2.2 Water Quality Management Policies ......................................... ............................3
-6
4.1.1.1.3 Watershed Width and Slope
3.2.3 Water Quality Management Standards ...................................... ............................3
-7
............................4 -3
3.2.3.1 Stormwater Retention/Detention Systems .............. ............................3
-7
4.1.1.3.1 Soils ......................................................
3.2.3.2 Construction Site Standards ................................... ............................3
-7
3.3
Erosion and Sediment Control ................................................................ ............................3
-7
4.1.2 Hydraulic Modeling ...................................................................
3.3.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Policies ...................................... ............................3
-7
3.4
Wetlands .................................................................................................. ............................3
-8
4.1.2.1.2 Tailwater Effects ..................................
3.4.1 Wetlands Policies ....................................................................... ............................3
-8
3.5
Floodplain ............................................................................................... ............................3
-8
3.6
Recreation and Habitat ............................................................................ ............................3
-9
3.7
Groundwater ............................................................................................ ............................3
-9
3.8
Education Program ................................................................................. ...........................3
-10
3.9
NPDES Considerations .......................................................................... ...........................3
-11
4.0 Methodology for Modeling .................................................................................: ............................4 -1
4.1 Methodology for Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling .................................
............................4 -1
4.1.1 Hydrologic Modeling .................................................................
............................4 -1
4.1.1.1 Watershed Data ......................................................
............................4 -1
4.1.1.1.1 Watershed Area ....................................
............................4 -1
4.1.1.1.2 Land Use Data ......................................
............................4 -1
4.1.1.1.3 Watershed Width and Slope
................. ............................4 -3
4.1.1.2 Rainfall Data ...........................................................
............................4 -3
4.1.1.3 Infiltration Data ......................................................
............................4 -4
4.1.1.3.1 Soils ......................................................
............................4 -4
4.1.1.3.2 Horton Infiltration ................................
............................4 -4
4.1.1.4 Depression Storage Data ........................................
............................4 -5
4.1.2 Hydraulic Modeling ...................................................................
............................4 -5
4.1.2.1 Storm Sewer Network ............................................
............................4 -5
4.1.2.1.1 Assumptions .........................................
............................4 -5
4.1.2.1.2 Tailwater Effects ..................................
............................4 -6
4.1.2.2 Overland Flow Network .........................................
............................4 -6
4.2 Methodology for Water Quality Modeling .............................................
............................4 -7
4.2.1 Watershed Characteristics ..........................................................
............................4 -8
4.2.1.1 Impervious Fraction ................................................
............................4 -8
4.2.1.2 Pervious Curve Number .........................................
............................4 -9
4.2.1.3 Other P8 Watershed Input Parameters ....................
............................4 -9
4.2.2 Treatment Device Characteristics .............................................
...........................4 -10
Barr Engineering Company ii
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
4.2.2.1 Dead Storage ..................................................... ...............................
4 -10
4.2.2.2 Live Storage ..............:............................................ ...........................4
-10
4.2.2.3 Other P8 Treatment.Device Input Characteristics . ...........................4
-10
4.2.3 Precipitation and Tem perature Data ..................... ................................................
4 -11
4.2.4 Selection of Other P8 Model Parameters .................................. ...........................4
-11
4.2.4:1 Time Step, Snowmelt, and Runoff Parameters :..... ...........................4
-11
4.2.4.2 Particle File Selection ............................................ ...:.......................4
-12
4.2.4.3 Passes through the Storm File
...................................................... ...............................
5.0. Nine Mile Creek- North ..................: ...........5 -1
5.1 General Description of Drainage Area ..................................::.....:.......... ............................5
-1
- 5.1.4 Drainage Patterns.:....... .............................................................. ............................5
-1
5.1.1:1 Mirror Lake ......................................................:..:... ..:.........................5
-1
51.1'.2 Highlands Lake .................................. : ................................................
5 -2
5.1.1.3 Hawkes Lake .............................................................. :.......................
5 -2
r 5.1.1.4 Mud Lake (Bredesen Park) ..................................... ............................5
-2
5.1.1.5 Nine Mile North ..................................................... ............................5
-3
5.2 St ormwater System Analysis and Results ............................................... ............................5
-3
5.2.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling Results .......................................................... .....
5 -3
5.2.2 Water Quality Modeling Results ................................................ ............................5
-5
5.3 Implementation Considerations .............................................................. ............................5
-6
5.3.1 Flood Protection Projects ........................................................... ............................5
-6
5.3.1.1 Hawkes Drive (HL_2) ......................................... ...............................
5 -6
5.3.1.2 5711,& 5717 Grove Street (HL 18) ....................... ............................5
-7
5.3.1.3 5516 & 5520 Dundee Road (HL 25) .................. ...............................
5 -7
5.3.1.4 505, 509, & 513 Tyler Court (ML-19)
5.3.1.5 6009 Leslie Lane (MD 22) .......................... .............................
5 -8
5:3.1.6 5316 Schaeffer Road (MD_28) .............................. ............................5
-8
5.3.1.7 Fountain Woods Apartments (NMN_90 & NMN _23) .......................5
-9
5.12 Construction/Upgrade of Water Quality Basins ......................... ............................5
-9
5.3.2.1 MD 15 ...... :.:.........................................................................................
5 -9
5.3.2.2 NMN 27........° ..........:...........::................................ ...........................5
.
-10
5.3.2.3. ,
53.2.4 NMN - 49 ................................................................ ...........................5
-10
5.3.2.5 MD J ..................................................................... ...........................5
-10
......................................................................... ..................:....... .....
6.0 Nine Mile Creek — Central . ........6
-1
6.1 General Description of Drainage Area .................................................... ..:.........................6
-1
6.1.1 Drainage Patterns ............................:.........................................: ............................6
-1
6.1.1.1 Colonial Ponds ........................................................ ............................6
-1
6.1.1.2 Indian Pond .............................................:............... ............................6
-1
Barr Engineering Company
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2.3271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
6.1.1.3 Nine Mile Central ................................................... ............................6 -2
6.2 Stormwater System Analysis and Results ............................................... ............................6
-2
6.2.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling Results ................................... ............................6
-2
6.2.2 Water Quality Modeling Results ................................................ ............................6
-4
6.3 Implementation Considerations .............................................................. ............................6
-5
6.3.1 Flood Protection Projects ........................................................... ............................6
-5
6.3.1.1 6005 & 6009 Crescent Drive (manhole 457) .......... ............................6
-5
6.3.1.2 Cherokee Trail & Gleason Backyard Depression Area (1P_4) ...........
6 -6
6.3.1.3 5339 West 64`h Street ( NMC_ 80) ........................... ............................6
-6
6.3.1.4 Valley View Road & Hillside Road (NMC_86, NMC_120) .............6
-6
6.3.1.5 West 66th Street & Naomi Drive Area (NMC_71, NMC_103) ..........6
-7
6.3.1.6 6712, 6716, 6720 Ridgeview Drive (NMC_ 106) ... ............................6
-7
6.3.1.7 6808, 6812, 6816, 6820 Ridgeview Drive (NMC _107) .....................6
-8
6.3.2 Construction/Upgrade of Water Quality Basins ......................... ............................6
-8
7.0 Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill ............................................................... ............................7 -1
7.1 General Description of Drainage Area .................................................... ............................7 -1
7.1.1 Drainage Patterns ....................................................................... ............................7 -1
7.1.1.1 North Cornelia ........................................................ ............................7 -1
7.1.1.2 South Lake Cornelia ............................................... ............................7 -2
7.1.1.3 Lake Edina .............................................................. ............................7 -2
7.1.1.4 Adam's Hill Pond ................................................... ............................7 -2
7.2 Stormwater System Analysis and Results ............................................... ............................7
-3
7.2.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling Results ................................ ...............................
7 -3
7.2.2 Water Quality Modeling Results ................................................ ............................7
-4
7.3 Implementation Considerations .............................................................. ............................7
-5
7.3.1 Flood Protection Projects ........................................................... ............................7
-6
7.3.1.1 Swimming Pool Pond (NC_3)/North Lake Cornelia (NC_62) ...........
7 -6
7.3.1.2 Hibiscus Avenue (LE _53, LE_7, LE_10) .............. ............................7
-6
7.3.1.3 6312, 6316, 6321, 6329 Tingdale Avenue (NC_11) ..........................7
-7
7.3.1.4 St. Johns /Ashcroft and West 64`h Street (NC_40, NC-26) .................7
-7
7.3.1.5 Barrie Road and Heritage Drive (NC_86, NC_97, NC-99) ...............7
-7
7.3.1.6 York Avenue and West 64th Street (NC-88) ....... ...............................
7 -8
7.3.1.7 T.H. 62 at France Avenue (NC_132) ..................... ............................7
-8
7.3.1.8 Parnell Avenue and Valley View Road (NC_ 135) . ............................7
-8
7.3.2 Construction/Upgrade of Water Quality Basins ......................... ............................7
-9
7.3.2.1 LE 38 ..................................................................... ............................7
-9
7.3.2.2 NC 88 .................................................................... ............................7
-9
8.0 Nine Mile Creek- South ....................................................................................... ............................8 -1
8.1 General Description of Drainage Area .................................................... ............................8 -1
Barr Engineering Company iv
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFIIEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
8.1.1 Drainage Patterns ....................................................................... ............................8
-1
8.1.1.1 Centennial Lakes .................................................... ............................8
-1
8.1.1.2 South Pond ( Border, Basin) ..................................... ............................8
-1
8.1.1.3 Nine Mile South ..................................................... ............................8
-2
8.2 Stormwater System Analysis and Results ............................................... ............................8
-2
- 8.2.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling Results
8.2.2 Water Quality Modeling Results .... ............ ............................................................
8 -4
8.3 Implementation Considerations ......................
8.3.1 Flood Protection Projects ........................................................... .........:..................8
-5
8.3:1.1 7001 & 7025 France,Avenue (CI, 5_1) ................... ............................8
-5
8.3.2 Construction/Upgrade of Water Quality Basins ......................... ............................8
-6
8.3.2.1 West 770' Street & T.H. 100 ................................... ............................8
-6
.8.3.2.2 NMS. 76 ................................................................. ............................8
-6
8.3.2.3 NMS 104 ............................................................... ............................8
-7
8.3.2.4 NMS 72 & NMS 74 ........................................... ...............................
8 -7
8.3.2.5 SP-1 (South Pond/Border Basin) ........................ ...............................
8 -7
9.0 Nine Mile South Fork ....................................................:...................................... ............................9
-1
9.1 General Description of Drainage Area .................................................... ............................9
-1
9.1.1 Drainage Patterns ....................................................................... ............................9
-1
9.1.1.1 Arrowhead Lake ..................................................... ............................9
-1
9.1.1.2 Indianhead Lake ..................................................... ............................9
-2
9.1.1.3 Pawnee Pond ......::.................................................. ............................9 -2
9.1.1.4 Eden Prairie ......................................................... ............................... 9 -2
9.1.1.5 Braemar Arena/Public Works ................................. ............................9 -2
9.1.1.6, Nine Mile. South Fork ...... ..................................................................
.9 -2
9.2 Stormwater System Analysis and Results ................: .......................... ............................9 -3
9.2.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling Results .............................. . ................................ 9 -3
9.2.2 Water Quality Modeling Results.; .......................................................................... 9-5
9.3 Implementation Considerations ..........................:................................... ............................9 -5
9.3.1 Flood Protection Projects ............... ................................................................ ........... 9 -6
9.3.1.1 6309 Post Lane ( AH_ 31) ........................................ ............................9 -6
9.3.1.2 Braemar Golf Course ( NMSB_62) .......................
9.3.1.3 Paiute Pass & Sally Lane Intersection (NMSB_83, NMSB_84) ........ 9 -7
9.3.1.4 7009 & 7013 Sally'Lane Backyard Depression Area (NMSB_70) .... 9 -7
9.3.2 Construction/Upgrade of Water Quality Basins .....:................... ............................9 -7
9.3.2.1 NMSB 3 & NMSB 2 ............................................ ............................9 -8
9.3.2.2 NMSB 12 ............................................................... ............................9 -8
9.3.2.3 NMSB 86 ............................................................... ............................9 -8
9.3.2.4 NMSB 7 ...............:................................................. ............................9 -9
Barr Engineering Company v
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
9.3.2.5 NMSB 85 ............................................................... ............................9 -9
10.0 Southwest Ponds (Dewey Hill Road Area) ......................................................... ...........................10 -1
10.1 General Description of Drainage Area ................................................... ...........................10 -1
10.1.1 Drainage Patterns ...................................................................... ...........................10 -1
10.1.1.1 Southwest Ponds .................................................... ...........................10 -1
10.1.1.2 Nine Mile 494 ........................................................ ...........................10
-1
10.2 Stormwater System Analysis and Results .............................................. ...........................10
-2
10.2.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling Results .................................. ...........................10
-2
10.2.2 Water Quality Modeling Results ............................................... ...........................10
-3
10.3 Implementation Considerations ............................................................. ...........................10
-4
10.3.1 Flood Protection Projects .......................................................... ...........................10
-5
10.3.1.1 7411 Coventry Way ( SWP_ 14) ............................. ...........................10
-5
10.3.1.2 7317 Cahill Road ( SWP_ 46) ................................. ...........................10
-5
10.3.1.3 7709 Stonewood Court ( NM494_ 4) ...................... ...........................10
-5
10.3.2 Construction/Upgrade of Water Quality Basins ........................ ...........................10
-6
11.0 T.H. 169 North ................................................................................................ ...............................
11-1
11.1 General Description of Drainage Area ............................................... ...............................
11-1
11.1.1 Drainage Patterns ...................................................................... ...........................11
-1
11.2 Stormwater System Analysis and Results ........................................... ..............................1
1-1
11.2.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling Results .............................. ...............................
11-1
11.2.2 Water Quality Modeling Results ............................................... ...........................11
-3
11.3 Implementation Considerations ............................................................. ...........................11
-4
11.3.1 Flood Protection Projects ...................................................... ...............................
11-4
11.3.2 Construction/Upgrade of Water Quality Basins ........................ ...........................11
-4
12.0 Northeast Minnehaha Creek ................................................................................ ...........................12 -1
12.1 General Description of Drainage Area ................................................... ...........................12 -1
12.1.1 Drainage Patterns ...................................................................... ...........................12 -1
12.1.1.1 Morningside ........................................................... ...........................12 -1
12.1.1.2 Minnehaha Creek North ........................................ ...........................12 -1
12.1.1.3 Edina Country Club ............................................... ...........................12 -2
12.2 Stormwater System Analysis and Results .............................................. ...........................12 -2
12.2.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling Results .................................. ...........................12 -2
12.2.2 Water Quality Modeling Results ............................................... ...........................12 -4
12.3 Implementation Considerations ............................................................. ...........................12 -5
12.3.1 Flood Protection Projects .......................................................... ...........................12 -5
12.3.1.1 4000 West 42 "d Street and 4100, 4104, and 4108 France Avenue
(MS _ 40) ................................................................. ...........................12 -5
12.3.1.2 4308 France Avenue (MS_17) .............................. ...........................12 -6
Barr Engineering Company vi
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFTNEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
12.3.1.3 4300, 4214, and 4212 Branson Street (MS_3) ...... ...........................12 -6
12.3.1.4 4140 and 4150 West 44"' Street (MS 7) ............... ...........................12 -6
12.3.1.5 Arden Avenue ( MHN_ 14) ..................................... ...........................12 -7
12.3.2 Construction/Upgrade of.Water Quality Basins ........................ ...........................12 -7
13.0 Southeast Minnehaha Creek ................................................................................ ...........................13 -1
13.1 General Description of Drainage Area ......................... .. ..: 13 -1
13. 1.1 Drainage Patterns .............................................. .. ................................................. 13 -1
13.1.1.1 Lake Pamela ..............:............ ...13 -1
13 '...
........................ ...............................
1.1.2 Minnehaha Creek South ........................... ........................................ 13 -1
13.1.1.3 Melod Lake ....................:.. ................................................. ........ .13 -2
13.2 Stormwater System Analysis and Results ...........................................:.. ...........:...............13 -2
13.2... 1. Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling Results .................................. ...........................13 -2
13.2.2 Waier Quality Modeling Results ............................................... ...........................13 -4
13.3 Implementation Considerations ............................................................. ...........................13 -5
13.3.1 Flood Protection Projects. ................................................:......... ...........................13 -5
13.3.1.1 6213 Ewing Avenue (LP-15) ..................... :..................................... 13 -5
13.3.1.2 3600 West Fuller Street ( MHS_ 4) ......................... ...........................13 -6
13.3.1.3 5605, 5609, 5613, 5617,5621, 5625, and 5629 South Beard Avenue
( MHS_ 79) .............................................................. ...........................13 -6
13.3.1.4 . 5837, 5833, 5829, 5825 South Chowen Avenue (LP-24) ................13 -7
13.3.1.5 Chowen Avenue.and West 60th Street (LP-27) .... ...........................13 -7
13.3.1.6 5912, 5916, 5920; -5924, 5928 Ashcroft Avenue and 5925 Concord
Avenue ( MHS_ 51) ................................................ ...........................13 -7
13.3.1.7 5840 and 5836 Ashcroft Avenue ( MHS_ 89) ......... ...........................13 -7
13:3.1.8 5609 and 5605 Dalrymple Road (MHS24) and 5610 and 5612 St.
Andrews Avenue (MHS_66) ............ I. ............................................... 13 -7
13.3.1.9 5701 Dale Avenue (ML_l2) ................................. ...........................13 -8
13.3.1.10 5213 and 5217 Richwood Drive (ML_7) ..................... .................... 13 -8
13.3.2 Construction/Upgrade of Water Quality Basins ................ :............ ....................... 13 -8
13.3.3 Stream Improvement Projects ................................................... ...........................13 -8
13.3.3.1 Minnehaha Creek Reach 14 Stream Restoration ... :.................:.::.....13 -8
14.0 Northwest Minnehaha Creek ..... : ..................................................................................................... 14 -1
14.1 General Description of Drainage Area ............... ............................................................... 14 -1
14.1.1 'Drainage Patterns ... ......:.: ............ .......................................................................... 14 -1
14.1.1.1 T.H. 100 .................................................. ............... ...........................14 -1
14.1.1.2 Hopkins ................................................................. ...........................14 -1
14.1.1.3 Interlachen .......................:........:............................ ...........................14 -2
14.2 Stormwater System Analysis and Results .............................................. ...........................14 -2
14.2.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling Results .................................. ...........................14 -2
Barr Engineering Company vii
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt, Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFIIEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
14.2.2 Water Quality Modeling Results ................ ............................... ...........................14 -4
14.3 Implementation Considerations ............................................................. ...........................14 -4
14.3.1 Flood Protection Projects .......................................................... ...........................14 -5
14.3.1.1 Interlachen Landlocked Area ................................. ...........................14 -5
14.3.2 Construction/Upgrade of Water Quality Basins ........................ ...........................14 -5
15.0 Issues and Implementation Program ................................................................... ...........................15 -1
15.1 Water Quality/NPDES Phase II MS4 General Permit ........................... ...........................15 -1
15.1.1
NPDES Phase lI MS4 Stone Water Pollution Prevention Program ....................15 -1
15.1.1.1 Public Education and Outreach ............................. ...........................15 -2
15.1.1.2 Public Involvement and Public Participation ........ ...........................15 -2
15.1.1.3 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination .......... ...........................15 -3
15.1.1.4 Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control ...... ...........................15 -3
15.1.1.5 Post - Construction Stormwater Runoff Control ..... ...........................15 -4
15.1.1.6 Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping Methods ..................15 -5
15.1.2
Nondegradation Report ............................................................. .......... ..................15 -6
15.1.3
Impaired Waters and TMDL Issues .......................................... ...........................15 -7
15.1.3.1 Nine Mile Creek .................................................... ...........................15 -9
15.1.3.2 Minnehaha Creek .................................................. ..........................15
-10
15.1.3.3 Lake Cornelia ....................................................... ..........................15
-10
15.1.3.4 Lake Edina ............................................................ ..........................15
-10
15.1.3.5 Other Downstream Waterbodies .......................... ..........................15
-11
15.2 Specific
MCWD Tasks/ Issues ............................................................... ..........................15
-11
15.2.1
Phosphorus Load Reduction .................................................... ..........................15
-11
15.2.1.1 Pamela Park Water Quality Improvement Project ..........................15
-12
15.2.1.2 Underground Stormwater Treatment Structures and Sump Manholes
15-13
15.2.1.3 Street Sweeping .................................................... ..........................15
-13
15.2.1.4 Impervious Surface Reduction ............................. ..........................15
-14
15.2.2
Landlocked Basins ................................................................... ..........................15
-14
15.2.2.1 White Oaks Landlocked Area ............................... ..........................15
-14
15.2.2.2 Interlachen Landlocked Area ................................ ..........................15
-15
15.2.3
Flooding or Modeled High Water Locations ........................... ..........................15
-15
15.2.3.1 Kresse Circle ........................................................ ..........................15
-15
15.2.3.2 Minnehaha Creek at West 58h Street ................... ..........................15
-15
15.2.3.3 Utility Bridge in Arden Park ................................ ..........................15
-16
15.2.4
Flow Velocity and Erosion ....................................................... ..........................15
-16
15.2.4.1 Downstream of 50`h Street .................................... ..........................15
-16
15.2.4.2 Storm Sewer Discharge North of Pamela Park .... ..........................15
-17
15.2.4.3 Storm Sewer Outfall to Ditch North of Pamela Park .....................15
-17
15.2.5
Potential Capital Projects and Other Issues .............................. ..........................15
-17
Barr Engineering Company viii
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
16.0 Wetlands .............................................................................................................. ...........................16 -1
16.1 City of Edina Wetlands Inventory- 1999 ............................................... ...........................16
15.2.6 Housekeeping Requirements .................................................... ..........................15
-17
15.3
Specific NMCWD Tasks / Issues ............................................................ ..........................15
-18
Dominant Vegetation ................................................................ ...........................16
15.3.1 Use Attainability Anal yses ....................................................... ..........................15
-18
Wetland Functional Assessment ............................................... ...........................16
15.3.1.1 Minor Lake Use Attainability Analysis ............... ..........................15
-18
16.1.3.1 Hydrology .............................................................. ...........................16
15.3.1.2 Arrowhead and Indianhead Lakes Use Attainability Analysis .......
15 -18
16.1.3.2 Vegetative Diversity .............................................. ...........................16
15.3.1.3 Lake Cornelia Use Attainability Analysis ............ ..........................15
-19
16.1.3.3 Wildlife Habitat ..................................................... ...........................16
15.3.2 Water Quality Improvement Projects ....................................... ..........................15
-19
15.4
Financial Considerations ....................................................................... ..........................15
-19
15.5
Plan Update and Amendment Procedure .............................................. ..........................15
-20
15.6
Regulatory Framework and Agency Responsibilities ........................... ..........................15
-21
16.1.3.7 Shoreline Protection .............................................. ...........................16
15.6.1 City of Edina ............................................................................ ..........................15
-21
16.1.3.8 Aesthetics/Recreation/Education and Science ....... ...........................16
15.6.2 Watershed Management Organizations ................................... ..........................15
-23
Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater Input .................................. ...........................16
15.6.2.1 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ................... ..........................15
-23
15.6.2.2 Nine Mile Creek Watershed District .................... ..........................15
-25
15.6.3 The Metropolitan Council ........................................................ ..........................15
-25
15.6.4 Hennepin County ..................................................................... ..........................15
-26
15.6.5 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources .......................... ..........................15
-26
15.6.6 Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources ....................... ..........................15
-27
15.6.7 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ( MPCA) ........................ ..........................15
-27
15.6.8 Minnesota Department of Health ............................................. ..........................15
-28
15.6.9 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ( EQB) ..................... ..........................15
-28
15.6. 10 Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/ DOT) .............. ..........................15
-29
15.6.11 U.S. Army Corps.of Engineers ( COE) ..................................... ..........................15
-29
15.7
Implementation Priorities ...................................................................... ..........................15
-30
16.0 Wetlands .............................................................................................................. ...........................16 -1
16.1 City of Edina Wetlands Inventory- 1999 ............................................... ...........................16
-1
16. 1.1
Delineation ................................................................................ ...........................16
-1
16.1.2
Dominant Vegetation ................................................................ ...........................16
-2
16.1.3
Wetland Functional Assessment ............................................... ...........................16
-2
16.1.3.1 Hydrology .............................................................. ...........................16
-2
16.1.3.2 Vegetative Diversity .............................................. ...........................16
-2
16.1.3.3 Wildlife Habitat ..................................................... ...........................16
-3
16.1.3.4 Fishery Habitat ...................................................... ...........................16
-3
16.1.3.5 Flood/Stormwater Attenuation .............................. ...........................16
-3
16.1.3.6 Water Quality Protection ....................................... ...........................16
-3
16.1.3.7 Shoreline Protection .............................................. ...........................16
-3
16.1.3.8 Aesthetics/Recreation/Education and Science ....... ...........................16
-4
16.1.4
Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater Input .................................. ...........................16
-4
Barr Engineering Company ix
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFDEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
16.2 MCWD Functional Assessment of Wetlands — 2003 ............................. ...........................16 -7
16.2.1 Delineation and Inventory ......................................................... ...........................16
-7
16.2.2 Critical Wetland Resources ....................................................... ...........................16
-7
16.2.3 Wetland Susceptibility to Stormwater ...................................... ...........................16
-8
16.2.4 Wetland Management Classification ........................................ ...........................16
-8
16.3 Circular 39 Wetland Classification ........................................................ ...........................16
-8
16.3.1.1 Type 1: Seasonally Flooded Basin, Floodplain Forest .....................16
-8
16.3.1.2 Type 2: Wet Meadow, Fresh Wet Meadow, Wet to Wet -Mesic Prairie,
Sedge Meadow, and Calcareous Fen ..................... ...........................16
-9
16.3.1.3 Type 3: Shallow Marsh ......................................... ...........................16
-9
16.3.1.4 Type 4: Deep Marsh .............................................. ...........................16
-9
16.3.1.5 Type 5: Shallow Open Water ................................ ...........................16
-9
16.3.1.6 Type 6: Shrub Swamp; Shrub Carr, Alder Thicket ..........................16
-9
16.3.1.7 Type 7: Wooded Swamps; Hardwood Swamp, Coniferous Swamp 16-10
16.4 Cowardin Wetland Classification ......................................................... ..........................16
-10
16.4.1.1 System .................................................................. ..........................16
-10
16.4.1.2 Subsystem ............................................................. ..........................16
-11
16.4.1.3 Class, Subclass ..................................................... ..........................16
-11
16.4.1.4 Water Regime ....................................................... ..........................16
-12
16.4.1.5 Special Modifiers .................................................. ..........................16
-13
16.5 Public Waters ........................................................................................ ..........................16
-14
17.0 References ........................................................................................................... ...........................17 -1
Barr Engineering Company x
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
List of Tables
Water Resources Implementation Program ................................ ............................... 1 -5
Potential Implementation Activities (including Capital Improvements ) ..................... 1 -8
Land Use Impervious Fraction Assumptions for Hydrologic Modeling ..................... 4 -3
Horton Infiltration Parameters .......... ...............................
Roughness Coefficient Assumptions ......................... ...............................
Land Use Impervious Fraction Assumptions for Water Quality Modeling
....... 4 -5
....... 4 -6
...... 4 -9
Table 4.5 Infiltration Assumptions for Water Quality Modeling ................... ...........................4 -11
Table 5.1 Major Watersheds within the Nine Mile Creek —North Drainage Basin .................... 5 -1
Table 5.2 Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek —North
DrainageBasin ................................................ : ....................................................... 5 -12
Table 5.3 Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds/Nodes in the Nine Mile
Creek —North Drainage Basin ...................................................... ...........................5 -12
,Table 5.4 Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek —North Drainage
Basin............................................................................................ ...........................5 -12
Table 6.1 Major Watersheds within the Nine Mile Creek — Central Drainage Basin .................. 6 -1
Table 6.2 Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek — Central
DrainageBasin .......................................................................... ............................... 6 -9
Table 6.3 Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds/Nodes in the Nine Mile
Creek— Central Drainage Basin ................................................. ............................... 6 -9
Table 6.4 Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek — Central
DrainageBasin .......................................................................... ............................... 6 -9
Table 7.1 Major Watersheds within the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Drainage Basin 7-1
Table 7.2 Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Lake Cornelia/Lake
Edina/Adam's Hill Drainage Area ................................................ ...........................7 -10
Table 7.3 Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds/Nodes in the Lake
Comelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Drainage Area ......................... ...........................7 -10
Table 7.4 Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's
HillDrainage Area ....................................................................... ...........................7 -10
Table 8.1 Major Watersheds within the Nine Mile Creek —South Drainage Basin .................... 8 -1
Table 8.2 Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek —South
DrainageBasin .......................................................................... ............................... 8 -8
Table 8.3 Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds/Nodes in the Nine Mile
Creek —South Drainage Basin ................................................... ............................... 8 -8
Table 8.4 Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek —South Drainage
Basin......................................................................................... ............................... 8 -8
Table 9.1 Major Watersheds within the Nine Mile South Fork Drainage Basin ......................... 9 -1
Table 9.2 Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile South Fork Drainage
Basin............................................................................................ ...........................9 -10
Table 9.3 Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds/Nodes in the Nine Mile
SouthFork Drainage Basin .......................................... :........................................... 9 -10
Table 9.4 Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile South Fork Drainage
Basin........................................................................................ ............................... 9 -10
Barr Engineering Company xi
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
Table 10.1 Major Watersheds within the Southwest Ponds Drainage Basin .... ...........................10 -1
Table 10.2 Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Southwest Ponds Drainage
Basin............................................................................................ ...........................10 -7
Table 10.3 Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds/Nodes in the Southwest
PondsDrainage Basin ................................................................... ...........................10 -7
Table 10.4 Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Southwest Ponds Drainage Basinl0 -7
Table 11.1 Major Watershed within the T.H. 169 North Drainage Area ....... ..............................1 1-1
Table 11.2 Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the T.H. 169 North Drainage Basin l 1-6
Table 11.3 Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds/Nodes in the T.H. 169
NorthDrainage Basin ................................................................ ..............................1 1-6
Table 11.4 Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the T.H. 169 North Drainage Basin l 1-6
Table 12.1 Major Watersheds within the Northeast Minnehaha Creek Drainage Basin ..............12 -1
Table 12.2 Watershed Modeling Results For Subwatersheds n the Northeast Minnehaha Creek
DrainageBasin ............................................................................. ...........................12 -8
Table 12.3 Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds/Nodes in the Northeast
Minnehaha Creek Drainage Basin ................................................. ...........................12 -8
Table 12.4 Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Northeast Minnehaha Creek
DrainageBasin ............................................................................. ...........................12 -8
Table 13.1 Major Watersheds within the Southeast Minnehaha Creek Drainage Basin ..............13 -1
Table 13.2 Watershed Modeling Results For Subwatersheds n the Southeast Minnehaha Creek
DrainageBasin ............................................................................ ..........................13 -10
Table 13.3 Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds/Nodes in the Southeast
Minnehaha Creek Drainage Basin ................................................ ..........................13 -10
Table 13.4 Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Southeast Minnehaha Creek
DrainageBasin ............................................................................ ..........................13 -10
Table 14.1 Major Watersheds within the Northwest Minnehaha Creek Drainage Basin .............14 -1
Table 14.2 Watershed Modeling Results For Subwatersheds n the Northwest Minnehaha Creek
DrainageBasin ............................................................................. ...........................14 -7
Table 14.3 Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds/Nodes in the Northwest
Minnehaha Creek Drainage Basin ................................................. ...........................14 -7
Table 14.4 Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Northwest Minnehaha Creek
DrainageBasin ............................................................................. ...........................14 -7
Table 15.1 City of Edina Waters on MPCA's 303(d) Impaired Waters List .... ...........................15 -9
Table 15.2 Potential Funding Sources for Plan Implementation ..................... ..........................15 -20
Table 15.3 Water Resources Implementation Program .................................. ..........................15 -31
Table 15.4 Potential Implementation Activities (including Capital Improvements) .................. 15 -34
Table 16.1 Susceptibility of Wetlands to Degradation by Stormwater Impacts ..........................16 -5
Table 16.2 Management Recommendations for Each Wetland Sensitivity Classification ........... 16-6
Table 16.3 MnDNR Protected Waters and Wetlands within Edina ................. ..........................16 -14
Barr Engineering Company x11
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Barr Engineering Company xiii
P: \Mpls\23 MN \27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV 2.docx
List of Figures
Figure 2.1
Major Drainage Areas .................................................................. ...........................2
-10
Figure 2.2
Edina Soils Classification.......' :..........:.......................................... ...........................2
-11
Figure 5.1
Nine Mile Creek =North Drainage Basin ....................... ".
Figure 5.2
Nine Mile Creek -North Major Watersheds ................................. ...........................5
-12
Figure 5.3
Nine Mile Creek-North Hydraulic Model Results ....................... ...........................5
-12
Figure 5.4
Nine Mile Creek -North Water Quality Modeling Results ............ ...........................5
-12
Figure 6.1
Nine Mile Creek - Central .Drainage Basin ...................... : ............. .................. .........
6 -9
Figure 6.2
Nine.Mile Creek - Central Major Watersheds .........:.................. ...............................
6 -9
Figure 6.3
Nine Mile Creek- Central Hydraulic Model Results ................. .....:..:. ,.....................
6 -9
Figure 6.4
Nine Mile Creek- Central Water Quality Modeling Results ...... ...............................
6 -9
Figure 7.1
Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Drainage Basin ................ ...........................7
-10
Figure 7.2
Lake Cornelia /Lake'Edina/Adam's Hill Major Watersheds ........... ...........................7
-10
Figure 7.3
Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Hydraulic Model Results . ...........................7
-10
Figure 7.4
Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Water Quality Modeling Results ................7
-10
Figure 8.1
Nine Mile Creek -South Drainage Basin ................................... ...............................
8 -8
Figure 8.2
Nine Mile Creek -South Major Watersheds ...............
Figure 8.3
Nine Mile Creek -South Hydraulic Model Results .................... ...............................
8 -8
Figure 8.4
Nine Mile Creek -South Water Quality Modeling Results ......... ...............................
8 -8
Figure 9.1
Nine Mile South Fork Drainage Basin .......................................... ...........................9
-10
Figure 9.2
Nine Mile South Fork Major Watersheds ...................................... ...........................9
-10
Figure 9.3
Nine Mile -South Fork Hydraulic Model Results ................................... : ..................
9 -10
Figure 9.4
Nine Mile South Fork Water Quality Modeling Results ..................... ....................9
-10
Figure 10.1
Southwest Ponds Drainage Basin .................................................. ...........................10
-7
Figure 10.2
Southwest Ponds Major Watersheds ............................................. ...........................10
-7
Figure 10.3
Southwest Ponds Hydraulic Model Results ................................... ...........................10
-7
Figure 10.4
Southwest Ponds Water Quality Modeling Results ........................ ...........................10
-7
Figure 11.1
T.H. 169 North Drainage Basin .................................................... ...........................11
-6
Figure 11.2
T.H. 169 North Major Watersheds ................................:............ ..............................1
1-6
Figure 11.3
T.H., 169 North Water Quality Modeling Results :......................... ...........................11
-6
Figure 12.1
Northeast Minnehaha Creek Drainage Basin .................`................ ...........................12
-8
Figure 12.2
Northeast Minnehaha Creek Major Watersheds ................. ...........12
-8
Figure 12.3
Northeast Minnehaha Creek Hydraulic Model Results..: ..........................................
12-8
Figure 12.4
Northeast Minnehaha Creek Water Quality Modeling Results ....... .................. ..........12
-8
Figure 13.1
Southeast Minnehaha Creek Drainage Basin ................................ ..........................13
-10
Figure 13.2
Southeast Minnehaha Creek Major Watersheds ........................... ..........................13
-10
Figure 13.3
Southeast Minnehaha Creek Hydraulic Model Results ................. ..........................13
-10
Figure 13.4
Southeast Minnehaha Creek Water Quality Modeling Results ....... .........................13
-10.
Figure 14.1
Northwest Minnehaha Creek Drainage Basin ................................ ...........................14
-7
Figure 14.2
Northwest Minnehaha Creek Major Watersheds ........................... ...........................14
-7
Barr Engineering Company xiii
P: \Mpls\23 MN \27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV 2.docx
Figure 14.3 Northwest Minnehaha Creek Hydraulic Model Results ................. ...........................14 -7
Figure 14.4 Northwest Minnehaha Creek Water Quality Modeling Results ...... ...........................14 -7
Figure 15.1 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Key Conservation Areas .... ..........................15 -38
Figure 16.1 Wetlands within the City of Edina ............................................... ..........................16 -16
Figure 16.2 Wetlands Classification ............................................................... ..........................16 -16
Barr Engineering Company xiv
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT \Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV 2.docx
List of Appendices
Appendix A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program for the Management of Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems within the City of Edina
Appendix B Nondegradation Report
Appendix C 2010 -2019 Anticipated Local Bituminous Street Reconstruction Projects
Appendix D Modified Minnesota Routine�Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions
(MNRAM) Version 2.0
Appendix E GIS Wetlands Inventory Database
Barr Engineering Company xv
P: \Mpls \23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT \Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511 REV 2.docx
List of Acronyms
List of /acronyms
BMPs Best Management Practices
BWSR Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources
CAMP Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program
CD
County Ditch
CFS
Cubic Feet per Second
CIP
Capital Improvement Program
COE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
CWA
Clean Water Act
CWRMP
Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
DNR
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
DWSMA
Drinking Water Supply Management Areas
EAW
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
EQB
Environmental Quality Board
FAW
Functional Assessment of Wetlands (MCWD)
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIN
Fishing in the Neighborhood
GIS
Geographic Information Systems
HCWI
Hennepin County Wetland Inventory
IBI
Index of Biotic Integrity
ISTS
Individual Sewage Treatment Systems
Barr Engineering Company xvl
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT \Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV 2.docx
LA Load Allocation
LGU Local Government Unit
MCWD Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
MDH
Minnesota Department of Health
MEP
Maximum Extent Practicable
MnR.AM
Minnesota Routine Assessment Method
Mn/DOT
Minnesota Department of Transportation
MPCA
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MS4
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MSL
Mean Sea Level
MUSA
Metropolitan Urban Service Area
NMCWD
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NURP
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
NWI
National Wetlands Inventory
NWL
Normal Water Level
OHWL
Ordinary High Water Level
PWI
Public Waters Inventory
SCS
Soil Conservation Service
SHSAM
Sizing hydrodynamic Separators and Manholes
SWMM
Storm Water Management Model
SWPPP
Storm Water Pollution Prevent Plan/Program
Barr Engineering Company xvii
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511 REV 2.docx
Em
TBD
TIF
TMDL
TP
TS.S
UAA
USFWS
VIC
VOC
WCA
WLA
WMO
To Be Determined
Tax Increment Financing
Total Maximum Daily Load
Total Phosphorus
Total Suspended Solids
Use Attainability Analysis
United States Fish'and Wildlife Service
Voluntary Investigation and.Clean -up
Volatile Organic Compound
Wetland Conservation Act
Waste Load Allocation
Watershed Management Organization
Barr Engineering Company xviii
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV 2.docx
Executive Summary
1.0 Executive Summary
The City.of Edina Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan is comprised of the Executive
Summary, Section 1, and fifteen additional sections, which are described as follows:
Section 2: Introduction— presents background information regarding the city, general
watershed information, and plan purposes.
Section 3: Policies for Stormwater Management— presents background information, goals,
policies and design standards covering runoff'managementand flood control; water quality
management, erosion and sediment control, wetlands, floodplain management, recreation, habitat
and shoreland management, groundwater,; the City's education goals, and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) considerations.
Section 4: Methodology for Modeling— describes the data, methods and assumptions used for
the stormwater analyses.
Sections 5 through 14 (Watershed Descriptions and Recommendations) — describes the
general drainage area, drainage patterns within the area, the stormwater system analysis and
results, and implementation recommendations for each of the following ten major drainage areas
in the'city: Nine Mile Creek- North, Nine Mile Creek- Central, Nine Mile Creek- South, Lake
Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill, Nine Mile South Fork, Southwest Ponds; T.H. 169 North,
Northeast Minnehaha, Southeast Minnehaha, and Northwest Minnehaha.
Section 15: issues and Implementation Program— describes the significant components of the
City's CWRMP implementation program, including its NPDES Phase II MS4 permit,,,specific
requirements of the NMCWD and MCWD, financial considerations, ordinance implementation
and,offcial controls, and implementation priorities.
Section 16: Wetlands— Discusses the wetland inventories completed for the City of Edina and
the assessment methodologies and results.
1.1 Stormwater Management Goals. & Policies
1.1.1 Runoff Management & Flood Control (Section 3.1)
1: No flow rate increases in already overtaxed stormwater systems.
2. Place high priority on providing 100 -year level of protection for the City's stormwater
system.
3. Require 10 -year level of service for new stormwater systems and for, existing systems as
opportunities arise.
Barr Engineering Company
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx 1 -1
4. For new development and redevelopment, peak flow rates will be limited in accordance with
the applicable rules of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and /or Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
5. Adopt and implement a stormwater management ordinance reflecting the policies and design
standards detailed in Section 3.1.
1.1.2 Water Quality Management (Sections 3.2 and 3.3)
Modify City review, permitting, and enforcement processes for construction activities to
ensure water quality goals are met.
Heighten community awareness of water quality management through education and training.
Manage City water resources so that the beneficial uses of streams, wetlands, ponds, and
lakes remain available to the community.
Work with the adjacent municipalities to encourage upstream pollutant reduction in areas
closer to the source of such pollutants.
5. Encourage use of regional detention areas as opposed to individual on -site detention to
reduce flooding, control discharge rates, and provide for water quality management.
As required by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and Minnehaha Creek Watershed
Districts, stormwater retention is required in locations where soil conditions permit and
where groundwater supplies will not be impacted.
7. Adopt and implement a stormwater management ordinance reflecting the water quality
management standards detailed in Section 3.2.3 and the erosion and sediment control policies
detailed in Section 3.3.
Work with the MPCA, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District to implement the recommendations and /or requirements of existing or future Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) throughout the city.
Require erosion and sediment controls and submittal of erosion and sediment control plans
for proposed construction activities.
10. Erosion and sediment controls shall conform to the requirements of the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District or Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, depending on project location.
11. Direct that entities proposing construction projects that disturb more than 1 acre of land will
need to apply for coverage under the MPCA's General NPDES Construction Stormwater
Permit.
1.1.3 Wetland Protection (Section 3.4)
1. Achieve no net loss of wetlands, including acreage, functions, and values.
2. Discourage wetland alteration. Unavoidable wetland alterations must be mitigated in
conformance with the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) requirements and the requirements
of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District or Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and must
be guided by the following principles, in descending order: avoid the impact, minimize the
Barr Engineering Company
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx 1 -2
impact, rectify the impact, reduce or eliminate the impact over time, and compensate for the
impact.
Work in conjunction with the local government units (LGU) responsible for administering the
Wetland Conservation Act in the City of Edina, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, on issues pertaining to wetland alterations within
the city boundary.
Maintain and periodically update the wetland inventory data and the wetland management
classifications provided in this plan.
Seek to restore previously existing wetlands and enhance existing wetlands.
6. Provide buffer zones of native vegetation, where feasible, around ponds and wetlands to
provide habitat. The City will work with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to educate the public regarding wetland protection and
the importance of creating and maintaining vegetative buffers. Land use and property
ownership may limit the ability to provide buffer zones.
Encourage the minimization of water level fluctuations (bounce), where feasible, in wetlands
or detention basins to prevent adverse habitat changes.
Involve the appropriate regulatory agencies (MPCA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
MnDNR) in the planning of any proposed water quality or flood control facilities identified
in this plan that may be located within a wetland.
1.2 Problems, Issues and Potential Solutions
This section summarizes the City's 2010 -2019 water resources implementation program, and
potential stormwater management improvements identified in Sections 5 through 15 of the plan.
1.2.1 Water Resources Implementation Program
This plan serves as a master plan for the City's water resources management and storm drainage
system. The City will work with residents to implement structural (capital) improvements and non-
structural programs to address existing water resource problems within the city and to prevent future
problems from occurring. The implementation program identifies and prioritizes the programs and
improvements, and provides cost estimates for budgeting purposes. Table 1.1 presents the City's
water resource - related implementation program for 2010 -2019, which includes the City's non-
structural (administration) programs and structural (capital) improvement program.
1.2.2 Runoff Management and Flood Control
The hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analyses of the current stormwater system identified several
areas throughout the City where the desired 100 -year level of protection may not be provided. These
problem areas and potential solutions are discussed in detail in Sections 5 through 14, and are
summarized and prioritized in Table 1.2. In addition to evaluating the level of protection provided
by the current stormwater system, the level of service provided was also evaluated. From this
Barr Engineering Company
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx 1 -3
analysis, it was determined that the storm sewer throughout many areas of the city is not currently
providing the desired 10 -year level of service. The areas where the storm sewer does not offer
sufficient capacity and street flow occurs during a 10 -year frequency event are depicted in figures in
Sections 5 through 14. The capacity of these storm sewer systems should be evaluated and upgraded
as opportunities arise.
1.2.3 Water Quality Management
To protect the water quality of Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek, the effectiveness of the
stormwater system in removing stormwater pollutants such as phosphorus was evaluated and water
quality management recommendations have been made for potential pond upgrades throughout the
city. These recommendations are discussed in Sections 5 through 14, and are summarized and
prioritized in Table 1.2.
Barr Engineering Company
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF71Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx 1 -4
Table 1.1 Water Resources Implementation Program
Project Name / -
Cost
Proposed '
Funding
Location
Description,'
Proposed Improvement
Estimate' ($)
Year
Source
Plan Amendments
•
This Water Resources Management Plan
may need to be amended periodically.
This plan will be amended as required.
As Required
As Required
SW Utility
This Water Resources Management Plan
will expire in 2019 and need to be
This Plan will be updated to maintain
Plan Update/Revision
updated/revised to be consistent with WMO
compliance with state and federal rules and
100,000
2018 -2020
SW Utility
plans and policies and state and federal
WMO policies.
rules.
City -wide education and
Implement the,City's Education Program
Maintain the education program to educate
resident involvement
includitig,educaiional and outreach tasks
residents about the Plan and -about various .
10,000 /yr
: Ongoing
SW Utility
program
called out in the City's SWPPP
water related issues.
Illicit discharge detection
Continue, implementation of the SWPPP
implementation
Illicit discharge detection and elimination
mapping, inspection,
City Staff
Ongoing
SW Utility
and elimination
tasks
enforcement and education.
Develop Interactive GIS
Development of a web -based mapping
Water resources information will be more
water resources web
system for sharing water resource
easily accessible to interested public via-the
11,000
2009 -2010
SW Utility
mapping tool
information with the interested public
City's website.
Maintenance of Interactive
Annual updates.and maintenance activities
Web mapping tool will have continued
GIS water resources web
for interactive GIS web mapping tool, as
functionality and reflect most up -to -date
3,000
Ongoing
SW Utility
mapping tool
needed.
information available.
Illicit discharge ordinance
Review existing City ordinances and
City ordinances consistent with illicit
develop /adopt an illicit discharge ordinance,
discharge requirements of NPDES Phase II
City Staff
Ongoing
SW Utility
review
as necessary.
MS4 General Permit
Construction site
Maintain construction site-stormwater runoff
Plan review, inspection, enforcement and
City Staff
Ongoing
SW Utility
stormwater runoff control
control program and SWPPP tasks
education
Post construction
Maintain the post construction stormwater
Design standards and review, education
City Staff
Ongoing
SW Utility
stormwater management
management and SWPPP tasks
BMPs— Housekeeping,
Maintain the 'City's Pollution prevention —
Street sweeping, structure clean-out, City
Street Sweeping, & Storm
Good housekeeping practices and related
facility operations and maintenance and
City Staff -
Ongoing
SW Utility
Drainage System
SWPPP-tasks including Street sweeping and
trainingi ? inspections and recording with
Maintenance
'system maintenance.
concentration of efforts in target areas.
Storm Drainage System
Continue.. inventorying storm sewers,
Complete inventory. Tie inventory into the
City Staff
Ongoing
SW Utility
Inventory
manholes, catch basins, etc.
City's GIS and CityWorks system.
Barr Engineering Company 1 -5
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL DRAFT \fidina_SWMP_FINAL_DRAFT_1215•I I REV.docx
Project Name /
Cost
Proposed
Funding
Location
Description
Proposed Improvement
Estimate' ($)
Year'
Source
Updates to Hydrologic and
Annual updates to City's stormwater
Hydraulic Modeling
management system modeling to reflect
Current, up -to -date modeling results.
10,000 /year
infrastructure improvements
Impaired Waters Tracking
Monitor impaired waters list and respond
The City will remain fully informed and
and Review
with review and implementation as needed
responsive to impaired waters issues.
City Staff
Ongoing
SW Utility
per the SWPPP.
Nondegradation Report
Determine pollutant load reduction
Follow -up
City -wide loading assessment
necessary for nondegradation of water
5,000
TBD
SW Utility
bodies
Annual SWPPP update and
Make any needed updates to the City's
Involve residents in water resource issue
meeting
SWPPP and hold an annual public meeting
development and implementation tasks.
City Staff
Ongoing
SW Utility
to receive public input.
B MPs - Sedimentation Pond
Sedimentation ponds require frequent
Develop and implement a program to
2,800,000 /
Maintenance
cleaning and maintenance.
inspect, clean and maintain sedimentation
10 years
Ongoing
SW Utility
and water quality ponds and lakes.
Miscellaneous Drainage
Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements
Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements
23,000,000/
Ongoing
SW Utility
Improvements
10 years
Infiltration and Inflow
Reduce the amount of infiltration and inflow
Reduce the amount of infiltration and
200,000 /year
Ongoing
SW Utility
reduction
to the sanitary sewer system
inflow to the sanitary sewer system
Participation in Nine Mile
Participate in stakeholder process for Nine
City Staff
2009 -2010
SW Utility
Creek Chloride TMDL
Mile Creek Chloride TMDL
Implementation of Nine
Implement the requirements of the Nine
To be determined
TBD
2010 -2020
SW Utility/
NMCWD/
Mile Creek Chloride TMDL
Mile Creek Chloride TMDL
Grant Funding
Participation in Minnehaha
Participate in stakeholder process for
Creek/Lake Hiawatha
Minnehaha Creek/Lake Hiawatha TMDL
City Staff
2009 -2012
SW Utility
TMDL Development
development
Implementation of
Implement the requirements of the
SW Utility/
Minnehaha Creek/Lake
Minnehaha Creek/Lake Hiawatha TMDL
To be determined
TBD
2012 -2020
MCWD/
Hiawatha TMDL
loading allocation and implementation plan.
Grant Funding
Participation in the
Partner with the NMCWD to evaluate
NMCWD Lake Cornelia
Use Attainability Analysis
potential remedial measures for improving
City Staff
2009 -2010
SW Utility
(UAA) development
the water quality of Lake Cornelia.
Barr Engineering Company
1 -6
P: \Mpls\23 MN \27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL DRAFT \Edina_SWMP_FINAL_DRAFT_12151 IREV.docx
Project Name I
Cost
Proposed
Funding
Location
Description
Proposed Improvement
Estimate' ($)
Year
Source
Participation in Lake
Participate in stakeholder process for Lake
Cornelia TMDL
Cornelia TMDL
City Staff
2013 -2018
SW Utility
Development
Implementation of
recommendations from the
Partner with the NMCWD to implement the
SW Utility/
NMCWD Lake Cornelia
recommended remedial measures to improve
To be determined
TBD
2010 -2020
NMCWD/
UAA and Lake Cornelia
the water quality of Lake Cornelia
Grant Funding
TMDL
Participation in Lake Edina
Participate in stakeholder process for Lake
City Staff
2013 -2018
SW Utility
TMDL Development
Edina TMDL
Implementation of Lake
Implement the requirements of the Lake
SW Utility/
Edina TMDL
Edina TMDL loading allocation and
To be determined
TBD
2018 -2020
NMCWD/
implementation plan.
Grant Funding
Implementation of
Partner with the NMCWD to implement
SW Utility/
recommendations from the
recommended remedial measures to improve
To be determined
TBD
NMCWD/
Draft NMCWD Mirror Lake
the water quality of Mirror Lake
q y
Grant Funding
UAA
Implementation of
Partner with the NMCWD to implement
SW Utility/
recommendations from the
recommended remedial measures to improve
To be determined
TBD
NMCWD/
Draft NMCWD Arrowhead
the water quality of Arrowhead and
and Indianhead Lakes UAA
Indianhea Lakes
Grant Funding
Minnehaha Creek Reach 14
Stream Improvement Project
Streambank stabilization, in- stream habitat
MCWD
Stream Restoration
enhancement, and buffer enhancement.
Zoning Ordinance
Revise zoning ordinance to include wetland
City Staff
2009 -2010
SW Utility
Revisions
management aspects.
Develop and implement stormwater
Stormwater Management
management ordinance reflecting the
City Staff
2010 -2012
SW Utility
Ordinance Development
policiesand design standards detailed in the
CWRMP.
1 TBD — To be determined
Barr Engineering Company
1 -7
P: \Mpls\23 MN \27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL DRAFT \Edina — SWMP— FINAL_DRAFT -12151 IREV.docx
Table 1.2 Potential Implementation Activities (including Capital Improvements)
Project Name /Location
Description
Proposed Improvement
Priorityt
Nine Mile Creek -North
Subwatershed ML-19 (505, 509, 513 Tyler Ct)
Flooding problem
Upgrade to larger pipe.
C -40
Suwatershed HL-2 (Hawkes Drive)
Flooding problem
Construction of overflow Swale between homes
C -41
Subwatershed HL-18 (5711 & 5717 Grove St)
Flooding problem
Upgrade to larger pipes
C -22
Subwatershed HL 25 (5516 & 5520 Dundee Rd)
Flooding problem
Perform detailed field survey. Additional pumping capacity may
be required at lift station.
E -3
Subwatershed MD_22 (6009 Leslie Ln)
Flooding problem
Upgrade to larger pipes.
C -39
Subwatershed MD-28 (5316 Schaeffer Rd)
Flooding problem
Maintain road overflow and positive overflow Swale.
C -18
Subwatersheds NMN_90, NMN_23 (Fountain Woods
Apartments)
Flooding problem
Privately owned drainage system. Notify owners of flood
potential.
E -2
Pond MD_3 (Bredesen Park, east of parking area)
Water Quality Improvement
Excavate to remove accumulated sediment.
C -12
Pond MD_15 (Sun Road)
Water Quality Improvement
Provide additional 0.3 acre -feet of dead storage volume.
C -10
Pond NMN_24 (Between Waterford Ct and Habitat Ct)
Water Quality Improvement
Increase pond depth.
C -7
Pond NMN_27 (Northeast of T.H. 62 & T.H. 169)
Water Quality Improvement
Provide additional 1.4 acre -feet of dead storage volume.
C -8
Pond NMN_49 (West of 5521 Malibu Drive)
Water Quality Improvement
Provide additional 0.2 acre -feet of dead storage volume.
C -11
Nine Mile Creek- Central
Manhole 457 (6005 & 6009 Crescent Dr)
Flooding problem
Construction of a positive overflow channel.
C -38
Subwatershed IP_4 (Cherokee Trail & Gleason backyard
depression area)
Flooding problem
Work with homeowners to evaluate construction of a low level
outlet from landlocked depression.
C -37
Subwatershed NMC_80 (5339 West 64th St)
Flooding problem
Upgrade to larger pipes at Ridgeview Dr and Valley Ln.
C -36
Subwatersheds NMC_86, NMC_120 (Valley View Rd &
Hillside Rd)
Flooding problem
Upgrade to larger pipe.
C -35
Subwatersheds NMC_71, NMC_103 (West 66th St & Naomi
Dr)
Flooding problem
Provide additional outlet capacity from backyard depression area
through gravity outlet system (1) or pumped outlet (2).
C -44
Barr Engineering Company
1 -8
P: \Mpls \23 MN \27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL DRAFT\Edina_SWMP FINAL_DRAFT_12151 I REV.docx
Subwatershed NMC_106 (6712, 6716, 6720 Ridgeview Dr)
Flooding problem
Installation of a gravity storm sewer system at backyard
C -34
depression.
Subwatershed NMC_107 (6808, 6 812, 6816, 6820
Flooding problem
Installation of agravity storm sewer system at backyard
C -33
Ridgeview Dr)
depression.
Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill
Subwatersheds NC 62, NC _3 (Swimming Pool,Poitd/ North
Flooding problem
Upgrade pipe and outlet structure.
C -31
Lake Cornelia)
Subwatershed NC_I 1 (6312, 6316; 6321; 6329 Tingdale
Flooding problem
No recommendation at this time. Further analysis required.
E -9
Ave)
Subwatersheds NC 40, NC 26 (St. Johns /Ashcroft & West
Flooding problem
Installation of additional pipe to drain T.H. 62 median ditch and
C -21
64th St)
prevent upstream flooding.
Subwatersheds NC_86, NC 97, NC 99 (Barrie Rd & -
Flooding problem
No recommendation at this time. Reevaluation of T.H. 62
E -10
Heritage Dr)
system will be required.
Subwatershed NC 88 (York Ave & West 64th St)
Flooding problem
Increase pump capacity. Adjust pump on/off elevations.
E -I
Subwatershed NC .132 (T.H. 62 at France Ave)
Flooding problem
No recommendation at this time. Reevaluation of T.H. 62
E -14
system will be required.
Subwatershed NC .135 (Parnell Ave & Valley View Rd)
Flooding problem
No i recommendation at this time. Further analysis required.
E -13
Subwatersheds LE-53, LE-7, LE_10, (Hibiscus Ave)
Flooding problem
Construct positive overflow swale.
C -31
Pond LE 38 (West of Lake Edina)
Water Quality Improvement
Provide additional 1.4 acre -feet of dead storage volume within
C -9
MnDOT right -of -way
Nine Mile Creek- South
Subwatershed CL-51 (7001 & 7025 France Ave)
Flooding problem
No recommendation at this time.
E -11
Pond SP._1 (Border Basin -West of Minnesota Dr. &.West
Water Quality Improvement
Provide additional 21.5 acre -feet of dead storage volume.
C -2
77th St)
Subwatershed NMS_I (Southwest. quadrant of the T.H. 100
Water Quality Improvement
Construct water quality basin.
C -1
& West 77t6 St interchange)
Ponds NMS 72, NMS 74 (Fred Richards Golf Course)
Water Quality Improvement
Increase pond depths:
C -6
Pond NMS-76 (Fred Richards Golf Course)
Water Quality Improvement
Provide additional 2:5 acre -feet of dead-storage volume.
C -4
Pond NMS 104 (Fred Richards Golf Course)
Water Quality Improvement
Provide additional 0.2 acre -feet of dead storage volume.
C -5
Barr Engineering Company 1 -9
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL DRAFMdina_SWMP_FINAL_DRAFT_12151 I REV.docx
Nine Mile South Fork
Subwatershed AH_31 (6309 Post Lane)
Flooding problem
Construction of two control structures to restrict flow through
C -42
the existing storm sewer system.
Subwatershed NMSB_62 (Braemar Golf Course)
Flooding problem
No recommendation at this time. Further analysis required.
E -12
Subwatershed NMSB_70 (7009 & 7013 Sally Ln Backyard
Flooding problem
Perform detailed field survey. Positive overflow swale may be
E -7
Depression Area)
necessary.
Subwatersheds NMSB_83, NMSB_84 (Paiute Pass & Sally
Flooding problem
Perform detailed field survey. Positive overflow swale from
E -8
Ln)
backyard depression may be necessary.
Ponds NMSB_3, NMSB_2 (Braemar Golf Course)
Water Quality Improvement
Provide additional 1.2 acre -feet of dead storage volume.
C -13
Pond NMSB_7 (Braemar Golf Course)
Water Quality Improvement
Increase pond depth.
C -15
Pond NMSB_12 (Braemar Golf Course)
Water Quality Improvement
Regular maintenance.
C -3
Pond NMSB_85 (Braemar Golf Course)
Water Quality Improvement
Provide additional 1.2 acre -feet of dead storage volume.
C -16
Pond NMSB_86 (Braemar Golf Course)
Water Quality Improvement
Provide additional 0.15 acre -feet of dead storage volume.
C -14
Southwest Ponds
Subwatershed SWP_14 (7411 Coventry Way)
Flooding problem
Installation of flapgate.
C -17
Subwatershed SWP_46 (7317 Cahill Road)
Flooding problem
No recommendation at this time. Further analysis required.
E -6
Subwatershed NM494_4 (7709 Stonewood Court)
Flooding problem
Upgrade to larger pipes.
C -43
Northeast Minnehaha Creek
White Oaks Landlocked Area Flooding Analysis and
Complete stormwater analysis to determine potential flooding
Feasibility Study (if necessary)
Flooding problem
impacts of 100 -year snowmelt event to structures surrounding
E -16
the landlocked areas
Subwatershed MS-3 (4300, 4214, & 4212 Branson St)
Flooding problem
Install catchbasin in backyard depression and upgrade to larger
C -24
pipe
Subwatershed MS-7 (4140 & 4150 West 44th St)
Flooding problem
Provide additional storage capacity in backyard depression.
C -25
Subwatershed MS 17 (4308 France Ave)
Flooding problem
Work with homeowners to evaluate installation of gravity system
C -23
—
to drain backyard depression area.
Subwatershed MS 40 (4000 West 42nd St and 4100, 4104,
Flooding problem
Implement recommendations of the 2006 Weber Park Pond
C -45
& 4108 France Ave)
Feasibility Study
Barr Engineering Company
1 -10
P: \Mpls \23 MN \27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL DRAFIREdina_SWMP_FINAL_DRAFT 12151 I REV.docx
Southeast Minnehaha Creek
Complete stormwater analysis to determine potential
Flo_ oding problem
Complete stormwater analysis to'determine potential flooding
flooding impacts of Minnehaha Creek overtopping just north
impacts of Minnehaha Creek overtopping just north of West 58`"
E -15
of West 58` Street.
Street.
Subwatershed LP_15 (6213 Ewing Ave).
Flooding problem
Upgrade to larger pipes.
C -26
Subwatershed LP_24 (5837, 5833, 5829; & 5825 South.
Flooding problem
Installation of a catchbasin'in backyard depression area.
C -27
Chowen Ave)
Subwatershed LP, 27 (Chowen Ave &West 60th St)
Flood
Perform detailed, survey /verification of, = storm -sewer to verify
- E -4
pipe sizes,`inverts, and low point of entry.
Subwatershed MHS 4 (3600 West Fuller St) `_
Flooding problem
Installation of a catchbasin in backyard-depression and storm
C -19
sewer along Beard Ave.,
Subwatersheds MHS 24, MHS 66 (5609, 5605 'Dalrymple
Flooding problem
Construct surface overflow'swale (1) or upgrade to larger pipes
C -29
Rd & 5610, 5612 St. Andrews Ave)
(2).
Subwatershed MHS 79 (5605, 5609, 5613, 5617, 5621,
Flooding problem
Upgrade to larger pipes. Install catchbasin in alley.
C -20
5625, & 5629 Beard Ave)
Subwatershed MHS_89 (5840 & 5836 Ashcroft Ave)
Flooding problem
Work with homeowners to evaluate installation of catch basin
C -28
from backyard depression.
Subwatershed ML (5213 & 5217 Richwaod Ave)
Flooding problem
Perform detailed field survey of wetland storage. Further
E -5
_7
analysis required.
Subwatershed ML 12 (5701 Dale Avenue)`
Flooding problem
Upgrade to larger pipes.
C -30
Northwest Minnehaha Creek
Construct/raise embankment between landlocked wetland and
Interlachen Landlocked Area
Flooding problem
Meadowbrook Golf Course. Develop management plan for
C -46
pumped outlet.
C indicates a construction project, E indicates that an engineering study is required
k
Barr Engineering Company
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL DRAFT\Edina_SWMP_F.INAL_DRAFT_] 2 15 11 REV.docx
-
Introduction & Physical
Setting
2.0 Introduction and Physical Setting
2.1 Plan Purposes
This plan provides the City of Edina with an overall comprehensive water resource management
plan. The plan was developed to address current and future stormwater issues, especially those
related to future development and redevelopment. The plan addresses stormwater runoff
management and flood control, water quality management, and wetlands protection through
establishment of stormwater planning policies and recommendations.
The first goal of this Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan is to provide stormwater
runoff management and flood control. Design criteria have been adopted to ensure that a proper
level of service for stormwater management and level of protection from flooding, per the 1969
Floodplain Management Act, is provided to residents of the City. The established design criteria are
discussed in Section 3.1. The current storm sewer system throughout the city has been analyzed
using computer models and recommendations to improve runoff management and flood control have
been made. Discussion on the stormwater analyses and the resulting implementation
recommendations is included in Sections 4 through 14.
The second goal of the Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan is to provide water quality
management for the water bodies throughout the city. Water quality management policies and design
standards have been established to protect the water quality of the waterbodies within the city. These
policies and design criteria are discussed in Section 3.2 A water quality model was used to simulate
the generation and transport of pollutants through the waterbodies within the city. The model results
were used to make recommendations for upgrades to water quality basins throughout the city to
maintain and improve the pollutant removal efficiency from these basins. This analysis and the
resulting implementation recommendations are discussed in Sections 4 through 14.
The third goal of the Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan is to provide wetland
protection throughout the city. The City of Edina's goal is to achieve no net loss of wetlands,
including acreage, functions, and values. To achieve this goal, policies have been established to
protect the wetlands within the city. These policies are included in Section 3.4. To provide a basis
for wetland protection efforts, an inventory and assessment of all the wetlands within the city was
completed. The wetland inventory and assessment identified wetland location, size, type, wetland
classification, dominant wetland vegetation, function, and value for each wetland. General
management recommendations are included based on the wetland sensitivity to stormwater
degradation. The inventory and assessment is discussed in Section 16.
Barr Engineering Company 2 -1
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
This plan will assist the City of Edina in defining and implementing a comprehensive and
environmentally sound system of surface water management. It is intended to be used as a tool to:
Plan for projects and other water management activities so as to correct existing problems
and prevent foreseeable future problems from occurring.
2. Assist the City in considering water resource impacts resulting from variances to the City's
long -range land use plan.
3. Enable the City to grow /redevelop in a systematic and orderly manner while protecting its
vital water resources.
In order to accomplish these objectives, the plan considers a specific array of land uses within the
city limits. If and when land uses change, this plan provides the means to (1) address the proposed
changes; (2) determine the impact of the changes on the City's infrastructure, flooding, and natural
resources; and (3) determine the actions needed within the proposed areas of land use change to
prevent undesirable impacts.
2.2 Physical Setting
2.2.1 Drainage Patterns
The City of Edina covers an area of approximately 16 square miles. There are two stream systems
that flow through the city: Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek. The northeast corner of the city
drains to Minnehaha Creek, which enters the city limits northwest of West 44th Street and T.H. 100
and flows in a southeasterly direction through the city, exiting near West 54`h Street and York
Avenue. The southwest corner of the city drains to the South Fork of Nine Mile Creek through a
series of storm sewer networks, ditches, and stormwater detention basins. The remainder of the city
drains to the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek, which enters the Edina city limits in the northwest
corner of the city near the intersection of T.H. 169 and Londonderry Road and meanders in a
southeasterly direction through the city and exits the city limits near the intersection of T.H. 100 and
Interstate 494.
For the purposes of this study, the city was divided into several major drainage areas based on
drainage patterns. These drainage areas are depicted in Figure 2.1 and listed below:
• Nine Mile Creek- North
• Nine Mile Creek- Central
• Lake Comelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Pond
• Nine Mile Creek- South
• Nine Mile South Fork
• Southwest Ponds
Barr Engineering Company 2 -2
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
• T.H. 169 North
• Northeast Minnehaha Creek
• Southeast Minnehaha Creek
• Northwest Minnehaha Creek
Sections 5 "through 14 discuss the drainage patterns within each of these drainage areas and describe
the recommended stormwater system improvements for each area. In some cases, the drainage areas
may include portions of adjoining cities, including Hopkins, Minnetonka,i -Eden Prairie, Bloomington,
Richfield, and Minneapolis: The ten drainage basins listed above were subdivided into major
watersheds and sub-Watersheds. Watershed divides were determined using air -flown 2 -foot
topographic data and, in some cases, field; verified.
2.2.2 Land Use
The City of Edina is fully urbanized. Less than one percent of the developable area within the city,
not including wetland, floodplain, or park land uses, remains available for development. The Edina
Comprehensive Plan (Edina, 2009) provides additional information about the existing and projected
land uses in the city.
2.2.3 Soils
The infiltration capacity of soils affects the amount of direct runoff resulting from rainfall. Soils
with_a higher infiltration rate have a lower runoff potential. Conversely, soils with low infiltration
rates produce high runoff volumes and high peak runoff rates. According to the Hennepin County
soil survey, the underlying soils in the City of Edina are predominantly classified as hydrologic soil
group B, with moderate infiltration rates. The underlying soils in the south-central and southeast
portions of the city are classified as hydrologic soil group A, characterized by high infiltration rates.
The underlying soils surrounding the floodplain of Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek and
around many of the natural wetlands within the city are classified as hydrologic soil group D, with
very slow infiltration rates. Figure 2.2 depicts the hydrologic soils group. classification for soils
within the City of Edina.
2.2.4 Topography:
The topography of the city varies from relatively flat land along portions of Nine Mile Creek and
Minnehaha Creek to very hilly land in the southwest portion of the city. Generally the topography
throughout the city consists of moderately rolling hills. The elevations generally vary from 980 to
880 feet MSL at the divide between the Minnehah&Creek and Nine Mile Creek watersheds to
elevations between 812 and 850 feet MSL :where each creek exits the city.
The City of Edina has two -foot contour data coverage for the entire city; this information is available
from the City Engineering Department.
Barr Engineering Company 2 -3
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
2.2.5 Water Quality Monitoring
2.2.5.1 Lakes
Limited water quality data has been collected for the lakes within the City of Edina. In 1972, 1990,
2001, and 2004, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District collected in -lake water quality data for
Mirror Lake, which was used in support of the Draft NMCWD Mirror Lake Use Attainability
Analysis (Barr, 2004). In 2004, the NMCWD also collected in -lake water quality data for Lake
Cornelia (North and South), Arrowhead Lake and Indianhead Lake, for development of the Draft
Lake Cornelia Use Attainability Analysis (Barr, 2006) and Draft Arrowhead and Indianhead Lakes
Use Attainability Analysis (Barr, 2006). In 2008, the NMCWD collected in -lake water quality data
for Lake Cornelia (North and South) and Lake Edina.
In addition to the lake monitoring data collected by the NMCWD, water quality data has also been
collected for several lakes by citizen monitoring volunteers as part of the Metropolitan Council's
Citizen - Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP). The lakes within the City of Edina that have been
monitored as part of CAMP include Pamela, Cornelia, Edina, and Harvey lakes. The locations of
these lakes are shown in Figure 2.3.
A summary of the historic summer average total phosphorus concentrations for the monitored lakes
in Edina is provided in Table 2.1. The summary reflects the data collected by both the NMCWD and
the Metropolitan Council CAMP. As can be seen in the table, the available data is limited for most
of the Edina lakes. It should be noted that lakes and ponds are dynamic, so that relatively infrequent
sampling cannot provide a complete picture of the status of the water body in question. The situation
is further complicated by the impossibility of inferring statistically significant trends from relatively
few water quality sampling results. A minimum of about ten (summer average) data points is thought
to be required to reliably identify a water quality trend.
2.2.5.2 Creeks
The NMCWD has two continuous flow monitoring stations within or near Edina; one along the North
Fork of Nine Mile Creek at the Metro Boulevard crossing, and another along the South Fork of Nine
Mile Creek at the 78`h Street crossing, just south of the city boundary with Bloomington (Figure 2.3).
The monitoring stations collect data on stream flow and several water quality parameters, including
turbidity. The water quality monitoring data is available from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District upon request.
The MCWD has a monitoring site just below the Browndale Dam on Minnehaha Creek that has been
active since 1996. Continuous stream level data is collected both above and the below the dam to
determine stream flows. Water quality samples are generally collected weekly at this site for total
and soluble reactive phosphorus, bi- weekly for total suspended solids and monthly for total nitrogen
and chloride during the months of April through October. E. coli is collected bi- weekly during the
months of June, July and October, and weekly in August and September.
Barr Engineering Company 2 -4
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Table 2.1 Historic Summer - average Total Phosphorus Concentrations for Edina Lakes
Barr Engineering Company 2 -5
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFTNEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
NMCWD
Metropolitan Council
Summer Average TP
Summer Average TP
Concentration
Concentration
Lake
Year
(June - September)
(May - September)
(pg/L)
g/L
2003
N/A
224 5
2004
164 '
N/A
2005
N/A
156 7
2006
N/A
154 a
North Lake Cornelia
2007
N/A
216 9
2008
172 4
N/A
2009
N/A
113 70
2004
190 t
N/A
South Lake Cornelia
2008
173 4
N/A
1972
133 2
N/A
1990
99 2
N/A
Mirror
2001
73 2
N/A
2004
119 2
N/A
Arrowhead Lake
2004
72 3
N/A
Indianhead Lake
2004
46 3
N/A
Harvey Lake
2004
N/A
152 a
Pamela Lake
2005
N/A
81
2004
N/A
106 a
2005
1 N/A
128
Lake Edina
2008
1 121 4
N/A
1 - Barr Engineering. 2006. Lake Cornelia Use Attainability Analysis (Draft). Prepared for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
2 - Barr Engineering. 2004. Mirror Lake Use Attainability Analysis (Draft). Prepared for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
3 - Barr Engineering. 2006. Arrowhead and Indianhead Lakes Use Attainability Analysis (Draft). Prepared for Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District
4 — 2008 Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Water Quality Monitoring Program
5 - Metropolitan Council. 2004. Regional Report: A 2003 Study of the Water Quality of 140 Metropolitan Area Lakes
6 - Metropolitan Council. 2005. Regional Report: A 2004 Study of the Water Quality of 145 Metropolitan Area Lakes
7 - Metropolitan Council. 2006. Regional Report: A 2005 Study of the Water Quality of 172 Metropolitan Area Lakes
8 - Metropolitan Council. 2007. Regional Report: A 2006 Study of the Water Quality of 186 Metropolitan Area Lakes
9 - Metropolitan Council. 2008. Regional Report: A 2007 Study of the Water Quality of 176 Metropolitan Area Lakes
10 - Metropolitan Council. 2010. Preliminary 2009 Lake Cornelia CAMP Data
Barr Engineering Company 2 -5
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFTNEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
2.2.6 Parks & Recreation
Lakes, ponds, and creeks are often key attractions in public parks; examples within Edina include
Rosland Park, Bredesen Park, Pamela Park, Utley Park and Centennial Lakes Park.
The City of Edina has numerous community parks, neighborhood parks, and other public open space
recreational areas. Figure 2.4 shows the numerous parks and recreational areas within the City of
Edina.
2.2.7 Public Utilities
Edina is completely within the Metropolitan Council's designated Metropolitan Urban Servie Area
(MUSA). The MUSA is the area in the seven county metro area in which the Metropolitan Council
ensures that regional services and facilities are provided or planned. The City of Edina provides
sanitary sewer and water service throughout the city.
2.2.8 Fish and Wildlife Habitat
The water bodies and open spaces interspersed throughout the city provide habitat for numerous fish
and wildlife species, including birds, mammals, and reptiles. Ducks and geese are present in large
numbers at lakes, wetlands, and open water areas. Vegetative cover in the undeveloped open areas
support many mammalian species such as deer, raccoon, squirrels, fox, chipmunks, and rabbits. The
wetlands in Edina provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species including snakes, turtles, and frogs.
The Mn DNR has completed fishery surveys of three lakes within the City of Edina. The most recent
surveys were of Lake Cornelia in 2005 and Centennial Lake in 2006. Both of these lakes are part of
the Mn DNR's Fishing in the Neighborhood (FIN) program. Lake Cornelia, Centennial Lake, and
Indianhead Lake have been stocked by the Mn DNR in recent years. Arrowhead Lake was observed
to be infested with the invasive aquatic plant Eurasian Watermilfoil; Minnehaha Creek was observed
to be infested with invasive Eurasian Watermilfoil and Flowering Rush. Table 2.2 summarizes the
available fishery survey, stocking, and aquatic invasive species information available for the water
bodies within the City of Edina.
Barr Engineering Company 2-6
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Table 2. 2 Fishery and Aquatic Invasive Species Information
2.2.9 Unique Features & Scenic Areas
The DNR Natural Heritage Program and Nongame Wildlife Program maintain a database of rare
plant or animal species and significant natural features. This database includes only one record of a
rare or threatened species observance in Edina; a Blanding's Turtle (Emys Blandingii) was observed
in 1989 in the southeast portion of the City (see Figure 2.5). The Blanding's Turtle was classified as
a threatened species in Minnesota in 1984.
Other information was reviewed to determine whether other unique features area present in Edina.:,
Based on this review, no Outstanding Resource Value Waters (Minnesota Rules 7050.0180),
Designated Scientific and Natural Areas (Minn. Stat. 86A.05), State Wildlife Management Areas
(Minn. Stat. 86A.05), or State Aquatic Management Areas (Minn. Stat 86A.05) are, located ,within the
City of Edina.
2.2.10 Pollutant Sources
Figure 2.6 shows the approximate locations of registered storage tanks, leak sites, hazardous waste
generators, dump sites, Superfund sites, and MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) sites,
as obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services. The Hennepin County
Barr Engineering Company 2 -7
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF71Edina_S WMP_FINAL_DRAFT_12151 I REV_2.docx
Fishery
Invasive Species
Water
Survey
Stocking'
Dominant Fish
Invasive
Year
Resource
Year
S ecies
Species
Present
Lakes
Lake
2005
Bluegill: 2000-2009
Bluegill, Black
N / A
N / A
Cornelia
Crappie, Car
Arrowhead
1995
Bluegill: 1994, Largemouth Bass
Black
Bullhead;
Eurasian
1995
Lake
Green Sunfish .
Watermilfoil
Centennial
Bluegill: 2001 -2009, Largemouth
Black
2006
Bass: 2002 -2009, Northern
Bullhead,
N/A
N / A
Lake
Pike: 2007 -2009
Green Sunfish
Indianhead
N A
Bass: 2008,
N/ A
N/A
N/A
Lake
Walle a :2008
Streams
Eurasian
Minnehaha
EA
N/ A
N/ A
Watermilfoil
N/ A
Creek
, Flowering
Rush
Source: MNDNR Lake Finder Website .
' — Stocking reports available for 1998 -2009 from the MNDNR Lake Finder Website
2.2.9 Unique Features & Scenic Areas
The DNR Natural Heritage Program and Nongame Wildlife Program maintain a database of rare
plant or animal species and significant natural features. This database includes only one record of a
rare or threatened species observance in Edina; a Blanding's Turtle (Emys Blandingii) was observed
in 1989 in the southeast portion of the City (see Figure 2.5). The Blanding's Turtle was classified as
a threatened species in Minnesota in 1984.
Other information was reviewed to determine whether other unique features area present in Edina.:,
Based on this review, no Outstanding Resource Value Waters (Minnesota Rules 7050.0180),
Designated Scientific and Natural Areas (Minn. Stat. 86A.05), State Wildlife Management Areas
(Minn. Stat. 86A.05), or State Aquatic Management Areas (Minn. Stat 86A.05) are, located ,within the
City of Edina.
2.2.10 Pollutant Sources
Figure 2.6 shows the approximate locations of registered storage tanks, leak sites, hazardous waste
generators, dump sites, Superfund sites, and MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) sites,
as obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services. The Hennepin County
Barr Engineering Company 2 -7
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF71Edina_S WMP_FINAL_DRAFT_12151 I REV_2.docx
Department of Environmental Services should be contacted for details about specific sites, since
many of the sites have been cleaned up or are in the clean -up process.
2.2.10.1 Investigation and Cleanup Sites
The dump sites identified in Figure 2.6 include both unpermitted and permitted dump sites.
Unpermitted dump sites are historic landfills that never held a valid permit from the MPCA.
Generally, these dump sites existed prior to the MPCA's permitting program, which was initiated in
1967. Unpermitted dump sites were often old farm or municipal disposal sites that accepted
household waste.
The MPCA VIC Program is a non - petroleum brownfield program that provides technical assistance
and administrative or legal assurances for individuals or businesses seeking to investigate or clean -up
contaminated property and to bring contaminated land back into productive use.
There is currently one MPCA Superfund Site within the City of Edina, also shown on Figure 2.6.
This site is the Edina Well Field. In 2004, the City of Edina detected elevated levels of vinyl chloride
in Municipal Well 7. Preliminary investigations found several Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
in nearby groundwater. The City has since discontinued use of Well 7. However, concerns that
groundwater flow could lead to a larger regional problem remain. Further investigation and
evaluation of potential clean -up options is ongoing. Additional information on this site can be
obtained from the MPCA.
2.2.10.2 Tank Sites and Leak Sites
The tank sites identified in Figure 2.6 include registered petroleum tank facilities, both underground
and above ground. Leak sites are locations where a release of petroleum products has occurred from
a tank system. Leak sites can occur from aboveground or underground tank systems, or from spills at
tank facilities. A leak can result from an accident or from activities that occurred over a long period
of time. Many of the known leak sites shown on Figure 2.6 are related to releases from underground
fuel oil tanks.
2.2.10.3 Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS)
If properly functioning, individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) typically do not impact the
water quality of surface or ground water resources. However, improperly functioning systems can
negatively impact water resources and are a source of ground and surface water contamination. City
records indicate that there are six known ISTS throughout the city.
2.2.11 Groundwater
The City of Edina operates two separate water systems: the Morningside water system and the Edina
water system. The Morningside system is supplied with treated surface water from the City of
Minneapolis; the City of Edina does not appropriate any surface water for its municipal water supply.
The water supply for the Edina system is groundwater, obtained from 18 groundwater wells, ranging
Barr Engineering Company 2 -8
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
in depth from 450 to 1,100 feet. The City's current groundwater appropriation permit limits the
City's groundwater pumping to 17,500 gallons per minute or 3,000,000,000 gallons per year.
Barr Engineering Company 2 -9
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
3
m
R
a
C
R
Minnetonka
St. Louis Park
Hopkins
i
F . 169 Northwest
orth; Minneh h Cr k
1
a a ee
Intertachen Blvd
Mt
•
♦y
d
Y
A
m �
Nine Mile
Creek - North
ey
o�
w
PP�
li
Cree c - Cen I
JfY
f/� Valley View Rd
Nine Mile Creek
- South Fork
r
if Northeast Minneapolis
Mi ehaha Creek
Southeast k
Minnehaha "rr iek
13
LVe rnelia/
66th Lake�dina/
dam's Hill
Richfield
Eden Prairie
Southwest FIJO-4
169 Ponds
Nine Mile Nine Mile 7
Creek - Sout
Bloomington
cn
0
�RPUPA
�eee
['l City of Edina Boundary
Roads /Highways
Creek/Stream
S Lake /Pond
Major Drainage Area
C�
Feet
3,000 0 3,000
Meters
1,000 0 1,000
Figure 2.1
MAJOR DRAINAGE AREAS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
i
E
I St. Louis Park
1
Hopkins
i
O
Minneapolis
E Interlachen Blvd i
E ^ -
Q ,v
m
0
Minnetonka J fl O
169
td3
e CreetD
66th
I Ya Vi•w Rd a
Y
� o
, r
i
Q Richfield
C�o -
Eden Prairie p
�t 69
t 1%
U
O\
V D
N
1
Bloomington
0
s
n
o e
o
• r`�URPUR�IY` •
rasa
U City of Edina Boundary
Roads /Highways
Creek /Stream
AHydrologic Soil Groups
A - High infiltration rates.
Low runoff Potential.
B - Moderate infiltration rates.
Low to medium runoff potential.
C - Slow infiltration rates.
Medium to high runoff potential.
D - Very slow infiltration rates.
High runoff potential.
Water
Soils Data Source: Hennepin County Soils GIs Database
O
Feet
3,000 0 3,000
Meters
1,000 0 1,000
Figure 2.2
EDINA SOILS CLASSIFICATION
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
c
Minnetonka
Eden Prairie
St. Louis Park
Hopkins
oil
f d
Y
A
Pie
oc
e�c
169
N
Fa •. � .ti'inE ,
K
Minnehaha ♦reek
atershed District
11
Ii
`Lake
Cornelia
/ndianhead
aki, Valle View Rd
Nine Mile Creek
atershed District
_ r
c + ^•Y� +�^� 100
_ t
L
Bloomington
r
r�
6
i.
Lake
Pamela
17
Centennia�
Lakes
v
a
0
Minneapolis
Richfield
{- �y
• ,�OUkPrJRP��v�
1IieH
MCWD Stream Monitoring Station
NMCWD Stream Monitoring Stations
Lake Water Quality Sampling Locations
Roads /Highways
Creek /Stream
Watershed District Boundary
City of Edina Boundary
0
Feet
3,000 0 3,000
Meters
1,000 0 1,000
Figure 2.3
WATER QUALITY
MONITORING STATIONS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
C
a
c
i�
1 1'
Minnetonka
Eden Prairie
St. Louis Park
Hopkins '
i
zo
Mirror
Lake
ado
Park
r
amew.
T� �5' <12t =tidy '
Interlachen Blvd
Map
b .tea G�3 a
5 I
C�`i U—V A L =F.Lis
L�Yn3 l=t c .
Valley View Rd 11.0
rim A209 0mawp".
69 [fY3y Q$ur1
tk
Nia Jj ;!
fo
Sou
Bloomington
Minneapolis
Richfield
o
�aea
Roads /Highways
0
Feet
3,000 0 3,000
Meters
1,000 0 1,000
Figure 2.4
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
Creek /Stream
f
Lake /Pond
Park /Recreational Area
City of Edina Boundary
0
Feet
3,000 0 3,000
Meters
1,000 0 1,000
Figure 2.4
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
Minnetonka
Eden Prairie
I
I
I
t
St. Louis Park
L -t
L ~t
t
Hopkins
i
t
1
Interlachen Blvd
N 1
Y
A
¢y
P�
'L o°
169
Valley View Rd
-
to
'416
r.
Lake
Pam,la
rq%
y
66011 0
d
® a
0
Blanding's Turtle
^• Emydoidea blandingii
Bloomington
JCJ-te
H
Minneapolis
Richfield
o
OFMOLN
1888
State Threatened
Species Location (masked)
Roads /Highways
Creek /Stream
Lake /Pond
City of Edina Boundary
0
Feet
1000 0 3,000
Meters
1,000 0 1,000
Figure 2.5
THREATENED AND
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
Minnetonka
0
Eden Prairie
E
1
1 St. Louis Park
3
1
Hopkins 4 1
v- 1
0
ww.
t.
Ni.
M
V i
•b i
•
i
I•
•
•
Arrowhead
Lake
E9 �n
J
G
A�0
o�
se`s
•
p
Valley View Rd
- i •
i
a
i
�� i i
Interlachen Blvd 6i i % _
G �� i • r'.
�1f
d
q L
Nitte
i 40 66th
• �►m a•
• i C•
C5 fj> d G o
� o a •
e b •
•
UGK? i •C.)
i Q •
Ci O ``7-
a
Bloomington
Minneapolis
Richfield
ow e F,
0
IbBfl
Dumps
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Location
Registered Tanks
VIC Sites
• Hazardous Waste Generators
MPCA Superfund Sites
Roads /Highways
Creek /Stream
S► Lake /Pond
City of Edina Boundary
Al
Feet
3,000 0 3,000
Meters
1,000 0 1,000
Figure 2.6
POLLUTANT SOURCES
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
Policies for Storm
Management
3.0 Policies for Stormwater Management
3.1 Runoff Management and Flood Control
Just as watershed models are used to define problem areas within the drainage system, design criteria
(standards for design) are used to define solutions to the problems. Municipal drainage systems
provide service (removal of runoff water) and protection (control of flood levels). It is useful to have
criteria for both the level of service and the level of protection to be provided by the drainage
system. In addition, at ponds and low -lying areas it is common to add a factor of safety in the form
of added elevation above the projected flood level (freeboard) or extra volume.
It is important to understand the difference between level of service and level of protection when
designing and analyzing stormwater systems.
Level of service is defined as the capacity provided by a municipal drainage system to remove runoff
and prevent significant interference with normal daily transportation, commerce, or access that might
result from a rainstorm. For example, gutters might run full, but when the runoff arrives at a catch
basin it would enter the catch basin and be carried away by the storm sewer. Intersections would not
be inundated to an extent that adversely impacts driving conditions, right -of -way would be
undamaged, and public infrastructure would operate normally. The modern standard of practice is
usually that systems be designed for the "10- year" storm event, which means that there is roughly a
10 percent probability in any year that the system will be overtaxed and unable to meet these criteria.
In many communities, older systems were designed for smaller storm events such as a "2- year" event
or a "5- year" event. Intersection flooding is common in these areas.
Level of protection is defined as the capacity provided by a municipal drainage system to prevent
property damage and assure a reasonable degree of public safety following a rainstorm. For
example, runoff might bypass a catch basin and collect in low -lying areas such as intersections, but
would not cause flood damage to structures. Accumulated water might temporarily interfere with
traffic or access, but right -of -way should be undamaged and public infrastructure should operate
normally. Safety should not be significantly threatened, assuming persons use common sense and
don't drive into the standing water or try to walk or swim in fast - flowing water. The drainage system
must have the capacity (in terms of pipe capacity and overland overflow capacity) to limit the flood
elevation to acceptable levels for an event representing the protection criteria.
A 100 -year event is usually recommended as a standard for design of ponding basins. Such an event
has about a 1 percent probability of occurring in any year. Federal and state programs use criteria
based on an event with 1 percent probability to define the floodplain along rivers and streams, and
cities and other drainage authorities commonly extend this standard to other areas. A "100- year"
(1 percent probability) design for a ponding area means the pond has adequate volume to hold the
1 percent probable runoff and infers that adjacent structures will be above the level of the ponded
water.
Barr Engineering Company 3 -1
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT1Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
However, the criterion for level of protection has broader application. In addition to ponding areas,
lakes, and streams, this criterion should be applied to all locations served by the drainage system
where there are depressed intersections or other areas subject to temporary, unplanned flooding.
3.1.1 Runoff Management and Flood Control Policies
The following sections present the City of Edina's policies and design standards that address runoff
management and flood control. In addition to the policies discussed below, the City of Edina has
entered into water resource management related agreements with adjacent cities, including
Bloomington for the area of the Border Basin, Eden Prairie for the area along Washington Avenue,
Richfield for the outlet from Adam's Hill Pond, Hopkins for the area east of Blake Road and along
T.H. 169, St. Louis Park for Meadowbrook Golf Course, Morningside Area, and Minneapolis.. The
City adopts the following general runoff management and flood control policies (Sections 3.1.1.1 and
3.1.1.2 provide specific policies and standards):
1. No flow rate increases in already overtaxed stormwater systems.
2. The City will place a high priority on providing 100 -year level of protection for the City's
stormwater detention and conveyance systems, where detention is provided (e.g., low point
intersections). The City will require new stormwater systems to provide 100 -year level of
protection. Existing systems (conveyance and detention) that currently do not provide
100 -year level of protection will be modified to provide 100 -year level of protection when
feasible. Proposed additions and modifications to the stormwater system are discussed in
Sections 5 through 14 and summarized in Table 1.2.
3. The City will require new stormwater conveyance systems to provide a 10 -year level of
service. Existing systems that currently do not provide a 10 -year level of service will be
modified, as opportunities arise and as needed.
4. For new development and redevelopment, peak flow rates will be limited in accordance with
the applicable rules of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
5. The City will adopt and implement a stormwater management ordinance reflecting the
policies and design standards detailed in this plan.
6. The City will allow outlets from landlocked basins only when such outlets are at or above the
100 -year floodplain, are consistent with state and federal regulations, and the downstream,
riparian, and habitat impacts of such outlets have been analyzed and no detrimental impacts
result. An exception to this policy is the city will allow an outlet below the 100 -year
floodplain elevation in situations where public safety is threatened and/or inundation of
occupied structures would be likely if the outlet is at a higher elevation.
Barr Engineering Company 3 -2
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV 2.docx
3.1.1.1 Minimum Building Elevations.
To prevent flooding of buildings, it is recommended that the City adopt the following design
.standards:
1. All lowest floor elevations and other permanent fixtures including heating and air
conditioning ventilation systems should meet the following:
a.. Be a minimum of two feet above the 1.00 -year flood elevation for basins, with pipe outlets
or. waterways.
b. Until an outlet is installed for landlocked basins with no low level piped outlet, the
minimum building elevation should be the greater of either two feet above the level
resulting from two concurrent 100 -year, single event rainfall event or two feet above the
1'00 -year 10 -day snownielt; whichever is higher.. In either case, the starting elevation of
the basin/waterbody prior to the runoff event should, be established by one of the..,
following:
i. Existing Ordinary High Water level established by the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources;
ii. Annual water balance calculation approved by the City;
iii. Local observation well recordsi ,as approved by the. City; or
iv. Mottled soil.
Note: The 100 -year landlocked basin flood elevation may be lowered by excavating an
overflow swale or constructing an outlet pipe at an overflow point.
2.. The lowest entry elevations (i.e., windows, window wells, walkout elevations) for buildings
adjacent to overflow swales and/or conveyance channels should be at least two feet above the
100 -year flow elevation of the swale or channel at the point where the swale or channel is
closest to the building.
3.1.1.2 Storinwater Management Design Standards
The City adopts -the following design standards for all new stormwater management systems (i.e.,
basins; storm sewers,.gtc.):
r
1. All ponding basins and basin outlet pipes should be' designed to collectively detain and
convey the flows from the critica11100 -year frequency storm (100 -year level of protection).
The critical storm represents a storm of a given runoff duration that produces the greatest
discharge or detention storage volume,' as appropriate. Detention basins should be designed to
contain the flows from the 100 - year frequency storm without overtopping.
2. All lateral storm sewer systems, including catch basin grates, should be designed to convey
flows from the 10 -year frequency, 1/2-hour storm (10 -year level of service).
Barr Engineering Company 3 -3
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
3. Where practical and physically possible, regional detention areas, as opposed to individual
onsite detention, are preferred to reduce flooding, to control discharge rates, and to provide
necessary storage volumes whenever possible. Where regional detention areas are not in
place or existing systems are already over capacity, the City will require individual onsite
detention at new developments to ensure the new developments do not create additional
problems in the existing systems under present watershed development conditions.
4. Stormwater retention is required by both the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Applicable design criteria are available from each
respective watershed district.
5. All new constructed slopes within the 100 -year storage volume of a ponding basin should be
designed in accordance with current safety design standards.
6. All ponding basins should be provided with a protected emergency overflow structure to
prevent undesired flooding resulting from extreme storms or plugged outlet conditions. The
emergency overflow path should be protected with permanent, nondegrading erosion control
materials (i.e., riprap or geosynthetics), where feasible.
7. Each ponding basin should be provided with an all- weather access road for maintenance
purposes.
3.2 Water Quality
The streams, ponds, lakes, and wetlands in the City of Edina are an important community asset.
These resources supply aesthetic and recreational benefits, in addition to providing wildlife habitat
and refuge. The City recognizes the need to assure adequate water quality in the water bodies within
the city and will take steps to protect these resources. The City of Edina will manage the City's
water resources so that the beneficial uses of lakes, streams, ponds and wetlands remain available to
the community. Such beneficial uses may include aesthetic appreciation, wildlife habitat protection,
nature observation, and recreational activities.
3.2.1 Background Water Quality Information
Within the City of Edina, there are over two hundred water bodies, ranging in size from lakes to
small stormwater detention basins. Historically, as the city developed, these lakes and ponds have
been used for stormwater runoff detention in association with flood protection efforts.
Unfortunately, the urbanization of a watershed often accelerates the degradation of water bodies
through a natural process known as eutrophication. Nonpoint pollution associated with stormwater
runoff creates adverse impacts; the degree of impact dependent upon the water body's natural ability
to remove, absorb, or process the pollutants through chemical, physical, or biological processes.
Poor water quality usually indicates a situation where the resource receives more nutrients, or other
pollutants, than can be processed naturally.
Barr Engineering Company 3 -4
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
Urban stormwater runoff carries a variety of pollutants that affect water quality. These contaminants
are generated through the activities in different residential, commercial, and industrial land
developments within a watershed. During storm or snowmelt events, these pollutants quickly wash
off and are carried to downstream waters. As development increases and activities change and
intensify, the concentrations and types of contaminants increase accordingly.
Phosphorus and suspended sediments are recognized as being particularly detrimental to the health of
lakes and streams in Minnesota. As a result, the City's watershed management and land development
policies are directed mainly at controlling the amount of phosphorus and sediment that reaches the
water bodies within the city. Many other pollutants are transported by the same processes that
convey phosphorus. Therefore, phosphorus reduction measures for stormwater runoff may also
reduce the flow of other pollutants to water resources within the city.
Suspended sediment in runoff is a major source of phosphorus because dissolved phosphorus
frequently adsorbs to small particles in the suspended sediment. Because much of the phosphorus
reaching water bodies from runoff is transported with the suspended sediment load, efforts to control
sediment also help to reduce phosphorus loading. Suspended sediment carried by stormwater runoff
typically consists of fine particles of soil, dust, dirt, organic material, and undissolved fertilizer.
Suspended sediment loads can also carry heavy metals, oils, and other pollutants. High volumes of
suspended sediment reaching water bodies can be the result of:
• Runoff from city streets, buildings, parking lots, and other impervious areas, which washes
accumulated sediment from those areas.
Runoff from urban areas with higher flows and higher velocities, which in turn causes
channel and swale erosion.
Runoff from construction sites with poor erosion and sediment control or with poorly
maintained sediment control facilities.
Chloride is another pollutant in stormwater runoff that can be detrimental to the health of lakes and
streams in Minnesota. Chloride is a salt found in most waters; however, elevated levels of chloride in
surface water can harm aquatic organisms. High chloride levels in lakes and streams usually occurs
in relation to winter snowmelt due to the wide - spread application of road salt during winter- weather
conditions. Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek have both been identified by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as impaired due to excessive chloride levels (see Section 15.1.3
for more details).
Stormwater can also convey harmful bacteria, often called pathogens, into local lakes and streams.
Ingestion of pathogens by humans can lead to gastrointestinal illnesses such as severe diarrhea or
nausea, as well as headaches and fatigue. Two bacterial groups often used as "indicator organisms"
for detection of pathogenic organisms are fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria. Fecal coliform and
E. coli bacteria found in lakes and streams can originate from human, pet, livestock, or wildlife
waste. Minnehaha Creek has been identified by the MPCA as impaired due to excess levels of fecal
coliform (see Section 15.1.3 for more details).
Barr Engineering Company 3 -5
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Lakes and streams are often monitored for the presence of specific pollutants, such as phosphorus,
suspended sediment, or dissolved oxygen, to assess the quality of the waterbody. Another means to
assess the health of a waterbody is through biological monitoring, which tracks the health of plant,
insect, small organism, and fish communities. Several measures of a biological community related to
the diversity and types of species present are assessed to develop an Index of Biological Integrity
(IBI). For fish, for example, these measures may include feeding, reproduction, tolerance to human
disturbance, abundance, and condition. An IBI score can then be used to assess the health and
integrity of the waterbody. Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek have both been identified by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as biologically impaired (see Section 15.1.3 for more
details).
3.2.2 Water Quality Management Policies
The City of Edina adopts the following water quality policies:
1. The City will modify review, permitting, and enforcement processes for construction
activities to ensure water quality goals are met.
2. The City will work to heighten community awareness of water quality management through
education and training.
3. The City will manage its water resources so that the beneficial uses of streams, wetlands,
ponds, and lakes remain available to the community.
4. The City will work with the adjacent municipalities to encourage upstream pollutant
reduction in areas closer to the source of such pollutants.
5. The City will encourage use of regional detention areas as opposed to individual on -site
detention to reduce flooding, control discharge rates, and provide for water quality
management.
6. As required by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and Minnehaha Creek Watershed
Districts, stormwater retention is required. The rules of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are adopted by reference and can be found
on the appropriate watershed district website.
7. As required by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, stormwater runoff must be treated to
achieve at least 60 percent annual removal efficiency for phosphorus and at least 90 percent
annual removal efficiency for total suspended solids.
8. The City will adopt and implement a stormwater management ordinance reflecting the water
quality management standards and the erosion and sediment control policies detailed in this
plan.
Barr Engineering Company 3 -6
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
9. The City will work with the MPCA, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District to implement the recommendations and /or requirements of existing
or future TMDL(s) throughout the city.
10. The City will encourage the use of low - impact site design for development and
redevelopment within the city.
11. The City will, where feasible, apply low- impact site design principles for City- sponsored
improvement projects.
3.2.3 . Water QualityAanagement Standards
3.2.3.1 Stormwater Retention /Detention Systems
Stormwater.retention/detention facilities must be designed according to the most current technology
as reflected in the MPCA publication Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas, March 2000, the
Minnesota Stormwater Manual (2008), or the applicable Nine Mile Creek Watershed District or
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District rules, whichever are more restrictive.
3.2.3.2 Construction Site Standards
The requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) General Permit and the City's Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program (SWPPP) are applicable (see Section 15.1 for more details).
3.3 - Erosion and Sediment Control
The City's goals regarding erosion and sediment control are to protect the capacity of the City's
stormwater management system, prevent flooding, maintain water quality by preventing erosion and
sedimentation from occurring, and correct existing erosion and sedimentation problems.
3.3.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Policies
The following policies are adopted by the City of Edina:
1. The City requires erosion and sediment controls and submittal of erosion and sediment
control plans for proposed construction activities.
2. Erosion and sediment controls shall conform to the requirements of the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District or Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, depending on project location.
3. The City will direct that entities proposing construction projects that disturb more than 1 acre
of land will need to apply for coverage under the MPCA's General NPDES Construction
Stormwater Permit.
Barr Engineering Company
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
3 -7
3.4 Wetlands
The City of Edina's goal is to achieve no net loss of wetlands, including acreage, functions, and
values. Due to the developed nature of the city, all of the wetlands within the city are used for storm
water management purposes. Where practical, opportunities to improve the functions, values,
biological diversity, and acreage of existing wetlands should be sought.
3.4.1 Wetlands Policies
The City adopts the following policies relating to wetlands within the city:
1. The City discourages wetland alteration. Unavoidable wetland alterations must be mitigated
in conformance with the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) requirements and the
requirements of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District or Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District, and must be guided by the following principles, in descending order: avoid the
impact, minimize the impact, rectify the impact, reduce or eliminate the impact over time,
and compensate for the impact.
2. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are the
local government units (LGU) responsible for administering the Wetland Conservation Act in
the City of Edina. The City will work in conjunction with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on issues pertaining to wetland
alterations within the city boundary.
3. The City will maintain and periodically update the wetland inventory data and the wetland
management classifications provided in this plan.
4. The City will seek to restore previously existing wetlands and enhance existing wetlands.
5. The City will involve the appropriate regulatory agencies (MPCA, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the DNR) in the planning of any proposed water quality or flood control
facilities identified in this plan that may be located within a wetland.
6. Provide buffer zones of native vegetation, where feasible, around ponds and wetlands to
provide habitat The City will work with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to educate the public regarding wetland protection and
the importance of creating and maintaining vegetative buffers. Land use and property
ownership may limit the ability to provide buffer zones.
7. The City encourages the minimization of water level fluctuations (bounce), where feasible, in
wetlands or detention basins to prevent adverse habitat changes.
3.5 Floodplain
The floodplain of a stream can be defined as that area adjacent to a stream which is inundated during
times of flood. More specifically, the Minnesota Floodplain Management Act of 1969 defines the
floodplain as that area adjoining a watercourse which is subject to inundation by a flood of 100 -year
frequency. Under the provisions of this act, local governmental units are required to adopt floodplain
management ordinances which will include "the delineation of floodplains and floodways, the
Barr Engineering Company 3 -8
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF'REdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
preservation of the capacity.of the floodplain to carry and discharge regional floods, minimization of
flood hazards, and the 'regulation of the use of land in the floodplain." Under the provisions of the
required ordinances, no major alteration.to existing structures, no new fill and no floodplain use
which would unreasonably constrict flood flows will be allowed in the floodplain unless further
provisions are made to fully compensate any detrimental effects.
The following policies regarding floodplain regulation with the City of Edina have been adopted:
1. The floodplain of Nine Mile-Creek -is definedas that area, lying below the 100 -year' flood
elevations as shown in the Nine Mile Creek Watershed Management Plan, March 2007. The
floodplain of Minnehaha Creek. is defined as, that area lying below -the 100 - year -flood -
elevations as shown in the Federal'Emergency Management. Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Study for Hennepin County, Minnesota All Jurisdictions, September 2004.,
2. The floodplain requirements of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District are applicable.
3.6 Recreation and Habitat
The City's goals are to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and recreation; opportunities. To
accomplish this objective, the City adopts the following policies:
1. Cooperate with other units of government to complete habitat and recreation corridor
connections. (trails and greenways).
2. Maintain, enhance, or provide new habitat as part of wetland modification, stormwater
facility construction, or other appropriate projects.
3. Encourage alternative landscape designs that a) increase beneficial habitat, wildlife and
recreational uses; promote infiltration and vegetative water use; and that b) decrease
detrimental wildlife uses (such as beaver dams, goose overabundance), that damage water
control facilities; shoreline vegetation, water quality or recreational facilities.
3.7 Groundwater
The City's goal is to protect the quality and quantity of groundwater resources. The City adopts the
following groundwater policies:
1. The City will encourage groundwater recharge and protect recharge areas from, potential
sources of contamination. The City will provide increased greenspace, native vegetation, and .
pond "dead" storage wherever possible and appropriate to allow for the infiltration of
stormwater runoff and promote groundwater recharge.
Barr Engineering Company 3 -9
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFMdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
2. The City will encourage use of grassed waterways to maximize infiltration where not
detrimental to groundwater supplies.
3. The City will promote awareness of groundwater resource issues through public education
and information programs.
3.8 Education Program
The City of Edina believes public education is an important and effective method to control non -
point source pollution since it emanates from broad reaches of the landscape. A public education
program raises citizen awareness regarding pollutant sources in everyday life from all types of
property. The City will educate its residents, businesses, industries and staff concerning pollutant
reduction, best management practices, the link between daily housekeeping activities and the
condition of the City of Edina's water resources, and awareness of natural resources in general. The
City will also seek to inform its residents, businesses, industries and staff of initiatives, projects, etc.
completed by the community that address the City's education goals.
Education and housekeeping practices are especially important in urban settings since there is limited
land available to provide water quality treatment facilities. The City of Edina will develop and
distribute educational materials to the general public and targeted groups regarding:
• Natural resources within and adjacent to the city
• Importance of pollutant reduction in stormwater runoff
• City ordinances, policies and programs pertaining to water resources
• Reducing fertilizer /herbicide use
• Lawn care practices that prevent organic debris from reaching storm sewer systems
• Household and automobile hazardous waste disposal
• Problems with pet waste and proper disposal
• Litter control
• Recycling and trash disposal
• Composting, leaf collection, and grass clippings
• Residential stormwater drainage
• Native vegetation
• Public area maintenance
• Alternative landscaping methods
• Plantings in buffer zones along wetlands, lakes, and streams
• Car washing
Barr Engineering Company 3 -10
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Information will be distributed via the City's newsletter, the City Extra email notification service,
local newspapers, cable television and any other appropriate media.
3.9 NPDES Considerations
Under the federal 1987 Clean Water Act revision, discharges of pollutants into waters of the United
States are prohibited without a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Traditionally, this program concentrated on discharges from industries and
publicly owned treatment plants. In 1990, the EPA promulgated rules establishing Phase I of the
NPDES Stormwater Program in an effort to reduce the water quality impact of stormwater drainage
systems on receiving water bodies. Phase I of the program regulates stormwater runoff from
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) generally serving populations of 100,000 or greater,
construction activities disturbing five acres of land or greater, and various industrial activities. In
1999, the Phase Il Rule of the NPDES Stormwater Program extended the coverage of the NPDES
program to operation of "small" MS4s in urbanized areas and operation of small construction sites.
Through the use of NPDES permits, these operations are required to implement programs and
practices to control polluted stormwater runoff.
Because the City of Edina is located in an "urbanized area ", as defined by the Bureau of the Census,
it is covered under the Phase II NPDES Stormwater Program. Operators of Phase II small MS4s in
Minnesota were required to apply for coverage under the Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4s) General Permit by March 10, 2003. Under this permit, MS4s are required to
develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program ( SWPPP), which must contain
the following six control measures, at a minimum:
1. Public education and outreach on stormwater impacts.
2. Public involvement and public participation.
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination.
4. Construction site stormwater runoff control.
5. Post - construction stormwater runoff control in new development and redevelopment.
6. Pollution prevention and good housekeeping for municipal operations.
The SWPPP must include Best Management Practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for each of the
six control measures. An annual report detailing the implementation of the control measures for the
previous calendar year must be submitted to the MPCA by June 30 of each year. Additional
information on the City's NPDES Phase II MS4 General Permit and SWPPP is provided in
Section 15.1.
Barr Engineering Company 3 -11
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Methodology for Modeling -9
- 4.0 Methodology for Modeling
4.1 Methodology for Hydrologic /.Hydraulic Modeling
The U.S. EPA's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), with a computerized graphical interface
provided by XP Software (XP- SWMM), was chosen as the °computer modeling package for this
study. XP -SWMM uses rainfall and 'watershed characteristics to generate local runoff, which is
routed simultaneously through complicated pipe and overland flow networks. The model can
account for detention in ponding areas, backflow in pipes, surcharging of manholes; as well as
tailwater conditions that may exist and affect upstream storage or pipe flows. The 1000 node version
of XP- SWMM2000, Version 8.5,1, was:used to model the storm sewer, ponding'and'overland flow
systems within the City of Edina.
4.1'.1 Hydrologic Modeling
Three major types of information are required. by XP -SWMM for hydrologic modeling: (1) watershed
data, (2) rainfall data, and (3) infiltration data. This data is used by XP- SWMM to generate inflow
hydrographs at various points into the storm sewer, ponding, and overland flow networks. The
following sections describe each of these.data.
4.1.1.1. Watershed Data
The amount of runoff from a watershed depends on numerous factors,. including the total watershed
area, the soil types within the watershed, the percent of impervious area, the runoff path through the_
watershed, and the slope of the land within the watershed. ArcView geographic information systems
(GIS) software was used extensively in assessing the above mentioned characteristics of each
watershed within the city. The software also allowed mapping of the drainage network for the area.
4.1.1.1.1 Watershed Area
The watershed delineation was performed using 2 -foot contour - interval topography, which was
obtained from the City of Edina. An electronic coverage of the 2 -foot topography was used in
,
ArcView,. along with the City storm sewer layout and aerial imagery, to delineated and digitize the
watersheds. 'In certain cases, the watershed divides were field verified. A total of 1386 separate
watersheds were delineated for this plan., 4
4.1.1.1.2 Land Use Data
The percent of impervious area within each watershed was estimated using land use data provided by
the City of Edina. An electronic land use coverage was obtained from the City and used in ArcView.
For areas outside of the Edina city limits that were included in the model, such as small portions of
Eden Prairie, Bloomington, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, and Richfield, land use data based
on the 1997 Metropolitan Council aerial photographs was used. Land use within the study area was
divided into the following categories: commercial, natural /open/park, golf course, highway,
Barr Engineering Company 4 -1
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
industrial /office, institutional, residential, wetlands, and open water. The land use information
provided by the City categorized residential land use as single - family residential or multiple - family
residential. For modeling purposes, these residential categories were further broken down based on
the density of housing units within the area. The City's electronic land use coverage and aerial
imagery was used in ArcView to determine the density of the residential areas. The single - family
residential areas were further categorized as very low density residential ( <1 unit/acre) or low density
residential (1 -4 units /acre). The areas categorized as multiple - family residential by the City were
broken down into the following categories: low density residential (1 -4 units /acre), medium density
residential (4 -8 units /acre), and high density residential ( >8 units /acre).
The land use categories were used to estimate the total and "directly- connected" impervious fractions
for each subwatershed within the study area. The total impervious fraction of a watershed represents
the portion of the watershed that is covered by an impervious surface. The "directly- connected"
impervious fraction represents the impervious surfaces that are hydraulically connected to a
stormwater conveyance system. For example, if a rooftop drains onto an adjacent pervious area such
as a yard, it is not a "directly- connected" impervious area. However, if a rooftop drains onto a
driveway, which drains to the street and thence to a stormwater catchbasin, the rooftop would be a
"directly- connected" impervious area.
To determine the impervious fractions within each watershed, assumptions for the total impervious
fraction and "directly- connected" impervious fraction were made for each land use. The land use
categories and the impervious fraction assumptions used in the analysis are listed in Table 4.1. The
imperviousness assumptions used for the City of Edina are based on a calibrated XP -SWMM model
for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Bloomington Use Attainability Analysis, Barr
Engineering, 2001.
Barr Engineering Company 4 -2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Table 4.1 Land Use Impervious Fraction Assumptions for Hydrologic Modeling
Land Use Designation
Total
Impervious %
Directly- Connected
Impervious %
Commercial
90%
80%
Golf Course
5%
2%
Highway
50%
50%
Industrial /Office
90%
80%
Institutional
40%
20%
Institutional- High Imperviousness
70%
50%
Natural /Park/Open
2%
0%
Open Water
100%
100%
Residential- Very Low Density
12%
8%
Residential- Low Density
40%
20%
Residential- Medium Density
55%
30%
Residential- High Density
70%
40%
Wetlands
100%
100%
4.1.1.1.3 Watershed Width and Slope
The SWMM Runoff Non - linear Reservoir Method was used as the hydrograph generation technique
for this project. This method computes outflow as the product of velocity, depth and a watershed
width factor. The watershed "width" in XP -SWMM is defined as twice the length of the main
drainage channel, with adjustments made for watersheds that are skewed (i.e., the areas on both sides
of the main drainage channel are not equal). This factor is a key parameter in determining the shape
of the hydrograph for each watershed and is often used as a calibration parameter. To determine the
width parameter, the main drainage channel for each watershed was digitized in ArcView and a
customized ArcView script was used to calculate the width based on the skew of the drainage path
within the subwatershed.
The average slope (ft/ft) for each watershed was calculated in ArcView using the electronic
topographic data provided by the City of Edina. The topographic data was converted into a grid
format in ArcView. The slope was then calculated by measuring the differences in elevation between
each grid cell within each individual watershed.
4.1.1.2 Rainfall Data
Storm events for several return periods were analyzed in this study. Typically, the 100 -year and
10 -year storm events were modeled. However, for the Morningside watershed in northeast Edina, the
100 -year and 5 -year storm events were modeled. For the 100 -year return period, the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) Type II rainfall distribution was applied to a total rainfall of 6 inches
over a 24 -hour duration. The SCS distribution, developed from the Weather Bureau's Rainfall
Barr Engineering Company 4 -3
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Frequency Atlases, represents a continuous "stacked" event, including the runoff peaks from a
variety of different storm durations. For the 5 -year and 10 -year return period, a 30 minute duration
storm event was used. The 30 minute duration storm event has been used historically for design of
the storm sewer system in the City of Edina, as the shorter duration more appropriately reflects the
relatively short times of concentration for small -scale subwatersheds. The Huff Second Quartile
rainfall distribution was used for the 5 -year and 10 -year 30- minute events. The 5 -year analysis was
based on 1.5 inches of rainfall over 30 minutes and the 10 -year analysis was based on 1.65 inches of
rain throughout a 30- minute storm. The precipitation totals for the design storms were taken from
NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS HYDRO for storms with durations of 1 hour or less or
Technical Paper 40 published by the U.S. Weather Bureau for the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
4.1.1.3 Infiltration Data
4.1.1.3.1 Soils
Soils data for the City of Edina was obtained through the Hennepin County Soils GIS database,
which was imported into ArcView. The database included the soil names and the hydrologic soil
group (HSG) designation for most of the soil types. The hydrologic soil group designation classifies
soils into groups (A, B, C, and D) based on the infiltration capacity of the soil (well drained, sandy
soils are classified as "A" soils; poorly drained, clayey soils are classified as "D" soils). When a
hydrologic soil group designation was not included in the soils database, the soil description was
used to estimate the HSG. If a soil description was unavailable, the most dominant soil group in the
vicinity was assumed. Although all soil types are represented in the city, the predominant soil type
in the city is Type B (sandy loam).
4.1.1.3.2 Horton Infiltration
Infiltration was simulated in the XP -SWMM models using the Horton Infiltration equation. This
equation is used to represent the exponential decay of infiltration capacity of the soil that occurs
during heavy storm events. The soil infiltration capacity is a function of the following variables:
Fe (minimum or ultimate value of infiltration capacity), F. (maximum or initial value of infiltration
capacity), k (decay coefficient), and time.
The actual values of F,, F,,, and k are dependent upon soil, vegetation, and initial moisture conditions
prior to a rainfall event. Because it was not feasible to obtain this detailed information for each
subwatershed through field samples, it was necessary to make assumptions based on the various soil
types throughout the city. Table 4.2 summarizes the Horton infiltration values used for each
Hydrologic Soil Group to calculate composite infiltration parameters for each subwatershed. The
values shown in the table are based on suggested values in the Storm Water Management Model,
Version 4: User's Manual, U.S. EPA, 1988. Composite F, and F. values were calculated for each
subwatershed based on the fraction of each soil type within the subwatershed. Global databases
containing the infiltration parameters for each subwatershed were developed and imported into the
XP -SWMM models.
Barr Engineering Company 4 -4
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina_S WMP_FINAL_DRAFf_121511 REV_2.docx
Table 4.2 Horton Infiltration Parameters
Hydrologic Soil
Group
F. in /hr
Fc in /hr
k 1 /sec
A
5
0.38
0.00115
B
3
0.23
0.00115
C
2
0.1
0.00115
D
1
0.03
0.00115
4.1.1.4 Depression Storage Data
Depression storage represents the volume (in inches) that must be filled with rainfall prior to the
occurrence of runoff in XP -SWMM. It characterizes the loss or "initial abstraction" caused by such
phenomena as surface ponding, surface wetting, interception and evaporation. Separate depression
storage input values are required in XP -SWMM for pervious and impervious areas..
The depression storage assumptions used for the models were based on the values used in the XP-
SWMM model developed for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Bloomington Use Attainability
Analysis, Barr Engineering, 2001. For this model, the depression storage was estimated by plotting
total precipitation for several measured rainfall events at a Bloomington continuous recording
precipitation gage versus runoff from several Bloomington monitoring sites. A regression of the data
yielded a y- intercept that was assumed to be the depression storage (in inches). Based on this
analysis, the assumed impervious depression storage was 0.06 inches and the pervious depression
storage was 0.17 inches. XP -SWMM also uses a "Zero Detention Storage" parameter to account for
areas that generate immediate runoff (i.e., water surface areas). This parameter was -estimated 'for
each subwatershed by dividing the water surface area by the directly connected impervious surface
area.
4.1.2 Hydraulic Modeling
4:1.2.1 Storm Sewer Network .
Data detailing the storm sewer network within the City of Edina was provided by the City. An
electronic AutoCAD11le provided detailed information on the storm sewer system, including,the type
of pipe (material of construction), invert elevations, pipe sizes, pipe lengths, and manhole rim
elevations. All elevations entered into the model are in Mean Sea Level (MSL). Where this data was
incomplete, additional information was obtained from other sources such as. construction plans or
field surveys.
4.1.2.1.1 Assumptions
A variety of pipe types are used throughout the City. The assumptions used for the roughness
coefficient (Manning's "n ") for each pipe type are listed in Table 4.3.
Barr Engineering Company 4 -5
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Table 4.3 Roughness Coefficient Assumptions
Pipe Type
Abbreviation
Assumed Roughness Coefficient
Corrugated Metal Pipe
CMP
0.024
Clay
-
0.015
Steel
-
0.015
Ductile Iron Pipe
DIP
0.014
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RCP
0.013
Poly Vinyl Chloride
PVC
0.01
High Density Polyethylene
HDPE
0.008
Outlets from ponding areas that may be inlet controlled were modeled in XP -SWMM assuming a
groove end projecting concrete pipe inlet condition. This allowed XP -SWMM to determine the
controlling flow condition in the outlet pipe (i.e., is the flow in the pipe controlled by the inlet size,
barrel capacity, or tailwater conditions) and accurately estimate the pond's water surface elevation.
4.1.2.1.2 Tailwater Effects
For the portion of the city that drains to Nine Mile Creek, the XP -SWMM model incorporated the
creek system. Therefore, the reported modeling results take into account tailwater impacts from the
creek.
For the portion of the city that drains to Minnehaha Creek, the XP -SWMM model does not
incorporate the creek system. For these major drainage areas, the 10 -year and 100 -year creek flood
elevations from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance
Administration Flood Insurance Study for the City of Edina (FEMA, 1979) were evaluated in
comparison with model results to determine if tailwater conditions would affect the storm sewer
systems discharging to the creek. Where the predicted creek flood elevation was higher than the
results from XP -SWMM, the creek flood elevation was reported in the results table(s).
4.1.2.2 Overland Flow Network
Overland flow networks were entered into the XP -SWMM models because preliminary modeling
results indicated that water was being routed out of the systems and lost (i.e., manholes and ponding
areas would surcharge and the model assumed the water disappeared once it exceeded the respective
spill crest elevation). An iterative process was used by adding storage and overland flow network
data until all of the stormwater had been accounted for by XP -SWMM. Data for the overland flow
network were taken from storm sewer information from the City, electronic 2 -foot topographic data,
and site visits. The following additions were made to the models to account for existing storage and
develop the overland flow networks. The storage and overland flow paths were added to the models
at various locations in a stepwise manner until the water that was otherwise lost from the system was
"captured ". Therefore, varying levels of the following steps were iteratively implemented to
"capture" the water at any one given location.
Barr Engineering Company 4 -6
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
Storage. was added to XP -SWMM nodes based.on the 2 -foot topographic information. Initially,
storage was added only to the XP -SWMM nodes representing ponds or backyard depression areas.
.The storage added to the model to "capture" the stormwater typically represents low areas in the
streets or other depression. areas.
Overland flow.paths were added with the following characteristics:
• Overland flow along streets
• Trapezoidal channels with
• . Bottom width =16 feet (approx..1 /z ,'street width)
Side 'slopes ='1H 1V
• Manning's "n" for the surface flow channels was set equal to 0.014 for flow down paved
streets
• Channel depth = 1 foot
• Natural' overland flow paths
• : Trapezoidal channels with
• Bottom width = variable based on topographic information. Typically and estimate of 10 feet
was used.'
• Side slopes variable based on topographic information. Typically 5H:1 V was used.
• Manning's "n" = 0.03 where overland flow was clearly over vegetated areas or onto
boulevards.
• Channel depth = 1 foot.
• Street overland flow channel width increased to 32 feet.
• Overland flow depth increased to 2 feet, if consistent with the topographic information.
•
Raise the spill.,crest elevation if a nearby pond's water surface exceeds the node spill crest
elevation and the storage was accounted for at the storage node (pond).
• Route the water out of the system if so indicated on the 2 -foot topographic information (i.e., a
possible out of district overflow location).
.4.2 Methodology for Water Quality Modeling
P8 (Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage through Pits, Puddles and Ponds, IEP, Inc.,
1990) is a computer model used for predicting the generation and transport of stormwater runoff
pollutants in urban watersheds. The P8 model was used in this study to simulate the hydrology and
phosphorus loads introduced from the watershed of each pond and the transport of phosphorus
throughout the stormwater system. P8 is a useful diagnostic tool for evaluating and designing
watershed improvements and best management practices (BMPs). The model requires user input on
Barr Engineering Company 4 -7
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF'INEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
watershed characteristics, pond attributes, local precipitation and temperature, and other parameters
relating to water quality and pond removal performances.
4.2.1 Watershed Characteristics
Examination of the watershed characteristics for each pond being modeled involved assessment of
soil type, land use and residential density, and the impervious fraction of the land in the watershed.
Arcview GIS software was used extensively in assessing the watershed characteristics. The software
also allowed mapping of the drainage network for the area.
In P8, pervious and impervious areas are modeled separately. Runoff volumes from pervious areas
are computed using the SCS Curve Number method. Runoff from impervious areas begins once the
cumulative storm rainfall exceeds the specified depression storage, with the runoff rate equal to the
rainfall intensity.
4.2.1.1 Impervious Fraction
Because P8 calculates runoff separately from pervious and impervious areas, it was necessary to
determine the impervious fraction of each watershed. For the P8 model, the impervious fraction
included only the directly- connected impervious area, the impervious surfaces that are "connected"
directly to a stormwater conveyance system, where stormwater does not cross over pervious areas.
The directly- connected impervious fraction was calculated for each watershed based on the land
use(s) within the watershed and impervious fraction assumptions for each land use. The assumptions
made for the total impervious fraction and directly- connected impervious fraction for each land use
for the water quality modeling are listed in Table 4.4.
Barr Engineering Company 4 -8
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
Table 4.4 Land Use Impervious Fraction Assumptions for Water Quality Modeling
Land Use Designation
Total Impervious %
Directly- Connected
Impervious %
Commercial
90%
80%
Golf Course
5%
2%
Highway
50%
50%
Industrial /Office
90%
80%
Institutional
40%
20%
Institutional- High Imperviousness
70%
50%
Natural /Park /Open
2%
0%
Open Water
100%
0%
Residential- Very Low Density
12%
8%
Residential- Low Density
40%
20%
Residential- Medium Density
55%
30%
Residential- High Density
70%
40%
Wetlands
0%
0%
4.2.1.2 Pervious Curve Number
Watershed runoff volumes from pervious areas are computed in P8 using the SCS Curve Number
method. Thus, it was necessary to determine a pervious curve number for each watershed. The soil
type(s) within each watershed were determined and a pervious curve number was selected for the
watershed based on the soil type, land use, and hydrologic conditions (e.g., if watershed soils are
Type B and pervious areas are comprised of grassed areas with >75 percent cover, then a curve
number of 61 would be selected). The pervious curve number was then weighted with the indirect
(i.e., unconnected) impervious area in each subwatershed as follows:
I
CN„,l _ —
Impervious Area) * (98)J + [(Pervious Area) * (Pervious Curve Number
Impervious Area)+ (Pervious Area)
4.2.1.3 Other P8 Watershed Input Parameters
Outflow Device Number: The Device Number of the device receiving runoff from the watersheds
was selected to match the pond or manhole node ID used for the hydrologic /hydraulic modeling.
Swept/Not Swept: An "Unswept" assumption was made for the entire impervious watershed area. A
Sweeping Frequency of 0 was selected. Selected parameters were placed in the "Unswept' column
since a sweeping frequency of 0 was selected.
Depression Storage = 0.03 (P8 default value)
Impervious Runoff Coefficient = 0.94 (P8 default value)
Barr Engineering Company 4 -9
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFMdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
4.2.2 Treatment Device Characteristics
The treatment devices in P8 provide collection, storage, and /or treatment of watershed discharges. A
variety of treatment devices can be modeled in P8, including detention ponds (wet or dry),
infiltration basins, swales and buffers, aquifers, and pipe /manholes. For this study, nearly all ponds
were modeled as detention basins. The user - defined characteristics of these ponds are described in
the following sections.
4.2.2.1 Dead Storage
Detailed information pertaining to the permanent pool storage volume (dead storage) was only
available for a small number of the ponds that were modeled. Pond depth data for the ponds in the
Mirror Lake watershed was available as a result of pond surveys being performed for the Mirror Lake
Use Attainability Analysis. Pond depth information for Indianhead Lake was available from the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Where detailed information on pond depths
was not available, it was necessary to make assumptions. The surface area of each pond was
determined from the 2 -foot topographic information provided by the City. Where detailed
information was not available, pond depths were estimated based on the type of wetland, which was
determined in the wetland inventory process. An average depth of 4 feet was typically assumed for
Type 5 wetlands; 2 feet for Type 3 and Type 4 wetlands; 0.5 feet for Type 1, 2, 6, and 7 wetlands.
4.2.2.2 Live Storage
The flood pool storage volume (live storage) for each pond was calculated in ArcView using the
electronic topographic data provided by the City. The live storage represents the storage volume
between the normal water elevation and the flood elevation. The overflow elevation from each pond
was determined from the 2 -foot topographic data. The live storage volume was then calculated in
ArcView based on the slope of the flood pool.
4.2.2.3 Other P8 Treatment Device Input Characteristics
Infiltration Rate (in/hr): An infiltration rate was entered only for land - locked detention ponds. The
rates applied were dependent upon the type of soil surrounding each pond. The infiltration rates used
for each soil type are listed in Table 4.5.
Barr Engineering Company 4 -10
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFTNEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Table 4.5 Infiltration Assumptions for Water Quality Modeling
Hydrologic Soil Group
Infiltration Rate
Assumption for Dead
Storage Areas
[in /hr]
Infiltration Rate
Assumption for Live
Storage Areas
[in /hr]
A
0.02
0.06
B
0.015
0.05
C
0.015
0.02
D
0.005
0.01
• Orifice Diameter and Weir Length: The orifice diameter or weir length of the pond outlet
was determined from storm sewer system data provided by the City of Edina. For landlocked
basins, the overflow was represented as a weir, with the weir length estimated using ArcView
and available topographic information.
• Particle Removal Scale Factor: 0.3 for ponds less than 2 feet deep and 1.0 for all ponds
3 feet deep or greater. For ponds with normal water depths between two and 3 feet, a particle
removal factor of 0.6 was selected. These factors were selected based on development of a
similar P8 model for the Round Lake Use Attainability Analysis, Barr Engineering, March
1999.
Pipe /Manhole— Time of Concentration: The time of concentration for each pipe /manhole
device was determined and entered here. Time of concentration was determined in
accordance with Kirpich's method (Schwab et al., 1993).
4.2.3 Precipitation and Temperature Data
The P8 model requires hourly precipitation and daily temperature data; long -term data can be used so
that watersheds and BMPs can be evaluated for varying hydrologic conditions. Hourly precipitation
data was obtained from the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport for October 1994 through
September 1995 (1995 water year, which represents average yearly precipitation). Average daily
temperature data was obtained from the NWS site at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport.
4.2.4 Selection of Other P8 Model Parameters
4.2.4.1 Time Step, Snowmelt, and Runoff Parameters
Time Steps Per Hour (Integer) = varied. This parameter varied between each P8 model.
Selection was based upon the number of time steps required to eliminate continuity errors
greater than two percent.
Minimum Inter -Event Time (Hours) = 10. The selection of this parameter was based upon
an evaluation of storm hydrographs from the summer of 1999 to determine which storms
should be combined and which storms should be separated to accurately depict runoff from
the lake's watershed. Precipitation data from 1999 was used for the analysis due to the high
frequency of storms during the summer, particularly during July.
Barr Engineering Company 4 -11
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Snowmelt Factors —Melt Coef (Inches /Day- Deg -F) = 0.03. The P8 model predicts
snowmelt runoff beginning and ending earlier than observed snowmelt. The lowest
coefficient of the recommended range was selected to minimize the disparity between
observed and predicted snowmelt (i.e., the coefficient minimizes the number of inches of
snow melted per day and maximizes the number of snowmelt runoff days).
• Snowmelt Factors— Scale Factor For Max Abstraction = 1. This factor controls the
quantity of Snowmelt runoff (i.e., controls losses due to infiltration). Selection of this factor
was based upon other calibrated P8 models developed for lakes within the metropolitan area
(Reference Glen Lake, Smetana Lake).
Growing Season AMC -II =.06 and AMC -III = 100. Selection of this factor was based upon
calibration efforts for the P8 model developed for the Glen Lake Use Attainability Analysis,
Barr Engineering Company, 1999. In development of this calibrated model, it was observed
that the model accurately predicted runoff water volumes from monitored watersheds when
the Antecedent Moisture Condition II was selected (i.e., curve numbers selected by the model
are based upon antecedent moisture conditions). Modeled water volumes were less than
observed volumes when Antecedent Moisture Condition I was selected, and modeled water
volumes exceeded observed volumes when Antecedent Moisture Condition III was selected.
The selected parameters direct the model to only use Antecedent Moisture Condition I when
less than 0.05 inches of rainfall occur during the five days prior to a rainfall event and to only
use Antecedent Moisture Condition III if more than 100 inches of rainfall occur within five
days prior to a rainfall event, thus causing the model to simulate Antecedent Moisture
Condition II throughout the majority of the simulation period.
4.2.4.2 Particle File Selection
The NURP50.PAR file was selected for the P8 models. The NURP 50 particle file represents typical
concentrations and the distribution of particle settling velocities for a number of stormwater
pollutants. The component concentrations in the NURP 50 file were calibrated to the 50`h percentile
(median) values compiled in the EPA's Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP).
4.2.4.3 Passes through the Storm File
The number of passes through the storm file was determined after the model had been set up and a
preliminary run completed. The selection of the number of passes through the storm file was based
upon the number required to achieve model stability. Multiple passes through the storm file were
required because the model assumes that dead storage waters contain no pollutants. Consequently,
the first pass through the storm file results in lower pollutant loading than occurs with subsequent
passes. Stability occurs when subsequent passes do not result in a change in pollutant concentration
in the pond waters. To determine the number of passes to select, the model was run with five passes
and ten passes. A comparison of pollutant predictions for all devices was evaluated to determine
whether changes occurred between the two scenarios. If there is no difference between five and ten
passes, five passes is sufficient to achieve model stability. This parameter was determined for all of
the P8 model areas and no differences were noted between five and ten passes. Therefore, it was
determined that five (5) passes through the storm file resulted in model stability for these models.
Barr Engineering Company 4 -12
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
Nine Mile Creek - North
5.0 Nine Mile Creek- North
5.1 General Description of Drainage Area
Figure 5.1 depicts the Nine Mile Creek- North drainage basin. The Nine Mile Creek- North drainage
area is located in the northwest portion of Edina. The drainage basin encompasses approximately
2,053 acres that ultimately drain to the stretch of Nine Mile Creek between the intersection of the
North Fork of the Creek with T.H. 169 and the intersection of the North Fork of the Creek with
T.H. 62.
5.1.1 Drainage Patterns
The stormwater system within this drainage area is comprised of storm sewers, ponding basins,
wetlands, drainage ditches, and overland flow paths. The Nine Mile Creek- North drainage basin has
been divided into several major watersheds based on the drainage patterns. These major watersheds
are depicted in Figure 5.2. Each major watershed has been further delineated into numerous
subwatersheds. The naming convention for each subwatershed is based on the major watershed it is
located within. Table 5.1 lists each major watershed and the associated subwatershed naming
convention.
Table 5.1 Major Watersheds within the Nine Mile Creek —North Drainage Basin
Major Watershed
Subwatershed Naming
Convention
# of
Subwatersheds
Drainage
Area (acres)
Mirror Lake
ML ##
38
287
Highlands Lake
HI ##
22
273
Hawkes Lake
HL ##
48
339
Mud Lake
MD ##
50
431
Nine Mile North
NMN ##
84
723
5.1.1.1 Mirror Lake
The Mirror Lake watershed is located in the northwest portion of Edina. The 287 -acre watershed
contains six ponding basins of varying sizes that drain to Mirror Lake via storm sewer. There are
also three landlocked ponds within the watershed. The Mirror Lake watershed is almost entirely
residential area, with exception to a few subwatersheds that drain the Interlachen Country Club golf
course. Mirror Lake spans approximately 26.5 acres. The normal water level of the lake is
controlled at an elevation of approximately 904 MSL by a pumped outlet (4 cfs) on the southwest
side of the lake. The pumped outlet flows in a southwest direction and eventually connects to the
storm sewer system along Blake Road.
Barr Engineering Company 5 -1
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF71Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.doex
5.1.1.2 Highlands Lake
The Highlands Lake watershed is located east of Mirror Lake and north of Vernon Avenue. This
273 -acre watershed is bordered on the north by Interlachen Boulevard and portions of the Interlachen
Country Club golf course. The Highlands Lake watershed has been delineated into
22 subwatersheds, with land use characterized by residential areas, part of the Interlachen golf
course, several ponding basins that ultimately drain to Highlands Lake, a wetland area directly east
of Lake, Highlands Park directly south of the Lake and a portion of the drainage from Highlands
Elementary School. Highlands Lake spans approximately 10.6 acres. The normal water level of
Highlands Lake is controlled at elevation 888.5 MSL by a pumped outlet (approximately 1 cfs). The
lift station was installed in 1994 and is located in the southwest corner of Highlands Park, near the
intersection of Ayrshire Boulevard and Glengarry Parkway. Water from the pumped outlet flows
south, connecting with the storm sewer system along Vernon Avenue, which discharges into Hawkes
Lake.
5.1.1.3 Hawkes Lake
The Hawkes Lake watershed is located south of the Highlands Lake watershed. The 339 -acre
watershed is comprised of 48 subwatersheds. Land use within the watershed includes residential
(low and high density), institutional, open space /parks, and a small commercial area. Portions of
Highland Elementary and Countryside Elementary drain to Hawkes Lake. Garden Park is also
located within this watershed. There are several ponding basins within the watershed that drain to
Hawkes Lake via drainage ditches and storm sewer systems. Hawkes Lake spans approximately
8.7 acres. A pumped outlet at elevation 888 MSL prevents flooding conditions in Hawkes Lake.
However, the average water level for this lake between the period of 1963 to 2001 is 885.5 MSL
(DNR Lake Finder webpage http: / /www.dnr. state .mn.us /lakefind/index.htmi). The pumped outlet,
located on the western side of the lake near the intersection of Wycliffe Road and Merold Drive,
discharges southwest into the Mud Lake watershed.
5.1.1.4 Mud Lake (Bredesen Park)
The Mud Lake watershed spans an area of approximately 43 acres and is comprised of
50 subwatersheds. The land use within the Mud Lake watershed is predominantly residential
(ranging from very low density to medium density). The watershed has a complex drainage system
characterized by numerous ponding basins connected by storm sewer and a unique diversion
structure that routes stormwater from the northwest portion of the watershed to the North Fork of
Nine Mile Creek or Mud Lake, depending upon the amount of precipitation and the water level of the
pond near the structure. The diversion structure is located within a manhole on Blake Road, between
Saxony Road and Jeffrey Lane. The diversion structure receives water from the upstream Blake
Road storm sewer system and Mirror Lake outlet. The structure controls the amount of incoming
water that flows southward toward Mud Lake or into the pond directly west of Blake Road and
encircled by Knoll Drive (Knoll Pond). A small orifice in the structure directs flows from small
precipitation events southward to Mud Lake. A weir structure within the manhole directs larger
stormwater flows into the adjacent Knoll Pond. During large rain events, stormwater will continue to
Barr Engineering Company 5 -2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
flow into the Knoll Pond.until the water level within the pond has equalized with the weir elevation,
in which case the remainder of the water will drain south towards Mud Lake. In the.event that inflow
to Knoll Pond from upstream watersheds surpasses the capacity of the normal outlet to the North
Fork of Nine Mile Creek, the diversion structure will act as a second overflow from they -pond;
directing water to Mud Lake.
Mud Lake is a meandered lake located just east of the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek, between
T.H. 62 and Vernon Avenue. The lake and surrounding .wetlands serve as a recreational area for the
City,of Edina, Bredesen Park. The park spans an area of approximately 126 acres and is a mix of
open water, wet marsh, and floating bog. Mud Lake outlets to the North'Fork of Nine Mile Creek
just north of T.H. 62 through,a culvert at elevation 849 MSL.
5.1.1.5 Nine Mile North
The Nine Mile North watershed encompasses the area in northwest Edina that drains directly to the
floodplain of the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek. The floodplain within this area is relatively flat
and is characterized by wetland conditions. The Nine Mile North watershed is bounded by T.H. 169
on the west and Schaeffer Road on the east, extending north to Malibu Drive and south to, T.H. 62.
The.723 -acre watershed consists of 84 subwatersheds that drain to the Creek through a series of
storm sewer systems and stormwater detention ponds. A wide range of land uses exist within the
watershed, including residential (very low density, low density, and medium density), industrial,
commercial, highway, wetlands, and natural /park area.
5.2 Stormwater System Analysis and Results.
5.2.1 Hydrologic /Hydraulic Modeling Results
The 10 -year and 100 -year frequency flood analyses were performed for the Nine Mile Creek- North
drainage basin. The 10 -year analysis was based on a '/� -hour storm of 1.65 inches of rain. The
100 -year. analysis was based on a 24 -hour storm event of 6 inches of rain. Table 5.2 presents the
watershed information,and the results for the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency hydrologic analyses for
the Nine Mile Creek- North basin.
The results of the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency hydraulic analysis for the Nine Mile Creek - North
drainage basin are summarized in Table 5.3 and Table 5.4. The column headings in Table 5.3 are
defined as follows:
Node /Subwatershed ID— XP -SWMM node identification label —Each XP -SWMM node
represents a manhole, catch basin, pond, or other junction within the stormwater system.
Downstream Conduit— References the pipe downstream of the node in the storm sewer system.
Flood Elevation —The maximum water elevation reached in the given pond/manhole for each
referenced storm event (mean sea level). In some cases, an additional flood elevation has been
Barr Engineering Company 5 -3
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF'nEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
given in parenthesis. This flood elevation reflects the 100 -year flood elevation of Nine Mile
Creek, per the Nine Mile Creek Watershed Management Plan, May 1996.
Peak Outflow Rate —The peak discharge rate (cfs) from a given ponding basin for each
referenced storm event. The peak outflow rates reflect the combined discharge from the pond
through the outlet structure and any overflow.
NWL —The normal water level in the ponding basin (mean sea level). The normal water levels
for the ponding basins were assumed to be at the outlet pipe invert or at the downstream control
elevation.
Flood Bounce —The fluctuation of the water level within a given pond for each referenced storm
event.
Volume Stored —The maximum volume (acre -ft) of water that was stored in the ponding basin
during the storm event. The volume represents the live storage volume only.
Table 5.4 summarizes the conveyance system data used in the model and the model results for the
storm sewer system within the Nine Mile Creek- North drainage basin. The peak flow through each
conveyance system for the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency storm event is listed in the table. The
values presented represent the peak flow rate through each pipe system only and does not reflect the
combined total flow from an upstream node to the downstream node when overflow from a
manhole /pond occurs.
Figure 5.3 graphically represents the results of the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency hydraulic
analyses. The figure depicts the Nine Mile Creek- North drainage basin boundary, subwatershed
boundaries, the modeled storm sewer network, surcharge conditions for the XP -SWMM nodes
(typically manholes), and the flood prone areas identified in the modeling analyses.
One of the objectives of the hydraulic analyses was to evaluate the level of service provided by the
current storm sewer system. The level of service of the system was examined by determining the
surcharge conditions of the manholes and catch basins within the storm sewer system during the
10 -year and 100 -year frequency storm events. An XP -SWMM node was considered surcharged if the
hydraulic grade line at that node breached the ground surface (rim elevation). Surcharging is
typically the result of limited downstream capacity and tailwater impacts. The XP -SWMM nodes
depicted on Figure 5.3 were color coded based on the resulting surcharge conditions. The green
nodes signify no surcharging occurred during the 100 -year or 10 -year frequency storm event, the
yellow nodes indicate surcharging during the 100 -year frequency event, and the red nodes identify
that surcharging is likely to occur during both a 100 -year and 10 -year frequency storm event.
Figure 5.3 illustrates that several XP -SWMM nodes within the Nine Mile Creek- North drainage
basin are predicted to experience surcharged conditions during both the 10 -year and 100 -year
frequency storm events. This indicates a probability greater than 10 percent in any year that the
system will be overburdened and unable to meet the desired level of service at these locations. These
Barr Engineering Company 5 -4
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF'nEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
manholes and catch basins are more likely to experience inundation during the smaller, more
frequent storm events of various durations.
Another objective of the hydraulic analysis was to evaluate the level of protection offered by the
current stormwater system. Level of protection is defined as the capacity provided by a municipal
drainage system (in terms of pipe capacity and overland overflow capacity) to prevent property
damage and assure a reasonable degree of public safety following a rainstorm. A 100 -year frequency
event is recommended as a standard for design of stormwater management basins. To evaluate the
level of protection of the stormwater system within the Nine Mile Creek- North drainage area, the
100 -year frequency flood elevations for the ponding basins and depressed areas were compared to the
low elevations of structures surrounding each basin. The low elevations were initially determined
using 2 -foot topographic information and aerial imagery in ArcView. Where 100 -year flood levels of
the ponding areas appeared to potentially threaten structures, detailed low house elevations were
obtained through field surveys. The areas that were predicted to flood and threaten structures during
the 100 -year frequency storm event are highlighted in Figure 5.3. Discussion and recommended
implementation considerations for these areas are included in Section 5.3.
5.2.2 Water Quality Modeling Results
The effectiveness of the stormwater system in removing stormwater pollutants such as phosphorus
was analyzed using the P8 water quality model. The P8 model simulates the hydrology and
phosphorus loads introduced from the watershed of each pond and the transport of phosphorus
throughout the stormwater system. Since site - specific data on pollutant wash -off rates and sediment
characteristics were not available, it was necessary to make assumptions based on national average
values. Due to such assumptions and lack of in -lake water quality data for model calibration, the
modeling results were analyzed based on the percent of phosphorus removal that occurred and not
based on actual phosphorus concentrations.
Figure 5.4 depicts the results of the water quality modeling for the Nine Mile Creek- North drainage
basin. The figure shows the fraction of total phosphorus removal for each water body as well as the
cumulative total phosphorus removal in the watershed. The individual water bodies are colored
various shades of blue, indicating the percent of the total annual mass of phosphorus entering the
water body that is removed (through settling). It is important to note that the percent of phosphorus
removal is based on total phosphorus, including phosphorus in the soluble form. Therefore, the
removal rates in downstream ponds will likely decrease due to the large soluble fraction of incoming
phosphorus that was unsettleable in upstream ponds. The watersheds are depicted in various shades
of gray, indicating the cumulative total phosphorus removal achieved. The cumulative percent
removal represents the percent of the total annual mass of phosphorus entering the watershed that is
removed in the pond and all upstream ponds.
Ponds that had an average annual total phosphorus removal rate of 60 percent or greater, under
average climatic conditions, were considered to be performing well. For those ponds with total
phosphorus removal below 60 percent, the permanent pool storage volume was analyzed to determine
Barr Engineering Company 5 -5
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF71Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
if additional capacity is necessary. Based on recommendations from the MPCA publication
Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas, March 2000, the permanent pool for detention ponds
should be equal to or greater than the runoff from a 2.0 -inch rainfall, in addition to the sediment
storage for at least 25 years of sediment accumulation. For ponds with less than 60 percent total
phosphorus removal, the recommended storage volume was calculated for each pond within the
drainage basin and compared to the existing permanent pool storage volume.
5.3 Implementation Considerations
The XP -SWMM hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analyses and P8 water quality analysis helped to
identify locations throughout the watershed where improvements to the City's stormwater
management system may be warranted. The following sections discuss potential mitigation
alternatives that were identified as part of the 2003 modeling analyses. As opportunities to address
the identified flooding issues and water quality improvements arise, such as street reconstruction
projects or public facilities improvements, the City will use a comprehensive approach to stormwater
management. The comprehensive approach will include consideration of infiltration or volume
retention practices to address flooding and/or water quality improvements, reduction of impervious
surfaces, increased storm sewer capacity where necessary to alleviate flooding, construction and /or
expansion of water quality basins, and implementation of other stormwater BMPs to reduce pollutant
loading to downstream waterbodies.
5.3.1 Flood Protection Projects
The 2003 hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analysis identified several locations within the Nine
Mile Creek- North drainage basin where the 100 -year level of protection is not provided by the
current stormwater system. The problem areas identified in 2003 are discussed below.
As part of the 2003 modeling analysis, potential corrective measures were identified for the problem
areas for purposes of developing planning -level cost estimates. These preliminary corrective
measures are also discussed below. As the City evaluates the flooding issues and potential system
modifications in these areas, consideration will be given to other potential system modifications,
including implementation of stormwater infiltration or volume retention practices, where soils are
conducive.
5.3.1.1 Hawkes Drive (HL 2)
Hawkes Drive is a cul -de -sac on the east side of Hawkes Lake. A low area exists along this street,
south of the intersection with Hawkes .Terrace. Two catch basins are located in this low area, which
connect to the 12 -inch storm sewer system that discharges into Hawkes Lake. During the 100 -year
frequency storm event, the 12 -inch storm sewer does not provide enough capacity and street flooding
occurs in the low area along Hawkes Drive to an elevation of 902.3 MSL. Based on the 2 -foot
topographic information, flood waters from the street will flow west via overland flow toward the
Lake at an elevation above 902 MSL. To ensure that the flooding does not encroach upon the homes
Barr Engineering Company 5 -6
P: \Mpls\23 MN \27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV 2.docx
at 5713 and 5717 Hawkes Drive, a positive overland flow swale should be constructed between the
homes.
5.3.1.2 5711 & 5717 Grove Street (HL_18)
A depression area exists in the backyards of 5711 and 5717 Grove Street. Stormwater from a 3 -acre
subwatershed (HL_18) drains to this depression area. A 21 -inch storm sewer system runs through
the backyard area and flows northward to Grove Street. A beehive structure is located at the low
point in the backyard area to collect the stormwater. During the 100 -year frequency storm event, the
21 -inch system does not provide sufficient capacity, and water pools in the backyard depression area.
The predicted 100 -year frequency flood elevation is 904.4 MSL. This flood elevation is slightly
higher than the low house elevations for 5711 and 5717 Grove Street, which were surveyed at
903.6 MSL and 903.5 MSL, respectively. To decrease the 100 -year frequency flood elevation in the
backyard depression area and provide a 100 -year level of protection, it is recommended that the
21 -inch pipe system spanning from the backyard depression area to Grove Street be upgraded to
24 -inch pipes. This change would decrease the calculated 100 -year flood elevation to 903.5 MSL
without causing negative effects upstream or downstream.
5.3.1.3 5516 & 5520 Dundee Road (HL_25)
West of 5516 and 5520 Dundee Road, a depression area is located that collects stormwater during
precipitation events. Due to past flooding problems, a lift station was installed in this backyard area
to pump stormwater east to Dundee Road, where the stormwater flows southward down Dundee Road
until it reaches the gravity storm sewer system. The current lift station has a pumping capacity of
approximately 150 gpm. For the XP -SWMM analysis, the available storage volume in the backyard
depression area and the elevation at which the pump turns on/off were based on the 2 -foot
topographic data. Based on this information, the calculated 100 -year frequency flood elevation is
897.2 MSL. This elevation is higher than the surveyed low house elevations for 5516 and 5520
Dundee Road, 894.26 MSL and 895.67 MSL, respectively.
Comparison of the field survey data with the 2 -foot topographic data leads to uncertainty of the
accuracy of the topographic information in this area. It is recommended that a detailed field survey
be performed to determine the accuracy of the topographic data and storage assumptions in this area.
If it is determined that the topographic data used was accurate, it is recommended that additional
pump capacity be added to the lift station to prevent the structures at 5516 and 5520 Dundee Road
from incurring flood damage. Another option to alleviate flooding in the backyard depression area is
to create a positive overland flow swale toward the pond that is located approximately 400 feet north
of the 5516 Dundee Road property. Based on the 2 -foot topographic data, the overland flow swale
would begin near the property line between 5516 and 5512 Dundee Road.
5.3.1.4 505, 509, & 513 Tyler Court (ML_19)
An inundation area is located east of the homes along Tyler Court, south of Maloney Avenue and
west of Arthur Street. Stormwater runoff from a drainage area of approximately 29 acres discharges
into this dry basin. A 24 -inch storm sewer system drains this area. The 24 -inch system flows south
Barr Engineering Company 5 -7
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
and west to Arthur Street, then south to the intersection of Arthur Street and Waterman Avenue. At
this intersection, the pipe flowing east toward Mirror Lakes is reduced to an 18 -inch pipe. Due to the
restricted pipe capacity at Arthur Street and Waterman Avenue, flow in the system draining the dry
basin reverses during intense rainfall events such as the 100 -year frequency event, and the basin is
inundated. During the 100 -year frequency storm event, the dry basin reaches a flood elevation of
936.6 MSL. This flood elevation is considerably higher than the low house elevations at 505, 509,
and 513 Tyler Court, surveyed at 932.9 MSL, 933.1 MSL, and 934.07 MSL, respectively. To
alleviate a portion of the flooding problem, it is recommended that the 18 -inch pipe flowing east
from the Arthur Street and Waterman Avenue intersection be upgraded to a larger pipe. By
upgrading to a 24 -inch pipe, runoff from Waterman Avenue and Arthur Street will not back up into
the dry pond and the 100 -year frequency flood elevation of the pond would decrease to 934.7 MSL.
To further alleviate the flooding problem, it will be necessary to perform a more detailed analysis on
the system that drains the backyard inundation area.
5.3.1.5 6009 Leslie Lane (MD_22)
A backyard depression area exists between the properties on the south side of Leslie Lane and north
side of Kaymar Drive. The depression area collects stormwater from a drainage area of
approximately 6.4 acres. A 15 -inch storm sewer system extends southward into the backyard
depression area from Leslie Lane, collecting stormwater from the low area, and continues to the west
toward Jeffrey Lane. This system eventually connects with the Blake Road system at the intersection
of Blake Road and Kaymar Drive. During the 100 -year frequency storm event, flow is restricted in
the 15 -inch system and water pools in the backyard depression area behind 6009 Leslie Lane. The
predicted 100 -year frequency flood elevation in this area is 916.7 MSL. Based on the 2 -foot
topographic data, it appears that this flood elevation will impact the structure at 6009 Leslie Lane.
To alleviate the backyard flooding and prevent property damage at 6009 Leslie Lane, it is
recommended that the 15 -inch pipe draining the backyard depression and the downstream 18 -inch
pipe be upgraded to 24 -inch diameter pipes. This would result in a predicted 100 -year frequency
flood elevation of 915.8 in the backyard depression area.
5.3.1.6 5316 Schaeffer Road (MD_28)
A small, 0.5 -acre stormwater detention pond is located just northwest of the intersection of Schaeffer
Road and Parkwood Road. The outlet to the pond is a 12 -inch system that drains south to Parkwood
Road and then east toward Blake Road. During the peak of the 100 -year frequency storm, the flow in
the 12 -inch system is reversed and all the stormwater from subwatershed MD_28 and MD-48 flows
into the pond. As the water elevation of the pond increases to an elevation of approximately
938 MSL during storm events, water will overtop Schaeffer Road and flow east through a drainage
swale that leads to another stormwater detention basin. However, before the flood water from the
pond overtops the road, the pond will extend well into the yard of 5316 Schaeffer Road, encroaching
upon the structure. The 100 -year frequency flood level of the pond is 939.0 MSL. Although based
on the 2 -foot topographic data it appears that the structure at 5316 Schaeffer Road will not be
affected by a 100 -year rainfall event, it is recommended that an overflow across the road be
maintained or slightly lowered during any future road improvement projects in this area.
Barr Engineering Company 5 -8
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF'REdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
5.3.1.7 Fountain Woods Apartments (NMN 90 & NMN 23)
The NMN_90 subwatershed encompasses an area of approximately 3 acres. The subwatershed.
includes the townhomes on Wellesley Place north of Vernon Avenue and a portion of the Fountain
Woods apartment complex. The low spot in the watershed is located in the southwest corner of the
Fountain Woods parking lot, near. the.parking entrance /exit for buildings 6650 and 6710. During the
100 -year. frequency storm event, stormwater.,pools,in this area, reaching,a flood elevation of
876.6 MSL. Fieldsurvey data indicates;that this flood.elevation will impact the two.garage entrances
for buildings 6,650 and 67:1.0, both.recorded at 872.1 MSL.
The Fountain Woods Apartments drainage system is a privately maintained drainage,system. It is
recommended that the owners of the apartment complex be notified of this potential problem and
recommend that they may wish to make modif cations 'to their system to alleviate potential flooding
problems.
5.3.2 Construction /Upgrade of Water Quality Basins
The 2003 P8 modeling analysis indicated that the annual removal of total phosphorus from several
ponds in the Nine Mile Creek- North drainage area was:.predicted to be below the desired 60 percent
removal rate, under average year conditions. For those ponds with total .phosphorus removal below
60 percent, the permanent pool storage volume was analyzed to determine if additional capacity is
necessary. The ponds that-exhibited deficiencies in total phosphorus removal and permanent pool
volume are listed below, along with recommended pond upgrades.
Construction of new or expansion of existing water quality basins is one method to increase the
pollutant removal achieved prior to stormwater reaching downstream waterbodies. Many additional
techniques are available to reduce pollutant loading, including impervious surface reduction or
disconnection, implementation of infiltration or volume retention BMPs, installation of underground
stormwater treatment structures and sump manholes and other good housekeeping.practices such as
street sweeping. As opportunities arise, the City will consider all of these options to reduce the
volume and improve, the quality of stormwater runoff.
5.3.2.1 MD 15
Pond MD_1.5 is located just north.of the 5904, 5908, and.5912 Sun Road properties, south of Amy
Drive. The pond receives runoff from an area of approximately 25 acres. Pond MD-15 outlets to the
storm sewer system along Sun Road via a 18 -inch RCP pipe. The -pond is a Type 5-wetland and was
assumed to have an average depth of 4 feet. Based on'this depth assumption and the:pond:area from
the 2 -foot topographic information, the current permanent pool, storage was calculated to be 1.1 acre -
feet. Based on the MPCA recommended, storage volume for detention basins, Pond MD 15 is
deficient in permanent pool storage volume. It is recommended that an additional 0.3 acre -feet of
dead storage volume be provided to meet the MPCA design criteria for detention basins.
Barr Engineering Company 5 -9
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
r „_
5.3.2.2 NMN 27
Pond NMN_27 is located northeast of the T.H. 62 and T.H. 169 intersection. The pond is south of
Langford Court, directly east of Lincoln Road and northwest of Waterford Court. The pond receives
runoff from an area of approximately 37 acres, including drainage from T.H. 169 and Lincoln Drive.
The pond is a Type 5 wetland and was assumed to have an average depth of 4 feet. Based on this
depth assumption and the pond area from the 2 -foot topographic information, the current permanent
pool storage volume was calculated at 1.7 acre -feet. In comparison with the calculated MPCA
recommended storage volume for Pond NMN_27, there is not an adequate amount of permanent pool
storage in this basin. It is recommended that an additional 1.4 acre -feet of dead storage volume be
provided to meet the MPCA design criteria for detention basins.
5.3.2.3 NMN 24
Pond NMN_24 is located between Waterford Court and Habitat Court, downstream and to the
southeast of Pond NMN_27. The pond receives runoff from a 5 -acre watershed. The pond is a
Type 4 wetland and was assumed to have an average depth of 2 feet. Based on this depth assumption
and the pond area from the 2 -foot topographic information, the current permanent pool storage
volume was calculated to be 1.7 acre -feet. This permanent pool storage volume is greater than the
MPCA recommended storage volume for detention ponds. However, because the water quality
modeling results indicate that the total phosphorus removal in Pond NMN_24 is below desired
removal levels, it is recommended that the depth of the pond be increased to 4 feet to improve
removal efficiency.
5.3.2.4 NMN 49
Pond NMN_49 is a sedimentation basin located directly west of the 5521 Malibu Drive property.
The sedimentation basin receives runoff from a watershed of approximately 6 acres, in addition to
incoming flows from the upstream sedimentation basin (NMN_48). Pond NMN_49 discharges into
the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek. Based on storm sewer information from the City, a 2 -foot
average depth was assumed. Based on this depth assumption and the pond area from the 2 -foot
topographic data, the current permanent pool storage volume was calculated to be 0.14 acre -feet. In
comparison with the calculated MPCA recommended storage volume for Pond NMN_49, there is not
an adequate amount of permanent pool storage in this basin. It is recommended that an additional
0.2 acre -feet of dead storage volume be provided to meet the MPCA design criteria for detention
basins.
5.3.2.5 MD-3
Pond MD _3 is located in Bredesen Park, directly east of the parking area off of Olinger Boulevard.
Pond MD _3 receives runoff from a 48 -acre watershed, in addition to discharges from ponds MD_15
and MD-13. The pond is a Type 5 wetland and was assumed to have an average depth of 4 feet.
Based on this depth assumption and the pond area from the 2 -foot topographic information, the
current permanent pool storage volume was calculated at 4.7 acre -feet. This permanent pool storage
volume is greater than the MPCA recommended storage volume for detention ponds. However,
Barr Engineering Company 5 -10
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
because the water quality modeling results indicate that the total phosphorus removal in Pond MD-3
is below desired removal levels, it is recommended that the pond be excavated to remove
accumulated sediment and increase the pond depth to improve the removal efficiency of total
phosphorus.
Barr Engineering Company 5 -11
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.doex
N
a
a
E
a
C
L
C
u
i
jol
.:74
Hopkins
BMW
Cd4,93
k ., fit. ,' y�y �., � 1 t .'.1� ♦l1� ,a : t _ ,�' '� • .
J Y.
d tyf'
GMLW ° °9
° (% MIR
GmMalffl
Gman G',IuG',�Q3 ° ° ° , , X43 Jill —1
P G'-N 13MU@ Nim
mi
Vim D mi
Minnetonka
IwvN3•� � /' T,
Mug
_ 62BL% GM R-9
Max GTW wuu�r/ �li -D`� u'LL6u'�
D 1yJU
1 EW Lt `D
r D 1
Eden Prairie
�•,,�UR PUR'`K�`,
1 f38 A
City of Edina Boundary
Roads /Highways
'�. Creek /Stream
Lake /Wetland
Nine Mile Creek - North
C3 Drainage Basin
Subwatershed
Imagery Source: Aerials Express, 2008
1,200
O
Feet
0
1,200
Meters
400 0 400
Figure 5.1
NINE MILE CREEK NORTH
DRAINAGE BASIN
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
- .. P ♦`mss ��. � i`:� N ,� •, 3 PA ,! � ,.p � �. �.
fA,. 'l
fto
r�
Hopkins 1s9 0 n 131 -
Mi o ke
l i Highl n s tea_ kke
m
i ile Creek orth - -- H wk L e
Minnetonk,
_ s
Eden Pram- pY ° %. ,,; 4,
a
ae
City of Edina Boundary
Roads /Highways
'�.. Creek /Stream
Lake /Wetland
Nine Mile Creek - North
C3 Drainage Basin
C3 Major Watershed
Subwatershed
Imagery Source: Aerials Express, 2008
O
Feet
1,200 0 1,200
Meters
400 0 400
Figure 5.2
NINE MILE CREEK NORTH
MAJOR WATERSHEDS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
Minnetonka
NMN_32
x
--.
Hopkins
0
n
Y
1
T
MIA :L
u
MALONEYAVF
J
r�6
a
U
MENGE4.8$ H q
w
3 0)
WATERMAN �
:,AIE RMAN AV 1
{� in
m
z
O
` Nil (r%i {1/{.j,}`1{�
��J � ,Y
N
i < a
w z s v Ma
c
INTER HEN BLVD SUM"
••"2 •' B(YO
-��
INTERLACHEN B0VD
W rs?• 4 T,
Ile
I
" F 99ffi X90
a
FPG
°"`n"�k'.� - "P FED'' o - a , t,. ••
• I n� � HAROLD WO 1!
IIIA
O • ' � gi � � NCB
2 r I�•' rc_ r I P �H
V
L •••moo^• rc
A CHALICE COU - „ •♦ •, m
TQ
Mirror Lake
BMW
LINCOLN CFRGL� fff���III111111
S <(iFf 1
C)p
R ° MOr
a
r 4�1 �� m
P
FOX
93 FAQ' %R"
e
' 1 • .. ° FOX MEAD
MAI
MI
TFR 11` It maim
o van GREEN FARA1S • -
a z
m a C
• a u
a a R
0
c °
m WES71YUOi; c 1 ' HIGHWOOD DR W �•�
GRE J
•' I . �r _ EVAN Oc)U .A p
Y «
t
•' I t' - 0 •1tI1L 7•�• 2W;
H'GO
TELEMARK +• •r-' ORp .("V ♦ ( �•;�
. }/ y� �',MEiOW WOOD • • • �1 WES7 W(wD (:T (1
GMW WILLOW WOOD S
r� !Oy • P
p ••' �y-- DJ PI GROVE RD '
4 D
Z) 0 0: iiV AU
• wapo .
a
V yyy HIGHWOOD DR
_ o o
{•.• D
MALIBU DR 4 I �� �
[Y �
I • • 1
� LPNL _
D
pi�RFWOOD � � 0
VVD IDYLWOOD DR
D
O/? 6 2 I'ra T// 3 HIGHWOOD DR
I I Y� �4 • Y4
I 9�AL IVE°
,�',,,�,�'.�,Mx,` D DR
O ° FHO�' ¢ SAXONY RQ
s
I • Aq
Ma
0 R�tY Jµ s STAUDER CIR
DamA M
.0 UM
LESLEE LA D I I
FIELD WAS •
11N►Yli��J
Im}!II I JEFFREY LA
1/ ICJLjjS9 J
(. °FR
o • �� •� •• • KAVMAR DR O •�
• S z
DOVRF �� � ;;k s y9F •°••••'•O�••� •R
° DOVRE DR
2 O
r
,� /�
<+ EDEN PRARIE RD
BMW �e
I
MUM O
B19CAYNF BLVD
Z Y iiSCAYNE BLVD
G
MFR �{ tsiJCAV NE .0
J.
00 PARKWOVii LA
° D °
LONDOND R , •
.J�
- • . . - GROVE CIR /y'N /I
ePHAEFF
I' iUN:,.,tv:,� RRY iiF. _ m A m
ray. VII •U ` p D
z ZD
'^' • , I w
� • S
fqlV T=
• 1�a CSUNJ N
o G
il7�m
P/�
%
a B
SPEN RD
NGFORD DR (PRIVATE)✓•• • ¢ ) � •r
REM
EDIH S i
1
I •' \ M
�_ • Y a 1�1711��107�•1
a
..° D CQo Y
LAR CIR 9 • (. m 7-'T V.
q !.
o
Cam'. . ° f•bc. c. r�
� �ry�ryry� y�y� •J�• � aN0 ARCTIC ..AY
7�► C U, D
CSI 1 ° �T •D o /�D N
ARCTIC WAY Mud Lake
12195 O IV[,
MVM /h C
1`111^'•"'1/1 \'�IQ7�i'� O
:n
4i ORIOLE LA
S
R
,,yyyyD�� 0
Figure 5.3
NINE MILE CREEK NORTH
HYDRAULIC MODEL RESULTS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
City of Edina Boundary Potential Flooding During
Roads /Highways
100 -Year Frequency Event
Creek/Stream Pipes
o Manhole
Lake /Wetland
Manhole Surcharge During
Nine Mile Creek - °
North Drainage 0 -Year Frequency Event
e Basin
g Durin g
o
C3Subwatershed Manhole Surcharged
Frequency Event
q Y
Feet
400 0 400 800
Meters N
120 0 120 240
St. Louis Park
O Ce
O
f s g�9
Hopkin-
Minnetonka
Q
0
Qf
Eden Prairir,
0
l�L
r
m
2
l
rn
HI_20
r
4 �i 1
MLt40
HI 18
H1_5
ML 38
ML 15
ML 6 ML_3
Mirror HI_17 HI_1
Lake hl HI 13
ML_16 Wand
ML_28 ML _1 he
HL 50
ML 27
ML_26
MDr39
HL_25
HL I*,
40
HL 39
HL 28
NMN_50 MD 25
HL 13 HL-1
Haw es
-ake
HL 44
MD_21
HL_9
MID MEW
MD. 7
MDS_1 MD_ MD-2
MD _2 MD 3
MD_2^ MD 13
MD_1
.1 ad Lake
M0_50
Y
`
sip
r'f.ii- .+►yy_..,,,,`_ .'fir
Imagery Source: Aerials Express, 2008
oe�
o
Percent TP Removal in Water Body*
This number represents the percent of the total annual mass
of phosphorus entering the water body that is removed.
0 - 25% (Poor /No Removal)
25 - 40% (Moderate Removal)
- 40 - 60% (Good Removal)
- 60 - 100% (Excellent Removal)
Cumulative TP Removal in Watershed*
This number represents the percent of the total annual mass
of phosphorus entering the watershed and upstream watersheds
that is removed in the pond and all upstream ponds.
25 - 40% (Moderate Removal)
40 - 60% (Good Removal)
60 - 100% (Excellent Removal)
*Data based on results of P8 modeling.
Area Draining Directly to the North
Fork of Nine Mile Creek
Flow Direction
0
Feet
1,200 0 1,200
TINTI
Meters
400 0 400
mmmmli
Figure 5.4
NINE MILE CREEK NORTH
WATER QUALITY
MODELING RESULTS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
Table 5.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage
Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
HI -I
38.6
40
195.8
18.8
90.5
3.7
HI 10
40.6
19
190.6
14.5
68.5
2.3
HI 11
3.5
20
19.7
1.2
10.3
0.2
HI 12
15.7
20
84.3
8.2
39.9
1.6
HI 13
26.7
24
140.3
10.5
61.7
1.9
HI_14
4.6
20
25.8
1.6
12.7
0.3
HI 15
10.4
20
54.7
3.7
22.3
0.6
111 16
9.5
20
39.7
3.3
13.6
0.5
HI 17
6.2
14
30.0
2.6
10.6
0.5
HI 18
21.3
11
91.8
10.0
29.2
1.7
HI-19
4.5
10
21.6
1.8
6.7
0.3
HI_2
4.2
18
24.1
1.6
14.2
0.3
FU 20
18.4
11
80.0
9.4
26.4
1.7
FU 21
2.7
13
15.7
1.4
9.8
0.3
111 22
2.2
25
12.8
1.1
10.5
0.2
111_3
8.4
20
44.9
3.2
19.2
0.6
M-4
11.0
18
55.8
3.9
20.6
0.6
FU-5
8.0
30
45.8
4.2
28.8
0.8
HI 6
9.5
20
52.9
5.0
27.3
1.0
M-7
8.5
20
42.1
3.0
15.7
0.5
HI _8
10.9
20
56.8
3.9
22.6
0.6
HI-9
7.9
20
32.8
2.7
11.2
0.4
HL _1
25.5
40
142.3
11.3
79.8
2.3
HL 10
2.7
18
15.0
1.0
6.6
0.2
HL 11
30.5
16
105.4
10.4
33.3
1.4
HL 12
12.6
20
65.5
4.7
26.2
0.8
IH 13
2.2
34
12.4
0.9
9.5
0.2
HL 14
4.4
20
25.3
1.6
13.8
0.3
HL 15
0.8
20
4.3
0.3
3.2
0.1
F11,16
4.8
20
26.8
1.7
12.4
0.3
HL 17
1.3
20
7.7
0.5
5.2
0.1
HL. 18
3.1
20
16.7
1.1
7.3
0.2
HL 19
1.1
20
6.5
0.4
3.6
0.1
HL 2
6.2
17
33.9
2.2
14.0
0.4
HL 20
4.5
20
23.1
1.6
9.1
0.3
HL-21
11.7
13
56.6
3.9
17.5
0.6
HL 23
4.4
20
24.4
1.6
10.9
0.3
HL 25
2.2
13
11.8
0.7
4.3
0.1
HL 26
9.0
20
46.3
3.4
19.0
0.6
HL 27
1.2
20
6.9
0.5
3.7
0.1
HL-28
5.6
37
31.7
2.5
18.7
0.5
HL
22.0
11
108.7
9.1
36.6
1.6
6.8
20
2 8.7
2.4
9.9
0.4
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMIle_SWMM_ hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls NMN Runoff Results UPDATE
Table 5.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage
Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
HL-30
2.6
20
14.6
0.9
6.9
0.2
HL-31
6.9
16
35.9
2.4
13.1
0.4
HL 32
1.0
11
5.7
0.3
3.5
0.1
HL 33
4.3
24
24.5
1.6
13.8
0.3
HL 34
1.7
20
9.4
0.6
5.2
0.1
HL 35
5.0
21
28.6
1.9
15.7
0.4
HL 36
12.8
24
63.5
4.7
25.3
0.8
HL 37
4.6
17
25.8
1.6
11.8
0.3
HL 38
0.7
33
4.3
0.3
4.1
0.1
HL-39
16.0
23
84.8
5.9
36.6
1.0
HL -4
5.0
20
27.2
1.8
11.8
0.3
HL 40
18.6
21
100.2
6.9
43.6
1.3
HL 41
1.7
20
9.9
0.6
6.3
0.1
HL 42
11.1
20
62.3
4.0
29.3
0.7
HL 43
5.4
40
31.2
2.5
19.7
0.5
HL 44
2.4
44
14.0
1.2
11.4
0.2
F11,45
6.8
20
37.2
2.4
16.4
0.4
HL 46
4.3
20
24.4
1.6
11.8
0.3
HL 47
15.7
32
87.7
6.3
47.2
1.2
HL 48
4.6
48
26.8
2.0
20.0
0.4
HL 49
4.4
20
24.7
1.6
11.4
0.3
H1,5
1.8
17
10.3
0.6
5.2
0.1
HL 50
11.2
1 32
59.2
4.5
27.4
0.8
HL_6
3.3
20
18.5
1.2
8.9
0.2
HL 7
3.8
20
20.5
1.3
8.9
0.2
HL_8
14.0
23
66.3
5.1
25.3
0.8
HL 9
6.6
30
36.9
2.7
19.4
0.5
MD_I
33.3
67
117.5
14.7
53.8
3.7
MD 10
1.0
15
4.6
0.3
2.9
0.1
MD I1
6.9
2
24.5
1.8
7.5
0.3
MD 12
14.0
20
59.0
3.9
30.2
0.9
MD 13
12.3
31
66.8
5.0
33.0
0.9
MD 14
8.6
19
36.8
2.4
19.0
0.5
MD 15
6.7
28
34.1
2.7
14.8
0.5
MD 16
5.1
20
29.0
2.2
15.1
0.4
MD-17
1 6.6
20
26.7
1.9
13.2
0.4
MD-18
2.3
19
12.5
0.8
5.0
0.1
MD_ 19
5.2
24
28.8
1.9
13.4
0.3
D_2
12.5
40
58.0
4.7
44.1
1.2
MD-20
13.4
20
65.3
4.8
24.4
0.8
MD-21
9.1
39
49.8
3.7
25.8
0.7
MD 22
6.4
20
36.0
2.5
18.4
0.5
MD 23
2.2
20
12.1
0.8
5.8
0.1
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMILe_SWMM hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls NMN Runoff Results UPDATE
Table 5.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage
Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
MD_24
2.7
20
15.1
1.0
7.0
0.2
D_25
7.9
49
45.0
3.5
28.4
0.7
MD 26
2.8
18
15.4
1.0
6.6
0.2
MD 27
20.1
20
104.6
7.1
41.3
1.2
MD 28
5.8
20
24.6
2.0
8.6
0.3
MD 29
11.5
16
53.5
3.9
18.0
0.6
MD 3
6.6
18
27.2
2.4
14.2
0.6
MD 30
1.9
20
10.7
0.7
6.0
0.1
MD 31
4.0
20
22.3
1.4
10.1
0.3
_32
4.5
20
18.0
1.6
6.1
0.2
MD 33
2.7
20
15.5
1.0
9.5
0.2
MD 34
3.0
20
12.0
1.0
4.0
0.1
MD 35
4.8
16
26.9
1.7
11.7
0.3
MD 36
7.0
15
39.5
2.5
18.9
0.5
MD 37
2.8
16
13.2
0.8
8.9
0.2
MD 38
6.1
20
26.6
1.7
14.2
0.4
MD 39
5.7
12
30.8
1.9
10.8
0.3
NM -4
13.7
51
77.7
6.7
47.2
1.4
NM-40
11.1
20
52.1
4.2
19.2
0.7
NM _41
8.4
20
47.2
3.3
23.9
0.6
D_42
10.1
20
52.9
3.6
21.3
0.6
MD 43
8.8
20
42.6
3.1
15.8
0.5
MD 44
1.1
20
6.1
0.4
3.2
0.1
MDL45
7.8
20
37.0
2.7
13.5
0.4
NIP-46
6.9
19
35.8
2.4
14.0
0.4
MD 47
5.2
28
29.2
2.0
15.0
0.4
MD 48
23.4
17
106.4
8.1
35.8
1.2
MD 49
5.1
18
22.7
1.6
12.7
0.4
MD-5
1.4
15
8.4
0.7
5.8
0.1
MD 50
53.3
63
174.4
22.8
77.5
5.6
MD 6
6.1
19
31.8
2.4
13.1
0.4
MD -7
7.9
27
40.3
3.0
17.2
0.5
MD 8
10.5
24
43.5
3.8
15.3
0.6
MD-9
4.6
20
24.7
1.9
11.1
0.4
ML-1
53.9
50
306.9
24.8
193.9
5.1
ML -10
6.7
20
36.4
2.4
15.8
0.4
ML 11
1.8
11
10.5
0.6
5.1
0.1
ML 12
4.2
18
20.5
1.5
7.2
0.2
ML 13
11.5
15
50.9
3.9
16.3
0.6
ML 14
0.9
20
5.0
0.3
3.5
0.1
15
11.1
35
60.1
4.5
30.2
0.8
ML 16
8.1
52
45.1
3.7
25.8
0.8
ML 17
5.8
15
31.5
2.0
12.2
0.3
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMILe_SWMM_ hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _fina]_NWL_verification.xls NMN Runoff Results UPDATE
Table 5.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage
Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
ML 18
14.1
15
77.9
4.8
31.1
0.8
ML 19
5.3
18
29.8
2.0
14.6
0.4
ML 2
13.1
32
73.3
5.2
39.4
1.0
ML 20
5.2
20
27.2
1.9
10.8
0.3
ML 21
16.6
14
75.1
5.6
23.7
0.8
ML 22
3.1
20
17.2
1.1
7.9
0.2
ML 23
0.9
20
5.3
0.3
3.5
0.1
_24
2.1
16
12.1
0.7
6.0
0.1
ML 25
4.3
20
24.2
1.5
11.8
0.3
ML-26
8.3
25
43.0
3.1
18.8
0.5
27
2.9
12
15.7
1.0
5.3
0.2
IAL-28
13.0
31
69.4
5.0
33.4
0.9
Nfl,-29
4.3
19
23.9
1.5
11.2
0.3
M,_3
1.2
10
6.2
0.4
2.1
0.1
ML-30
10.7
18
56.3
3.7
21.9
0.6
ML 31
14.7
8
74.9
4.7
20.9
0.7
ML 32
3.8
61
22.4
1.9
21.8
0.4
ML 33
0.7
12
3.7
0.2
2.4
0.0
_34
7.4
26
40.0
2.9
19.3
0.5
ML 35
7.0
12
35.7
2.4
11.4
0.4
ML-38
8.0
10
39.1
3.6
13.1
0.6
ML 4
1.7
19
9.7
0.6
5.0
0.1
ML 40
13.7
13
68.0
6.3
25.1
1.2
MEL 5
3.8
12
20.8
1.3
7.4
0.2
MEL-6
3.5
21
18.9
1.2
8.4
0.2
ML -7
2.2
18
12.6
0.8
6.3
0.1
ML 8
8.7
17
46.7
3.0
18.3
0.5
_9
2.9
18
15.3
1.0
5.9
0.2
NMN 10
3.1
20
16.9
1.1
7.2
0.2
NMN 11
1.5
18
8.4
0.6
4.5
0.1
NMN 13
5.3
18
26.2
1.8
9.5
0.3
NMN 14
4.0
20
20.8
1.4
8.4
0.2
NMN-15
4.3
20
23.7
1.5
10.7
0.3
NMN-16
3.0
20
17.3
1.1
9.4
0.2
NMN 17
3.3
19
18.3
1.2
8.7
0.2
NMN 18
4.7
20
25.1
1.7
10.3
0.3
NMN 19
18.1
20
96.6
6.4
39.8
1.1
NMN 20
10.3
10
54.8
3.4
17.7
0.5
NMN 21
0.6
20
3.2
0.2
2.3
0.0
MN 22
0.6
20
3.7
0.2
2.1
0.0
NMN 23
3.9
29
21.5
1.5
11.1
0.3
NMN _24
4.1
45
24.2
2.0
19.0
0.4
NMN 25
0.7
20
3.7
0.2
2.1
0.0
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMll.e_SWMM_ hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _fina]_NWL_verification.xls NMN Runoff Results UPDATE
Table 5.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage
Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
NMN_26
6.2
20
34.3
2.2
16.1
0.4
NMN 27
2.6
40
14.8
1.1
12.2
0.2
NMN 28
6.7
30
34.6
2.6
15.2
0.4
NMN-29
0.6
21
3.3
0.2
2.6
0.0
NMN-3
1.4
19
8.3
0.5
6.5
0.1
NMN-31
4.0
30
21.5
1.6
10.2
0.3
NMN 32
25.6
68
138.9
12.9
67.3
2.7
NMN-33
7.4
32
38.8
2.9
17.3
0.5
NMN 34
2.9
30
16.5
1.1
12.6
0.2
NMN 35
5.4
18
30.8
2.2
16.8
0.4
NMN 36
9.0
20
49.4
3.2
21.5
0.6
NMN-37
13.3
20
71.9
4.7
30.2
0.8
NMN 38
36.1
19
142.0
12.5
47.1
1.7
NMN 39
8.1
18
44.2
2.8
18.2
0.5
NMN-40
3.9
78
22.6
2.0
18.9
0.4
NMN 41
9.3
72
52.9
4.8
30.9
1.0
NNIN-42
11.0
79
55.3
5.8
23.1
1.2
NMN-43
12.8
20
70.1
4.6
30.4
0.8
NMN _44
6.1
20
28.8
2.1
10.5
0.3
NMN 45
2.9
19
16.1
1.1
7.3
0.2
NAQ�-46
2.5
17
14.2
1.0
7.0
0.2
NMN 47
3.6
20
19.9
1.4
8.9
0.3
NMN 48
0.4
0
2.5
0.2
2.0
0.0
NNN�-49
0.9
14
5.2
0.4
2.5
0.1
NMN 50
17.8
27
94.7
6.7
43.8
1.2
NMN _51
0.8
20
4.8
0.4
3.5
0.1
NMN 52
0.3
44
2.0
0.2
2.5
0.0
NNK-53
0.6
58
3.7
0.3
3.9
0.1
NMN-54
2.4
49
14.2
1.1
12.6
0.2
NMN 55
4.7
32
26.6
1.9
14.7
0.4
NMN _56
8.0
15
43.2
2.9
16.6
0.5
NMN 57
2.9
17
16.2
1.1
8.1
0.2
NNW 58
4.8
20
25.1
1.7
9.9
0.3
NMN 59
3.5
50
20.4
1.6
17.2
0.3
NNR 61
8.3
20
45.8
3.0
20.4
0.5
NNW 62
11.2
23
59.5
4.3
26.5
0.8
NMN-63
14.6
12
62.9
4.8
18.1
0.7
NMN 64
15.4
32
86.3
6.0
47.6
1.1
NMN 65
4.6
18
26.1
1.6
13.0
0.3
NMN-66
9.6
18
51.5
3.4
20.5
0.6
NMN 67
10.5
20
58.0
3.8
25.8
0.7
NMN-68 1
2.3 1
12
12.5 1
0.9
5.3
0.2
NMN 69 1
1.8 1
20 1
9.1 1
0.6
3.6
0.1
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327I072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond \NineMH- e_SWMM_hydraulic_out put_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls NMN Runoff Results UPDATE
Table 5.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage
Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
NMN-7
11.6
20
62.4
4.1
26.3
0.7
NMN 70
4.0
20
22.5
1.4
11.0
0.3
NMN-71
6.1
19
33.8
2.2
15.2
0.4
NMN 72
7.0
20
38.6
2.5
17.2
0.4
NMN 73
10.0
28
50.0
3.8
20.7
0.6
NMN 74
3.4
80
20.1
1.8
19.3
0.4
NMN 75
14.7
26
66.3
5.4
26.0
0.9
NMN 76
10.4
33
56.3
4.1
27.9
0.8
NMN-77
12.0
23
55.6
4.5
21.4
0.7
NMN 78
6.2
20
27.7
2.2
9.8
0.3
NMN 8
6.1
20
31.5
2.2
12.3
0.4
NMN 80
8.2
12
43.0
2.8
14.5
0.5
NMN _81
1.9
29
10.9
0.8
8.1
0.2
NMN 82
8.9
20
45.8
3.2
17.9
0.5
NMN 83
3.0
20
16.2
1.1
7.2
0.2
NMN 84
8.1
18
37.1
2.9
12.9
0.4
NMN 85
4.6
13
23.1
1.6
7.5
0.3
_9
9.6
20
41.1
3.7
14.5
0.6
NMN 90
3.0
28
17.3
1.2
10.6
0.2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMII.e_SWMM_ hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls NMN Runoff Results UPDATE
Table 5.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds/Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised
12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation (ft)
Type of
Stora8e2
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation (ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
124
1091
919.3
914.5
126
23
911.9
1
908.3
128
25
910.8
907.5
29
1477p
906.6
902.6
134
1720
910.7
910.5
137
34
906.8
905.4
138
35
907.1
905.1
139
36
908.2
904.2
140
37
908.4
904.7
141
38
9085
street
904.7
143
41
905.1
902.0
145
42
899.7
899.5
150
45
908.2
906.4
152
47
910.1
905.2
153
48
907.6
9(15.6
157
52
899.5
898.3
166
62
901.7
901.0
167
63
900.2
900.6
169
PUMP
891.7
878.0
172
68
892.1
886.5
174
70
905.6
900.9
175
2058
897.0
896.6
178
1721
9225
921.2
183
1423
9072
905.5
185
79
905.0
904.7
186
81
900.4
900.2
187
82
892.0
888.5
188
83
907.9
ditch/b d
905.2
2.7
909.0
905.2
3.8
189
84
908.1
909.1
190
85
908.8
909.1
193
89
906.1
905.0
194
90
903.4
902.9
195
91
895.3
895.0
197
93
870.7
870.4
198
94
865.7
865.3
202
98
864.7
862.5
203
99
864.7
862.5
204
100
8625
859.8
209
104
879.4
878.6
210
2070
880.6
street
878.6
211
108
8805
879.8
212
106
880.6
879.2
214
110
878.7
878.6
215
111
8743
874.4
224
ditch to MD_4
860.8
860.5
226
ditch to MD_4
860.6
860.7
228
120p
863.5
863.3
229
121p
859.8
859.5
230
ditch to MD_1
858.8
858.7
234
outfall
859.2
859.0
236
outfall
861.4
861.2
238
outfall
8612
861.1
240
outfall
862.0
861.3
242
ditch to MD_I
863.1
863.0
245
130
9385
938.6
246
131
936.8
935.4
247
132
936.5
933.5
250
1832
921.2
917.1
252
137p
918.3
914.3
255
139p
913.7
b d
911.2
2.5
911.2
911.2
0.0
258
143p
909.0
902.7
260
145p
899.2
890.6
261
146
897.5
888.1
262
147
890.8
882.7
264
1717
869.7
866.7
267
151
890.3
889.7
P.Nlplst23 MMOU3271072 Edina Water Reswrcev Mrmt Plan Update \WorkFjks)QAQC Model for PondVJineMDs_SWMM_hydmlic output 2006UPDA7E_rmal_NWl_vaiGmtion. is NMN_NodeRewlu UPDATE
Table 5.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised
12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation (ft)
Type of
Storage''
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation (ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
268
152p
885.5
885.3
269
153p
878.0
875.5
270
154p
878.0
874.0
275
ditch to MID _4
861.9
862.0
278
161
944.1
942.5
279
162
944.0
941.9
280
163
943.7
941.1
281
164
943.8
1
940.6
285
168
942.9
939.3
286
16
941.7
938.9
287
170
937.5
937.4
289
172p
918.4
916.6
292
175p
912.1
911.7
293
176
910.4
910.2
294
177
909.9
909.9
295
178p
909.6
909.5
296
179
909.2
908.8
297
180
909.1
908.4
298
96
944.0
940.5
584
421
937.7
935.4
585
422
936.8
935.3
587
424
933.8
932.3
591
428
918.6
918.2
592
429
918.6
918.1
596
432
911.4
910.1
597
433
910.6
909.8
598
434
908.8
908.7
599
435
895.1
894.2
600
436
892.7
892.6
601
437
877.2
876.8
603
439
865.4
865.4
604
outfall
865.2
864.6
606
outfall
865.2
863.6
608
outfall
868.9
868.9
609
442
872.7
872.1
611
444
8705
869.8
613
outfall
865.7
864.2
617
outfall
865.2
862.0
619
outfall
866.1
865.8
622
outfall
865.2
862.2
626
outfall
865.2
862.1
627
454
862.2
861.1
628
outfall
861.5
858.8
629
455
878.8
878.4
631
457
893.2
893.1
639
464
889.9
880.5
640
outfall
878.2
878.2
641
465
876.5
874.1
642
outfall
872.0
871.8
646
outfall
870.7
870.2
651
473
874.9
872.2
652
474
875.5
872.4
654
476
876.6
872.5
655
477
876.8
872.5
656
478
878.5
873.2
658
480
884.5
884.4
663
484
892.2
890.1
667
ditch to NMN_24
890.1
890.1
674
490
908.2
908.2
675
491
912.2
912.3
676
492
913.8
913.9
1098
1830
914.8
911.5
1100
138p
914.7
907.5
1113
879
969.0
968.3
1114
880
968.7
968.2
1115
ditch to ML-1
956.9
956.9
P:Npls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resourts Mgmt Plan Updae\WorkFiles\QAQC Model fa Pmd\NineMfLz_ SWMM hydraulic output 2006UPDATE_rinal NW L verirtation.als NMN NodeResulis UPDATE
Table 5.3 .
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised
12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation (ft)
Type of
Storage'
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation (ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
1119
884
930.9
927.8
1121
886
916.0
916.0
1122
889
914.8
914.7
1124
888
922.3
922.0
1127
891
925.1
925.1
1130
893
920.7
918.8
1131
894
918.5
9145
1141
900
939.7
1
932.8
1144
903
915.9
914.7
1154
908
893.3
891.9
1168
1941
894.8
894.5
1386
1092
919.3
9135
1387
1093
919.0
913.3
1449
outfall
876.5
875.4
1451
outfall
876.5
875.0
1454
1150
925.8
925.7
1455
ditch to NMN_84
921.7
921.7
1467
1158
975.2
974.3
1468
1159
973.1
971.2
1469
1160
972.7
970.0
1475
1165
952.3
951.4
1477
1167p
952.4
951.0
1478
1168p
952.4
950.6
1480
1170
949.3
948.7
1481
1171
947.5
9473
1482
1172
940.5
940.0
1484
1174
938.3
9385
1485
ditch to NM -63
930.6
9305
1607
3266p
899.3
899.3
1622
1288
910.4
908.9
1625
1290
923.0
919.8
1626
1291
923.3
922.1
1627
1292
928.9
928.8
1628
1293
936.7
936.6
1629
1294
939.2
938.6
1630
1295
940.3
939.1
1631
1296
941.2
939.6
1632
1297
941.9
939.9
1633
1298
941.9
940.0
1634
1299
941.9
1
940.0
1636
1301
942.5
940.8
1743
2040
922.3
918.9
1745
ditch to MD-3
860.3
856.5
3.9
860.2
856.5
3.7
1747
outfall
865.2
hdesion
858.9
1750
1434
866.7
863.7
1752
1435
866.8
8655
1755
outfall
865.2
859.2
1761
outfaB
869.7
8695
1762
1443
879.3
879.2
1765
outfall
873.4
871.8
1767
outfall
876.5
8703
1769
outfall
876.5
872.7
1774
1450
876.5
873.3
1778
outfall
876.5
870.0
1785
1455p
913.9
913.9
1794
1456
930.2
930.2
1795
pump
941.6
940.7
1797
1459
941.6
940.7
1798
1461
939.9
939.1
1810
1469p
888.3
883.2
1812
outfall
880.8
879.3
1813
ditch to 2516
899.6
899.6
1815
1473
892.6
892.5
1817
1474
912.1
911.1
1818
.475p
914.3
914.0
1950
ditch to HI-29
912.9
912.9
P.%MplsX23 MNt27U3271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Updue \WorkFikMQAQC Model for PondWi= Mll. e_ SWMM_ hydmulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE_fmaf_NWf_vuiriadm.als NMN_NodeRaults UPDATE
Table 5.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XPSWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised
12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation (ft)
Type of
Storage'
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation (ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
2156
outfall
860.6
860.3
2158
ditch to MD_4
864.2
863.2
2162
75
918.5
913.3
2164
outfall
865.7
863.8
2168
outfall
863.5
856.8
2174
PUMP
902.2
903.0
2274
1821p
900.9
2290
1831
914.8
9113
2292
1833
919.2
914.9
2394
1936
903.7
903.5
2395
1937
908.7
908.6
2396
1938
911.0
910.8
2411
1953
925.5
9252
2412
1954
925.7
925.6
2416
1957
936.2
934.3
2417
1958
935.6
934.4
2504
2052
885.1
884.8
2505
2053
890.5
890.3
2506
2043
904.2
903.9
2507
2044
920.9
920.7
2508
2045
894.9
893.9
2509
2050
909.9
906.8
2512
2038
921.2
921.2
2515
2035
936.5
932.3
2516
2031
894.2
street
887.2
2517
2054
894.1
887.6
2520
2057
937.9
935.6
2521
2062
947.9
947.5
2522
2060
949.7
947.8
2527
2065
920.3
919.8
2528
ditch to NMN 77
919.0
918.5
2531
2067
901.9
898.9
2532
2068
911.5
906.3
2534
2071
866.1
ditch
860.9
5.2
863.5
860.9
2.6
2538
2074
928.4
925.2
2539
ditch to H1._29
910.5
910.1
2540
899
929.7
9295
2541
2075
922.2
922.0
2549
2078
931.3
1
929.7
2550
2079
932.2
929.9
2551
2080
934.5
b d
929.2
5.3
9305
929.2
1.3
2552
2081
968.9
968.4
2553
2082
973.7
973.4
2699
2153p
909.3
908.2
2701
2152p
906.6
hwy ditch
896.8
9.8
903.9
896.8
7.1
2702
ditch to NMN _27
896.5
896.4
2706
2165p
902.5
1
900.5
2709
2167p
902.5
900.4
2710
2170p
902.5
900.5
2712
2169p
902.5
900.5
2718
2161 p
916.2
915.6
2719
21
906.6
904.6
2726
ditch to W_l
899.9
899.8
2822
3151
894.0
889.9
2824
3152p
897.2
894.5
2847
3175p
880.3
879.8
2848
3174p
880.3
879.7
2849
3173p
880.2
878.8
2850
3172p
879.0
877.3
2851
3171p
878.3
876.9
2853
3181p
894.2
894.1
2854
3179p
896.5
895.0
2855
3182p
898.3
897.1
2856
3180p
903.3
2857
3177p
907.3
904.4
2908
3246_p
868.5
868.2
PAMpb\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\QAQC Model for Pond\NimMlLz,_ SWMM_hydraulic output 2006UPDATE_Enal NW4verifimlion.als NMN NodeResults UPDATE
Table 5.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XPSWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes In the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised
12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2-Hour Event
Flood Elevation (ft)
Type of
Storage'-
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation (ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
2915
3264p
891.2
2916
3263p
892.0
890.6
2956
3297p
856.3
854.2
2961
weir
856.1
852.5
2965
outfall
856.1
849.5
2969
3302_p
904.3
901.9
191
916
893.3
pond
888.4
5.0
889.5
888.4
1.2
M-2
907
893.4
889.9
HI_3
2173p
903.6
pond
899.6
4.0
902.0
899.6
1 2.4
M-4
915
893.3
892.6
HI_5
2063
893.4
pond
888.3
5.1
890.0
888.3
1.7
HI_6
906
903.3
ditch
893.9
9A
901.2
893.9
7.3
HI_7
1939
911.7
9115
HI_8
1935
902.0
901.7
HI_9
1943
908.1
907.9
HI_10
1285
893.3
890.0
3.4
892.6
890.0
2.6
HI_11
1095
925.3
925.0
M-12
1940
903.3
903.0
HI_13
no outlet
889.0
wetland
885.3
1 3.6
886.4
885.3
1.1
M-14
910
900.9
893.7
M-15
1472
907.3
903.5
HI 16
1942
906.3
906.0
M-17
2164p
903.4
pond
901.0
2.4
902.1
901.0
1.1
1`1118
2166
902.6
pond
899.6
3.0
900.1
899.6
0.5
HI_19
2171
9145
depression
910.0
4.5
911.1
910.0
1.1
HI_20
ditch to HI_21
902.8
pond
899.6
3.2
900.6
899.6
1.0
M-21
2174
902.8
pond
899.3
3.5
900.0
899.3
0.7
FU-22
2172
903.4
pond
901.0
2.4
901.8
901.0
0.8
HItl
87
892.0
nd
885.5
6.5
886.5
885.5
1.0
HI-2
66
902.3
street
901.8
M,3
40
909.8
b d
902.9
6.9
907.7
902.9
4.8
M-4
65-p
899.5
898.3
HI.5
2069
917A
910.9
K-6
2019
911.4
911.1
HI,_7
2039
937.6
929.9
1-11, 8
50
9073
pond
901.9
5.4
903.2
901.9
1.3
M 9
44
908.1
pond
905.4
2.7
906.2
905.4
0.8
HL-10
46
908.7
street
906.6
HL-11
67
894.5
887.2
HL-12
39
911.4
904.6
H1,13
no outlet
907.5
wetland
904.0
3.4
905.5
904.0
1.5
HL-14
1422
909.2
909.1
HI-15
78
907.2
905.5
M-_16
49
907.3
street
905.8
HI,_17
3265p
897.3
M-18
61-p
904.4
b d
899.0
5.4
901.9
899.0
2.9
HI. 19
59
913.7
street
913.2
BL-20
51
904.4
902.9
HI._21
ditch to HL_25
897.2
pond
892.0
5.2
894.4
892.0
2.4
HI._23
58
912.0
street
910.2
HI. 25
Pump
897.2
b d
894.2
3.0
895.4
894.2
1.2
M-26
3150p
900.1
street
897.3
HI.27
1955
927.6
927.5
ML-28
1822p
906.5
pond
898.2
83
900.9
898.2
2.7
M.29
no outlet
909.7
pond
904.7
5.0
906.9
904.7
2.2
M-30
1570
918.8
918.7
HI.31
28
931.2
street
924.1
HL-32
1478p
906.6
901.9
HL-33
29
913.6
913.4
HI._34
1476
915.0
914.9
HL 35
1094
913.3
depression
906.9
6.4
908.8
906.9
2.0
HL-36
1090
925.4
919.3
HL 37
1571
909.3
907.9
HI.38
24
911.4
908.0
M-39
no outlet
906.8
and
902.2
4.6
903.1
902.2
0.9
HI.40
2037
906.5
wetland
899.7
6.8
901.6
899.7
1.9
FtWpIA23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Watc Resources Mg ni Plan Update \WorkFj1rs\QAQC Model for Pond\NincM14- SWMM_hydmlic output_2006UPDATE-rmaLNWL vaifiwtion.sls NMN NodeRuults UPDATE
Table 5.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes In the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised
12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
I/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation (ft)
Type of
Storage=
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation (ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
EFL-41
2041
922.2
919.9
IM-42
2034
925.5
1
925.1
HL-43
3245p
912.7
street
908.9
HL_44
overflow to HL_IO
907.0
wetland
904.6
2.4
905.2
904.6
0.6
HI-45
2042
908.7
904.0
HL_46
2059
894.0
887.1
FM 47
ditch to HL_43
916.6
nd
907.6
9.0
911.8
907.6
4.2
FM 48
2036
929.1
926.2
M-49
2055
893.7
b d
890.8
2.9
891.8
890.8
1.0
W-50
no outlet
932.3
pond
927.8
4.5
928.9
927.8
1.1
MD 1
3294p
856.1
pond
1 8515
4.6
852.3
851.5
0.8
MD 2
3296p
856.1
pond
854.0
2.1
854.3
854.0
0.3
MD 3
weir
857.0
pond
854.0
3.0
855.2
854.0
1.2
MD-4
ditch to MD_I
860.6
pond
857.4
3.2
860.4
857.4
3.0
MD_5
127
868.6
868.0
MD_6
118
863.7
863.4
MD--7
115
861.6
pond
859.0
2.6
859.7
859.0
0.7
ME L8
117
865.5
865.1
MD L9
1429p
8622
1
859.2
MD-10
116
863.0
street
862.7
MD 11
weir
856.1
pond
853.0
3.1
854.1
853.0
1.1
MD 12
1961
864.3
864.1
MD 13
103
878.4
pond
876.0
2.4
876.5
876.0
0.5
MD_14
1431p
861.2
street
860.8
MD_15
97
864.3
pond
859.8
4.5
862.8
859.8
3.0
MD-16
112
871.7
871.6
MD_17
1430p
861.7
1
8615
MD_18
1960
878.0
874.0
MD_19
148
889.1
879.4
MD_20
144
905.5
898.8
MD_21
1096
890.9
pond
889.8
1.1
889.2
888.9
0.3
MD_22
174p
916.7
b d
9105
6.3
915.4
910.5
5.0
MD 23
171
918.7
b d
912.7
6.0
917.0
912.7
4.3
MD--24
142p
914.0
906.9
MD_25
431
913.5
pond
909.0
45
910.7
910.0
0.7
MD_26
133
936.6
932.1
MD-27
weir manhole
915.1
912.5
MD 28
128p
939.0
pond
935.0
4.0
936.4
934.7
1.8
MD 29
420
937.9
pond
935.0
2.9
935.9
935.0
0.9
MD-30
165p
941.4
b d
939.0
2.4
940.4
939.0
1 1.4
MD_31
430
918.6
1
918.1
MD_32
427
920.9
920.7
MD_33
426
927.9
927.8
MD_34
425
932.1
931.3
MD_35
423
936.6
street
9353
MD-36
2077
861.3
858.3
MD_37
ditch to MD_I
863.2
863.1
MD 38
I 19-p
864.9
b d
863.4
1.5
864.2
863.4
1 0.8
MD-39
ditch to MD_29
938.7
pond
935.5
3.2
936.7
935.5
1.2
MD_40
109
880.6
880.4
MD 41
1727
865.4
864.9
MD_42
92
888.7
879.1
MD_43
167p
944.0
940.5
MD 44
173
918.4
916.4
MD_45
134p
923.2
918.7
MD 46
158
874.3
867.6
MD--47
2051
885.3
874.2
MD--48
129p
939.0
938.6
MD_49
ditch to MD 50
858.1
858.0
MD 50
3298p
856.1
wetland
849.0
7.1
850.0
849.0
1.0
ML_I
pump
906.5
pond
904.0
2.5
904.3
904.0
0.3
ML -2
3267p
912.2
pond
908.4
3.9
909.9
908.4
1.5
ML_3
1302
943.2
pond
941.2
2.0
941.9
941.2
0.7
ML_4
892
944.9
941.1
3.9
941.7
941.1
0.6
ML-5
1289
923.0
918.1
ML -6
1300
942.0
pond
939.7
1 2.3
940.2
939.7
1 0.5
P:UNpLsV3 MM27V3271072 Edina Water Resources Mgml Plan Update %WorkFlestQAQC Model fm PmdWineMILt -_SWMM hydmulic_mtput 2006UPDATE __final_NWl_vuifiwion.als NMN NodeRmutu UPDATE
7
Table 5.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised
12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation (ft)
Type of
Storage=
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation (ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
ML -7
890 `
931.8
b d'
926.9
4.9
930.5
926.9
3.6
ML -8
895
917.8
910.6
ML 9
878
969.5
depression
966.5
3.1
968.5
966.5
2.1 .
ML -10
887
9293
929.2
ML'I1
885
931.0
street
926.3
ML_12
881
936.8
930.7
MLt13
'883
931.0
park ' : '
920.9
10.1
929.6
920.9 -
8.7 .
ML 14
897'
940.5 `
939.8
ML 15
896
940.5
pond '
939.5
1.0
939.7
939.5
0.2
ML-16
1461 (inlettoutlet)
939.9
pond
936.8'
3.1
937.2
936.8
0.4
ML 17
1460
941.9-
street
940.7
ML_18
1723
913.9
913.7
'M1,219
3303p
936.6
b d
929.6
7.0
9325
929.6
2.9
ML 20
898
937.3
937.1
Ml-21
2056
941.4
940.6'
MI-22
901
942.5
933.4
ML 23
904
932.8
. 931.7
ML 24
1464
912.9
9093
ML 25
1462
913.6
909.6
MI-26
no outlet
941.0
pond
939.1
1.9
939.4
939.1
0.3
ML_27
ditch to ML_28
952.5
pond
948.1
4.4
949.3
948.1
1.2
ML -28
no outlet
936.8
pond
1 935.1
1.7
935.4
935.1
0.3
ML 29
1959
934.8
934.6 .
ML_30
902p
942.7
street
933.9
ML 31
3286p
909.3
depression
907.3.
2.0
908.0
907.3
0.7
ML_32
1462 (inlettoutlet)
912.1
pond .
908:4
3.7
909.0
908.4
0.7
ML-33
1303
943.8
942.2
MIt34'
overflow to ML_16
943.2
pond
940.7
2.5
942.5
940.7
1.8
ML 35
2083
941:4
street
939.4
ML-38
2162p
918.8
pond
916.1
2.7
916.9
916.1
0.8
MLL40
2163p
918.5
pond
916.1
2.4
916.7
916.1
0.6
NMN -3
1726
863.7
861.7
NMN 7.
458
893.4
893.2
NMN 8
450
868.0
867.7
NMN 9
453
866.5
866.2
NMN 10
447
866.7
866.4
NMN_11
123
862.1
8613
NMN_13
126p
869.0
863.1
NMN 14
1436
868.7
868.1
t NMN_15
1433
866.7
street
862.0
NMN 16
1437
868.8
8685.
. NMN 17
1715
861.6
860.8
NMN 18
124p
864.0
-
863.0
NMN_19
438
876.2
875.9
NMN 20
463
889.5
pond
879.2
10.2
883.3
879.2
4.1
NMN_21
487
888.8.
888.3 '
" NMN 22
479
882.4
882.1
NMN 23
475'
876.6' _
872.5
NMN 24
481
888:8
885.0
3.8
8872
885.0
2.2
NMN_25
485
890.9 •
889.3
NMN 26
1722
866.9
866.8
NMN 27
483
896.2
891.0
5.2
894.8
891.0
3.8
NMN_28
468
874.8
872.0
NMN 29
486
896.3
891.6
NMN 31
466
879.7
875.7
NMN 32
2151
909.4.
902.4
7.0
908.7
902.4
63
NMN 33
467
882:5
880.2
NMN_34
489
905.1
905.2
NMN 35
445
869.6
866.2
NMN 36
443
872.0
871.4
NMN 37
440
872.0
871.4
NMN 38
449
877.4
875.9
NMN_39
441
882.7.
882.6
NMN_40
1444
893.3
890.4
NMN_41
1445
879.3
street
876.6
NMN 42
1446
878.7
878.2
P:NdpbU3 MM27%23271072 Edina Water Restntrm Mgmt Plan Update %WorkFWQAQC Model fm PmMineMltt_SWMMJtydmulio output 2OD6UPDATE__fmaLNWt _ vaifi=ion.xls NMN NodeResults UPDATE
Table 5.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised
12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation (ft)
Type of
Storage=
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation (ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
NMN_43
1447
882.0
881.8
NMN_44
1448
880.4
880.0
NMN 45
1449p
883.2
882.3
NMN 46
1147
883.1
882.1
NMN_47
1148
879.6
879.3
NMN_48
2066
876.5
pond
871.5
5.0
872.8
871.5
1.3
NMN_49
1451p
876.5
pond
872.0
4.5
874.1
872.0
2.1
NMN 50
I no outlet
897.1
pond
894.8
2.3
895.2
894.8
0.4
NMN_51
448
869.7
867.9
NMN 52
1442
871.5
871.3
NMN_53
493
917.1
917.4
NMN_54
1452p
hwy ditch
898.5
2.1
899.2
898.5
0.7
NMN_55
overflow to NMN_76
909.5
pond
909.0
0.5
909.3
909.0
0.3
NMN_56
125
866.4
863.5
NUN-57
1725
863.7
861.8
NMN_58
456
893.2
893.0
NMN_59
2150p
908.9
906.7
NMN_61
1470
888.1
1
882.8
NMN_62
1468p
890.8
pond
885.2
5.7
886.4
885.2
1.2
NMN_63
ditch to NMN_62
905.1
pond
904.3
0.8
904.9
904.3
0.6
NMN_64
3176_ p
884.4
street
883.0
NMN_65
1149
891.6
886.4
NMN_66
1173
939.4
9393
NMN_67
3178p
894.9
NMN_68
2061
950.9
b d
949.5
1.4
950.3
949.5
0.8
NMN 69
1164p
951.8
1
951.6
NMN 70
1166
952.4
street
951.4
NMN_71
1162
961.5
961.3
NMN_72
1169
952.4
950.2
NMN 73
no outlet
877.1
pond
873.4
3.8
876.9
873.4
3.5
NMN 74
no outlet
906.1
pond
892.3
13.8
898.9
892.3
6.6
NMN 75
no outlet
915.3
pond
912.7
2.6
913.1
912.7
1 0.4
NMN_76
weir
907.3
pond
905.3
2.0
905.7
905.3
0.4
NMN 77
no outlet
918.8
pond
918.0
0.8
918.1
917.0
1.1
NMN_78
1155
968.7
964.8
NMN 80
1151
936.1
932.0
NUN 81
1156
977.0
977.0
NMN 82
1161
972.7
969.7
NMN 83
1157
978.7
977.1
NMN 84
2064
920.5
pond
917.6
2.9
919.8
917.6
2.2
NMN_85
ditch to NMN_77
963.4
pond
961.4
2.0
963.1
961.4
1.7
NMN 90
3304
876.6
street
872.2
2 byd = backyard depression
PAMpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmi Plan Updaie\WorkPiles\QAQC Model for PaidW ineMlt c _SWMM_hydraulic_ampm_2006UPDATE final-NW4vaification.xls NMN_Nodeltaulls UPDATE
Table 5.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006).
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (fl)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(0)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit length
(ft)
Slope
100Y Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
IOY Pcak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
23
126
HL-38
Circular
2.5
0.013
906.23
905.02
150.5
0.80
20.8
17.5
24
HL-38
128
Circular
2.5
0.013
905.02
904.33
37
1.87
24.2
23.5
25
128
129
Circular
2
0.013
904.33
899.67
470
0.99
24.2
21.6
28
HL-31
HL-33
Circular
1.25
0.013
923.25
908.00
156
9.78
19.4
13.1
29
HI-33
134
Circular
1.25
0.013
908.00
907.82
17
1.06
16.8
15.4
34
137
138
Circular
1
0.013
905.40
905.11
82
0.35
-2.1
0.0
35
138
139
Circular
1
0.013
905.11
903.81
260
0.50
-2.5
0.0
36
139
140
Circular
1.25
0.013
903.61
902.15
292
0.50
.5.0
1.4
37
MO
141
Circular
1.5
0.013
901.26
901.00
238
0.11
-7.6
-6.1
38
141
HL-12
Circular
1.5
0.013
900.95
899.50
214.5
0.68
-12.2
-7.3
39
HL_12
143
Circular
2.5
0.013
898.20
896.34
200
0.93
58.1
40.9
40
HL_3
143
Circular
1
0.013
902.90
902.00
180
0.50
6.5
5.1
41
143
145
Circular
2.5
0.013
896.34
894.75
159
1.00
63.0
44.5
44
HL-9
150
Circular
1.25
0.013
905.40
904.60
120
0.67
6.2
3.4
45
150
HL 10
Circular
1.25
0.013
904.60
903.50
180
0.61
6.2
3.5
46
HL-10
152
Circular
1.75
0.013
903.50
901.86
284
0.58
10.1
10.0
47
152
UL-12
Circular
2
0.013
899.60
898.20
327
0.43
13.0
13.4
48
153
152
Circular
1
0.013
901.43
900.40
344
0.30
4.0
2.8
49
HL-16
153
Circular
1
0.013
901.90
901.43
153.5
0.31
3.9
3.6
62
166
167
Circular
1.75
0.013
897.00
896.67
81
0.41
19.5
14.2
63
167
HL_17
Circular
1.75
0.013
896.67
896.43
61
0.39
19.5
14.2
67
HL_I1
172
Circular
2.75
0.013
885.05
883.95
138
0.80
70.6
33.4
68
172
HL_I
Circular
3
0.013
883.75
882.76
115
0.86
70.6
33.3
78
HL 15
183
Circular
1.75
0.013
904.35
904.17
96
0.19
1 -8.0
3.0
79
185
HI-15
Circular
1.75
0.013
905.12
904.59
42
1.26
4.8
-0.7
80
185
186
Circular
1.75
0.013
1 904.57
900.00
65
7.03
4.0
0.7
81
186
187
Circular
1.75
0.013
900.00
893.04
115
6.05
3.9
0.7
82
187
HLl
Circular
1.75
0.013
888.33
884.00
101
4.29
3.9
0.7
83
188
189
Circular
1.75
0.013
905.20
905.30
134.5
-0.07
-10.2
-5.2
84
189
190
Circular
1.75
0.013
905.59
902.34
125.5
2.59
-10.3
-5.1
85
190
HL-14
Circular
1.75
0.013
905.59
905.50
27
0.33
-10.3
-5.1
87
HL_I
169
Circular
1
0.013
888.00
880.00
50
1 16.00
2.2
0.0
89
193
194
Circular
1
0.013
905.00
903.04
330
0.59
1 2.6
0.0
90
194
195
Circular
l
0.013
902.94
896.00
320
2.17
2.0
0.0
91
195
MD-42
Circular
1
0.013
895.00
873.00
145
15.17
2.0
0.0
97
MD 15
202
Circular
1.5
0.013
859.82
859.32
170
0.29
9.7
9.4
103
MD_13
209
Circular
1
0.013
876.00
874.07
225
0.86
3.6
-1.6
104
209
210
Circular
1
0.013
874.07
872.78
150
0.86
3.6
4.2
106
212
211
Circular
1.25
0.013
872.31
871.47
140
0.60
5.7
-6.1
108
211
MD-40
Circular
1.25
0.013
871.47
870.66
123
0.66
5.7
-6.6
109
MD_40
214
Circular
1.25
0.013
870.66
870.48
30
0.60
1 10.6
10.4
110
214
215
Circular
1.25
0.013
870.48
869.61
145
0.60
10.6
10.0
115
MD L7
MD-2
Circular
1.25
0.013
1 859.00
856.60
240
1.00
7.3
1.7
117
MD--8
224
Circular
2
0.013
860.27
860.00
90
0.30
25.1
14.7
118
MD_6
226
Circular
1
0.013
860.45
860.41
15
0.27
3.7
6.2
123
NMN_11
234
Circular
1
0.024
858.31
858.16
15
1.00
6.5
4.5
125
NMN_56
238
Circular
1.5
0.013
860.28
859.72
27
2.07
25.0
16.5
127
MD_5
242
Circular
1.25
0.024
862.85
862.70
15
1.00
10.6
5.8
130
245
246
Circular
1
0.01
933.95
932.26
688
0.25
3.6
3.7
132
247
MD-26
Circular
1.5
0.01
931.20
931.20
157
O.W
10.5
8.2
133
MD_26
MD 45
Circular
2
0.013
930.92
916.34
371
3.93
42.2
29.6
151
267
268
Circular
t
0.013
889.70
888.24
96
1.52
1 2.4
0.0
P:NdpM23 MM27U3271072 F.lina Water Raatrtv Meat Plan UpdxtdWarkRl.1QAQC Wdd far P®dW..nrn_ -SWMMJrAmulic atpuL2pp6UPDA77, ioaL NWl�vaifiaim.xls WN- C-baitRaWU UPDATE
Table 5.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006).
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (ft)
Roughne ss
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope
IOOY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
TOY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
158
MD_46
275
Circular
2.5
0.013
861.64
861.64
41
0.00
30.3
19.2
161
278
279
Circular
1.5
0.01
941.48
940.53
111
0.86
5.0
5.7
162
279
280
Circular
1.5
0.015
940.53
940.27
159.5
0.16
4.6
4.3
163
280
281
Circular
1.5
0.01
940.27
937.97
542
0.42
-6.5
4.2
164
281
298
Circular
2
0.013
937.97
937.32
145.5
0.45
-6.5
5.2
168
285
286
Circular
2
0.013
936.02
935.75
24
1.13
30.9
16.4
171
MD_23
289
Circular
1.25
0.013
912.67
912.50
145
0.12
4.0
3.4
173
MD_44
MD-22
Circular
1.25
0.013
910.73
910.45
140
0.20
7.0
5.5
176
293
294
Circular
2
0.013
909.40
908.62
129
0.61
7.3
6.5
177
294
295
Circular
2
0.013
908.62
908.33
145
0.20
7.3
6.5
179
296
297
Circular
2
0.013
908.07
907.03
105
0.99
1 7.6
6.5
180
297
258
Circular
2
0.013
907.03
906.87
10
1.60
8.8
6.5
420
MD 29
584
Circular
1.25
0.013
935.00
934.25
38
1.97
5.2
2.5
421
584
585
Circular
1.25
0.013
934.25
932.43
185
0.98
5.2
2.8
425
MD 34
MD-33
Circular
1
0.013
925.34
921.15
177
2.37
6.1
6.1
426
MD-33
MD-32
Circular
1
0.013
921.15
914.86
190
3.31
7.1
7.1
427
MD 32
591
Circular
1
0.013
914.86
913.80
158
0.67
4.8
4.8
429
592
MD_31
Circular
1.25
1 0.013
913.50
913.41
28
0.32
4.8
5.5
430
MD }1
MD-25
Circular
1.25
0.013
912.01
910.32
275
0.62
9.8
9.5
431
MD-25
596
Circular
1.25
0.013
908.99
908.83
195
0.08
6.4
3.6
432
596
597
Circular
1.25
0.013
908.83
908.70
28
0.46
6.4
3.6
433
597
598
Circular
1.25
0.013
908.70
908.42
62
0.45
6.4
3.6
434
598
599
Circular
1.25
0.013
908.24
892.54
381.5
4.12
6.4
3.6
435
599
1 600
Circular
1.5
0.013
892.54
892.56
355
-0.01
6.4
3.6
436
600
601
Circular
1.5
0.013
1 892.24
876.30
240
6.64
6.4
3.7
437
601
NMN_19
Circular
1.5
0.013
876.30
870.62
226
1 2.51
7.2
4.4
438
NMN_19
603
Circular
1.5
0.013
870.43
863.56
184
3.73
22.9
22.6
439
603
604
Circular
1.5
0.013
863.56
863.53
21
0.14
8.7
8.1
440
NMN 37
606
Circular
1.5
0.013
865.25
862.05
160
2.00
20.6
19.7
441
NMN_39
608
Circular
1
0.013
876.90
867.90
150
6.00
9.8
9.7
445
NMN35
613
Circular
4
0.013
861.94
861.50
112
0.39
149.1
80.0
447
NMN_10
617
Circular
1
0.013
861.70
861.00
70
1.00
7.5
7.2
448
NMN_51
619
Circular
1
0.013
865.71
865.00
1 177
0.40
4.8
3.5
450
NMN_8
622
Circular
1.25
0.013
863.56
861.00
160
1.60
10.7
10.7
453
NMN 9
626
Circular
1.5
0.024
861.58
861.00
146
0.40
9.1
8.5
454
627
628
Circular
2
0.024
857.98
857.50
120
0.40
12.9
12.7
455
629
627
Circular
1.25
0.013
872.01
857.98
417.5
3.36
12.8
12.7
456
NMN_58
629
Circular
1.25
0.013
884.10
872.01
387.5
3.12
12.9
14.2
458
NMN 7
631
Circular
2
0.013
885.58
885.00
230.8
0.25
10.4
14.4
464
639
640
Circular
1
0.013
877.84
877.24
30
2.00
15.3
6.5
465
641
642
Circular
2
0.013
870.78
870.00
59
1.32
1 39.0
27.5
466
NMN31
641
Circular
2
0.013
871.62
870.78
70
1.20
39.0
27.5
468
NMN 28
646
Circular
2.5
0.024
868.85
868.56
92.3
0.31
39.1
22.3
473
651
NMN 28
Circular
2.5
0.024
869.48
868.85
197
0.32
22.4
9.5
475
NMN23
652
Circular
2.5
0.024
870.27
869.96
97
0.32
22.4
8.9
476
654
NMN 23
Circular
2.5
0.013
870.38
870.27
35
0.31
14.3
7.3
479
NMN22
656
Circular
1.25
0.013
881.60
872.51
203.6
4.47
9.0
4.9
480
658
NMN_22
Circular
1
0.013
883.04
881.60
59.6
2.42
5.9
4.9
481
NMN24
658
Circular
1
0.0I3
885.00
683.04
140
1.40
5.9
4.9
483
NMN_27
663
Circular
1.75
0.013
891.00
888.00
150
2.00
24.2
22.0
484
663
NMN_25
Circular
2
0.013
888.00
886.72
80
1.60
24.2
22.0
485
NMN_25
NUN-24
Circular
2
0.013
886.72
885.00
110
1.56
27.2
22.0
P- .Wpla123 MNt27123271072 Edi. W arc Raourea Mg a Plm Upd aWorkR1.AQAQC Mold for PondKLneMILC-SWMMJrydmulic_auput 2006UPDATE-GuaU4WI�vaifimum.x4 NM1W_Cmdualtado UPDATE
Table 5.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006).
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(f0
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit length
(ft)
Slope
IOOY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
IOY Peak Row through
Conduit
(cfs)
486
NMN29
667
Circular
1.5
0.013
890.67
890.00
16
4.19
3.1
2.6
487
NMN_21
NMN24
Circular
1
0.013
885.28
885.00
70
0.40
3.2
2.4
489
NMN_34
NMN 27
Circular
2
0.013
904.40
893.75
40
26.63
20.2
15.8
490
674
NMN 34
Circular
1.5
0.013
907.60
904.40
200 1
1.60
3.7
3.9
491
675
674
Circular
1.25
0.013
911.60
907.60
250
1.60
3.8
4.0
492
676
675
Circular
1.25
0.013
912.85
911.60
250
0.50
3.7
3.8
493
NMN 53
676
Circular
1
0.013
914.35
912.85
300
0.50
3.7
3.9
878
ML-9
1113
Circular
1
0.01
966.46
965.05
145
0.97
2.6
4.0
879
1113
1114
Circular
1
0.01
965.05
961.97
77
4.00
2.6
3.3
880
1114
1115
Circular
l
0.01
961.97
956.89
28
18.14
2.6
1.8
881
ML_12
ML-13
Circular
1.5
0.013
1 927.63
924.50
198
1.58
17.8
8.5
883
ML-13
1119
Circular
2
0.013
922.90
92205
123.3
0.69
22.9
21.8
884
1119
ML_II
Circular
1.75
0.013
922.05
921.90
16
0.94
22.8
21.8
885
ML_11
1121
Circular
1.75
0.013
921.60
908.90
444.3
2.86
28.7
23.6
890
ML-7
1127
Circular
0.5
0.01
926.85
926.02
298
0.28
1.0
0.9
891
1127
ML-8
Circular
0.833
0.01
924.82
915.13
308
3.15
1.1
0.9
892
ML-4
1130
Circular
l
0.013
941.06
925.00
220
7.30
9.2
5.0
893
1130
1131
Circular
1.25
0.013
917.78
915.50
26
8.77
9.7
5.0
894
1131
ML-8
Circular
1.5
0.013
1 913.50
912.00
27
5.56
10.5
4.9
895
MI -8
ML_I
Circular
2
0.024
907.00
906.80
20
1.00
56.6
24.0
896
ML-15
ML`14
Circular
1
0.013
939.50
938.22
191
0.67
2.1
0.4
897
ML 14
ML-16
Circular
1
0.013
938.22
937.70
125
0.42
4.0
3.1
899
2540
2541
Circular
1
0.013
924.67
923.01
58.5
2.84
8.5
7.9
900
1141
MI-22
Circular
2
0.013
926.90
926.52
148
0.26
-25.7
15.7
901
ML 22
ML-30
Circular
2
0.013
926.52
1 926.20
147
0.22
20.2
16.5
903
1144
ML-2
Circular
2
0.024
911.98
909.37
57
4.58
28.9
24.3
904
ML-23
ML -2
Circular
1.25
0.013
931.37
910.31
158
13.33
5.3
3.5
906
Hl_6
HIS
Circular
1
0.024
893.89
890.57
80.5
4.12
7.2
6.4
907
H12
Ht_I
Circular
2
0.013
888.30
888.00
92
0.33
14.6
9.6
910
HI_14
HI_I
Circular
1.5
0.013
892.55
887.75
135
3.56
24.9
12.7
915
Ht_4
H>_I
Circular
1.5
0.013
887.50
886.65
132
0.64
13.8
15.5
1093
1387
HL-35
Circular
1.75
0.013
907.15
906.86
52
1 0.56
37.4
29.6
1094
HL_35
126
Circular
1.75
0.013
906.86
906.23
89
0.71
18.3
12.5
1095
HI-II
Hf_13
Circular
2
0.024
924.50
890.60
102
33.24
19.7
10.3
1096
MD_21
267
Circular
1
0.013
889.76
889.70
86
0.07
2.4
0.0
1147
NMN 46
1449
Circular
1
0.024
876.78
874.54
140
1.60
4.5
4.3
1149
NMN_65
NMN 62
Circular
2.5
0.013
883.60
882.70
158
0.57
25.5
12.4
1151
NMN_80
1454
Circular
1.5
0.013
931.25
922.96
138.2
6.00
26.9
14.5
1155
NMN 78
NMN 85
Circular
2
0.013
963.03
958.74
230
1.87
29.1
17.8
1156
NMN_81
NMN 83
Circular
1.5
0.013
975.12
975.12
113
0.00
-9.8
3.6
1157
NMN_83
1467
Circular
1.25
0.013
975.12
973.04
346
0.60
7.0
6.0
1158
1467
1468
Circular
1.25
0.013
973.04
970.58
220
1.12
6.9
5.7
1159
1468
1469
Circular
1.25
0.013
970.58
969.00
43
3.67
6.7
5.6
1160
1469
NMN 82
Circular
1.5
0.013
968.65
968.24
41
1.00
14.3
5.7
1161
MMN_82
NMN 85
Circular
2
0.013
968.24
961.61
172
3.86
40.1
24.0
1165
1475
NMN 70
Circular
2
0.013
945.06
944.72
89.5
0.38
8.8
11.4
1166
NMN_70
1477
Circular
2
1 0.013
944.72
944.07
162.5
1 0.40
1 14.6
19.2
1169
NMN_72
1480
Circular
2.25
0.013
942.04
1 940.30
176.5
0.99
37.1
27.2
124p
NMN_18
236
Circular
1.5
0.024
860.16
860.01
15
1.00
15.6
10.3
126
NMN_13
240
Circular
1.5
0.013
861.72
860.51
49
2.47
26.2
9.5
1288
1622
ML_1
Circular
2
0.013
907.60
907.36
18
1.33
23.8
7.8
1289
ML-5
1622
Circular
1.5
0.013
916.73
1 915.26
58
2.54
23.8
7.8
P:Ntpts123 MNt2 712 3 27 107 2 Edina Wets Resowca Mg m Plan UpdatdWorkFdm\QAQC Modd for PondlMmd4Rx-SWMM-bydmulic_output 2U0611PDATE-f =LNWl�voiacatiou.xls NMN_Con"tRaulra UPDATE
Table 5.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006).
1291
1626
1625
Circular _
1.25
0.013
921.62
919.53
42
4.98
4.3
2.1
1292
1627
1626
Circular
1
0.013
928.48
921.62
106
6.47
3.5
2.1
1293
1628
1627
Circular
1
0.013
936.26
928.48
120
6.48
3.5
2.1
1294
1629
1628
Circular
1
0.013
937.82
936.26
175
0.89
3.5
2.1
1295
1630
1629
Circular
1
0.013
938.43
937.82
89
0.69
3.5
2.1
1296
1631
1630
Circular
1
0.013
938.81
938.43
85
0.45
3.5
2.1
1297
1632
1631
Circular
1
0.013
938.88
938.81
62
0.11
3.5
2.1
1298
1 1633
1632
Circular
1
0.013
939.28
938.88
103.5
0.39
2.4
0.8
1299
1634
1633
Circular
1
0.013
939.56
939.28
66
0.42 1
2.4
0.8
129
MD_48
245
Circular
1
0.01
934.25
933.95
135
0.22
3.7
5.8
1300
M1_6
1634
Circular
1
0.013
939.70
939.56
73
0.19
2.4
0.8
1301
1636
1632
Circular
1
0.013
940.49
939.08
51
2.77
4.2
1.5
1302
ML-3
1636
Circular
1
0.013
941.17
940.49
24
2.83
4.2
1.5
1303
ML 33
ML-3
Circular
1
0.013
941.18
940.99
27.5
0.69
3.7
2.5
138p
1100
MD_24
Circular
3.5
0.013
905.17
904.88
45
0.64
106.2
56.9
139p
255
MD-24
Circular
1
0.013
911.20
910.25
1 163
0.58
-2.4
0.0
1422
HL-14
HL_13
Circular
1.75
0.013
905.50
903.89
139.5
1.15
15.1
14.5
1423
183
HI-13
Circular
1.75
0.013
904.17
904.15
18
0.11
-8.0
3.0
142
MD 24
258
Circular
3.5
0.013
904.88
900.19
512
0.92
107.7
62.4
1433
NMN_15
1747
Circular
2.25
0.013
859.14
857.56
70
2.26
49.8
31.4
1437
NMN_16
1755
Circular
1.25
0.024
863.93
858.09
200
2.92
6.6
7.6
143p
258
MD-20
Circular
3.5
0.013
900.19
897.16
290.8
1.04
115.2
68.4
1442
NMN_52
1761
Circular
2.5
0.024
868.80
867.99
41
1.98
24.6
20.7
1443
1762
NMN_52
Circular
1.5
0.013
874.11
873.65
29
1.59
19.1
18.6
1444
NMN_40
1762
Circular
1.5
0.013
889.30
874.20
260
5.81
22.6
18.9
1445
NMN 41
1765
Circular
1.75
0.013
870.51
870.00
50
1.02
36.6
30.8
1446
NMN 42
1767
Circular
1.5
0.013
872.52
869.20
48
6.92
21.9
25.3
1447
NMN 43
1769
Circular
1
0.013
876.15
872.00
28
14.82
13.1
11.8
1448
NMN_44
NMN_49
Circular
1.25
1 0.024
874.52
870.00
85
5.32
8.8
10.3
1450
1774
NMN 48
Circular
2
0.024
868.56
868.00
8
7.00
7.0
7.2
1456
1794
1785
Circular
0.5
0.01
930.00
911.23
832
2.26
0.3
0.3
1459
1797
ML-17
Circular
1.5
0.013
937.24
937.14
31
0.32
4.4
-3.5
1460
ML-17
1798
Circular
1.5
0.013
937.14
936.66
177
1 0.27
12.5
9.1
1461
1798
ML_16
Circular
1.75
0.013
936.66
936.52
24
0.58
12.5
9.1
1462
ML-25
ML 32
Circular
1.5
0.024
908.36
906.80
20
7.80
16.5
8.5
1464
ML-24
ML-1
Circular
1.5
0.024
907.80
906.80
20
5.00
19.7
9.3
1470
NMN_61
1812
Circular
3.5
0.024
881.05
877.63
162
2.11
110.2
35.6
1474
1817
HL-38
Circular
1
0.013
909.66
909.26
42
0.95
3.8
3.8
1476
HL-34
1818
Circular
1
0.013
911.43
910.82
70
0.87
3.8
4.2
153p
269
270
Circular
1
0.013
875.47
873.61
19
9.79
3.5
0.0
1570
HL-30
1950
Circular
0.83
0.01
916.82
912.85
110
3.61
3.0
2.2
1571
HL-37
HI-28
Circular
2
0.013
906.00
905.93
IB
0.39
25.8
11.8
165
MD-30
298
Circular
1
0.013
939.00
937.32
300
0.56
3.5
3.0
167p
MD 43
285
Circular
2
0.013
936.49
936.02
170
0.28
24.3
16.4
169p
286
287
Circular
1.75
0.013
935.75
931.56
125.5
3.34
27.4
16.4
1715
NMN_17
2156
Circular
2
0.013
859.35
859.20
15
1.00
18.3
8.7
1717
264
2158
Circular
5
0.013
862.20
862.20
100
0.00
172.1
118.2
1720
134
HL-28
Circular
1.25
0.013
907.82
899.50
94
8.85
16.8
14.5
1722
NMN26
2164
Circular
1.25
0.013
862.82
862.58
23
1.04
11.2
13.0
1725
NMN 57
2168
Circular
1.5
0.013
859.72
856.10
21
17.24
20.4
15.1
172
289
MD 44
Circular
1.25
0.013
912.50
910.73
I8
9.83
4.0
3.4
P:%Mpla123 MN127123271072 Edina Wart Remote Mgt Plan UpdatAWo'kFd= QAQC Modd for Pc uMiueMUA _SVIMM_hydmulicampuL_2006UPDATF GnaLNWl._vcifimLim.x6 NMN_ConduilRmulu UPDATE
Table 5.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek- North. Drainage Basin (Revlsed,12/2006). -
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions * (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope
IOOY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
lOY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
174
MD 22
292
Circular
1.25
0.013
910.45
909.80
325
0.20 "
7.3
6.5
175p
292
293
Circular
1:5
0.013
909.68
909.14
280
0.19
7.3
6.5
178p
295
296 '
Circular
2
0.013
908:33
908.07
131 "'
0.20
7.3'
6.5
1830
1098
MD-.25
Circular.` `
2.25
0.013
905.17
903.50
56' -
2.98
44.1
27.2
1940
HI_12
2174
Circular
1.25
0.013
897.22
896.73
126.5
0.39
7.2
10.7
1941
1168
2174
Circular
1
0.013
886.97
885.26
605
0.28
-0.4
-5.5
1953
2411
HL-42
Circular
2
0.013
920.82
918.96
57.5
3.24
6.3
5.5
1955
HL-27
2412
Circular
l
0.013
921.65
921.93
286
-OA0.
3.7
4.0
1957
2416
ML_12
Circular
1.25
0.013
933.57
933.01
318.5
0.18 "
-2.6
1.3
1958
-2417
2416
Circular
1
0.013
929.98
929.39
102
0.58
-2.6
1.6
1959
ML-29
2417
Circular
1
0.013
933.02
929.98
120
- 2.53
-2.6
2.4
2031
2516
HL_1 l
Circular
2.5
0.013
886.26
885.25
168
-0.60
-23:3
-2.4
2035
2515
1141
Circular
2
0.013
926.75
926.90
220
=0.07
-25.7
15.7
2036
HL-48
126,
Circular
1.5
0.013
925.32
906.26
255
7.47
26.7
20.0
2037
HI-40
M-32
Circular
1.25
0.013
899.89
899.78
35
0.31
8.0
-7.9
2038
2512
HI-37
Circular
1.25
0.013
921.16 "
908.11
251
5.20
0.0
0.0
2039
HL -7
HIt41
Circular
1.25
0.013'
929.01
916.56
425
2.93 -
11.9
9.2
2040
1743
HL 41
i Circular
1
0.013
918.42
917.59
42
1.98
-2.6
-2.2
2042
HL-45
;:2508:.
-' Circular
2
0.013
901.35
888.86
47'
.- 26.58
69.5
60.9
2043
2506
-2505
Circular
1.25
0.013.
903.66
893.74
200
4.96 ".
4.1
0.9
2044
2507
2506
Circular'
1.25
0.013
920.40
903.66
454 " -
3.69
4.1
1.0
2051
MD 47
264
Circular
3
0.013
867.86
862.20
51:8
10.93
.172.1
117.2
2052
2504
MD 47
Circular
2.25
0.013
884.59
880.27
112
' . 3.86
4.1
0.9
2053
2505
2504
" Circular
2.25
0.013
890.06
884.59
133 -
r 4.11
4.1 "
0.9
2055
HL 49
2517
Circular
I
0.013
891.00
887.20
123
3.09
4.4
1.7
2056
ML-21
2520 -
Circular
1.5
0.013
933.26
931.90
87
1.56
21.7
21.4
2057
2520
ML 19
Circular
2
0.024
931.90
931.11
50
1.58
21.7
21.4
2058
175 '
MI-46
" Circular
2
0.013
895.50
888.41
61
11.62
22.8
12.7
2059
HL_46
HL_1-
Circular .
2
0.013
883.06
882.92
12
1.17 -
56.4
24.2
2060
2522
2521
Circular
.1.25
0.013
943.13
942.85
28
'1.00
10.1
4.6
2061
NMN 68
2522
Circular
1
0.013
949.50
943.13
85
7.49
3.9
3.0
2063
HI 5
HI-2
Circular
2
0.013
888.30
887.97
25
1.32
11.5
9.6
2064
NMN-84
2527
Circular
1.5
0.013-
917.60
917.30
15
.2.00
4,9
2.5
2065
2527
2528'
Circular
1.5
0.013
919.10
918.35.
15
5.00
4.9
2.5
2066
NMN 48
NMN_49
Circular
0.5
0.013
872.00
872.00
242
0.00 ,.
-0.3
-0.4
2067
2531 -
HL-4 "
Circular
1.25
0.013
896.32
892.03
67
6.40
10.9
6.1
2068
2532
2531
Circular
1.25
0.013
905.55
896.32
278
3.32
12.7
6.5
2069
HL-5
2532
Circular
1.25
0.013
909.98
905.55
295.4.
1.50
11.3
5.3
2070
210
212"
Circular
1
0.013
872.78
872.31
12
3.92` -
5.7
-5.4
2074
2538
2539
Circular
1
0.013
925.22
910.13
95
15.88
9.2
0.0
2075
2541
ML-2
Circular
1
0.013
921.46
910.55
80
13.64
8.5
7.9
2077
MD-36
MD_3
Circular -
3
0.024
.857.03
853.29
125 -
2.99
57.7
19.0
2078
2549
ML-13
Circular
2
0.013
923.40
923.10
145.1
0.21
12.4.
7.4
2079
2550
.2549
Circular
1.5
0.013
927.73
923.80
44.5
'8.83
12.4
6.8
2081
2552
NMN 78
Circular
1.5
0.013
968.20
963.03
105
4.92
2.3
1.1
2082
2553
2552
Circular
I
0.013
973.10
968.20
177.4
2.76
1.1
1.1
42
145
HL-4
Circular
2.5
0.013
894.75
89105
28
9.64
411
44.9
50
HL -8
M-16
Circular.
l
0.013
901.46
901.90
-36
-1.22
-8.5
-8.0
51
HL-20
157
Circular
1.25
0.013
897.50
892.75
246.2
1.93
9.9
8.9
52
157
HI-4
Circular -
IS
0.013
892.31
891.83
1 80
0.60
13.1
9.0
58
HI-23
HI-18
Circular "
1
0.013
904.41
899.85
260
1.75
6.7
6.2
59
HI-19
HL-18
Circular
1
0.013
908.75
899.00
205
4.76
6.5
3.5
P:N1pIA23 MN127t23271072 Edina Wara Reuauca Mpm Plan UpdatdWurklidatQAQC Mudd for PavANinm\ Mt, SWMMy ydraulic_ arpullOD6UPDATE -anaLdWL�vcificatioanls WN- CadukRaWU UPDATE
Table 5.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised 1212006).
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (ft)
Roughn ess
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit length
(ft)
Slope
100Y Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
l0Y Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
61
Ht-18
2969
Circular
1.75
0.013
899.00
898.12
73
1.21
19.5
14.2
66
HL-2
HI-1
Circular
1
0.013
893.80
884.10
170
5.71
10.0
10.1
70
174
175
Circular
1.5
0.013
899.85
895.50
187
2.33
22.0
12.8
75
2162
HI-45
Circular
2
0.013
911.29
901.35
339
2.93
41.0
35.3
92
MD-42
197
Circular
1.25
0.013
872.50
865.82
71
9.41
31.9
21.3
93
197
198
Circular
1.25
0.013
865.82
861.50
98
4.41
13.6
13.5
94
198
MD 41
Circular
1.5
0.013
861.50
860.38
108
1.04
8.4
8.3
96
298
MD-43
Circular
2
0.013
937.32
936.49
28
2.96
-9.9
8.0
98
202
203
Circular
1.5
0.013
859.32
859.17
34
0.44
9.7
9.4
99
203
204
Circular
2
0.013
859.17
857.70
329
0.45
20.8
20.6
100
204
MD_9
Arch
2208
0.024
857.70
857.20
48
1.04
31.3
20.6
111
215
MD_16
Circular
1.5
0.013
869.61
861.71 1
300
2.63
10.6
10.2
112
MD-16
203
Circular
1.5
0.013
861.71
859.17
380
0.67
16.2
17.2
116
MD-10
MD_II
Circular
1.5
0.024
856.55
856.54
32
0.03
20.3
19.6
1164
NMN 69
1475
Circular
1.5
0.013
946.00
945.06
165
0.57
9.0
11.9
1167p
1477
1478
Circular
2
0.013
944.07
942.67
350
0.40
14.6
18.7
1168p
1478
NMN 72
Circular
2
0.013
942.67
942.04
112
0.56
14.6
14.8
1 19-p
MD_38
228
Circular
1.5
0.01
863.41
862.91
100
1 0.50
12.0
4.2
120p
228
229
Circular
1.5
0.01
862.91
858.80
60
6.85
12.0
4.2
131
246
247
Circular
1.5
0.01
932.26
931.20
517
0.21
9.6
8.3
144
MD 20
260
Circular
3
0.013
897.16
886.27
182
5.98
125.2
90.7
1449
NMN 45
1774
Circular
1
0.024
877.34
868.56
62
14.16
7.0
7.2
1451
NMN 49
1778
Circular
0.5
0.01
872.00
869.50
76
3.29
0.9
1.7
146
261
262
Circular
3
0.013
886.05
880.50
138
4.02
131.2
91.2
147
262
MD--19
Circular
3
0.013
880.50
877.43
60
5.12
1 132.0
91.6
1475p
1818
1817
Circular
1
0.013
910.82
909.66
216
0.54
3.8
3.8
1478
HL 32
HI._28
Circular
3
0.013
899.78
898.55
126
0.98
56.6
30.3
148
MD-19
MD--47
Circular
3
0.013
877.43
867.86
122.5
7.81
150.3
103.2
152p
268
269
Circular
1.5
0.013
885.25
876.37
93
9.55
2.4
0.0
170
287
MD-26
Circular
1
0.013
931.56
930.92
28
2.29
13.3
13.2
2150
NMN 59
2701
Circular
2
0.013
897.89
896.80
108
1.01
30.8
38.8
2151
NMN_32
2699
Circular
1 2
0.013
902.35
901.61
11
6.73
23.8
32.6
2152p
2701
2702
Circular
2
0.013
897.89
895.92
93.4
2.11
31.3
36.7
2153p
2699
NMN 59
Circular
2
0.013
901.61
897.89
Ili
3.29
23.8
32.6
2160p
2719
MLLI
Circular
1.25
0.01
902.76
902.60
36
0.44
1 4.4
-2.9
2161 p
2718
2719
Circular
1.25
0.01
915.14
913.51
333
0.49
4.4
1.2
2162
ML-38
ML-40
Circular
1
0.01
916.10
916.10
178
0.00
1.6
1.0
2163
ML-40
2718
Circular
I
0.01
916.10
915.14
193
0.50
4.4
1.2
2164p
HI_17
2706
Circular
1.5
0.01
901.00
896.00
350
1.43
9.7
3.9
2165p
2706
1115
Circular
1
0.01
1 896.00
889.00
249
2.81
8.9
8.5
2166p
HI_18
2709
Circular
1.75
0.01
899.60
896.82
216
1.29
4.3
3.6
2167p
2709
2710
Circular
2
0.01
896.82
996.10
169
0.43
3.9
3.5
2168
HI-18
2712
Circular
1.75
0.01
899.60
896.82
216
1.29
4.3
3.7
2169p
2712
2706
Circular
2
0.01
896.82
896.00
169
0.49
4.2
3.7
2170p
2710
2706
Circular
2
0.01
896.10
896.00
20
0.50
3.6
3.8
2171p
HI_19
HL-17
Circular
1.5
0.01
910.00
901.00
487
1.85
18.3
7.7
2172p
HI_22
HI-6
Circular
1
1 0.024
901.00
900.00
225
0.44
1.7
1 1.1
2173p
HI 3
2726
Circular
1.5
0.024
899.60
899.50
100
0.10
6.5
3.4
2174p
HL21
HL18
Circular
1.5
0.024
899.30
899.30
1 100
0.00
3.8
-1.0
3245
HI-43
M-40
Circular
1.5
0.013
908.00
900.00
173
4.62
19.3
15.1
422
585
MD-35
Circular
1
0.013
932.32
929.34
81
3.68
3.7
3.8
423
MD 35
587
Circular
1
0.013
929.34
928.25
163
0.67
4.8
5.2
P:%Mpbt23 MNt27t23271072 Edina Wala It- Mg m Plm UpdatAWorkFL1=%QAQC Modd fm PondWindARl rSWMM_hydmulic_omput 2006UPDATE_fuud_N W t�vaificalim.xls NMN_CmduitRmu1U UPDATE
Table 5.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mlle Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised 1212006).
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (fl)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(fl)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(fl)
Conduit Length
(fl)
Slope
IOOY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
IOY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
424
587
MD34
Circular
1
0.013
928.25
925.34
31
9.39
6.1
4.8
428
591
592
Circular
1
0.013
913.80
913.50
73
0.41
4.8
5.5
442
609
NM14_36
Circular
2.5
0.013
866.20
865.36
62
1.36
50.5
44.9
443
NMN_36
611
Circular
2.75
0.013
865.36
863.41
129
1.51
60.6
60.2
444
611
NMN_35
Circular
2.75
0.013
863.41
862.15
151.5
0.83
64.6
64.2
449
NMN_38
609
Circular
2.5
0.013
870.81
866.20
259
1.78
52.6
47.1
457
631
NMN_58
Circular
1.25
0.013
885.00
884.10
26
3.46
10.4
9.7
463
NMN30
639
Circular
1
0.013
879.24
877.84
70
2.00
9.2
6.5
467
NMN 33
NMN_31
Circular
1.5
0.013
876.02
872.12
130
3.00
19.4
17.3
474
652
651
Circular
2.5
0.024
869.96
869.48
150
0.32
22.4
9.1
477
655
654
Circular
2
0.024
870.67
870.38
15
1 1.93
19.2
4.9
478
656
655
Circular
2
0.024
872.51
870.67
65
2.83
20.2
4.9
886
1121
1122
Circular
1.75
0.013
908.90
907.35
65
2.39
19.0
17.3
887
ML-10
1124
Circular
1.25
0.013
923.03
915.63
134.9
5.49
18.0
14.2
888
1124
1122
Circular
1.25
0.013
915.63
908.34
185
3.94
12.0
12.0
889
1122
ML_1
Circular
1.75
0.024
907.35
903.66
120
3.08
22.5
22.7
898
ML-20
2540
Circular
1
0.013
1 929.69
926.27
155
2.21
7.4
7.2
902
ML-30
1144
Circular
1.5
0.013
926.20
911.98
323
4.40
29.7
24.4
908
1154
H)_I
Circular
1
0.013
887.17
886.65
98
0.53
5.7
5.8
915
HL4
HI I
Circular
1.5
0.013
887.50
886.65
132
0.64
13.8
15.5
916
HI-1
1168
Circular
1
0.01
888.35
886.97
500
0.28
-4.4
-4.7
1090
HL-36
124
Circular
1.75
0.013
918.46
908.66
64
15.31
51.2
25.3
1091
124
1386
Circular
1.75
0.013
908.66
907.59
35
3.06
26.4
24.4
1092
1386
1387
Circular
1.75
0.013
907.59
907.15
105
0.42
15.8
13.9
1148
NMN 47
1451
Circular
1.25
0.024
875.21
874.05
145
0.80
1 6.0
5.7
1150
1454
1455
1 Circular
2
0.013
922.96
921.40
20
7.80
15.5
12.3
1162
NMN_71
NMN_69
Circular
1
0.013
956.80
946.00
102
10.59
10.8
10.9
1170
1480
1481
Circular
2.25
0.013
939.55
939.17
90
0.42
37.0
26.2
1171
1481
1482
Circular
2
0.013
939.17
932.41
532
1.27
25.4
25.7
1172
1482
NMN_66
Circular
2.25
0.013
932.41
931.36
83
1.27
30.3
25.3
1173
NMN 66
1484
Circular
2.25
0.013
931.36
930.79
46
1.24
29.1
26.6
1174
1484
1485
Circular
2.25
0.013
930.79
930.16
50
1.26
27.6
21.3
1285
HI_IO
HI_I
Circular
1.25
0.01
889.96
888.50
163
0.90
9.8
9.5
128
MD--28
MD_48
Circular
1
0.01
934.65
935.00
30.6
-1.14
-7.7
-7.5
134
MD 45
250
Circular
3
0.013
916.34
914.64
160.4
1.06
62.5
46.7
137p
252
MD_27
Circular
3
0.013
910.89
905.86
249.7
2.01
82.4
52.7
1430
MD_17
1745
Arch
18"eq
0.013
858.00
857.00
60
1.67
10.2
11.5
1434
1750
NMN_15
Circular
2
0.013
859.80
859.14
66
1.00
20.5
23.3
1435
1752
1750
Circular
1.5
0.013
860.32
859.80
102
0.51
13.8
16.7
1436
NMN_14
1752
Circular
1.5
0.013
862.94
860.32
350
1 0.75
11.1
11.9
1452
NMN_54
NMN37
Circular
2
0.013
898.50
892.00
162
4.01
14.2
12.7
1458
1797
1795
Circular
1.5
0.013
937.24
937.24
4
0.00
1.1
3.0
145p
260
261
Circular
3
0.013
886.27
886.05
68
0.32
127.2
90.8
1463
MI-25
ML-24
Circular
1.5
0.024
908.36
907.80
33
1.70
10.7
3.3
1472
HI-15
1815
Circular
1.25
0.013
902.68
885.69
59
28.80
29.8
22.3
1473
1815
HL13
Circular
1.5
1 0.013
885.49
885.33
16
1.00
28.1
17.1
154p
270
MD_18
Circular
1
0.013
873.39
873.33
42
0.14
1 3.9
-0.3
1721
178
2162
Circular
2
0.013
915.81
911.29
363
1.25
35.3
31.1
1723
MI-18
Ml-32
Circular
1
0.024
908.99
906.80
15
14.60
8.3
7.0
1726
NMN_3
NMN_57
Circular
1.5
0.013
860.79
859.72
36
2.97
7.5
6.5
1727
MD-41
MD 15
Circular
1.75
0.013
860.38
860.00
93
0.41
19.9
22.0
1821p
2274
137
Circular
1
0.013
904.44
905.81
139
.099
-2.1
0.0
P.VNplst23 MM27t23271072 Edina Wara Raoureo Mg=Plan UpdxtAWakFdaIQAQC Modd f. PondWineAID.q$WM jodnvlir�o npu L2OD6UPDATE-rw1_NWl_vai6mtioaxls NMN_Conduidtau1u UPDATE
Table 5.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek- North Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006).
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(0)
Slope
100Y Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
l0Y Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
1822
HL_28
2274
Circular
1
0.013
898.20
898.20
65
0.00
-2.1
0.1
1831
2290
MD-25
Circular
1.5
0.024
911.32
910.00
18
7.33
16.9
0.0
1832
250
2292
Circular
3
0.013
914.64
912.56
264
0.79
64.2
46.8
1833
2292
252
Circular
3
0.013
911.50
911.13
63
0.59
78.0
51.8
1935
Hl_8
HI_4
Circular
2
0.013
897.67
888.68
372.5
2.41
31.7
31.7
1936
2394
Hi_8
Circular
1.25
0.013
898.91
897.67
60
2.07
15.9
13.4
1937
2395
2394
Circular
1
0.013
903.48
898.91
128.5
3.56
8.9
9.0
1938
2396
2395
Circular
1
0.013
906.42
903.48
142
2.07
7.1
7.2
1939
HI_7
2396
Circular
1
0.013
908.31
906.42
77
2.45
6.2
6.3
1942
HI_16
HI_12
Circular
1.25
0.013
902.57
897.22
408.5
1.31
5.5
5.5
1943
H!_9
H)_16
Circular
1
0.013 1
903.20
900.88
387.5
0.60
3.7
2.6
1954
2412
2411
Circular
1
0.013
921.93
920.82
67
1.66
5.5
5.1
1960
MD_18
MD-46
Circular
1.25
0.013
873.33
865.17
395
2.07,
8.1
5.5
1961
MD_12
MD-10
Circular
1.25
0.013
858.70
856.55
200
1.08
9.3
9.2
2019
HL-6
HL l2
Circular
1
0.013
906.00
905.24
30
2.53
9.6
7.9
2034
HL-42
178
Circular
2
0.013
919.04
915.81
325
0.99
31.4
29.1
2041
HL_41
2509
Circular
1.25
0.013
914.51
905.83
323
2.69
14.0
12.7
2045
2508
HL I
Circular
2
0.013
883.10
880.00
21
14.76
60.1
58.6
2050
2509
174
Circular
1.5
0.013
905.53
901.53
129
3.10
19.1
12.7
2054
2517
2516
Circular
1.25
0.013
887.20
886.26
20
4.70
4.4
1.7
2062
2521
1481
Circular
1.25
0.013
942.85
939.17
22
16.73
5.8
-4.9
2071
2534
NMN_56
Circular
l
0.013
860.89
860.28
40
1.53
7.6
-0.8
2073
2538
Hl-31
Circular
1
0.013
925.22
923.25
20
9.85
-8.9
0.0
2080
2551
2550
Circular
1.5
0.024
929.19
928.78
40
1.03
11.8
6.8
2083
ML_35
ML_19
Circular
1
0.024
930.94
929.62
164
0.81
4.1
4.5
3150
H"6
2824
Circular
1
0.015
889.46
889.02
60
0.73
6.2
6.9
3151p
2822
HL_I
Circular
1
0.013
883.48
882.85
107
0.59
6.1
6.9
3152p
2824
2822
Circular
1
0.015
889.02
883.48
99.5
5.57
1 6.2
6.9
3171p
2851
NMN_73
Circular
3
0.013
874.50
873.37
74
1.53
46.3
42.2
3172p
2850
2851
Circular
2.5
0.013
874.83
874.50
82
0.40
35.7
42.2
3173p
2849
2850
Circular
2.25
0.013
875.08
874.83
84
0.30
35.6
42.3
3176p
NMN_64
2847
Circular
2.25
0.013
876.28
875.09
151
0.79
46.4
45.6
3177p
2857
2856
Circular
1
0.013
904.00
902.88
35.4
3.16
6.9
2.4
3178
NMN 67
NMN_62
Circular
1.25
0.024
889.01
886.91
155
1.36
7.4
7.7
3179_p
2854
2853
Circular
1.25
0.013
894.60
889.81
160
2.99
6.9
2.8
3180p
2856
2855
Circular
1
0.013
902.88
896.59
185
3.40
6.9
2.4
3181p
2853
NMN 67
Circular
1.25
0.013
889.81
889.01
32
2.50
-10.1
-10.7
3182p
2855
2854
Circular
1
0.013
896.59
894.60
32.5
6.12
6.9
2.9
3246p
2908
NMN_14
Circular
1.25
0.013
864.20
862.94
21
6.00
4.3
7.0
3264p
2915
2916
Circular
1.75
0.013
886.00
885.00
250
0.40
14.2
16.0
3265
HI-17
2915
Circular
1.75
0.013
896.43
886.00
247
4.22
26.1
17.8
3266p
1607
HL_17
Circular
1
0.013
899.29
900.02
130
-0.56
0.0
0.0
3267
ML-2
ML-32
Circular
3
0.013
910.00
910.00
40
0.00
13.6
0.0
3286p
MLJI
ML-1
Circular
1
0.01
907.30
904.60
265
1.02
5.0
3.9
3294
MD-1
2961
Circular
1.5
0.024
849.00
849.00
70
0.00
5.8
5.7
3296
MD-2
MD_l
Circular
1
0.024
854.00
854.00
120
0.00
1.9
0.1
3297p
2956
MD_11
Arch
36x58
0.024
850.00
849.00
80
1.25
82.5
23.5
3298p
MD_50
EdCrk7
Circular
1.5
0.024
849.00
849.00
160
0.00
6.4
1.6
3302p
2969
166
Circular
1.75
0.013
898.12
897.00
93
1 1.20
19.5
14.2
3303
ML_19
2515
Circular
2
0.013
929.70
926.75
110
2.68
-25.7
15.7
65
Ht-4
2916
Circular
2.5
0.013
891.50
885.00
310
2.10
65.3
66.9
Ill
229
230
Circular
1.5
0.01
858.80
858.60
40
0.50
12.0
4.2
P:1Mpl,U3 MM27\23271072 Edina W.m Reswrto Mgm Plm UpdudWorkFdcs\QAQC Modd for Poud*Fmdd[ t_ SWbg&b ydmulic_ wtpw _2006UPDATE GnzL.KWL_vuifi ®Gw.xts NMN_CouduilRaWp UPDATE
9
Table 5.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatarsheds,in the'Nine:Mile Creek-'North Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006).
Conduit ID
� Upstream Node
Downstream Node
.
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (fl)
.Roughness
. -
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
-
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
00
Conduit Length
Slope
IOOY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
l0Y Peak Flow through
Conduit -
(cfs)
1455p
1785 -
MI-18
' Circular
1
-- 0.013-
911.23
910.99
_' 24
1.00
-0.9
-3.1
1468
NMN 62
1810
Circular
3.5
0.024
.885.19
881.37
150
2.55
73.4
21.5
1469p
1810
NMN_01
Circular
3.5
0.024
881.37
881.05
41
0.78
89.3
21.5
1477p
129
HI-32
Circular
2
0.013
899.67
899.78
15
-0.73
24.2
21.6
1429_
MD 9
MD-3
Arch
2208
0.024
857.20
857.03
17
1.00.
48.5
28.9
1431
MD_14
1745
Circular
1.5
0.013
856.45
856.45
32- _
0.00
10.3.
19.2
3174p
2848
2849
Circular
2.25
0.013
874.53
875.08.
49
-1.12
30.7.
42.3
3175p
2847
2848
Circular .
2.25
0.013
875.09.
874.53
23
2.44
26.0
38.4
3263p
2916
HL-1
Circular
3 .
0.013
885.00
882.40
30..
8.67'
77.3
82.3 '
P:Nlplxt23 MNt27t23271072Pdim Watt Ramuco Mg=Plan Upd9.%Wo, d.NQAQCMWd fm PondWI.NM.- §WpqM-bydWic_wtpu 2oD6UPDATEGretJJWL_vcrificaim.Rls NMN_ConduilRouly UPDATE
Nine Mile Creek - Central
6.0 Nine Mile Creek — Central
6.1 General Description of Drainage Area
Figure 6.1 depicts the Nine Mile Creek- Central drainage basin. The Nine Mile Creek- Central
drainage basin is located in the central portion of Edina and encompasses 1,243 acres that ultimately
drain to the stretch of the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek between T.H. 62 and West 701h Street.
6.1.1 Drainage Patterns
The stormwater system within this drainage area is comprised of storm sewers, ponding basins,
drainage ditches, and overland flow paths. The Nine Mile Creek- Central drainage basin has been
divided into three major watersheds based on the drainage patterns. These major watersheds are
depicted in Figure 6.2. Each major watershed has been further delineated into many subwatersheds.
The naming convention for each subwatershed is based on the major watershed it is located within.
Table 6.1 lists each major watershed and the associated subwatershed naming convention.
Table 6.1 Major Watersheds within the Nine Mile Creek — Central Drainage Basin
Major Watershed
Subwatershed Naming
Convention
# of
Subwatersheds
Drainage
Area (acres)
Colonial Ponds
CO ##
13
114
Indian Pond
IP ##
4
24
Nine Mile Central
NMC ##
119
1105
6.1.1.1 Colonial Ponds
The Colonial Ponds watershed is located in central Edina and encompasses approximately 114 acres.
The watershed is bordered by T.H. 62 to the south, Villa Lane on the west, extends northward to
Benton Avenue and eastward slightly past Westridge Boulevard. Six stormwater detention ponds are
located within the watershed. The most downstream detention basin is located just south of the
Colonial Church (subwatershed CO _1) and outlets to the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek via a
48 -inch culvert underneath T.H. 62. The land use within the watershed is primarily residential, with
the exception of the Colonial Church property and adjacent Countryside Park.
6.1.1.2 Indian Pond
The Indian Pond watershed is located in central Edina, southwest of Creek Valley Elementary
School. The 24 -acre watershed is characterized by a single storm sewer system that drains to Indian
Pond. Indian Pond is a land - locked basin. In the unlikely event of overflow from this pond, which
would occur at an approximate Elevation 897 MSL, the overflow would discharge to the intersection
of Indian Hills Pass and Cherokee Trail. It would then be picked up by the Gleason Road storm
sewer system and eventually discharge into the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek, just northwest of the
Barr Engineering Company 6 -1
P: \Mpis\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF'nEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
Edina High School complex. The land use within the Indian Pond watershed is low- density
residential.
6.1.1.3 Nine Mile Central
The Nine Mile Central watershed is also located in central Edina and spans approximately
1,105 acres. Stormwater within the watershed drains to the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek between
T.H. 62 and West 70`h Street via a network of ponding basins and storm sewer. The watershed
extends north to the intersection of Hansen Road and West 56`h Street and includes the area north of
T.H. 62 that drains to the storm sewer system along the SOO Line railroad. The SOO Line storm
sewer system flows beneath T.H. 62 and eventually discharges into the Creek near the intersection of
Valley Lane and Limerick Lane. The watershed is bordered by West 70`h Street on the south,
Gleason Road on the west, and T.H. 100 on the east. There are five stormwater detention basins
within the Nine Mile Central watershed. The watershed has been delineated into 118 subwatersheds,
with land use characterized by residential areas, the Edina High School complex, freeway, several
parks, the SOO Line Railroad, several ponding basins, and the floodplain of the North Fork of Nine
Mile Creek.
6.2 Stormwater System Analysis and Results
6.2.1 Hydrologic /Hydraulic Modeling Results
The 10 -year and 100 -year frequency flood analyses were performed for the Nine Mile Creek- Central
drainage basin. The 10 -year analysis was based on a'' /z -hour storm of 1.65 inches of rain. The
100 -year analysis was based on a 24 -hour storm event of 6 inches of rain. Table 6.2 presents the
watershed information and the results for the 10 -year and 100 -year hydrologic analyses for the Nine
Mile Creek- Central basin.
The results of the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency hydraulic analyses for the Nine Mile Creek -
Central drainage basin are summarized in Table 6.3 and Table 6.4. The column headings in
Table 6.3 are defined as follows:
Node /Subwatershed ID—XP -SWMM node identification label. Each XP -SWMM node
represents a manhole, catchbasin, pond, or other junction within the stormwater system.
Downstream Conduit — References the pipe downstream of the node in the storm sewer system.
Flood Elevation —The maximum water elevation reached in the given pond /manhole for each
referenced storm event (mean sea level). In some cases, an additional flood elevation has been
given in parenthesis. This flood elevation reflects the 100 -year flood elevation of Nine Mile
Creek, per the Nine Mile Creek Watershed Management Plan, May 1996.
Barr Engineering Company 6 -2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF'nEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Peak Outflow Rate —The peak discharge rate (cfs) from a given ponding basin for each
referenced storm event. The peak outflow rates reflect the combined discharge from the pond
through the outlet structure and any overflow.
NWL —The normal water level in the ponding basin (mean sea level). The normal water levels
for the ponding basins were assumed to be at the outlet pipe invert or at the downstream control
elevation.
Flood Bounce —The fluctuation of the water level within a given pond for each referenced storm
event.
Volume Stored —The maximum volume (acre -ft) of water that was stored in the ponding basin
during the storm event. The volume represents the live storage volume only.
Table 6.4 summarizes the conveyance system data used in the model and the model results for the
storm sewer system within the Nine Mile Creek- Central drainage basin. The peak flow through each
conveyance system for the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency storm event is listed in the table. The
values presented represent the peak flow rate through each pipe system only and does not reflect the
combined total flow from an upstream node to the downstream node when overflow from a
manhole /pond occurs.
Figure 6.3 graphically represents the results of the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency hydraulic
analyses. The figure depicts the Nine Mile Creek- Central drainage basin boundary, subwatershed
boundaries, the modeled storm sewer network, surcharge conditions for the XP -SWMM nodes
(typically manholes), and the flood prone areas identified in the modeling analyses.
One of the objectives of the hydraulic analyses was to evaluate the level of service provided by the
current storm sewer system. The level of service of the system was examined by determining the
surcharge conditions of the manholes and catch basins within the storm sewer system during the
10 -year and 100 -year frequency storm events. An XP -SWMM node was considered surcharged if the
hydraulic grade line at that node breached the ground surface (rim elevation). Surcharging is
typically the result of limited downstream capacity and tailwater impacts. The XP -SWMM nodes
depicted on Figure 6.3 were color coded based on the resulting surcharge conditions. The green
nodes signify no surcharging occurred during the 100 -year or 10 -year storm event, the yellow nodes
indicate surcharging during the 100 -year event, and the red nodes identify that surcharging is likely
to occur during both a 100 -year and 10 -year frequency storm event. Figure 6.3 illustrates that several
XP -SWMM nodes within the Nine Mile Creek- Central drainage basin are predicted to experience
surcharged conditions during both the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency storm events. This indicates a
probability greater than 10 percent in any year that the system will be overburdened and unable to
meet the desired level of service at these locations. These manholes and catch basins are more likely
to experience inundation during the smaller, more frequent storm events of various durations.
Barr Engineering Company 6 -3
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Another objective of the hydraulic analysis was to evaluate the level of protection offered by the
current stormwater system. Level of protection is defined as the capacity provided by a municipal
drainage system (in terms of pipe capacity and overland overflow capacity) to prevent property
damage and assure a reasonable degree of public safety following a rainstorm. A 100 -year frequency
event is recommended as a standard for design of stormwater management basins. To evaluate the
level of protection of the stormwater system within the Nine Mile Creek- Central drainage area, the
100 -year frequency flood elevations for the ponding basins and depressed areas were compared to the
low elevations of structures surrounding each basin. The low elevations were initially determined
using 2 -foot topographic information and aerial imagery in ArcView. Where 100 -year flood levels of
the ponding areas appeared to potentially threaten structures, detailed low house elevations were
obtained through field surveys. The areas that were predicted to flood and threaten structures during
the 100 -year frequency storm event are highlighted in Figure 6.3. Discussion and recommended
implementation considerations for these areas are included in Section 6.3.
6.2.2 Water Quality Modeling Results
The effectiveness of the stormwater system in removing stormwater pollutants such as phosphorus
was analyzed using the P8 water quality model. The P8 model simulates the hydrology and
phosphorus loads introduced from the watershed of each pond and the transport of phosphorus
throughout the stormwater system. Since site - specific data on pollutant wash -off rates and sediment
characteristics were not available, it was necessary to make assumptions based on national average
values. Due to such assumptions and lack of in -lake water quality data for model calibration, the
modeling results were analyzed based on the percent of phosphorus removal that occurred and not
based on actual phosphorus concentrations.
Figure 6.4 depicts the results of the water quality modeling for the Nine Mile Creek- Central drainage
basin. The figure shows the fraction of total phosphorus removal for each water body as well as the
cumulative total phosphorus removal in the watershed. The individual water bodies are colored
various shades of blue, indicating the percent of the total annual mass of phosphorus entering the
water body that is removed (through settling). It is important to note that the percent of phosphorus
removal is based on total phosphorus, including phosphorus in the soluble form. Therefore, the
removal rates in downstream ponds will likely decrease due to the large soluble fraction of incoming
phosphorus that was unsettleable in upstream ponds. The watersheds are depicted in various shades
of gray, indicating the cumulative total phosphorus removal achieved. The cumulative percent
removal represents the percent of the total annual mass of phosphorus entering the watershed that is
removed in the pond and all upstream ponds.
Ponds that had an average annual total phosphorus removal rate of 60 percent or greater, under
average climatic conditions, were considered to be performing well. For those ponds with total
phosphorus removal below 60 percent, the permanent pool storage volume was analyzed to determine
if additional capacity is necessary. Based on recommendations from the MPCA publication
Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas, March 2000, the permanent pool for detention ponds
should be equal to or greater than the runoff from a 2.0 -inch rainfall, in addition to the sediment
Barr Engineering Company 6 -4
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
storage for at least 25 years of sediment accumulation. For ponds with less than 60 percent total
phosphorus removal, the recommended storage volume was calculated for each pond within the
drainage basin and compared to the existing permanent pool storage volume.
6.3 Implementation Considerations
The XP -SWMM hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analyses and P8 water quality analysis helped to
identify locations throughout the watershed where improvements to the City's stormwater
management system may be warranted. The following sections discuss potential mitigation
alternatives that were identified as part of the 2003 modeling analyses. As opportunities to address
the identified flooding issues and water quality improvements arise, such as street reconstruction
projects or public facilities improvements, the City will use a comprehensive approach to stormwater
management. The comprehensive approach will include consideration of infiltration or volume
retention practices to address flooding and /or water quality improvements, reduction of impervious
surfaces, increased storm sewer capacity where necessary to alleviate flooding, construction and/or
expansion of water quality basins, and implementation of other stormwater BMPs to reduce pollutant
loading to downstream waterbodies.
6.3.1 Flood Protection Projects
The 2003 hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analysis identified several locations within the Nine
Mile Creek- Central drainage basin where the 100 -year level of protection is not provided by the
current stormwater system. The problem areas identified in 2003 are discussed below.
As part of the 2003 modeling analysis, potential corrective measures were identified for the problem
areas for purposes of developing planning -level cost estimates. These preliminary corrective
measures are also discussed below. As the City evaluates the flooding issues and potential system
modifications in these areas, consideration will be given to other potential system modifications,
including implementation of stormwater infiltration or volume retention practices, where soils are
conducive.
6.3.1.1 6005 & 6009 Crescent Drive (manhole 457)
Stormwater runoff from subwatershed NMC_110 collects at a low area along Crescent Drive.
Stormwater is collected at two catchbasins located on both sides of the street at 6013 Crescent Drive
and flows eastward through an 18 -inch storm sewer that connects with the trunk system that flows
south along the SOO Line railroad tracks. During intense rainstorms, such as the I00 -year frequency
event, flow through the 18 -inch system is restricted due to high flows entering the larger trunk
system from the east. Due to the restricted flow, water pools in the street along Crescent Drive and
eventually overtops the street and flows eastward between the homes toward a backyard depression
area behind the homes of 6001, 6005, 6009, and 6013 Crescent Drive. As a result of the overland
flow from Crescent Drive, this backyard depression area becomes inundated. The 100 -year
frequency flood elevation within this depression area is 903.0 MSL. This flood elevation is higher
than the low house elevations at 6005 and 6009 Crescent Drive, which were surveyed at 902.2 MSL.
Barr Engineering Company 6 -5
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF'AEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Based on the 2 -foot topographic information, it appears that water in the backyard depression area
will drain southward through a ditch along the west side of the railroad tracks, once it reaches
elevation of 902.6 MSL. To alleviate the flooding potential, it is recommended that a gravity channel
be constructed from the depression area to the ditch along the west side of the railroad tracks at an
elevation lower than the low house elevation of 902.2 MSL. This will allow the depression area to
drain and alleviate flooding at 6005 and 6009 Crescent Drive.
6.3.1.2 Cherokee Trail & Gleason Backyard Depression Area (IP_4)
A backyard depression area exists east of Cherokee Trail, just southwest of the intersection of
Cherokee Trail and Gleason Road. This is currently a land- locked area. During the 100 -year
frequency storm event, the flood elevation in this backyard area reaches 887.8 MSL. This flood
elevation is slightly higher than the low house elevation at 6529 Cherokee Trail, which was surveyed
at 887.34 MSL. To alleviate this flooding problem, it is recommended that a low level outlet be
constructed.
6.3.1.3 5339 West 64th Street (NMC 80)
A backyard depression area exists south of West 640' Street and west of Ridgeview Drive, just east of
the SOO Line railroad tracks. Stormwater from the direct subwatershed (NMC_80) and overflow
from West 64`h Street collects in the depression area, where it enters an 18 -inch storm sewer system
through an intake structure. During the 100 -year frequency storm event, the backyard depression is
inundated with stormwater and the flood elevation rises to 875.7 MSL. This flood elevation is
slightly higher than the low house elevation at 5339 West 64th Street, surveyed at 875.4 MSL.
To alleviate the flooding problem and provide a 100 -year level of protection, it is recommended that
the two 18 -inch pipes (pipes 293 and 294) that connect the backyard depression area to the storm
sewer system at the intersection of Ridgeview Drive and Valley Lane be upgraded to 24 -inch pipes.
This upgrade would result in a 100 -year flood elevation of 875.3 MSL, thus lower than the low house
elevation at 5339 West 64'h Street.
6.3.1.4 Valley View Road & Hillside Road (NMC 86, NMC_120)
The streets and homes in the area around the intersection of Valley View Road and Hillside Road are
situated in a low depression area. Storm sewer in this area collects the stormwater, which flows
southward underneath T.H. 62, and eventually connects with the SOO Line railroad system and
discharges into the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek. During large rain events, such as the 100 -year
frequency event, the capacity of the storm sewer system in this area is inadequate, and this area and
the nearby ditch on the north side of T.H. 62 are inundated with stormwater. The 100 -year flood
elevation is 862.0 MSL for subwatersheds NMC_86 and NMC_120. Based on the 2 -foot topographic
information, these flood elevations will affect several structures in the area, including 6309 and 6313
Hillside Road and 6328 Valley View Road.
Flooding problems have historically been encountered in this area. Past analysis of the problem
concluded that no solutions to the problem were feasible. However, the flood elevations in this area
Barr Engineering Company 6 -6
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \ReportWecember 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFTNEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
can be decreased by upgrading the 24 -inch pipe that spans from Valley View Road to the north ditch
of T.H. 62 (pipe 303p) to a 36 -inch pipe. This would decrease the 100 -year frequency flood
elevations of NMC_86 and NMC_120 to 859.9 MSL and 860.2 MSL, respectively.
6.3.1.5 West 66th Street & Naomi Drive Area (NMC_71, NMC_103)
Flooding problems have historically been encountered during intense rainstorms at the low -lying
intersection of West 66'h Street and Naomi Drive, as well as the in the backyard depression area in
the rear of the homes on the east side of Naomi Drive. Stormwater overflow from the 66'h Street and
Naomi Drive intersection flows into the adjacent Normandale Park storage area (ball field). The
intersection and ball field are eventually drained by a 33 -inch trunk storm sewer system that flows
northwest to the low area along Warren Avenue and eventually westward to the North Fork of Nine
Mile Creek. Based on the XP -SWMM analysis, the 100 -year flood elevation at the West 66'h Street
and Naomi Drive intersection (subwatershed NMC_71) and the adjacent storage area in Normandale
Park reaches 864.8 MSL.
The backyard depression area behind the Naomi Drive homes is drained by a 15 -inch culvert that
connects to the 15 -inch storm sewer flowing north from Circle Drive Pond. During periods of
intense rainfall, the flow in this system backs up, thus flowing southward into Circle Drive Pond. A
flapgate has been installed on the culvert draining the backyard depression area to prevent backflow
from inundating the area. However, with the flapgate closed, there is no outlet from this area and the
backyard storage volume is not sufficient to prevent flooding of the structures along Naomi Drive.
The 100 -year frequency flood elevation for this depression area (subwatershed NMC_103) is
859.6 MSL. This flood elevation is over 2 feet higher than the low house elevation at 6605 Naomi
Drive (857.7 MSL) and slightly less than 2 feet above the low house elevation at 6609 Naomi Drive
(857.9 MSL).
This flooding problem has been analyzed in the past and recommendations to alleviate the flooding
were made, in which case some were implemented. However, the recommendation to add additional
outlet capacity to the backyard depression area, via a pumped outlet to the Normandale Park storage
area or a separate gravity system flowing west to the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek, has not yet
been implemented. To ensure a 100 -year level of protection, it is recommended that additional outlet
capacity be provided for this area. If a pumped outlet is installed to drain the backyard area, it will
be necessary to add additional storage capacity in Normandale Park.
6.3.1.6 6712, 6716, 6720 Ridgeview Drive (NMC 106)
Subwatershed NMC_106 is a 3.3 -acre drainage area, characterized by a drainage swale that extends
for nearly 1,200 feet through numerous backyards between Ridgeview Drive and the SOO Line
railroad tracts, flowing southward. The stormwater pools in a depression area behind 6712, 6716,
and 6720 Ridgeview Drive. During large storm events such as the 100 -year frequency rainstorm, this
backyard area is inundated. The 100 -year frequency flood elevation of this depression area is
845.9 MSL. Based on the 2 -foot topographic data, this flood elevation will encroach upon the
structures at 6712, 6716, and 6720 Ridgeview Drive. To alleviate this flooding problem, it is
Barr Engineering Company 6 -7
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update\WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
recommended that a gravity storm sewer system be installed that discharges stormwater from the
backyard area to the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek.
6.3.1.7 6808, 6812, 6816, 6820 Ridgeview Drive (NMC_107)
A backyard depression area exists at the 6808, 6812, 6816, and 6820 Ridgeview Drive properties,
just east of the SOO Line railroad tracks. The depression area is landlocked and thus becomes
inundated with stormwater during large rainstorm events such as the 100 -year frequency event.
Flooding has historically occurred in this area. The 100 -year frequency flood elevation in this
backyard area is 843.6 MSL. Based on the 2 -foot topographic data, this flood elevation will
potentially affect structures at 6808, 6812, 6816, and 6820 Ridgeview Drive. To alleviate the
flooding conditions in this backyard depression area, it is recommended that an outlet system be
constructed to flow west and discharge to the floodplain of the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek.
6.3.2 Construction /Upgrade of Water Quality Basins
The 2003 P8 modeling analysis indicated that the annual removal of total phosphorus from several
ponds in the Nine Mile Creek- Central drainage area was predicted to be below the desired
60 percent removal rate, under average year conditions. For those ponds with total phosphorus
removal below 60 percent, the permanent pool storage volume was analyzed to determine if
additional capacity is necessary. The ponds that exhibited deficiencies in total phosphorus removal
and permanent pool volume are listed below, along with recommended pond upgrades.
Construction of new or expansion of existing water quality basins is one method to increase the
pollutant removal achieved prior to stormwater reaching downstream waterbodies. Many additional
techniques are available to reduce pollutant loading, including impervious surface reduction or
disconnection, implementation of infiltration or volume retention BMPs, installation of underground
stormwater treatment structures and sump manholes and other good housekeeping practices such as
street sweeping. As opportunities arise, the City will consider all of these options to reduce the
volume and improve the quality of stormwater runoff.
Barr Engineering Company 6 -8
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
0
r
0
a
a
J
0
LL
m
0
•
o •
ti
Ar
Oel
0
@0
NMC_11
jn app. NMC_10
Pond
IP_t • 1
NMC_109 NMC_91
Ip_ NMC_B
IP_4 NMC_14
NMC_7
�. :. ERA
coo
♦ -fad b. • Vii' ^.
.i
i
� V Nft C_5 NMC_9
�N
/� =�7--- L
A,�.
NMC 81 NMC_6 �I t
J�g� NMC_73
J NMC_82 NMC_68
'— NMC_67
NMCl72
NMC_63
NMC_118
NMC_7
NMC_61 NMC 64
\ r NMC_74.•• ^- '^NMC_75 —
I U 0�4 '�V)
C ar
Map
EPJ
M99 MURI
IMPUR YJ
NMC_32 �NMC:1b�MC�4�
,l�
ow Fe
U)
0
•
��URPUR.�1�
lABA
City of Edina Boundary
Roads /Highways
Creek /Stream
Lake /Wetland
Nine Mile Creek - Central
C3 Drainage Basin
Subwatershed
Imagery Source: Aerials Express, 2008
0
Feet
.1) 0 1,000
Meters
300 0 300
Figure 6.1
NINE MILE CREEK CENTRAL
DRAINAGE BASIN
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
L
i ;1$ ^•� ?' j•, F a r tri• �?a ' �+� '�` i �" �yy JIB:.
.. fir, a ,e/+ .f. i. J ��• � ., i
w� +* - r. �.�. r,,. : #. • s ..Ted, "(� �'
IV
aw
too
<'
I ial
Pon s
U
a
a
,gyp
x.
r -.
Inaiai
liond
.r
_ n
_ . 4r` ...
0
LL �
cJ
corantar
Ponds
i
1_
Nine Mild C
- Ce
i�
f
07711
o e
• r�C�R efl aK�O/
[�
City of Edina Boundary
Roads /Highways
Creek /Stream
Lake /Wetland
C3
Nine Mile Creek - Central
Drainage Basin
Major Watershed
Subwatershed
Imagery Source: Aerials Express, 2008
O
Feet
1,000 0 1,000
Meters
300 0 300
Figure 6.2
NINE MILE CREEK CENTRAL
MAJOR WATERSHEDS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
Figure 6.3
NINE MILE CREEK CENTRAL
HYDRAULIC MODEL RESULTS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
City of Edina Boundary
Roads /Highways
Creek/Stream
Lake /Wetland
CZNine Mile Creek -
Central Drainage Basin
C3Subwatershed
Feet
400 0 400 800
Meters
Potential Flooding During
100 -Year Frequency Event
Pipes
o Manhole
Manhole Surcharge During
° 100 -Year Frequency Event
Manhole Surcharged During
° 10 -Year Frequency Event
D
"w'-,
RIDGEWAV RD
OR
z
i
0 �P�
i�MT4
• 56
i
N
m
�L
O
�1
CREEK VIEW U
uu
I vow
C) gm ►►
rit
Oro
0
U
W
Z
o qeF
� � b
f
1
503
°?szr. Z-wv.
a
a
u
a
Q
t
a r
.�
1� £
i
!I
C0�3
CO 4
lVin e
ple
NMC_112
_114
t
w►„ OU
Source: Aerials
I -- ;
2008
0e�'�t
Percent TP Removal in Water Body*
This number represents the percent of the total annual mass
of phosphorus entering the water body that is removed.
0 - 25% (Poor /No Removal)
25 - 40% (Moderate Removal)
- 40 - 60% (Good Removal)
60 - 100% (Excellent Removal)
Cumulative TP Removal in Watershed*
This number represents the percent of the total annual mass
of phosphorus entering the watershed and upstream watersheds
that is removed in the pond and all upstream ponds.
_ 25 - 40% (Moderate Removal)
40 - 60% (Good Removal)
60 - 100% (Excellent Removal)
*Data based on results of P8 modeling.
Area Draining Directly to the North
Fork of Nine Mile Creek
Flow Direction
0
Feet
1,000 0 1,000
Meters
300 0 300
Figure 6.4
NINE MILE CREEK CENTRAL
WATER QUALITY
MODELING RESULTS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
1
Table 6.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek - Central Drainage
Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed 'Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10- Year,Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
CO _1
.16:8
37
74.0
6.52
47.9
1.63
CO-2
5.9
34
26.6
2.49
18.2
0.61
CO-3
0.5
42.
2.2
0.18
.3.2
0.05
CO-4
8.2 ,
4
210
2:17
6.1
0.38
CO-5.
7:5
26
25.1
2:96
11.7
0.66
CO _6
13:7
19
54.2
4.27
26:7
0.97
S.3
28
24.8
1.60
19.3
0.40
-CO-7
CO _8
8.5
'20
37.7
2.38
.:20:5
0.53
CO-9
93
20
39.4
2.57
19.9
0.56
IP_1
5.8
29
26.3
1.75
179>
0.42
IP 2
11':7
15
49.7
3.09
22.6
0.66
IP 3
4.2
20!'
19.4
1.18
11.8
0.28
IP -4
19
19
8.6
0.53
4.9
0.12
CO_10
4.9
19
21.4
1.39
11.4
0.32
CO•_ll
4.6
18
21.5
1.28
13.2
0.31
CO12
6.6
7
28.7
2.28
131
0.54
CO__13
22:3
20
75.9
6.18
34.6
1.21
NMC-4
2.0
20
9.2
0.55
6.2
0.14
NMC-5
4.0
20
17.1
1.12
8.7
0.24
NMC-6
3.9
20
16.9
1.09
8.8
0.24
NMC-7
13.2
20
56.8
3.95
30.4
0.92
NMC 9
1.7
28
8:1
0.71
7:9
0.18
NMC-10
8.7
20
39.0
2.52
22.3
0.60
NMC 11
7.7
15
35:1 ';
2.05
18.9
0.47
NMC-12
7.1
17
21.9.
1.91
9.4
0.35
NMC-13
3.0
20
14.3
,1.13
11.3
0.29
NMC 14
3.6
20
14.4
1.23
7.4
0.29
NMC-15
07
29
3.3
0:21
3.0
0.06
NMC-16'' `
8'4.
20
29:3
2.32
13.5
0.46
NMC 17
75
13.
32:9
2.10
16.1
0.49
NMC _18 --
1i7
20.
8r1'-
0.48
5.6
0.12 .
NMC 19
5:5
20 '
25.0
1.54
14.9
036
WC-20,
3:2
t?- 28
14:4
0.95
9.4
0.22`
NMC 21,
2.3
20
,9.4.
0.65
4.5
0:13
NMC22
_
41
20
18:7
Y.15
11.0
0.27
NMC_23
5:8
20
26.9
1:64
17.3
0.40
NMC 24
7.3
20
27.2
.2.00
12.7
0.40
NMC _25 •
1.8
20.
.8.4'
0.51
5.7
0.12
NMC 26
4.4
19
18.8
1.21
9.5
0.26
NMC 27
5:5
19
22.9
1.53
11.3
0.32
NMC-29,
9.6
16
25.8
2.43
10.7
0.40
NMC-30
19:3
20
73.3'
5.31
34.6
1.07
NMC 31
2.1
20
9.8
0.59
6.9
0.15
NMC 32
12.0
23
40.7
3.33
18.9
0.65
NMC 34
2.11
20
9.6
0.58
7.1
0.15, .
NMC 35
5.2
20
23.7
1.63
14.1
0.40
NMC 36
5.6
20
25.4
1.57
14.5
0.36
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMILe_SWMM_ hydraulic _output_2006UPDATE_final NWL_verification.xls NMC Runoff Results UPDATED
Table 6.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- Central Drainage
Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
NMC 37
1.8
20
8.5
0.51
6.6
0.13
NMC 38
2.8
20
12.2
0.78
6.5
0.17
NMC-39
12.7
20
47.1
3.48
22.0
0.69
NMC 40
2.2
20
10.7
0.71
9.1
0.19
NMC 41
6.4
20
27.6
1.78
14.3
0.39
NMC-42
12.0
20
45.5
3.31
21.4
0.67
NMC 43
2.8
20
13.1
0.80
8.3
0.19
NMC 44
4.0
39
18.6
1.40
13.6
0.36
NMC-48
0.8
52
3.7
0.27
4.4
0.07
NMC 49
8.5
20
36.5
2.37
18.8
0.52
NMC-50
10.5
20
42.7
2.92
20.8
0.61
NMC 51
9.7
20
40.3
2.69
19.9
0.57
NMC 52
9.7
20
40.3
2.76
20.5
0.61
NMC 53
2.2
20
7.9
0.61
3.6
0.12
NMC 54
10.1
20
43.0
2.93
22.3
0.66
NMC 55
8.8
20
33.8
2.42
16.0
0.49
NMC_56
11.2
20
49.1
3.18
26.5
0.72
NMC 57
5.8
15
20.7
1.52
8.6
0.29
NMC-58
4.3
20
18.8
1.20
10.0
0.27
NMC-59
1.1
20
5.3
0.32
4.6
0.08
NMC 60
5.2
17
23.4
2.17
14.0
0.52
NMC-61
6.4
20
28.3
2.01
16.3
0.49
NMC-62
13.2
19
52.3
3.98
25.5
0.89
NMC 63
8.4
20
36.0
2.35
18.4
0.51
NMC-64
3.5
15
16.2
0.95
8.9
0.22
NMC 65
8.1
17
34.8
2.33
17.5
0.54
NMC_66
8.1
20
32.6
2.23
15.8
0.47
NMC 67
6.5
19
30.6
1.88
20.8
0.47
NMC 68
3.3
20
14.6
0.91
8.2
0.21
NMC 69
6.6
20
29.7
1.84
16.8
0.42
NMC-70
7.8
28
35.0
2.65
22.6
0.66
NMC 71
6.4
18
26.9
1.84
13.5
0.41
NMC 72
1.0
20
4.8
0.29
3.9
0.07
NMC-73
3.3
20
14.6
0.91
8.1
0.21
NMC-74
8.0
3
24.6
2.02
6.9
0.36
NMC-75
6.4
20
27.4
1.78
14.1
0.39
NMC 76
1.9
20
8.9
0.55
5.4
0.13
NMC_77
13.8
32
60.1
4.30
36.6
0.99
NMC 78
4.6
20
20.7
1.28
12.1
0.30
NMC 79
0.4
15
1.9
0.11
2.1
0.03
NMC_80
2.2
16
9.9
0.59
5.5
0.14
NMC 81
3.0
22
12.2
0.84
6.3
0.18
NMC-82
2.9
19
12.8
0.81
7.0
0.18
NMC-83
3.7
20
17.2
1.05
10.5
0.25
NMC 84
6.9
24
29.7
2.25
17.2
0.54
NMC-85
2.0
20
9.6
0.61
7.6
0.16
NMC 86
9.4
21
40.9
2.84
22.4
0.67
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMILe_SWMM_hydraulic_out put_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls NMC Runoff Results UPDATED
Table 6.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- Central Drainage
Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
NMC 87
1.1
50
5.4
0.49
7.2
0.13
NMC 88
1.8
34
8.5
0.58
6.3
0.14
NMC-89
9.0
45
42.7
3.09
41.3
0.80
NMC-90
14.2
20
62.8
4.33
35.1
1.04
NMC-91
5.2
20
19.8
1.51
9.5
0.33
NMC-92
2.1
50
10.2
0.93
11.9
0.24
NMC-93
2.0
50
9.7
0.83
11.0
0.22
NMC-94
6.6
50
31.6
2.43
28.6
0.63
NMC-95
7.0
20
30.9
1.96
16.7
0.44
NMC 96
15.6
20
65.2
4.42
32.9
0.96
NMC 97
6.1
20
27.1
1.70
15.0
0.38
NMC-98
7.5
20
33.9
2.17
19.9
0.52
NMC-99
4.2
20
19.0
1.19
11.3
0.28
NMC 100
9.4
20
36.8
2.61
17.6
0.54
NMC 101
30.8
20
116.2
8.85
55.3
1.87
NMC-102
1.2
20
5.7
0.46
5.1
0.12
NMC-103
4.1
20
19.2
1.30
12.5
0.33
NMC 106
3.3
16
15.4
0.99
9.1
0.25
NMC 107
1.6
16
7.4
0.47
5.5
0.12
NMC 108
7.8
20
29.3
2.13
13.8
0.43
NMC-109
1.5
20
6.7
0.42
3.6
0.09
NMC-110
18.3
20
78.9
5.11
40.9
1.12
NMC 111
23.9
19
93.5
6.60
44.3
1.36
NMC-112
9.3
48
43.9
3.37
37.6
0.88
NMC 113
29.4
14
133.5
8.06
71.3
1.90
NMC_114
2.8
57
13.5
1.08
13.6
0.29
NMC-115
16.3
19
68.7
4.54
34.3
0.98
NMC_116
10.2
20
42.5
2.83
21.2
0.60
NMC-117
54.9
20
138.6
14.61
59.2
2.52
NMC-118
1 11.3
8
42.2
3.07
15.3
0.64
NMC 119
2.4
14
11.1
0.63
8.2
0.16
NMC--120
8.0
21
34.1
3.24
19.4
0.77
NMC-121
1.7
20
1 7.8
0.48
4.8
1 0.11
NMC 122
27.0
20
1 99.5
7.44
46.4
1 1.49
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgtnt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMll.e_SWMM_hydmulic output_ 2006UPDATE _fina]_NWI._verification.xls NMC Runoff Results UPDATED
Table 6.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- Central Drainage Basin
(Revised 12/2006).
Subwatershed or Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood
Elevation (ft)
Type of
Storage'-
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood
Elevation
(ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
100
1352
877.4
869.8
301
186
883.0
882.6
305
187
878.8
876.9
307
189
865.9
865.4
308
190
865.5
864.4
310
192
857.3
856.1
324
outfall
852.1
849.2
327
201
855.8
855.6
328
outfall
852.1
850.3
329
202
859.1
858.2
330
outfall
852.1
850.2
332
204
866.1
864.8
335
207
869.3
869.0
336
208
870.5
870.1
338
210
878.7
878.4
340
212
884.8
882.5
341
213
886.2
883.6
343
215
887.2
884.5
348
220
884.6
882.9
349
221
891.0
890.9
350
222
896.0
1
895.9
351
223
910.0
909.9
352
224
911.3
911.2
354
226
913.2
913.1
356
228
914.1
913.9
357
229
915.3
915.2
359
231
920.5
1
920.4
366
outfall
847.7
844.2
368
outfall
848.4
848.3
369
239
856.7
856.4
370
outfall
850.1
848.2
371
240
863.4
863.3
373
242
873.1
873.0
374
243
888.8
888.6
375
244
893.3
893.1
378
247
876.7
872.3
379
248
875.2
871.1
380
249
875.0
870.6
382
251
863.5
863.0
384
253
863.4
861.9
385
254
860.5
860.3
386
255
860.0
859.4
388
outfall
846.1
829.2
392
260
851.6
851.0
393
261
845.9
844.3
394
outfall
845.6
842.8
396
263
851.7
848.7
397
264
853.7
850.8
398
265
857.7
854.4
399
266
861.2
1
857.5
401
268
864.9
860.9
402
269
864.9
861.6
403
270
865.0
1
861.9
405
271p
862.4
406
273
865.1
862.5
409
276
865.0
862.9
410
277
864.6
1 862.6
411
278
864.3
862.2
412
279
864.3
862.2
PAMpls\23 MM27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for Pond\NineMlLe_SWMM_hydmulic output_ 2006UPDATE _fina!_NWL_verification.xls
NMC_Nodelkesults UPDATED
Table 6.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- Central Drainage Basin
(Revised 12/2006).
Subwatershed or Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood
Elevation (ft)
Type of
Storage'-
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood
Elevation
(ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
416
283
890.9
881.7
417
1640
860.0
858.2
418
285
852.3
845.5
419
outfall
844.1
838.8
420
286
894.1
894.0
421
287
903.5
902.4
424
outfall
847.7
845.4
425
290
866.8
863.3
426
291
870.8
1
865.5
427
292
873.2
866.8
428
293
874.0
868.4
430
295
878.0
878.0
431
296
880.0
879.9
433
298
885.9
885.8
435
300
850.7
1
848.8
436
outfall
847.7
844.1
438
302p
853.9
852.6
440
304p
862.0
858.7
443
307p
862.8
862.5
445
309
906.3
906.0
454
2513
903.8
901.4
455
320
903.0
900.9
457
318
903.0
byd
896.9
6.2
1 901.6
896.9
4.7
458
319
903.0
901.2
459
321
902.5
898.5
460
3000
899.3
895.7
463
ditch
919.6
919.2
466
326p
941.2
940.8
468
328p
936.8
935.9
472
332p
922.0
1
921.3
475
334
918.3
917.3
476
336p
917.5
915.8
477
337
916.4
914.3
479
339
908.7
908.0
480
340p
895.3
894.6
482
341p
896.1
895.8
483
342
905.0
904.9
486
outfall
837.2
833.9
488
346
837.2
831.3
489
outfall
837.2
829.8
492
873.0
864.6
493
.349p
350p
869.7
1
862.9
494
351p
866.9
854.0
496
353p
853.7
844.2
497
outfall
839.3
838.5
499
355
843.0
842.8
501
357p
838.7
838.3
503
outfall
832.5
829.8
505
outfall
832.4
831.5
526
376
890.9
889.8
527
377
890.4
889.1
528
378p
890.2
889.0
1609
1276
873.8
867.5
1826
1481
885.8
885.7
1827
1482
895.3
894.7
1828
1483
905.4
902.8
1915
1546
867.7
861.5
1918
1547
921.8
919.6
1919
1548
921.6
919.9
P:%MplsU3 MN127U3271072 Edina Water Rewurces Mgmt Plan Update %WoTkFdw%QAQC Model for PondWineMlLe_ SWMM_ hydraulic_ output_2A06UPDATE _final_NWL_vedfcation.xls
NMC_NodeResults UPDATED
Table 6.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- Central Drainage Basin
(Revised 1212006).
Subwatershed or Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood
Elevation (ft)
Type of
Storage'
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood
Elevation
(ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
1921
1609p
906.1
905.9
1923
1550
913.1
910.8
1926
1551
941.1
940.8
1927
1552
941.1
940.9
1929
1554
926.9
923.7
1930
1555
940.0
938.9
1935
1558
888.4
887.1
1936
1559
888.4
887.9
1941
1563
846.7 1
846.5
2072
1643
871.4
871.2
2086
1653
919.6
1
916.7
2088
1655
946.8
946.4
2271
1818
883.6
883.5
2272
1819
896.6
893.2
2429
1971
849.4
847.0
2430
outfall
847.7
845.6
2431
1972
864.8
862.8
2432
1973
878.2
873.4
2433
1974
885.7
882.4
2434
1975
885.8
884.8
2484
outfall
852.1
847.6
2556
3001
894.9
893.0
2557
3002
891.6
891.9
2560
3005
884.1
1
884.0
2561
3007
877.3
877.0
2563
3008
861.4
861.1
2565
3010
852.1
850.4
2566
3012
851.4
850.1
2567
outfaB
847.7
844.3
2569
3016
854.5
853.8
2570
3017
8545
parldng lot
853.8
2579
312
904.0
901.9
2580
2510
903.9
901.7
2583
outfall
940.9
940.6
2921
3269p
856.5
853.5
2922
3273p
856.5
853.5
2923
3272p
856.5
1 853.7
2924
3271p
856.6
855.2
CO_1
2020
852.1
pond
845.7
6.4
849.1
845.7
3.4
CO-2
ditch
852.1
pond
849.3
2.8
849.9
849.3
0.6
COO
197
852.1
pond
848.5
3.6
850.1
848.5
1.6
CO-4
194
852.1
pond
1 849.0
3.1
850.1
849.0
1.1
CO-5
overflow to CO_2
853.3
pond
847.7
5.6
850.4
847.7
2.7
CO_6
191
865.5
861.9
CO-7
327
856.9
855.0
1.9
855. 8
855.0
0.8
CO_8
182
891.0
890.8
CO_9
188
868.9
868.4
IP_1
no outlet
885.7
880.3
5.4
882.1
880.3
1.8
IP_2
375
891.6
sree
890.2
B'_3
379p
890.1
1 888.9
I1?_4
no outlet
887.8
byd
882.0
5.8
885.5
882.0
3.5
CO_]0
1465
854.2
parldrig lot
853.2
CO_ll
1466
856.5
853.5
CO_12
193
854.5
853.8
CO_13
181
892.6
892.3
NMC_4
225
912.0
911.9
NMC 5
1556
945.1
1
1 945.1
P:\MplsU3 MN\27U3271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFdes\QAQC Model for Pond\NimMne_SWMM_hydmubc_out put_ 2006UPDATE _fmnLNWL_verffication.xls
NMC_NodeResults UPDATED
4
Table 6.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- Central Drainage Basin
(Revised 12/2006).
Subwatershed or Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm-Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour, Event
Flood,
Elevation (ft)
Type of
Storage'
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood
Elevation
(ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
NMC -6
230
920.4
920.3
NMC 7
203
866.0
863.7
NMC_9
301p
852.7'
byd
843.9
8.8-
.851.4
843.9
7.5
NMC_10
•206
859.2
859.1
NMC 11
1560
890.9
890.8
NMC 12
216
888.2
885.9
NMC`13
218
887.5
;- field/school
880.3 `
7.2 '
:886:1
880.3
5:8 .
NMC' 14
1642
871.2
870.9
NMC '15''
1611
878:1.
875.3
�NMC_16,
.1644
878.2
876.5
NMC' 17
217
888.2
street
886.2
NMC 18
227
913.4
913.3
NMC 19
211
884.5
882.2
NMC 20
3009
852.9
851.4
NMC_21 '
232
924.9
923.5
"NMC 22,
1553
941.1
941.0
NMC • 23
199
857.3
857.5
NMC_24
•1610
913.9
912.5
NMC 25
327p
940.9.
940.5
NMC 26
330p
929.6
929.9
NMC_27
333
921.8
919.6
NM6.29
331
925.1
924.5
NMC_30
325p
942.7
942.4
NMC 31
343p
9110
909.7
NMC 32
1351
880.4
871.3
NMC 34
1654
935.3
932.4
NMC 35
241
871.0
1
870.8
NMC-36
245
908.4
908.3
NMC-37
329p
936.2
935.3
NMC 38
.1656
971.3
967.6
NMC_39_.;
338p
915.7
913.3
NMC 40
.344
837.6
837:6
NMC_41
324p
943.2
byd
939.5
3.7
942.9
939.5
3.4
NMC-42 _
1645
948.3
street
948.0
NMC' 43: -
1278
944.2
street
942.5
NMC_44:
2520
943.8
pond
940.8
3.0
941.7
940.8
0.9
NMC-48
•345
855.3
855.1
NMC-49
1549
921.1'
921.0
NMC •50
1976
904.6
899.6
NMC _51,
1612
8716
872.0
; WC-52,
1657
849A
849.5
NW-53
1565
868.2
864.4
''NMC-54' , , a':
'= . 256.
856.2
street
854.5 '
NMC_ 55
250
873.3
869:0
NMC-56
252
863:5
862.9
NMC 57
352p
866.6
852.9
NMC-58'
288
905.5
905.3
NMC 59
1658 -
884.1
883.1
NMC 60
237
850.1.
849.6
NMC_61
262
855.6
855.4
NMC 62
238.
854.3
852.8
NMC 63
267
864.9
street
860.7
NMC_64
266
864.6
byd
863.2
1.4
863.7
863.2
0.5
NMC 65
259
853.6
853.4
C-66
289
857.2
857.0
NMC 67
271p
872.5
street
872.4
NMC 68
297
885.5
885.5
NMC-69
299
906.0
905.9
NMC _70
269,
863.5
and
861.6
1.9
862.0
861.6
0.4
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgnu Plan Update \WorkFdes\QAQC Model for PondWmeMltr_ SWMM _bydraulie_output_2006UPDATE final NWL_verirmtion.xls
NMC Nodeltesults UPDATED
Table 6.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- Central Drainage Basin
(Revised 12/2006).
Subwatershed or Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2-Hour Event
Flood
Elevation (ft)
Type of
Storage'
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood
Elevation
(ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
NMC 71
274
864.8
street
862.8
NMC_72
1277
917.6
917.6
NMC_73
1484
909.0 1
908.9
NMC_74
1972_p
864.8
park
860.2
4.6
862.8
860.2
2.6
NMC 75
1665
896.7
896.4
NMC_76
280
866.4
863.4
NMC_77
281
859.8
pond
857.5
2.3 1
858.1
857.5
0.7
NMC_78
1662
898.8
897.9
NMC_79
275
865.1
863.0
NMC_80
294
875.7
byd
866.8
8.9
870.8
866.8
4.1
NMC_81
3006
883.6
882.9
NMC_82
295p
street
875.6
NMC 83
3011
918.4 1
918.2
NMC_84
overflow to NMC_86
862.2
hwy ditch
850.7
11.5
856.2
850.7
5.5
NMC_85
209
871.8
871.5
NMC_86
303p
862.0
street/yard
858.6
NMC_87
no outlet
856.5
hwy ditch
852.7
3.8
855.1
852.7
2.4
NMC_88
3004
886.8
1
886.6
NMC_89
1820
917.3
914.2
NMC_90
308p
871.5
871.3
NMC_91
205
869.2
868.5
NMC_92
no outlet
856.5
hwy ditch
852.8
3.7
855.0
1 852.8
2.2
NMC_93
no outlet
857.4
hwy ditch
853.8
3.6
856.2
853.8
2.4
NMC_94
no outlet
854.4
hwy ditch
851.0
3.4
853.4
851.0
2.4
NMC_95
358
836.6
1
836.1
NMC_96
354p
846.4
846.1
NMC_97
359p
837.6
837.4
NMC_98
356p
840.0
839.6
NMC_99
246
877.8
873.3
NMC_100
1564
847.2
1
846.9
NW-101
1561
844.6
844.4
NMC_102
1970
851.6
848.1
NMC_103
329OLp
859.6
byd
855.6
4.1
858.2
855.6
2.7
NMC 106
no outlet
845.9
byd
844.7
1.3
845.4
844.7
0.7
NMC_107
no outlet
843.6
byd
841.0
2.6
842.2
1 841.0
1.2
NMC 108
335p
918.3
917.0
NMC_109
214
886.9
884.2
NMC_110
317p
905.5
street
904.9
NMC_1 11
1661
906.4
906.1
NMC_112
31 1p
904.0
pond
901.0
3.0
902.1
901.0
1.1
NMC 113
3003
890.1
889.8
NMC_114
2512 (inlet/outlet)
903.8
pond
900.0
3.8
901.6
900.0
1.6
NMC_1 15
2512
903.6
901.6
NMC_116
323
922.5
byd
919.3
3.2
922.4
919.3
3.1
NMC_117
1724
905.2
904.7
NMC_118
273
871.2
ark
868.2
3.0
869.5
868.2
1.3
NMC 119
no outlet
921.0
byd
914.0
7.0
919.0
914.0
5.0
Q120
305p
862.0
street/yd
859.5
NMC_121
2511
903.9
1 901.7
NMC 122
NMC 114
1 904.0
1 903.3
2 byd = backyard depression
P.\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFi es \QAQC Model for PondWhrcMlLe_SWMM_hydmulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _finalflWL_wrifxation.xls
NMC_NodeResults UPDATED
Table 6.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek - Central Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions' (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream Inver
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope
I OOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
I OY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
191
CO-6
310
Circular
3
0.013
856.60
853.76
355
0.80
96.0
78.6
192
310
CO-I
Circular
3.5
0.013
853.26
847.70
490
1.14
96.1
78.5
194
CO-4
CO-1
Circular
3
0.013
849.00
848.00
96
1.04
26.2
9.0
197
CO3 I
CO-4
Circular
2
0.013
848.50
848.50
91
0.00
-5.2
-5.1
199
NMC 23
324
Circular
1.25
0.013
851.00
847.90
207
1.50
11.6
11.7
201
327
328
Circular
1
0.074
850.96
849.50
146.5
1.00
3.6
3.5
202
329
330
Circular
3.5
0.013
855.00
848.12
310
2.22
113.1
102.4
203
NMC_7
329
Circular
3
0.013
858.56
855.00
178
2.00
113.2
102.2
208
336
335
Circular
3
0.013
866.64
865.15
265.5
0.56
42.8
43.9
212
340
NMC_19
Circular
2.75
0.013
871.85
871.40
54
0.83
31.4
29.7
213
341
340
Circular
2.5
0.013
875.34
874.65
143.7
0.49
31.5
29.8
214
NMC_109
341
Circular
2.5
0.013
875.87
875.34
110.3
0.48
31.6
29.8
215
343
NMCI09
Circular
2.5
0.013
876.17
875.87
61
0.49
29.7
26.3
216
NMC_12
343
Circular
2.5
0.013
877.65
876.17
308.1
0.48
29.7
26.3
217
NMC_17
NMC_12
Circular
2.5
0.013
878.80
877.65
235.7
0.49
27.1
25.2
232
NMC21
359
Circular
1.25
0.013
917.23
915.46
210
0.84
9.3
6.0
237
NMC 60
366
Circular
1.25
0.013
844.35
842.90
100
1.45
9.3
12.4
238
NMC_62
368
Circular
1.75
0.013
847.82
846.62
150
0.80
25.6
22.7
239
369
370
Circular
1.25
0.013
853.59
847.20
225
2.84
11.2
11.1
240
371
369
Circular
1.25
0.013
859.98
853.59
225
2.84
11.1
11.1
241
NMC 35
371
Circular
1.25
0.013
864.73
859.98
250
1.90
12.1
12.7
249
380
NMC 55
Circular
2.5
0.013
868.59
866.77
35
5.20
55.4
46.5
256
NMC_54
388
Circular
3
0.013
852.67
828.00
180
1 13.71
119.6
89.3
259
NMC_65
392
Circular
1
0.013
848.79
848.23
92
0.61
6.1
6.2
260
392
393
Circular
1.25
0.024
848.23
842.20
327.7
1.84
5.0
5.3
261
393
394
Circular
4.5
0.024
840.11
840.00
26
0.42
99.3
88.3
264
397
396
Circular
3.5
0.013
841.98
841.33
201.5
0.32
80.5
74.8
265
398
397
Circular
3
0.013
843.18
842.48
174
0.40
79.0
74.7
266
399
398
Circular
3
0.013
843.89
843.18
69
1.03
88.7
82.2
268
401
NMC_63
Circular
3
0.013
847.61
847.26
44
0.80
55.3
47.3
269
402
401
Circular
3
1 0.013
848.59
847.61
245.6
0.40
55.3
47.6
270
403
402
Circular
3
0.013
849.03
848.59
107.9
0.41
45.7
40.8
273
406
405
Circular
3
0.013
850.43
850.21
59
1 0.37
44.7
38.6
274
NMC_71
406
Circular
2.75
0.013
852.70
851.13
713.8
0.22
33.5
29.4
276
409
NMC79
Circular
1.25
0.013
854.40
853.56
28
3.00
9.2
7.8
277
410
409
Circular
1.25
0.013
855.25
854.40
100
0.85
9.2
7.8
278
411
410
Circular
1.25
0.013
856.56
855.25
312
0.42
4.6
4.8
280
NMC 76
412
Circular
1
0.013
860.63
856.65
166
2.40
4.7
5.4
281
NMC 77
412
Circular
1
0.013
857.45
856.65
210
0.38
-5.3
-4.5
283
416
417
Circular
l
0.013
879.80
859.00
94
22.13
17.5
11.8
285
418
419
Circular
1.5
0.013
840.80
837.60
75
4.27
32.6
21.8
286
420
380
Circular
2
0.013
892.98
871.50
320
6.71
33.7
24.1
287
421
420
Circular
2
0.013
896.43
894.30
400
0.53
28.8
24.3
289
NMC 66
424
Circular
1
0.013
852.51
844.35
175
4.66
7.9
8.4
292
427
426
Circular
2.25
0.013
1 859.95
859.52
106.4
0.40
43.2
31.4
293
428
427
Circular
1 1.5
0.013
864.25
861.50
85.8
3.21
17.7
12.8
294
NMC_80
428
Circular
1.5
0.013
866.78
865.50
159.5
0.80
17.7
12.7
300
435
436
Circular
3.5
0.013
843.25
841.50
1 670
1 0.26
61.4
1 69.5
312
2579
2580
Circular
2
0.013
900.60
899.27
236
0.56
9.5
5.6
318
457
458
Circular
1.5
0.013
896.85
895.87
66
1.49
10.1
11.4
333
NMC_27
475
Circular
1.75
0.013
913.80
912.10
423
0.40
15.7
17.3
337
477
NMC_39
Circular
3.5
0.013
909.00
907.50
1 71
2.11
79.9
77.1
P:%Mp1s123 MKU7U3271072 Edim Watt' Rtsautax M%t Plan UpdoAWockFdatQAQC MuM [ar mxla NMC I00Y_CwduitRaWU Update
Table 6.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek - Central Drainage Basin (Revised 1212006)
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions' (ft)
Roughness
Ccef6cient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(R)
Slope
IOOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cf.)
IOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(c f.%)
339
479
480
Circular
3.5
0.013
906.50
892.66
209
6.62
142.0
94.1
342
483
482
Circular
1.25
0.013
904.27
894.60
194.4
4.97
9.0
6.6
344
NMC_40
486
Circular
1
0.013
835.20
833.00
110
2.00
5.7
5.7
345
NMC 48
488
Circular
2
0.074
854.66
829.89
154
16.08
22.7
4.4
346
488
489
Circular
2
0.024
830.57
829.22
37
3.65
22.7
4.4
358
NMC-95
503
Circular
1.75
0.013
830.39
828.06
170
1.37
25.7
25.4
376
526
527
Circular
2
0.013
887.77
886.89
350
0.25
14.1
11.4
377
527
528
Circular
2
0.013
886.89
886.58
110
0.28
14.1
11.5
1277
NMC_72
1609
Circular
1
0.024
917.19
866.97
155
32.40
4.8
3.9
1351
NMC32
100
Circular
4
0.013
867.03
866.25
126
0.62
170.7
111.1
1352
100
492
Circular
4
0.013
866.25
864.39
274.8
0.68
169.5
111.4
1466
CO-11
CO-4
Circular
2
0.024
851.20
850.00
120
1.00
22.2
13.0
1483
1828
1827
Circular
1.25
0.013
901.88
894.17
103
7.49
14.6
8.2
1547
1918
NMC27
Circular
1.75
0.013
913.95
913.80
37
0.41
7.7
8.0
1548
1919
1918
Circular
1.75
0.013
915.00
914.20
196
0.41
8.4
9.6
1549
NMC 49
1919
Circular
1.25
0.013
916.05
915.25
202
0.40
9.5
9.9
1550
1923
1921
Circular
1.5
0.013
907.15
900.91
415
1.50
13.6
11.3
1551
1926
466
Circular
1.25
0.013
933.99
933.74
50
1 0.50
5.4
5.9
1552
1927
1926
Circular
1.25
0.013
934.80
933.99
162
0.50
5.2
6.3
1555
1930
1929
Circular
1
0.013
937.96
919.87
302
5.99
8.2
8.2
1556
NMC_5
1930
Circular
1
0.013
939.57
937.96
82.5
1.95
8.3
8.3
1640
417
NMC_77
Circular
2
0.013
856.00
856.00
90
0.00
17.6
11.8
1642
NMC_14
336
Circular
1
0.013
865.51
865.00
32
1.59
7.4
7.9
1653
2086
NMC39
Circular
2
0.013
915.84
908.00
448
1.75
21.4
15.1
1655
2088
NMC_34
Circular
1.25
0.013
945.76
931.36
335
4.30
11.9
6.5
1656
NMC 38
2088
Circular
1
0.013
967.00
946.00
237
8.86
11.4
6.5
1657
NMC_52
418
Circular
1.25
0.013
843.25
843.00
50
0.50
14.4
14.9
1658
NMC_59
NMC 81
Circular
1.25
0.013
882.16
874.50
63
12.16
5.3
4.6
1662
NMC_78
416
Circular
1.25
0.013
897.20
880.50
90
18.56
17.6
12.9
1665
NMC_75
NMC_79
Circular
1.5
0.013
895.77
853.56
317
13.32
27.4
18.8
1820
NMC_89
2272
Circular
1 1.5
0.013
901.35
892.45
105
8.48
42.2
41.2
1970
NMC_102
2429
Circular
2.5
0.013
847.37
846.50
92
0.95
46.4
5.1
1971
2429
2430
Arch
36" eq
0.013
846.50
845.22
147
0.87
46.4
5.1
1973
2432
NMC_99
Circular
2.25
0.013
870.90
871.06
32.5
-0.49
25.4
17.4
1974
2433
2432
Circular
2
0.013
881.36
872.00
170
5.51
40.7
21.2
1975
2434
2433
Circular
1.75
0.013
883.61
881.61
40
5.00
43.2
20.8
2020
CO_1
2484
Circular
4
0.013
845.68
845.48
210
0.10
88.3
50.7
2510
2580
NMC_121
Circular
2
0.013
899.27
899.22
8
0.63
9.5
5.6
2511
NMC_121
NMC_114
Circular
2
0.013
899.22
899.00
40
0.55
10.7
5.6
2512
NMC_115
NMC_114
Arch
36'
0.013
899.30
899.00
29
1.04
32.1
28.2
2513
454
NMC_115
Arch
24'
0.013
900.00
899.30
28.9
2.42
-22.1
-10.1
2520
NMC 44
2583
Circular
1
0.013
940.80
940.00
100
0.80
5.1
2.1
3001
2556
2557
Circular
2
0.013
885.59
881.61
350
1.14
23.5
19.5
3005
2560
NMC_81
Circular
2
0.013
876.06
874.50
140
1.11
32.8
31.5
3006
NMC_81
2561
Circular
2
0.013
874.50
869.64
150
3.24
47.5
48.6
3009
NMC 20
2565
Circular
2.5
0.013
844.72
844.50
35
0.63
28.2
39.0
3011
NMC_83
NMC_113
Circular
1
0.024
913.25
881.00
95
33.95
10.9
10.3
3012
2566
2567
Circular
2.5
0.013
844.00
842.41
670
0.24
27.9
31.1
3017
2570
2569
Circular
1
0.013
850.54
850.29
15
1.67
-3.5
-0.4
301
NMC_9
435
Circular
3
0.013
843.88
843.50
75
0.51
61.3
69.5
302p
438
NMC_9
Circular
3
0.013
845.33
843.88
290
0.50
41.4
37.0
303p
NMC 86
438
Circular
2
1 0.013
1 852.19
846.08
197
3.10
41.4
38.1
P:Vdpls%23 MNt27\23271072 Pali. Wa R--- Mpu Plan UpdudWarkFI.XQAQC Modd far PmdWmcMLI,.$WMM hydtmlic�.mtpm_20 UPDAIF OnaL NWltvc fiatim.als NMC I00Y_CmduitRadU Update
Table 6.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek - Central Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions' (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope
IOOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
WS)
IOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
WS)
307p
443
NMC_120
Circular
1.75
0.013
858.48
854.34
188
2.20
22.7
24.4
31 1p
NMC_I12
2579
Circular
2
0.013
901.00
900.60
67
0.60
9.5
5.6
327p
NMC95
468
Circular
2.25
0.013
932.71
930.85
413
0.45
34.4
35.8
328p
468
NMC_37
Circular
2.25
0.013
930.60
930.20
43
0.93
34.6
36.1
329p
NMC_37
NMC-26
Circular
2.25
0.013
930.20
923.40
403
1.69
38.5
38.7
335p
NMC_106 1
476
Circular
3.5
0.013
910.11
909.54
187
0.31
79.9
78.2
336p
476
477
Circular
3.5
0.013
909.54
909.00
183
0.30
79.9
79.8
338p
NMC99
479
Circular
4
0.013
907.50
906.50
463 1
0.22
130.6
94.2
340p
480
NMC_32
Circular
3.5
0.013
892.66
873.96
190
9.84
164.5
97.1
341 p
482
480
Circular
1.75
0.013
894.60
894.16
63
0.70 1
9.0
6.6
343p
NMC_31
483
Circular
1.25
0.013
907.98
904.27
219.3
1.69
9.0
6.6
349p
492
493
Circular
4
0.013
857.99
857.25
193.5
0.38
169.3
111.4
353p
496
497
Circular
4
0.013
836.00
835.00
240
0.42
253.0
141.2
359p
NMC 97
505
Circular
1
0.013
833.00
830.50
162
1.54
6.3
6.3
375
ff_2
526
Circular
2
0.013
888.09
887.77
106
0.30
14.1
11.3
378p
528
1P 3
Circular
2
0.013
886.58
886.43
28
0.54
14.1
11.5
379
IPA
IP I
Circular
2.25
0.013
886.43
886.09
130
0.26
28.1
18.9
181
CO-13
CO-8
Circular
2
0.013
884.26
883.00
96
1.31
24.3
24.4
182
CO-8
301
Circular
2
0.013
883.00
875.63
350.1
2.11
38.8
40.6
186
301
305
Circular
2
0.013
875.63
869.23
246
2.60
37.6
37.3
187
305
CO_9
Circular
2
0.013
869.03
861.43
274.1
2.77
41.3
38.2
188
CO-9
307
Circular
2.5
0.013
860.84
859.20
195
0.84
53.1
54.1
189
307
308
Circular
2.5
0.013
859.10
858.65
52
0.87
52.8
54.0
190
308
CO--6
Circular
2.75
0.013
1 858.28
856.88
193.7
0.72
53.3
53.9
193
CO-12
CO-1
Circular
1
0.013
850.00
848.03
44
4.48
8.9
8.7
204
332
NMC_7
Circular
3
0.013
859.10
858.56
18
3.00
89.9
80.2
205
NMC_9l
332
Circular
3
0.013
861.25
859.10
267
0.81
77.6
80.1
206
NMC_10
327
Circular
1
0.024
853.45
850.96
222.9
1.12
2.9
3.4
207
335
NMC91
Circular
3
0.013
865.15
861.25
57.5
6.78
44.5
45.9
209
NMC_85
336
Circular
2.25
0.013
866.74
866.64
56
0.18
36.6
36.8
210
338
NMC 85
Circular
2.25
0.013
870.04
866.74
395
0.84
38.3
38.2
211
NMC_19
338
Circular
2.75
0.013
875.95
870.04
289.2
2.04
71.4
57.6
218
NMC_13
NMC_17
Circular
2.5
0.013
880.29
878.80
205
0.73
-27.4
19.4
220
348
NMC_19
Circular
2.5
0.013
878.08
871.40
69
9.68
28.4
28.8
221
349
348
Circular
1.25
0.013
884.00
878.40
254.8
2.20
13.4
13.5
222
350
349
Circular
1.25
0.013
889.79
884.00
102.7
5.64
13.6
13.7
223
351
350
Circular
1.25
0.013
903.96
889.79
238.2
5.95
15.3
15.5
224
352
351
Circular
1.25
0.013
904.80
903.96
58
1.45
15.5
17.1
225
NMC_4
352
Circular
I
1 0.013
905.34
904.80
103.5
0.52
7.6
7.5
226
354
NMC_4
Circular
1
0.013
906.20
905.34
224.5
0.38
5.0
5.1
227
NMC_18
354
Circular
1
0.013
906.20
906.20
5
0.00
4.7
4.7
228
356
NMC_18
Circular
1
0.013
907.45
906.20
57.5
2.17
4.1
3.7
229
357
356
Circular
1
0.013
908.71
907.45
57.5
2.19
4.9
5.5
230
NMC_6
357
Circular
1
0.013
915.04
908.71
172
3.68
6.0
6.0
231
359
NMC_6
Circular
1.25
0.013
915.46
915.26
20
1.00
2.6
.3.7
242
373
NMC_35
Circular
1.25
0.013
866.00
864.73
67
1.90
1 10.9
11.0
243
374
373
Circular
1.25
0.013
882.24
866.00
328
4.95
14.5
14.4
244
375
374
Circular
1.25
0.013
885.77
882.24
1 82
4.31
14.8
14.6
245
NMC_36
375
Circular
1.25
0.013
899.23
885.77
1 313
4.30
15.4
15.1
246
NMC99
378
Circular
2.25
0.013
871.06
869.98
160
0.68
26.8
22.5
247
378
379
Circular
2.25
0.013
869.98
869.35
150
0.42
28.0
22.5
248
779
380
Circular
2.5
0.013
869.35
868.59
IO
7.60
29.1
22.5
PWpbt23 MNt27\23271072 Edina Wna Ft- Mgm Plan tlpdaulWmkFd&QAQC Mudd fm PonWmdADA-S vIbUL bydnWic_ ompuL2006UPDATF�Gnl _NWl-vaiawtim.xb NMC IODY_Condukit -ld Update
Table 6.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mlle Creek - Central Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
p
Downstream Node
aPe
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope
IOOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
IOY Pcak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
250
NMC_55
382
Circular
2.5
0.013
866.77
857.92
292
3.03
72.7
56.9
251
382
NMC 56
Circular
2.5
0.013
857.92
856.38
37
4.16
34.0
46.6
252
NMC_56
384
Circular
3
0.013
856.38
854.94
282
0.51
52.1
55.7
253
384
385
Circular
3
0.013
854.93
854.43
30
1.67 1
100.8
74.6
254
385
386
Circular
3
0.013
854.43
853.23
185
0.65
61.9
61.4
255
386
NMC_54
Circular
3
0.013
853.23
852.67
85
0.66
95.4
75.3
262
NMC 61
393
Circular
3.5
0.013
840.76
840.11
331.9
0.20
94.7
83.4
263
396
NMC 61
Circular
3.5
0.013
841.42
840.76
176.3
0.37
82.7
74.8
267
NMC_63
399
Circular
3
0.013
847.26
845.52
174
1.00
81.4
75.9
271p
405
403
Circular
3
0.013
850.21
849.03
222
0.53
45.7
40.5
275
NMC_79
NMC_71
Circular
3
0.013
853.56
853.07
187
0.26
24.4
21.6
279
412
411
Circular
1.25
0.013
856.65
856.56
36
0.25
4.0
4.1
288
NMC_58
421
Circular
2
0.013
899.66
896.70
381
0.78
26.8
27.4
290
425
NMC 63
Circular
2.25
0.013
856.73
855.44
155.5
0.83
37.2
31.1
291
426
425
Circular
2.25
0.013
859.52
857.00
210
1.20
40.9
31.2
295
430
NMC 80
Circular
1.25
0.013
869.53
866.78
171.7
1.60
10.7
13.1
296
431
427
Circular
1.25
0.013
873.33
868.00
156.8
3.40
15.5
15.3
297
NMC_68
431
Circular
1.25
0.013
879.89
873.33
164.4
3.99
13.6
13.7
298
433
NMC_68
Circular
1.25
0.013
883.25
879.89
60
5.60
10.4
8.2
299
NMC_69
433
Circular
1.25
0.013
898.00
883.25
269.3
5.48
8.0
7.8
309
445
NMC_l17
Circular
1.25
0.013
902.00
900.82
295
0.40
4.3
4.5
316
454
455
Circular
2
0.013
895.46
894.87
240
0.25
15.7
11.4
319
458
455
Circular
1.5
0.013
895.87
894.87
92
1.09
10.1
11.4
320
455
1 459
Circular
2
0.013
894.87
892.55
404
0.57
22.4
20.2
321
459
460
Circular
2
0.013
892.55
890.15
400
0.60
22.4
19.8
323
NMC_116
463
Circular
1.5
0.013
919.30
918.60
81
0.86
12.9
9.4
3269p
2921
COL-1 I
Circular
2
0.013
852.34
852.10
24
1.00
3.8
1.2
3270p
CO_7
2924
Circular
1.25
0.024
855.00
854.65
139.2
0.25
3.2
1.2
3271p
2924
2923
Circular
1.25
0.024
854.65
853.29
136
1.00
3.2
1.2
3272p
2923
2922
Circular
1.25
0.013
853.29
852.68
60.7
1.01
3.5
1.2
3273p
2922
2921
Circular
1 1.25
0.013
852.68
852.34
34
1.00
3.7
1.2
331
NMC-29
472
Circular
2.75
0.013
917.35
914.46
310
0.93
51.0
59.3
334
475
NMC_I08
Circular
2
0.013
911.80
911.60
37
0.54
15.6
16.9
352p
NMC_57
496
Circular
4
0.013
846.02
844.83
174
0.68
253.1
141.2
354p
NMC 96
499
Circular
1.25
0.013
840.16
837.70
176
1.40
9.9
9.4
355
499
NMC_98
Circular
1.25
0.013
837.70
835.69
171
1.18
8.5
8.5
1276
1609
406
Circular
1
0.024
866.97
850.45
155
10.66
4.8
4.3
1278
NMC_43
NMC 44
Circular
1.25
0.013
940.01
939.35
76
0.87
8.7
7.3
1465
CO 10
CO 4
Circular
1
0.013
849.99
849.00
95
1.04
5.7
5.9
1481
1826
NMC_68
Circular
1.25
0.013
881.66
878.62
45
6.76
6.6
5.3
1482
1827
1826
Circular
1.25
0.013
894.17
880.49
311
4.40
11.6
6.7
1484
NMC 73
1828
Circular
1
0.013
902.29
897.44
45
10.78
4.6
4.5
1546
1915
494
Circular
1.75
0.013
860.82
845.49
110
13.94
44.1
25.2
1553
NMC_22
1927
Circular
1.25
0.013
936.40
934.80
260
0.62
5.8
7.2
1554
1929
NMC_6
Circular
1
0.013
919.87
915.04
127
3.80
7.9
5.6
1558
1935
NMC_17
Circular
2.25
0.013
880.04
878.80
253.7
0.49
19.8
18.7
1559
1936
1935
Circular
2.25
0.013
880.50
880.04
95.8
0.48
19.9
1 18.7
1560
NMC_l1
1 1936
Circular
1.25
0.013
886.30
880.50
112.7
5.15
15.3
15.3
1561
NMC_101
NMC_98
Circular
1.25
0.013
838.30
836.64
255
0.65
9.4
9.7
1563
1941
NMC96
Circular
1
0.013
838.85
840.20
103
-1.31
3.7
3.7
1564
NMC_100
1941
Circular
1
0.013
842.94
838.95
230
1.74
3.0
3.2
1565
NMC 53
418
Circular
l
0.013
863.30
843.90
310
6.26
9.5
8.9
P:%Mp4\23 MN\27\23271072 Fdi- Waa Raauca MgU Plao UpdatdWorkFilo\QAQC MoM fm PonMbm\m.e-SWb4d_hydnWic_ougnL 2006UPDATB_Gm(.NWL _ vaifimiw.xta NMC InnY C..d.LR ®dts Update
Table 6.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek - Central Drainage Basin (Revised 1212006)
Conduit 1D
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
*
Dimensions (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(R)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit lsngth
(ft)
Slope
IOOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
I OY Peak Flow
Through Conduit
(cfs)
1609p
1921
NMC 58
Circular
1
0.013
900.91
899.66
37
3.38
11.1
11.0
1610
NMC24
1923
Circular
1.25
0.013
907.82
907.15
30
2.23
14.1
11.6
1611
NMC_15
NMC_32
Circular
l
0.013
873.00
872.00
295
0.34
4.2
2.9
1612
NMC 5l
1915
Circular
1.75
0.013
863.37
860.82
175
1.46
35.0
23.9
1643
2072
NMC_14
Circular
1
0.013
866.06
865.51
54.5
1.01
4.5
5.1
1644
NMC_16
2072
Circular
1
0.013
872.78
866.06
179.5
3.74
6.8
5.9
1645
NMC_42
NMC 44
Circular
1.5
0.024
943.00
941.00
200
1.00
9.5
9.1
1654
NMC_34
2086
Circular
1.25
0.013
931.36
916.60
300
4.92
15.6
13.5
1661
NMC_111
445
Circular
1
0.013
902.14
902.00
30
0.47
4.8
6.2
1724
NMC_I17
NMC 112
Circular
1.25
0.013
900.82
900.66
40
0.40
11.6
11.2
1818
2271
NMC_81
Circular
2
0.013
878.90
874.50
70
1 6.29
22.7
21.5
1819
2272
2271
Circular
1.5
0.013
885.14
878.90
70.9
8.80
37.2
32.0
1972
2431
NMC_71
Circular
1.5
0.013
855.70
853.07
24
10.96
11.3
12.5
1976
NMC 50
2434
Circular
1.75
0.013
898.61
883.61
300
5.00
40.2
20.8
3000
460
2556
Circular
2
0.013
890.15
885.59
400
1.14
23.7
19.8
3002
2557
NMC_113
Circular
2
0.013
881.61
880.13
130
1.14
23.5
1 26.0
3003
NMC_113
NMC_88
Circular
2
1 0.013
880.13
877.62
220
1.14
32.7
31.4
3004
NMC_88
2560
Circular
2
0.013
877.62
876.06
137
1.14
32.8
31.4
3007
2561
2563
Circular
2
0.013
869.64
857.90
300
1 3.91
50.1
49.5
3008
2563
NMC_20
Circular
2
0.013
857.90
644.72
359
3.67
33.9
34.5
3010
2565
2566
Circular
2.5
0.013
844.50
844.00
66
0.76
27.7
38.2
3016
2569
CO-12
Circular
1
0.013
850.29
850.00
29
1.00
-3.6
-4.5
304p
440
NMC_86
Circular
2.5
0.013
852.58
852.19
42
0.93
25.3
27.4
305p
NMC_120
440
Circular
2.25
0.013
1 853.54
852.58
127
0.76
25.4
28.7
308p
NMC 90
443
Circular
1.5
0.013
865.68
858.68
152
4.61
23.0
24.1
317p
NMC_110
457
Circular
1.5
0.013
897.62
896.85
192.6
0.40
15.0
16.3
324p
NMC_41
NMC_30
Circular
1
0.024
939.45
938.52
200
0.47
2.5
2.5
325p
NMC_30
466
Circular
2
0.013
933.38
933.10
144
0.19
23.8
25.9
326p
466
NMC25
Circular
2.25
0.013
932.80
932.71
20
0.45
27.2
31.3
3290p
NMC 103
410
Circular
1.25
0.013
855.56
855.50
41
0.15
7.1
6.3
330p
NMC 26
NMC 29
Circular
2.5
0.013
923.00
917.80
454
1.15
43.6
45.6
332p
472
NMC_108
Circular
2.75
0.013
914.46
912.00
308
0.80
1 54.6
59.3
350p
493
494
Circular
4
0.013
857.25
857.52
200.5
-0.14
169.2
111.7
351
494
NMC 57
Circular
4
0.013
845.49
845.07
30
1.40
223.0
132.6
356p
NMC98
501
Circular
1.75
0.013
835.98
833.24
141
1.94
17.9
21.5
357p
501
NMC95
Circular
1.75
0.013
833.24
830.39
235
1.21
18.4
20.2
P:VNpb%23 MN OU3271072 Pdwa Watt Renwtce Mpm Plan Upd"WmklM )QAQC Modd fa PmdKme ARI.SWMMJI .1ic_aupuL2006UPDATQ fi nALNWl-voir, -d-.ds NMC IOOY CmduiOtadu Upime
Adam's Hill
7.0 Lake Cornelia /Lake Edina /Adam's Hill
7.1 General Description of Drainage Area
Figure 7.1 depicts the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill drainage basin. This drainage basin
are located in the southeast portion of Edina.
7.1.1 Drainage Patterns
This chapter discusses four major watersheds within the drainage basin: North Lake Cornelia, South
Lake Cornelia, Lake Edina, and the Adam's Hill Pond drainage area. These major watersheds are
depicted in Figure 7.2. North and South Lake Cornelia ultimately drain to Lake Edina, which outlets
into the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek. The Adam's Hill drainage area includes those watersheds
within the City of Edina that drain to the Adam's Hill stormwater detention basin in Richfield. This
drainage area was analyzed in conjunction with the North Cornelia watershed because the storm
sewer systems draining to North Lake Cornelia and Adam's Hill Pond are adjoined at the intersection
of 69`h Street and York Avenue. Each of the four major watersheds have been further delineated into
numerous subwatersheds. The naming convention for each subwatershed is based on the major
watershed it is located within. Table 7.1 lists each major watershed and the associated subwatershed
naming convention. The stormwater system within these drainage basins is comprised of storm
sewers, ponding basins, drainage ditches, and overland flow paths.
Table 7.1 Major Watersheds within the Lake Cornelia /Lake Edina /Adam's Hill Drainage
Basin
Major Watershed
Subwatershed Naming
Convention
# of
Subwatersheds
Drainage
Area (acres)
Lake Cornelia- North
NC ##
154
859
Lake Cornelia- South
SC ##
9
112
Lake Edina
LE ##
47
394
Adam's Hill (Richfield)
AHR_##
20
109
7.1.1.1 North Cornelia
North Lake Cornelia has a large watershed, encompassing 859 acres. The North Cornelia watershed
has been delineated into 154 subwatersheds and is characterized by several ponding basins within the
watershed. Land use within this watershed is comprised of a large commercial area (including the
Southdale Shopping Center), portions of T.H. 62 and T.H. 100, residential areas (high and low
density), parks, wetlands, and open water. The majority of the runoff from the highly impervious
commercial area drains through the France Avenue and West 66'h Street storm sewer system and
discharges into the Point of France pond, located just northeast of the West 66`h Street and Valley
View Road intersection. The Point of France pond drains to the Swimming Pool Pond west of Valley
View Road, which typically drains to North Lake Cornelia. During large storms, such as the
Barr Engineering Company 7 -1
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docz
100 -year frequency event, as North Lake Cornelia nears its capacity, the Swimming Pool Pond will
flow northward through the two 60 -inch culverts located under T.H. 62 that connect the Swimming
Pool Pond with the Brookview Pond, just north of T.H. 62. An outlet control structure located on the
north side of this pond allows flows to the north into Lake Pamela when the water elevation reaches
elevation 863.3 MSL.
North Lake Cornelia covers approximately 29 acres and serves as a recreation area for the City of
Edina. The lake outlets to South Lake Cornelia through a 12 -inch culvert beneath West 66`h Street.
7.1.1.2 South Lake Cornelia
The South Lake Cornelia watershed is located south of the North Lake Cornelia watershed. The
112 -acre watershed is comprised of 9 subwatersheds, with two stormwater detention areas in addition
to Lake Cornelia. The land use within the watershed is low density residential and open water.
South Lake Cornelia spans approximately 32 acres. The normal elevation of the lake is controlled by
a weir structure at elevation 859 MSL. Discharge from South Cornelia flows southward through a
54 -inch system for approximately 1,000 feet, where it connects with a 21 -inch system at the
intersection of Dunberry Lane and Cornelia Drive. This system ultimately drains to Lake Edina.
During extreme storm events, such as the 100 -year frequency event, the 21 -inch storm sewer system
at Dunberry Lane and Cornelia Drive restricts flow, resulting in flow northward through the 54 -inch
system and into South Lake Cornelia.
7.1.1.3 Lake Edina
The Lake Edina watershed is located south of the Lake Cornelia drainage basins. The watershed
encompasses approximately 394 acres and has been delineated into 47 subwatersheds. Land use
within the watershed is mainly low density residential, with smaller portions of high density
residential, commercial, institutional (Cornelia Elementary School), park, wetland, and open water.
A wetland is located along the west side of Lake Edina, directly east of T.H. 100, that receives runoff
from an area of approximately 36 acres. Flow from this wetland discharges into Lake Edina via a
weir structure and pipe system.
Lake Edina spans an area of approximately 23 acres. The normal elevation of the lake is controlled
by a weir structure at elevation 822 MSL. Discharge from Lake Edina flows through a 36 -inch
system underneath T.H. 100 and into the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek.
7.1.1.4 Adam's Hill Pond
The Adam's Hill drainage area discussed in this analysis includes the area within the City of Edina
that drains to the Adam's Hill Pond in Richfield. The outlet from Adam's Hill Pond is a pumped
outlet that discharges 10 cfs to Centennial Lakes.
Barr Engineering Company 7 -2
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF71Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
7.2 Stormwater System Analysis and Results
7.2.1 Hydrologic /Hydraulic Modeling Results
The 10 -year and 100 -year frequency flood analyses were performed for the Lake Cornelia /Lake
Edina/Adam's Hill drainage basins. The 10 -year analysis was based on a'' /� -hour storm of
1.65 inches of rain. The 100 -year analysis was based on a 24 -hour storm event of 6 inches of rain.
Table 7.2 presents the watershed information and the results for the 10 -year and 100 -year hydrologic
analyses.
The results of the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency hydraulic analysis for the Lake Cornelia/Lake
Edina/Adam's Hill drainage areas are summarized in Table 7.3 and Table 7.4. The column headings
in Table 7.3 are defined as follows:
Node /Subwatershed ID —XP -SWMM node identification label. Each XP -SWMM node
represents a manhole, catchbasin, pond, or other junction within the stormwater system.
Downstream Conduit— References the pipe downstream of the node in the storm sewer system.
Flood Elevation —The maximum water elevation reached in the given pond/manhole for each
referenced storm event (mean sea level). In some cases, an additional flood elevation has been
given in parenthesis. This flood elevation reflects the 100 -year flood elevation of Nine Mile
Creek, per the Nine Mile Creek Watershed Management Plan, May 1996.
Peak Outflow Rate —The peak discharge rate (cfs) from a given ponding basin for each
referenced storm event. The peak outflow rates reflect the combined discharge from the pond
through the outlet structure and any overflow.
NWL —The normal water level in the ponding basin (mean sea level). The normal water levels
for the ponding basins were assumed to be at the outlet pipe invert or at the downstream control
elevation.
Flood Bounce —The fluctuation of the water level within a given pond for each referenced storm
event.
Volume Stored —The maximum volume (acre -ft) of water that was stored in the ponding basin
during the storm event. The volume represents the live storage volume only.
Table 7.4 summarizes the conveyance system data used in the model and the model results for the
storm sewer system within the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill drainage basins. The peak
flows through each conveyance system for the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency storm events are
listed in the table. The values presented represent the peak flow rate through each pipe system only
and do not reflect the combined total flow from an upstream node to the downstream node when
overflow from a manhole /pond occurs.
Barr Engineering Company 7 -3
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Figure 7.3 graphically represents the results of the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency hydraulic
analyses. The figure depicts the boundaries of the drainage areas, subwatershed boundaries, the
modeled storm sewer network, surcharge conditions for the XP -SWMM nodes (typically manholes),
and the flood prone areas identified in the modeling analyses.
One of the objectives of the hydraulic analyses was to evaluate the level of service provided by the
current storm sewer system. The level of service of the system was examined by determining the
surcharge conditions of the manholes and catch basins within the storm sewer system during the
10 -year and 100 -year frequency storm events. An XP -SWMM node was considered surcharged if the
hydraulic grade line at that node breached the ground surface (rim elevation). Surcharging is
typically the result of limited downstream capacity and tailwater impacts. The XP -SWMM nodes
depicted on Figure 7.3 were color coded based on the resulting surcharge conditions. The green
nodes signify no surcharging occurred during the 100 -year or 10 -year storm event, the yellow nodes
indicate surcharging during the 100 -year event, and the red nodes identify that surcharging is likely
to occur during both a 100 -year and 10 -year frequency storm event. Figure 7.3 illustrates that several
XP -SWMM nodes within the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill drainage areas are predicted to
experience surcharged conditions during both the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency storm events. This
indicates a probability greater than 10 percent in any year that the system will be overburdened and
unable to meet the desired level of service at these locations. These manhole and catch basin are
more likely to experience inundation during the smaller, more frequent storm events of various
durations.
Another objective of the hydraulic analyses was to evaluate the level of protection offered by the
current stormwater system. Level of protection is defined as the capacity provided by a municipal
drainage system (in terms of pipe capacity and overland overflow capacity) to prevent property
damage and assure a reasonable degree of public safety following a rainstorm. A 100 -year frequency
event is recommended as a standard for design of stormwater management basins. To evaluate the
level of protection of the stormwater system within the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill
drainage areas, the 100 -year frequency flood elevations for the ponding basins and depressed areas
were compared to the low elevations of structures surrounding each basin. The low elevations were
initially determined using 2 -foot topographic information and aerial imagery in ArcView. Where
100 -year flood levels of the ponding areas appeared to potentially threaten structures, low house
elevations were obtained through field surveys. The areas that were predicted to flood and threaten
structures during the 100 -year frequency storm event are highlighted in Figure 7.3. Discussion and
recommended implementation considerations for these areas are included in Section 7.3.
7.2.2 Water Quality Modeling Results
The effectiveness of the stormwater system in removing stormwater pollutants such as phosphorus
was analyzed using the P8 water quality model. The P8 model simulates the hydrology and
phosphorus loads introduced from the watershed of each pond and the transport of phosphorus
throughout the stormwater system. Since site - specific data on pollutant wash -off rates and sediment
characteristics were not available, it was necessary to make assumptions based on national average
Barr Engineering Company 7 -4
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
values. Due to such assumptions and lack of in -lake water quality data for model calibration, the
modeling results were analyzed based on the percent of phosphorus removal that occurred and not
based on actual phosphorus concentrations.
Figure 7.4 depicts the results of the water quality modeling for the Lake Cornelia/Lake
Edina/Adam's Hill drainage areas. The figure shows the fraction of total phosphorus removal for
each water body as well as the cumulative total phosphorus removal in the watershed. The individual
water bodies are colored various shades of blue, indicating the percent of the total annual mass of
phosphorus entering the water body that is removed (through settling). It is important to note that the
percent of phosphorus removal is based on total phosphorus, including phosphorus in the soluble
form. Therefore, the removal rates in downstream ponds will decrease due to the large soluble
fraction of incoming phosphorus that was unsettleable in upstream ponds. The watersheds are
depicted in various shades of gray, indicating the cumulative total phosphorus removal achieved.
The cumulative percent removal represents the percent of the total annual mass of phosphorus
entering the watershed that is removed in the pond and all upstream ponds.
Ponds that had an average annual total phosphorus removal rate of 60 percent or greater, under
average climatic conditions, were considered to be performing well. For those ponds with total
phosphorus removal below 60 percent, the permanent pool storage volume was analyzed to determine
if additional capacity is necessary. Based on recommendations from the MPCA publication
Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas, March 2000, the permanent pool for detention ponds
should be equal to or greater than the runoff from a 2.0 -inch rainfall, in addition to the sediment
storage for at least 25 years of sediment accumulation. For ponds with less than 60 percent total
phosphorus removal, the recommended storage volume was calculated for each pond within the
drainage basin and compared to the existing permanent pool storage volume.
7.3 Implementation Considerations
The XP -SWMM hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analyses and P8 water quality analysis helped to
identify locations throughout the watershed where improvements to the City's stormwater
management system may be warranted. The following sections discuss potential mitigation
alternatives that were identified as part of the 2003 modeling analyses. As opportunities to address
the identified flooding issues and water quality improvements arise, such as street reconstruction
projects or public facilities improvements, the City will use a comprehensive approach to stormwater
management. The comprehensive approach will include consideration of infiltration or volume
retention practices to address flooding and /or water quality improvements, reduction of impervious
surfaces, increased storm sewer capacity where necessary to alleviate flooding, construction and/or
expansion of water quality basins, and implementation of other stormwater BMPs to reduce pollutant
loading to downstream waterbodies.
Barr Engineering Company 7 -5
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.doex
7.3.1 Flood Protection Projects
The 2003 hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analysis identified several locations within the Lake
Cornelia and Lake Edina watersheds where the 100 -year level of protection is not provided by the
current stormwater system. The problem areas identified in 2003 are discussed below.
As part of the 2003 modeling analysis, potential corrective measures were identified for the problem
areas for purposes of developing planning -level cost estimates. These preliminary corrective
measures are also discussed below. As the City evaluates the flooding issues and potential system
modifications in these areas, consideration will be given to other potential system modifications,
including implementation of stormwater infiltration or volume retention practices, where soils are
conducive.
7.3.1.1 Swimming Pool Pond (NC 3)Morth Lake Cornelia (NC_62)
During the design process for the West 66`h Street drainage improvements, a detailed analysis of the
storm water system was performed that included the entire Lake Cornelia drainage area. The system
was modeled based on several recommended improvements, many of which have been since
implemented. One recommendation was to replace the 18 -inch RCP pipe and orifice structure
between the Swimming Pool Pond and North Lake Cornelia with a 42 -inch equivalent RCP arch
pipe. A 20 -foot weir control structure was recommended to be installed at the inlet to this pipe. The
overland flow elevation between these two areas was recommended to be lowered to 863.5 MSL.
Although this recommendation has not yet been implemented, it was assumed to be implemented for
the XP -SWMM modeling analysis.
7.3.1.2 Hibiscus Avenue (LE 53, LE 7, LE 10)
Stormwater runoff from a 48.5 -acre subwatershed (LE_53) collects at the intersection of Hibiscus
Avenue and West Shore Drive. Along the south side of this intersection, two catchbasins connect to
the 54 -inch storm sewer system that discharges into Lake Edina. Due to the lack of inlet capacity at
this intersection, the stormwater that does not enter the storm sewer system flows west along
Hibiscus Avenue toward the low area near 4708, 4709, and 4713 Hibiscus Avenue. A separate storm
sewer system exists at this low area along Hibiscus, with two catchbasins on the street to allow water
into the system. This system extends upstream, collecting runoff from the backyard depression area
behind 4708 and 4712 Hibiscus Avenue. During the 100 -year frequency event, the low area in the
street becomes inundated with stormwater runoff from the watersheds directly tributary to this
system and from the excess runoff coming from West Shore Drive ( subwatershed LE_53). The street
flooding causes the system to back up and reverse flow into the backyard depression area. The
100 -year flood elevation in the street and in the backyard depression area reaches approximately
83 1.1 MSL. This flood elevation has the potential to affect structures at 4704, 4708, 4712, 4716
Hibiscus Avenue on the north side and 4705 Hibiscus on the south side of the street.
To alleviate this problem and ensure a 100 -year level of protection is provided, it is recommended
that a positive overflow drainage way be constructed between the low area of the street and Lake
Edina. This will allow the street to drain and prevent the system from backing up into the backyard
Barr Engineering Company 7 -6
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFIREdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
depression area. An option of adding additional inlet capacity to the trunk 54 -inch system at the
intersection of West Shore Drive and Hibiscus Avenue was considered; however, the 54 -inch storm
sewer system drains nearly 200 acres in addition to the 48.5 acres from subwatershed LE_53 and is
already at full capacity. Adding additional inlet capacity at the intersection of West Shore Drive and
Hibiscus Avenue would cause additional street flooding problems at upstream locations.
7.3.1.3 6312, 6316, 6321, 6329 Tingdale Avenue (NC_11)
A depression area exists along Tingdale Avenue, between West 63rd and West 64'h Streets. Two
catchbasins are located at the low portion of the street, collecting stormwater runoff. During the
100 -year frequency storm event, the flood elevation at this location reaches 936.5 MSL. A field
survey determined that this flood elevation would potentially impact egress windows at 6312 and
6316 Tingdale Avenue (935.24 MSL and 935.20 MSL, respectively).
7.3.1.4 St. Johns /Ashcroft and West 64 1h Street (NC_40, NC 26)
A low area exists directly north of North Lake Cornelia, encompassing portions of T.H. 62 and West
64`h Street between Ashcroft Lane and St. Johns Avenue. The storm sewer system in this depression
area includes two catchbasins on West 64`h Street and several inlets along T.H. 62, including an inlet
in the grassed median of T.H. 62. During extreme storm events such as the 100 -year frequency
event, this area is inundated with stormwater runoff, receiving flows from the subwatersheds directly
tributary to the system, as well as flow not captured by the storm sewer system at the intersection of
Ashcroft and West 64`h Street (40 cfs) and excess T.H. 62 flows not collected upstream (160 cfs).
Because of the topography and the slope of the highway at this location, during intense rainstorm
events water from the highway will flow north toward the low area on West 64'h Street. The
100 -year frequency flood elevation for the highway and West 64'h Street area is 868.1 MSL. At this
flood elevation, the entire stretch of West 64`h Street between Ashcroft Lane and St. Johns Avenue
will be inundated, in addition to the highway and backyard area just north of West 64`h Street,
endangering structures at 6336 St. Johns Avenue and 6329 Ashcroft Lane.
To alleviate this situation, it is recommended that an additional pipe be installed at the low point in
the T.H. 62 median that would drain to North Lake Cornelia. A 24 -inch pipe would decrease the
100 -year frequency flood elevation of this depression area to 867.7 MSL and alleviate the flooding
concerns for 6336 St. Johns Avenue and 6329 Ashcroft Lane.
7.3.1.5 Barrie Road and Heritage Drive (NC 86, NC-97, NC 99)
A depression area exists at the intersection of Barrie Road and Heritage Drive and extends south of
the intersection along Barrie Road to West 65`h Street. Stormwater from this area is collected by
storm sewer and flows northward, eventually connecting with the T.H. 62 system. During large
storm events, this large depression area is inundated, causing street and parking lot flooding. The
calculated flood elevation for the 100 -year frequency storm event is 879.8 MSL. The low elevations
of several properties in this area were surveyed to determine if this flood level would encroach upon
and potentially cause damage to any structures. The field survey identified only one property at 6328
Barr Engineering Company 7 -7
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update\WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFnEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
Barrie Road with a 878.6 MSL walkout patio elevation, with a low elevation below the 100 -year
frequency flood level.
The analysis of this system determined that the flooding problem in this area results from lack of
capacity of the T.H. 62 system. As large stormwater flows enter the T.H. 62 storm sewer system
from the highway, flow into that system from Barrie Road and Heritage Drive is restricted. To
alleviate this problem, it will be necessary to re- examine the capacity of the T.H. 62 storm sewer
system.
7.3.1.6 York Avenue and West 64`h Street (NC_88)
A stormwater detention basin is located southeast of the intersection of York Avenue and West
64`h Street. This basin has two pumped outlets, one which discharges to the west and one that
discharges to the east. The outlet to the west is controlled by two pumps, each with an approximate
pumping rate of 500 gpm (1.1 cfs). For the XP -SWMM model, it was assumed that the first pump on
the west side turns on as the water elevation reaches 863 MSL, with the second pump turning on at
water elevation 864 MSL. It was assumed the pumps turn off at water elevation 862 MSL. The
pumped discharge flows west through a forcemain and connects to the gravity system along Barr ie
Road. The outlet to the east is also controlled by two 500 gpm pumps. Similar to the west outlet, it
was assumed that the first pump on the east side turns on as the water elevation reaches 863 MSL,
with the second on at elevation.864 MSL and both pumps off when the water level recedes to
862 MSL. Discharge from this outlet flows south along Xerxes Avenue, eventually connecting into
the West 66`h Street system.
The predicted 100 -year flood elevation for this detention basin is 870.9 MSL. Based on the 2 -foot
topographic information, if flood waters reach this elevation the structure at 6415 York Avenue
would be affected and potentially the structure at 6455 York Avenue. To prevent these structures
from incurring flood damage, the pump capacity from the system should be increased. It is
recommended that the capacity of both the east and west lift stations be upgraded to 1500 gpm
(approximately 3 cfs) each. It is also recommended that the pumps turn on at water elevation 862.5
and off at 861.5 MSL. With implementation of these recommendations, the predicted 100 -year
frequency flood elevation is 870 MSL, providing a level of protection for these structures.
7.3.1.7 T.H. 62 at France Avenue (NC_132)
The modeling results indicated that isolated flooding would occur along T.H. 62 during a 100 -year
frequency storm event. Specifically, flooding would occur on T.H. 62 near the France Avenue
crossing. The 100 -year frequency flood elevation of this area is 873.2 MSL. To correct this
problem, it will be necessary to re- examine the capacity of the T.H. 62 storm sewer system.
7.3.1.8 Parnell Avenue and Valley View Road (NC_135)
A backyard depression area exists between the blocks of Ryan Avenue and Parnell Avenue, just
south of Valley View Road. The backyard depression area collects stormwater from its direct
subwatershed of approximately 3 acres. The area is currently not connected to the storm sewer
Barr Engineering Company 7 -8
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
system. The predicted 100 -year frequency flood elevation for this area is 910.2 MSL. Based on the
2 -foot topographic data, this flood elevation would potentially impact the structures at 4801 and 4809
Valley View Road and 6112 Parnell Avenue.
7.3.2 Construction /Upgrade of Water Quality Basins
The 2003 P8 modeling analysis indicated that the annual removal of total phosphorus from several
ponds in the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina drainage area was predicted to be below the desired
60 percent removal rate, under average year conditions. For those ponds with total phosphorus
removal below 60 percent, the permanent pool storage volume was analyzed to determine if
additional capacity is necessary. The ponds that exhibited deficiencies in total phosphorus removal
and permanent pool volume are listed below, along with recommended pond upgrades.
Construction of new or expansion of existing water quality basins is one method to increase the
pollutant removal achieved prior to stormwater reaching downstream waterbodies. Many additional
techniques are available to reduce pollutant loading, including impervious surface reduction or
disconnection, implementation of infiltration or volume retention BMPs, installation of underground
stormwater treatment structures and sump manholes and other good housekeeping practices such as
street sweeping. As opportunities arise, the City will consider all of these options to reduce the
volume and improve the quality of stormwater runoff.
7.3.2.1 LE 38
Pond LE-38 is located along the west side of Lake Edina, directly east of T.H. 100 (primarily within
MnDOT right -of -way). The pond receives runoff from an area of approximately 36 acres. Flow
from this pond is discharged into Lake Edina via a weir structure and pipe system. Based on the
recommended storage volume discussed above, Pond LE_38 is deficient in permanent pool storage
volume. It is recommended that an additional 1.4 acre -feet of dead storage volume be provided to
meet the MPCA design criteria for detention basins.
7.3.2.2 NC 88
Pond NC-88 is located southeast of the intersection of York Avenue and West 64h Street. This basin
has two pumped outlets, with pumped discharge eventually entering both the Point of France Pond
and the Swimming Pool Pond. Based on the MPCA recommended storage volume for detention
basins, there is not an adequate amount of permanent pool storage in this basin. However, since the
predicted total phosphorus removal rate from this pond is approximately 50 percent and the pumped
stormwater leaving this basin will receive additional water quality treatment through several
subsequent ponding basins, recommendations for providing additional dead - storage volume are not
being made at this time.
Barr Engineering Company 7 -9
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report\December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAF71Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
N
E
`m
E
c
m
a�
0
o`
a
G
NUE6
NC_59
0
GXP Gcp �9 IIil 1
11 w- •'buucs 1 wax/
lug ny
OWN '
MD-% Richfield
bMLN bMLa
M '
NW
G4S 6090
G�0 � NtIN gnu
� 9
NU ' ax MA G
Nam
OR AV
NU
� ,
Y j�
ow e .
C
1f5 F3 t
j� City of Edina Boundary
Roads /Highways
o Creek /Stream
Lake /Wetland
Lake Cornelia /Lake Edina/
C3 Adam's Hill Pond Drainage Basin
C3 Subwatershed
Imagery Source: Aerials Express, 2008
O
Feet
1,200 0 1,200
Meters
400 0 400
Figure 7.1
LAKE CORNELIA /LAKE EDINA/
ADAM'S HILL POND DRAINAGE BASIN
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
G
u
G'SP
MAX
6XIM
B
,.
G�
G�
ZU
'
Gam
G
MQ
13
M-0
0
GXP Gcp �9 IIil 1
11 w- •'buucs 1 wax/
lug ny
OWN '
MD-% Richfield
bMLN bMLa
M '
NW
G4S 6090
G�0 � NtIN gnu
� 9
NU ' ax MA G
Nam
OR AV
NU
� ,
Y j�
ow e .
C
1f5 F3 t
j� City of Edina Boundary
Roads /Highways
o Creek /Stream
Lake /Wetland
Lake Cornelia /Lake Edina/
C3 Adam's Hill Pond Drainage Basin
C3 Subwatershed
Imagery Source: Aerials Express, 2008
O
Feet
1,200 0 1,200
Meters
400 0 400
Figure 7.1
LAKE CORNELIA /LAKE EDINA/
ADAM'S HILL POND DRAINAGE BASIN
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
E
3
am'9 (Hill
Ainneapoli ,
r
o�e��
• I� YQ •
CpFtPUiu','1
Was
City of Edina Boundary
Roads /Highways
Creek /Stream
Lake /Wetland
Lake Cornelia /Lake Edina/
C3 Adam's Hill Pond Drainage Basin
C3 Major Watershed
M Subwatershed
Imagery Source: Aerials Express, 2008
O
Feet
1,200 0 1,200
Meters
400 0 400
Figure 7.2
LAKE CORNELIA /LAKE EDINA/
ADAM'S HILL POND
MAJOR WATERSHEDS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
4
I,j
Figure 7.3
LAKE CORNELIA/LAKE EDINA/
ADAM'S HILL POND
HYDRAULIC MODEL RESULTS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
City of Edina Boundary
Roads /Highways
Creek/Stream
Lake /Wetland
C3Lake Cornelia /Lake Edina/
Adam's Hill Pond Drainage Basin
C3Subwatershed
Feet
400 0 400 800
Meters
120 0 120 240
Potential Flooding During
100 -Year Frequency Event
91 Pipes
C.) Manhole
Manhole Surcharge During
° 100 -Year Frequency Event
Manhole Surcharged During
10 -Year Frequency Event
0
Bloomington
1t'fh _
85
0P Pik
'L
�I u
M_s
'.Z °5
02ND aT vJ i
n
¢ a0
O �O
s
mum O
JC
�P
� (,�y'� A4Y� •�
QO ON ^`-6 IVIIi.�V1C97 O a
@ Gm
0 �RRiFR�
onx
mm
•� • _cam � �
g Mum
MW
o Z �
w Em
X
X
STH ST Wu
°
IS w
d
MM
�/.�
.0
i
9Q3E3 �
9CYl0 � �
E • B ryrye�)) 0. �o W o 66TTT ST
Getw • .
AMR �u% L c• is o..
C C
°z Ogg �• 941
509 0 ❑
GNW 00
a
Im— yp ppp S(,U,HDA�e IR
mu
MUM mm t
W• Wr
C (,) 0 BMW
c
p am w "
� U
mm.
Q
f� J
c
c . • �: M' G c�9z'�s3 L;9'c�,9z�•4 s
M4 -71 Im
t
9TH A 69(1{)ST W
L Q.
r�r xxs-z'r � 990
_9° C
C�
r�E M
f�9P
ff3 701H S W
s
MAVELLE OR
�u,0• � • �l
FZELTON RD
v
9� N
K
Q
Z
1•
T
L-�--ffm
FA• HR_11
r"
Y � I BRA
0 w+,•Au�
m
- M
L
9Q�0 90� E'.99�,4 ctl�3�i
1,
4
Minneapolis
Richfield
LZ
O
m
C
C
L
t
ppp.� i
YE ?
R•" r �� i ;.� I�i��j
i. •�,(yp - lj�.ea\
x ��e
M NC 5
NC 6
r.4
�y
sc_i
Minneapoli
Nc
s
rI II —F-- J
r Richfield
Imagery Source: Aerials Express, 2008
O i
Cn
Percent TP Removal in Water Body*
This number represents the percent of the total annual mass
of phosphorus entering the water body that is removed.
0 - 25% (Poor /No Removal)
25 - 40% (Moderate Removal)
- 40 - 60% (Good Removal)
_ 60 - 100% (Excellent Removal)
Cumulative TP Removal in Watershed*
This number represents the percent of the total annual mass
of phosphorus entering the watershed and upstream watersheds
that is removed in the pond and all upstream ponds.
25 - 40% (Moderate Removal)
40 - 60% (Good Removal)
j 60 - 100% (Excellent Removal)
`Data based on results of P8 modeling.
Flow Direction
O
Feet
1,200 0 1,200
EMEM
Meters
400 0 400
Figure 7.4
LAKE CORNELIA /LAKE EDINA
WATER QUALITY
MODELING RESULTS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
Table 7.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds. in the Lake Cornelia /Lake Edina /Adam's
Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -'Hour Event
10 -Year Storm: Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate'
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
AHR-1
3.4
8.2
11:3'
0.7
2.9
0.1:
HR -10
1.2.
79.7
5.7
0.5.
4.1
0.1
11
7.8
78.3
28.4
3.2'
'12.2
0.8
AHR 12
4.8
80.1'
22.2
2.1..
15.3
0.5
AIM_13
2.1
79.5
9.3
0.9
5.6
0':2
IM-14
8.5
39.9
36.9
2.6
21.0
0.5
AFIR�15
9.2
40.0
40.3
2.8
23.8
0.6
AH 16
4.2
40.0
19.0
4.3
12.7
0.3
kHR-11
3.0
39.9
13.5
0.9
8.6
0.2'
HR_18
2.4
79.9
10.0
1.0
5.2
0.3
19
1.0
79.8
4.8
0.4
5.7
0.1
AHR 2
2.8
44.8
13.0
0.9
11.6
0.2
AIIR�20
10.5
70.0
46.4
4.1
27.3
1.0
AHR 21
1.9
67.7
9.2
0.7
9.0
0.2
AHR 3
4.3
38.8
18.8
1.3
11.2
0.3
AHR 4'
24.9
35.0
89.6
7.0
42.2
1.3
AHR-5
4.9
26.4
20.6
1.3
10.6
0.2
AHR 6
1.4
70.5
6.4
0.6
4.1
0.1
AHR _7
1.1
23.0
5.2
0.3
3.3
0.1
AHR_8
9.3
77.2
37.9
3.9
18.7
1.0
E_1
47.2
61.4
195.6
19.5
108.8
5.0
10
4.6
20.0
21.2
1.4
13.8
0.4
LE 1 l -
2.8
19.9
11.8
0.8
5.9
0.2 .
_12
8.7
20.0
32.5
2.4
15.2
0:5
E 13
6.1
20.1
25.2
1.7
12.6
0.4
LE -14
3.0
19.9
14.1
0.8
9.8
0.2
E_15
4.2
20.0
18.8
1.2
10.3
0.3
•E 16
4.8
20.0
19.8
1.3
11.6
0.3
_17
12.5
20.0
45.6
3.4
21.2
0.7
E_18:.,
1.7
20.1
6.4
0.4,
2.8
0.1
E_19
2:9
6.6
12:4
0.7:
4.9
0.1
E_2
3.7
21.7.
17.1
1..1
10.6:
0.3.
LE 20''
8:1
61.0
38.6
3.1
34.1
0.8
-21
4.7
18.7
19.3
1:3
9.4
0.3
E_23'
2.7-
20.1
11.6
0.7: `'
6:1
0.2
E_24
23.5
33.0'
94.2
7.2
50.4
1.5
E_25
3.5
24.9
16.0
1.0
10.9
0.2
E_26
12.9
20.0
52.5
3.5
25.7
0.7
LE 27
3.5
50.1
16.8
1.3.
18.3
0.4
LE L28
16.2
20.0
63.6
4.8
31.2
1:0
E-29
6.0
20.0
25.8
1.7
13.3
0.4
3
V
3.9
23.7
17.4
1.2
10.3
0.3
30
15.5
20.0
42.7
4.1
18.5
0.7
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC, Model, for
Pond\NineMM& -SWMM_ hydraulic _output_2006UPDATE_final_NWI: verification.xls Cornelia Runoff Update
Table 7.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Lake Cornelia /Lake Edina /Adam's
Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
E_31
7.7
20.0
34.7
2.2
20.0
0.5
LE 32
3.8
19.9
16.9
1.1
9.4
0.2
E_33
7.1
20.1
32.2
2.0
18.4
0.5
E_34
19.8
20.0
72.3
5.4
33.5
1.1
LE 35
1.8
33.5
7.8
0.5
4.8
0.1
_36
4.0
20.0
9.5
1.0
3.9
0.1
LE-37
1.2
50.0
5.8
0.4
5.5
0.1
E_38
5.9
35.3
28.4
2.6
27.0
0.6
_39
1.0
50.0
4.8
0.4
4.2
0.1
E_4
9.1
21.3
39.8
2.7
22.0
0.6
E_40
5.8
20.1
22.0
1.6
10.3
0.3
E_41
0.9
50.0
4.1
0.4
3.3
0.1
E_43
5.2
73.3
23.6
2.1
15.4
0.5
E_44
2.9
20.1
13.0
0.9
7.6
0.2
E_45
2.4
19.9
10.9
0.7
6.9
0.2
E_5
7.3
21.6
32.4
2.1
18.2
0.5
E_51
13.1
9.2
35.5
3.1
12.1
0.5
E_52
9.3
19.2
41.9
2.6
23.4
0.6
E_53
48.5
20.0
165.6
13.2
75.2
2.5
E_54
8.6
4.4
33.6
2.0
10.8
0.4
E_6
8.3
20.0
34.7
2.4
17.7
0.5
E_7
10.9
20.0
33.8
3.1
15.1
0.6
E_8
2.1
19.6
9.9
0.6
7.4
0.2
E_9
4.8
20.0
21.9
1.4
13.4
0.4
C_10
4.1
23.8
18.0
1.2
10.2
0.3
C_100
1.7
79.8
8.0
0.7
6.8
0.2
C_101
16.3
80.0
74.9
6.9
51.8
1.8
C_102
3.2
79.9
14.9
1.4
10.4
0.4
C_103
1.8
80.1
8.5
0.8
6.8
0.2
C_104
6.5
28.5
29.9
1.8
19.7
0.4
C_ 105
1.3
20.1
6.0
0.3
3.0
0.1
C_106
30.6
80.0
122.8
13.0
59.9
3.2
C_107
1.3
79.7
6.1
0.5
5.1
0.1
C_108
1.1
79.8
5.3
0.5
3.8
0.1
C_109
1.1
80.0
5.4
0.5
5.1
0.1
C_11
9.0
20.6
37.3
2.5
18.9
0.5
C_110
1.8
79.9
8.6
0.8
8.0
0.2
C_111
5.6
78.5
25.3
2.4
16.3
0.6
NC_112
7.4
80.0
32.3
3.1
19.1
0.8
C_113
11.2
80.0
50.0
4.8
30.7
1.2
C_114
2.1
80.0
9.8
0.9
9.0
0.2
INC-1 15
1.7
80.2
8.1
0.7
9.2
0.2
C 116
0.7
79.7
3.6
0.3
3.4
0.1
PAMpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
PondWineMlLe_SWMM_hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls Cornelia Runoff Update
Table 7.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Lake Cornelia /Lake Edina /Adam's
Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
C_117
1.5
14.9
7.1
0.5
5.6
0.1
NQ-1 18
1.3
13.5
6.0
0.3
4.5
0.1
NC_119
1.2
80.0
5.5
0.5
6.0
0.1
C_ 12
7.5
19.9
31.2
2.1
15.6
0.4
C_120
1.9
49.5
9.0
0.6
9.0
0.2
C_ 121
5.4
80.0
24.5
2.3
16.4
0.6
C_ 122
3.2
79.6
15.4
1.4
17.2
0.4
NQ -123
5.4
80.0
23.8
2.3
14.1
0.6
NC -124
8.2
80.0
32.6
3.5
15.6
0.9
C 125
1.9
80.0
8.9
0.8
9.5
0.2
NC 126
2.7
48.0
12.5
0.9
11.5
0.2
C_127
2.8
20.1
13.0
0.8
8.7
0.2
C_128
3.3
63.9
15.6
1.2
17.4
0.3
C_129
3.9
80.0
18.8
1.7
21.2
0.4
NC -13
2.5
19.9
11.5
0.7
8.0
0.2
C_131
1.7
76.9
8.1
0.7
8.2
0.2
NC -132
6.7
45.1
31.5
2.2
27.0
0.5
NQ -133
3.8
48.1
18.0
1.3
17.5
0.3
NQ -134
1.6
49.4
7.6
0.5
8.0
0.1
NC -135
2.9
19.9
12.2
0.8
6.2
0.2
NC -136
5.2
20.0
20.8
1.4
10.1
0.3
C_137
2.0
76.7
9.7
0.8
9.5
0.2
NC -138
1.0
47.0
4.8
0.4
6.0
0.1
NC -139
4.8
77.7
19.9
2.0
10.4
0.5
C 14
5.2
20.0
24.0
1.5
14.9
0.3
NC -140
2.1
78.5
9.9
0.9
7.2
0.2
C_141
2.6
79.8
11.0
1.1
5.9
0.3
NC 142
7.9
42.7
33.8
2.6
20.0
0.6
C_143
1.4
80.0
6.1
0.6
3.5
0.2
NC -144
7.3
79.9
34.2
3.1
27.0
0.8
C 145
3.3
20.1
12.7
0.8
5.6
0.1
C_146
9.8
51.0
43.9
3.3
27.7
0.7
C_147
0.4
51.2
2.0
0.1
2.0
0.0
C 148
0.8
22.9
4.0
0.4
3.7
0.1
NC -149
3.5
78.6
16.5
1.5
14.5
0.4
C 15
4.7
20.0
20.4
1.3
10.9
0.3
NC-150
5.2
80.1
25.1
2.2
24.8
0.6
NC 151
0.7
79.5
3.5
0.3
4.1
0.1
NC 152
1.7
79.8
8.3
0.7
7.3
0.2
NC 153
2.6
80.0
12.5
1.1
11.5
0.3
N154
4.4
80.0
20.8
1.9
18.8
0.5
C_155
2.2
79.8
10.3
0.9
8.3
0.2
NQ -156
3.4
80.0
16.0
1.4
14.4
0.4
PAMpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond \NineMILe_SWMM_hydraulic_out put_ 2006UPDATE _fina]_NWL_verification.xls Cornelia Runoff Update
Table 7.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Lake Cornelia /Lake Edina /Adam's
Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
C_ 16
5.6
20.9
24.3
1.6
13.2
0.3
NC 17
1.8
19.9
8.3
0.5
6.0
0.1
C_18
8.9
20.0
35.6
2.5
17.3
0.5
C_19
7.8
23.5
33.7
2.2
18.8
0.5
C_2
11.5
59.0
54.2
4.5
42.5
1.2
NQ-20
2.0
22.3
8.2
0.6
4.3
0.1
C_21
7.2
48.0
33.1
2.5
25.1
0.6
NC 22
5.8
17.2
26.1
1.8
15.0
0.4
C_23
3.8
50.0
18.4
1.4
19.3
0.4
C_24
6.3
22.1
28.2
1.8
16.4
0.4
C_25
7.7
21.1
35.3
2.2
21.4
0.5
C_26
1.9
50.0
9.3
0.7
10.4
0.2
C_27
12.4
49.0
59.3
4.4
58.2
1.1
C_28
1.1
49.6
5.4
0.4
5.9
0.1
C_29
0.7
43.9
3.2
0.2
3.2
0.1
C_3
16.2
43.8
76.0
7.2
60.9
1.8
NC 30
21.7
58.7
95.6
8.4
59.6
2.2
NC 31
1 6.6
21.6
29.2
1.9
16.4
0.4
C_32
6.4
49.9
27.6
2.3
16.8
0.5
C_33
2.5
46.1
12.1
0.9
12.6
0.2
C_34
1.0
50.0
4.7
0.4
5.2
0.1
C_35
10.6
20.0
45.8
2.9
24.0
0.6
C_36
14.1
20.0
56.9
3.9
27.7
0.8
C_37
2.2
18.5
10.1
0.7
6.0
0.2
C_38
3.9
14.8
17.6
1.2
10.0
0.3
C_39
4.7
22.3
20.7
1.3
11.7
0.3
C_4
12.1
69.0
54.7
4.9
35.1
1.3
C_40
7.0
23.1
28.0
2.0
14.3
0.4
NC 41
7.8
51.1
34.7
2.8
22.5
0.7
C_42
8.3
50.4
22.9
2.8
9.3
0.6
C_43
13.9
22.6
58.6
4.0
31.0
0.9
C_44
2.8
50.0
13.0
1.0
10.1
0.2
C_45
1.8
21.5
8.5
0.5
6.3
0.1
C_46
8.9
23.7
30.7
2.5
14.6
0.5
C_47
3.2
41.2
14.5
1.1
10.3
0.3
C_48
8.2
20.0
34.3
2.3
17.2
0.5
NC 49
1.9
20.1
8.9
0.5
6.9
0.1
C_5
8.6
64.1
40.8
3.4
32.4
0.9
NC-50
3.3
20.1
15.5
1.1
11.0
0.3
C_51
3.7
58.0
17.7
1.4
16.8
0.4
C_52
7.6
20.0
34.5
2.2
20.0
0.5
C_53
2.2
19.9
9.6
0.6
5.2
0.1
C 54
5.6
49.4
24.7
2.0
15.7
0.5
PAMpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMU_e_SWMM_ hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls Cornelia Runoff Update
Table 7.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Lake Cornelia /Lake Edina /Adam's
Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(Cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
NC-55
2.5
12.0
11.6
0.8
6.9
0.2
C_56
23.5
21.4
82.9
6.5
38.7
1.3
C_57
4.8
80.0
21.6
2.0
14.2
0.5
C_58
11.6
20.0
50.3
3.2
26.4
0.7
C_59
20.6
21.8
80.7
5.8
39.8
1.2
C_6
5.1
51.3
24.2
1.8
21.9
0.5
C_60
4.1
19.9
17.8
1.1
9.3
0.2
C_61
2.1
20.2
9.6
0.5
5.7
0.1
C_62
61.7
52.0
231.7
25.7
117.1
6.3
C_63
1.7
24.6
8.1
0.6
7.9
0.2
C_64
3.8
20.1
15.7
1.1
7.8
0.2
C_65
2.2
49.3
10.9
0.9
13.4
0.2
C_66
1.8
50.3
8.6
0.7
8.7
0.2
C_67
1.4
23.2
6.6
0.4
4.2
0.1
C_68
1.9
49.7
9.2
0.7
10.9
0.2
C_69
2.6
76.1
12.2
1.1
10.5
0.3
C_7
5.4
20.5
23.3
1.5
12.1
0.3
C_70
2.5
19.9
11.7
0.7
7.8
0.2
C_71
1.6
27.4
7.5
0.5
6.2
0.1
C_72
0.8
46.1
4.0
0.3
4.6
0.1
C_73
1.6
45.7
7.8
0.6
7.6
0.1
C_74
1.1
19.8
5.2
0.3
4.2
0.1
C_75
5.1
35.7
24.1
1.8
18.6
0.4
C_76
1.2
60.2
5.9
0.5
6.4
0.1
C_77
0.9
80.6
4.5
0.4
5.9
0.1
C_78
3.1
31.1
14.5
1.3
10.9
0.3
C_79
3.3
20.1
13.7
0.9
6.8
0.2
C_8
3.3
20.9
12.0
0.9
5.7
0.2
C_80
1.1
50.5
5.0
0.4
5.2
0.1
C_81
6.2
66.9
29.3
2.4
22.3
0.6
NC 82
7.6
22.3
29.8
2.1
14.8
0.4
C_83
2.8
57.0
12.9
1.0
8.4
0.2
NC-84
5.9
48.0
27.4
1.9
23.0
0.4
NC-85
7.8
40.2
30.0
2.3
14.3
0.5
NC-86
9.9
40.0
41.7
3.0
22.7
0.6
C_87
2.7
70.0
12.8
1.1
12.5
0.3
C_88
20.8
37.7
89.0
6.1
49.9
1.2
C_89
5.1
75.3
24.3
2.1
19.5
0.5
C_9
1.3
25.6
5.9
0.4
4.9
0.1
C 90
5.2
80.1
22.5
2.2
12.6
0.6
C_91
1.6
80.0
7.5
0.7
8.4
0.2
C 92
3.4
9.6
14.1
0.7
4.2
0.1
INC -93
7.8
15.3
27.7
2.0
11.6
0.4
PAMpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMILe_SWMM_hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls Cornelia Runoff Update
Table 7.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Lake Cornelia /Lake Edina /Adam's
Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
C_94
4.2
22.2
17.6
1.2
9.3
0.3
C_95
9.1
18.9
36.4
2.5
17.3
0.5
NC 96
10.2
20.0
38.5
2.8
18.1
0.6
C_97
10.6
40.7
47.4
3.3
29.4
0.7
C_98
1.6
20.3
7.4
0.4
4.9
0.1
C_99
12.5
60.0
52.0
4.5
26.2
1.0
SC-1
55.2
69.5
239.9
22.9
144.8
6.0
SC-2
14.4
25.4
63.5
4.4
38.0
1.0
SC _3
11.7
25.6
52.3
3.4
31.6
0.8
SC _4
12.4
20.0
53.5
3.5
28.2
0.8
SC-5
2.8
20.1
13.1
1.0
8.8
0.3
SC-6
1.9
20.2
9.0
0.5
6.1
0.1
SC_7
6.0
20.0
24.7
1.7
12.2
0.4
SC-8
1.4
20.3
6.4
0.4
4.1
0.1
Sc 9
6.6
20.1
28.4
1.9
14.9
0.4
PAMpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMILe_SWMM_ hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls Cornelia Runoff Update
Table 7.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Pond
Drainage Areas (Revised 1212006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation :
(ft)
Type of
Storage!
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
98
1862_p
876.3
876.1
99
1587_p_..
865.1
862.9
687
499P
866.0
693t'
'504_ p
874.7
874.4
694
505_
876.7
875.6
696
507_p
939.0
936.6
697
508p
936.0
698
509_"
937.8''
934.9'
699
510_p.
937.7
934.7 .
700
51 I-p
937.2
934.1
701
512_p
936.7
933.5
703
514_p.
935.9
932.8.
711-
522-0
923.0
913.3
712'
2247p
913.2
715
524p
street
913.0
718
528p
907.4
719
529p
903.8
720
530.-p
868.6
868.5
721
531_p
867.2
867.1
722
532p
866.7
723
533_p
866.4
865.8
725
535_p
864.8"
863.3
727
536p
868.8
867.0
-
728
537p
869.1
734 `
543_p
865.5
864.8
738
1697_p
912.7
912.5
741
549_p
892.1
888.6
742
550_p
881.6
876.7
743
551p
875.3
867.4
747
553_p
867.1
867.1
749
555_p
868.9
868.4
755.
561p
881.6
760
566_p
888.7
888.7
766
572p
864.1
768
573p
865.0
. '769
574-p
868.1
865.9
771.
576p
866.8'
776
580-0,
8653 :.
861.4
777
581_'
'865. 1'
860.8
778
582-p,
864.8'
860.8
779
` 583p
860.8
782
585p
hwy ditch "'
862.7
4.2
866.0
862.7
3.2
783
586p
865.7
785
outfall
865.9
865.8
790
591P
863.3
793
593p
865.2
796
595p
864.6
797
596p
865.0
798
597p
864.8
805
601P
860.8
808
603-0
864.9
862.7
809
604,p
866.5
863.7
813
608p
866.5
816
61 I-p
868.8
867.4
PAMpk\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgrnt Plan Update\WorkFiles \QAQC Model for Pond\NineMILe_SWMM_hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls
ComeGa_Node update
Table 7.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Pond
Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of
Storage'
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
818
613p
868.0
819
614-p
870.1
street
868.4
820
615p
868.5
821
616p
868.7
822
617p
868.7
823
618_p
869.9
868.7
824
619p
876.4
825
620p
874.6
826
621p
869.6
830
lift station
870.7
865.2
831
625p
879.2
838
629p
860.5
839
630p
861.6
841
632p
864.0
862.6
842
633p
862.7
843
634_p
865.0
862.8
844
635p
863.0
846
636p
863.9
848
638p
863.6
849
639p
863.8
850
640p
864.0
851
641p
864.3
852
642p
864.5
853
643p
864.8
855
645p
865.2
856
646p
865.7
859
650p
863.1
860
651p
863.0
861
652p
862.7
863
654p
860.3
868
659p
842.0
869
660p
841.3
871
662p
838.4
874
665p
831.6
831.2
876
667p
830.3
879
670p
826.8
880
671p
826.0
881
672_p
825.2
824.9
882
673�p
824.9
824.7
883
674-p
824.5
824.2
886
676p
829.4
889
678p
833.1
909
694p
849.8
914
699p
856.1
1369
1076p
861.6
1373
1078_p
868.1
868.1
1377
1082p
878.3
877.7
1379
1085p
876.8
876.2
1381
1086p
872.8
1390
1098p
877.4
1391
1099_p
878.5
877.1
1393
1787p
875.4
1553
1237_p
878.0
877.8
1555
1239p
876.3
875.8
PAMpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update\WorkFiles\QAQC Model for Pond\NineMM&_SW MM_ hydraulic _output_2006UPDATE_final_NW L_verification.xls
Comelia_Node update
Table 7.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina /Adam's Hill Pond
Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of
Storage'
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
1557
124 1 -p
872.5
872.4
1558
124Z_p
867.7
863.8
1560
1243p
865.0
1563
1246_p
865.8
861.2
1564
1248p
854.7
1566
1250p
851.9
1567
1251_p
853.5
848.4
1568
1255p
843.3
1569
1252p
849.3
1570
1253p
845.5
1574
outfall
834.9
833.8
1576
1259p
877.5
1577
1261p
876.8
1578
1262p
877.1
876.8
1579
1263_p
877.1
876.8
1581
1265p
876.3
1582
1266p
876.3
875.8
1583
1267p
875.2
1584
1268p
874.5
1586
1269p
868.4
1587
1270p
864.8
1681
1384p
873.8
869.3
1833
1487p
871.9
870.6
1834
3117p
868.6
1972
15794
824.3
820.4
1974
outfall
823.9
819.4
1996
1585_p
863.1
861.6
1997
1586�p
864.1
862.2
2020
1604p
885.0
882.4
2021
1605p
881.3
2027
1615p
876.4
876.2
2057
1625p
875.5
2062
1630p
878.0
876.4
2063
16314
878.1
876.5
2065
1633p
877.5
876.1
2066
1634p
875.4
875.1
2067
1635p
874.7
2068
1636p
873.5
873.3
2069
1637_p
873.2
873.1
2138
1698_p
866.6
864.5
2143
1702_p
869.1
868.7
2144
1703p
869.0
868.7
2148
1707p
855.5
2150
1709_p
868.9
street
865.1
2153
1712p
street
854.0
2154
1713p
856.1
2155
1714p
856.1
2171
2009_p
872.6
872.6
2172
172Lp
872.6
872.6
2186
3121p
866.1
2188
1747_p
873.0
872.7
2189
1748_p
878.0
877.9
2215
1762_p
870.2
868.8
2216
1763p
870.9
869.6
PAMpls\23 MN\27\2327I072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for PondWineMn.e_SWMM_hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verirrcation.xls
Cornelia-Node update
Table 7.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina /Adam's Hill Pond
Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of
Storage'
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
2217
1764p
872.5
1
871.2
2219
1766_p
874.5
872.9
2220
1767p
874.1
2221
1768_p
878.2
877.6
2222
1769p
878.4
2223
1771p
879.2
2224
177Z-p
873.2
871.5
2225
1773p
873.3
2228
1776p
hwy ditch
866.4
7.5
872.2
866.4
5.8
2229
1777p
873.2
872.1
2230
1778p
872.7
2232
1780p
873.3
2233
1781p
873.5
2234
1782_p
874.5
873.8
2238
1784_p
880.0
877.2
2240
1788p
876.2
2286
1873p
882.9
2299
1854p
879.6
2300
1839p
875.7
873.6
2301
1840p
875.2
873.3
2302
1841p
875.0
873.1
2303
1842p
872.6
2304
1843p
871.7
2305
1844-p
880.2
879.7
2306
1845p
879.2
878.5
2307
2228p
877.8
877.4
2308
1847p
877.2
2312
1852p
874.8
2313
1851p
880.6
880.3
2314
1853p
879.7
2315
1855p
879.8
2317
1857p
883.7
879.7
2318
1858p
879.4
2324
1898p
876.4
2327
1864_p
880.1
880.2
2329
2555p
881.9
2332
1868p
878.5
2333
1869p
881.3
2334
2556p
883.0
882.8
2336
1874p
882.9
2337
1876p
883.2
2338
1877p
883.0
2340
1881[l-p
878.2
877.8
2345
1884-p
917.1
914.1
2347
1885_p
916.7
913.4
2350
1888p
915.9
2351
1889p
913.4
2352
1890p
913.5
2354
1892p
918.6
913.6
2355
1893p
915.0
2356
1894_p
919.4
916.6
2357
1895p
918.5
2358
1896p
920.3
2360
1899P
876.8
P:UNpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for Pond\NineMU e_ SWMM _hydraulic_output_2006UPDATE rinal_NWL_verification.xls
Comefia_Node update
Table 7.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina /Adam's Hill Pond
Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of
Storage'
NWL(ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL(ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
2386
2008p
871.9
2388
1927p
877.5
876.9
2466
1999P
869.2
2467
2000p
873.2
873.1
2469
2004p
870.3
869.0
2472
201 1-p
872.4
868.7
2473
201Q_p
875.0
874.8
2476
2015p
871.0
863.4
2477
2017p
858.8
2761
2224p
880.6
878.3
2767
2231_p
869.0
867.9
2769
22 1 Z�p
866.0
864.2
2779
2554_ p
880.9
880.6
2780
2557,p
883.0
882.8
2781
2559_p
883.3
883.3
2786
171 1-p
878.7
878.4
2796
3115p
869.8
868.8
2800
3122p
866.5
865.2
2801
3124p
860.8
854.1
2802
3125p
855.8
2803
3126p
861.3
857.7
2811
3131p
900.4
2813
3135p
895.6
2816
3138p
864.7
861.0
2817
3139p
864.3
861.7
2818
3140p
878.4
875.6
2819
3141p
872.5
872.5
2829
3156_p
841.2
841.1
2831
3157p
843.9
2839
3158p
826.5
824.4
2841
3170p
876.2
875.2
2842
3169_
874.9
874.4
2844
3166p
875.3
2845
3167p
875.2
875.2
2879
3193p
879.4
873.0
2903
3242p
877.4
877.2
2904
3243p
877.2
2913
3261p
874.9
874.4
2968
3301_p
872.0
870.1
AHR_l
1257_p
839.9
837.4
AHR_10
3113p
866.0
AHR_ll
124,tp
868.8
street
865.0
AHR_12
1925p
parking lot
876.0
AHR_13
1240_p
872.7
872.6
AHR_14
3114.p
867.1
parking lot
865.2
AHR_15
1491_p
864.5
861.3
AHR_16
3127p
859.0
AHR_17
2550_p
857.2
parking lot
856.1
AHR_18
2014_
872.4
867.3
AHR_19
1729p
874.0
AHR_2
1249_p
860.1
street
853.6
AHR_20
321 1-p
863.8
parking lot
862.0
AHR_21
2007_p
873.2
873.2
AHR_3
1708p
860.4
PAMpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for Pond\NineMn e_SWMM_hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _finaLNWL_verification.xls
Cornelia-Node update
Table 7.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Lake Cornelia /Lake Edina /Adam's Hill Pond
Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of
Storages
NWL(ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL(ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
AHR_4
1254p
851.6
street
844.7
AHR_5
1256_p
847.0
841.6
AHR_6
1247p
858.5
AHR_7
2016_p
865.0
860.3
AHR_8
1245p
street
863.6
14_1
1579_p
824.3
lake
822.0
2.3
822.6
822.0
0.6
LE-10
677_p
830.9
street
829.4
LE_1 l
668_p
830.0
829.1
LE-12
664_ p
833.6
833.3
LE 13
666_ p
831.6
street
831.2
LE_l4
1638_p
860.5
857.4
LE_15
661_p
840.8
840.7
LE-16
658p
855.6
14_17
663p
836.0
LE-18
698_p
857.0
855.9
LE_l9
3262p
dry pond
842.5
10.0
847.8
842.5
5.4
14 -2
3162_p
840.0
839.8
LE-20
lift station
843.2
dry pond
833.1
10.1
841.1
833.1
8.0
LE-21
695_p
854.9
street
849.3
LE-22
outfall
857.0
856.9
LE-23
669p
827.7
LE_24
696_p
852.8
street
852.4
LE-25
697p
855.0
IX-26
657_p
858.2
school/ ark
856.2
LE-27
3159p
840.0
839.8
LE 28
1385p
873.8
street
872.1
LE-29
693_p
857.4
street
853.2
LE 3
3160p
835.5
834.9
LE-30
650 p
867.6
street
864.8
LE 31
637p
873.5
street
866.4
LE 32
649_p
866.0
863.2
LE-33
631p
862.4
LE_34
644_ p
866.6
street
865.1
1.E_35
648p
866.4
LE_36
2560p
866.7
byd
862.3
4.4
865.2
862.3
2.9
LE-37
3161p
839.6
839.3
1.E_38
3158p
wetland
822.2
4.3
824.4
822.2
2.2
LE 39
3165p
835.2
834.9
LE-4
3164_p
833.4
street
828.8
LE 40
653p
863.8
LE--41
3163_p
829.5
825.8
LE--43
1388p
866.7
865.7
LE-44
landlocked
871.9
byd
869.4
2.5
870.6
869.4
1.2
LE 45
landlocked
869.1
byd
867.3
1.8
868.2
867.3
0.9
1.E_5
3155_p
841.7
841.5
LE 51
landlocked
838.2
pond
831.3
6.9
834.1
831.3
2.8
LE_52
2500p
street
837.8
LE_53
673p
street
830.5
LE-54
landlocked
846.2
park
839.2
7.0
841.9
839.2
2.7
LE-6
139Q-p
833.8
833.6
L.E.-7
675p
byd
825.0
5.9
829.4
825.0
4.4
LE-_8
679_p
825.1
824.4
LE-9
680_p
826.3
825.9
NC_10
517_
931.0
922.4
P.\Mph\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiiles \QAQC Model for Pond\NineMfre_SWMM_hydmulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls
Cornelia-Node update
Table 7.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds/Nodes in the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina /Adam's Hill Pond
Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of
Storage'
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
NC_100
1629p
876.2
NC-101
170 1 -p
878.6
parking lot
877.1
NQ-102
2553p
878.9
NC-103
2226p
879.9
NQ-104
1614p
876.4
street
876.2
NC_ 105
1616p
876.2
NC-106
1860p
880.9
NC-107
1856p
884.2
879.9
NC-108
2229p
878.0
NC-109
1849p
875.6
NC-11
513p
street
933.3
NQ-110
3154_ p
878.6
parking lot
878.1
NC_I l 1
1838p
880.6
879.5
NC- 112
2005p
871.2
parking lot
870.5
NC_113
61Q_p
868.8
parking lot
867.5
NC_114
1704-p
875.4
875.6
NC- 115
1264_ p
877.1
876.7
NC_116
2225p
879.8
NC_1 17
1075p
864.0
NC-118
602-p
864.8
861.7
NC- 119
25614
869.0
ditch
866.3
2.7
868.7
866.3
2.5
NQ- 12
516p
936.5
NC_120
609p
867.0
NC_121
1705p
874.8
874.4
NC-122
1706p
873.6
873.5
NC_ 123
17 1 O-p
882.6
882.5
NQ-124
1236p
878.9
878.8
NC_125
3260p
874.4
874.2
NC-126
I I 00-p
877.7
877.3
NC 127
1749p
879.8
879.5
NC_128
612_ p
869.3
867.7
NC-129
1628p
877.8
875.8
NC-13
5 1 Cl-p
938.8
street
938.6
NC-131
1761p
867.6
NC-132
3300_p
873.2
hwy ditch
864.5
8.8
871.3
864.5
6.9
NC_133
1770p
879.7
879.2
NC_134
1789p
876.4
876.4
NC_135
landlocked
910.2
byd
905.2
5.0
908.5
905.2
3.3
NC_136
3118p
869.8
NQ-137
3119p
866.9
865.5
NQ-138
3120p
867.3
NQ-139
1850_p
877.3
875.6
NC_14
520p
933.1
NC-140
1867p
883.0
NC-141
3153p
870.2
870.0
NC-142
3168_p
873.8
street
873.2
NQ-143
1848p
876.3
NC_144
1863p
878.8
878.7
NQ-145
2235p
byd
875.4
4.3
877.2
875.4
1.8
NC_146
3192p
873.8
NC-147
1881_p
878.5
878.0
NC-148
600_
865.4
864.0
NC-149
2001p
875.0
NC- 15
521p
street
928.7
P.\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for Pond\NineMR.e_SWMM_hydmulic out put_ 2006UPDATE _tinal_NWL_verification.; s
Comelin_Node update
Table 7.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina /Adam's Hill Pond
Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of
Storage'
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
NC 150
1632_p
878.0
876.5
NC 151
1866p
parking lot
882.0
880.3
1.8
NC-152
1828p
884.0
NC 153
2558p
883.5
NQ-154
1238p
877.2
NC 155
1872p
884.0
NC 156
1870p
parking lot
881.6
876.3
5.4
NQ-16
518p
street
920.1
NC 17
527p
908.2
NQ-18
542_p
874.7
874.5
NQ-19
525p
910.6
NQ-2
579p
865.4
pond
863.0
2.4
863.7
863.0
0.7
NC-20
522p
street
926.2
NQ-21
3130_
910.6
909.4
NC-22
534_p
865.9
865.1
NQ-23
523p
912.5
NC-24
538p
874.3
NC 25
562p
881.7
NC-26
575p
hwy ditch
861.3
6.8
867.1
861.3
5.8
NQ-27
565p
889.2
NQ-28
554p
867.4
NC-29
559p
874.5
NQ-3
591p
pond
862.9
2.3
864.0
862.9
1.1
NQ-30
311 I-p
865.2
pond
862.9
2.3
864.0
862.9
1.0
NQ-31
569p
902.3
NC 32
568p
892.6
NQ-33
3136-p
888.7
888.8
NC_34
560p
880.0
NC 35
548p
894.3
NQ-36
545p
913.1
NQ-37
552p
862.9
NC_38
544p
864.0
NQ-39
556p
869.3
NC_4
598p
pond
862.9
2.8
864.3
862.9
1.4
NC_40
577p
byd
861.7
6.4
866.5
861.7
4.8
NQ-41
3133_
916.3
hwy ditch
901.6
14.7
913.2
901.6
11.6
NQ-42
3132p
hwy ditch
890.0
18.3
905.9
890.0
15.9
NC-43
3134_p
895.1
894.8
NQ-44
1897p
921.2
NC_45
1887p
byd
914.4
4.4
915.9
914.4
1.4
NC_46
1891p
street
913.6
NQ-47
1880-p
918.8
byd
910.2
8.7
915.8
910.2
5.6
NC_48
592p
865.6
NC_49
2232p
street
864.5
860.0
4.5
NC-5
596p
867.7
pond
864.5
3.2
865.5
864.5
1.0
NC-50
1084_p
877.7
byd
872.9
4.8
877.1
872.9
4.2
NC 51
2233p
868.4
NC 52
1087p
871.8
NC-53
1088_
895.0
893.3
NC-54
1080_
869.0
867.9
NC 55
1081p
byd
874.9
3.1
877.0
874.9
2.1
NC_56
1083_p
878.7
878.3
NQ-57
1859_p
881.5
878.4
NC 58
1077_
877.1
877.0
PAMpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for Pond\NineMILe_ SWMM - hydraulic- output_2006UPDATE_final_N W L_verification.xls
Cornefia_Node update
Table 7.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Pond
Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Stour► Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of
Storage'
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL (ft)
Flood
Bounce
(ft)
NC_59
1089p
904.6
NC _6
landlocked
867.0
pond
864.2
2.8
865.4
864.2
1.2
NC-60
1700L_p
869.5
869.3
NC 61
605p
byd
861.3
6.2
865.0
861.3
3.8
NQ-62
394Q_p
864.8
pond
859.0
5.8
860.8
859.0
1.8
NQ-63
2230p
street
869.9
NC 64
1486p
byd
866.9
6.6
871.8
866.9
4.9
NQ-65
587p
865.6
NQ-66
584_ p
867.2
867.0
NQ-67
567p
889.1
NC-68
59CLp
866.6
867.3
NC_69
1699_p
869.9
867.4
NC_7
507p
street
938.8
NC-70
606p
street
867.8
NC-71
1489_p
866.0
864.8
NC-72
landlocked
864.8
pond
860.2
4.6
862.6
860.2
2.4
NQ-73
3123p
865.7
NC-74
1746_
869.5
868.4
NC-75
607p
street
864.1
NQ-76
1304p
866.6
NC_77
1878p
876.8
NC_78
landlocked
864.8
pond
860.3
4.5
1 861.3
860.3
1.0
NC_79
3116_
869.0
868.7
NC_8
508p
938.5
byd
936.2
2.3
936.1
936.2
-0.1
NC_80
1775p
874.7
NC_81
1627p
877.9
NQ-82
1774_p
875.3
874.6
NC-83
1879p
874.8
NQ-84
1765p
872.2
NC-85
2138p
880.8
NC-86
1097X
879.8
street
878.6
NC_87
1490Lp
885.8
885.8
NC_88
623p
pond
862.0
8.9
865.4
862.0
3.4
NC-89
1861p
876.1
876.0
NC_9
515p
927.9
NC 90
2219_ p
880.8
878.9
NC-91
2002p
885.2
NQ-92
2006p
park
878.9
5.4
883.4
878.9
4.5
NQ-93
1786_p
880.4
877.1
NQ-94
1785p
877.6
NQ-95
1603p
street
883.8
NC-96
1604p
884.4
NC-97
109LP
879.8
street
877.6
NC-98
1779p
880.9
NC-99
619_p
879.8
street
879.4
SC_1
1074_p
860.5
lake
859.0
1.5
859.3
859.0
0.3
SC-2
498p
dry pond
867.5
5.5
871.7
867.5
4.2
SC-3
506p
pond
874.7
2.7
875.7
874.7
1.0
SC-4
500p
864.8
SC _5
501p
street
863.2
SC-6
496p
873.6
SC-7
495p
street
864.6
SC-8
494_p
862.1
861.8
SC-9
497p
864.8
P.\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for Pond\NineMR.e_ SWMM_ hydraulic _output_2006UPDATE_final NWL_verification.xls
Comelia_Node update
Table 7.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Conduit 1D
Upstream Node
Downstream
Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream
Invert Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope (%)
IOOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
IUY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
2247p
712
NC -23
Circular
4
0.013
909.60
907.98
136
1.2
102.5
93.0
499_p
687
SC -4
Circular
1.25
0.013
865.62
863.13
58
4.3
3.4
2.4
504p
693
SQ.-4
Circular
2
0.013
874.09
863.13
307
3.6
8.3
2.8
505P
694
693
Circular
1.5
0.013
874.59
874.59
135
0.0
8.3
2.8
507p
696
697
Circular
1.75
0.013
933.38
932.80
145
0.4
11.2
10.6
508p
697
698
Circular
1.75
0.013
932.80
932.22
145
0.4
18.9
13.7
509p
698
699
Circular
2.25
0.013
932.22
931.95
67.3
0.4
18.9
13.9
510p
699
700
Circular
2.25
0.013
931.95
931.37
145
0.4
20.9
18.4
51 I-p
700
701
Circular
2.25
0.013
931.37
930.79
145
0.4
20.7
18.5
512p
701
NC_ll
Circular
2.25
0.013
930.79
930.67
30
0.4
20.6
18.5
514_p
703
NC-9
Circular
3
0.013
930.09
929.49
150
0.4
49.7
34.5
522p
711
712
Circular
4
0.013
909.87
909.60
38.5
0.7
102.4
92.6
528p
718
719
Circular
3
0.013
903.85
896.51
50
14.7
126.1
122.3
529p
719
720
Circular
2.5
0.013
896.51
860.12
315
11.6
126.1
119.6
532p
722
723
Circular
4
0.013
859.44
858.80
100
0.6
114.6
108.5
533p
723
NC_22
Circular
4
0.013
858.80
858.50
42
0.7
114.6
108.5
550p
742
743
Circular
2.5
0.013
873.30
872.91
74
0.5
100.3
50.1
551p
743
NC 37
Circular
2.5
0.013
866.21
855.34
77.5
14.0
101.8
50.0
553p
747
NC-62
Circular
3.5
0.013
859.23
859.23
30
0.0
135.0
130.0
555p
749
NQ-28
Circular
1.25
0.013
863.08
861.70
51
2.7
8.3
9.4
561p
755
NC-,34
Circular
1.25
0.013
875.08
874.55
51
1.0
11.7
12.1
566p
760
NC_27
Circular
1.25
0.013
884.73
883.71
51
2.0
-6.0
4.2
579
NQ-2
776
Circular
3.5
0.024
860.00
860.20
24
-0.8
48.0
26.1
580p
776
777
Circular
3.5
0.013
860.00
858.80
175
0.7
47.1
26.0
58 I-p
777
778
Circular
3.5
0.013
858.80
857.62
296
0.4
47.1
26.0
582p
778
779
Circular
3.5
0.013
857.62
857.10
131
0.4
47.1
25.9
583p
779
NC_62
Circular
3.5
0.024
857.10
857.00
24
0.4
47.1
25.9
585p
782
783
Circular
1.5
0.013
862.73
862.49
53
0.5
7.4
7.6
586p
783
NQ-65
Circular
0.013
862.49
862.27
50
0.4
7.5
7.6
591
790
NC-62
Arch
0.013
858.92
857.00
420
0.5
69.7
70.2
596
797
798
Circular
0.024
861.50
861.50
24
0.0
63.4
44.1
597
798
796
Circular
M3.5
0.013
861.50
860.46
169
0.6
63.4
"A
603
808
NC-118
Circular
0.013
859.61
858.71
469
0.2
57.4
46.1
604
809
808
Circular
0.013
860.63
859.61
467
0.2
.57.4
46.4
611
816
NC_120
Circular
0.013
861.00
859.85
321
0.4
26.5
25.6
613p
818
NQ-128
Circular
2
0.013
862.15
861.68
149
0.3
16.7
11.5
616p
821
820
Circular
2
0.013
864.40
863.56
298
0.3
6.7
9.0
617p
822
821
Circular
2
0.013
864.75
864.40
136
0.3
-4.0
-3.8
618p
823
822
Circular
1.75
0.013
865.11
864.75
145.5
0.2
-4.0
3.2
619p
824
825
Circular
2
0.013
870.70
868.78
425
1 0.5
20.6
17.1
621p
826
NQ-88
Circular
2
0.013
868.60
859.20
223
4.2
20.5
26.0
629p
838
839
Circular
4.5
0.013
856.00
855.53
200
0.2
-119.3
-79.9
630p
839
L9 33
Circular
4.5
0.013
855.53
855.39
143.5
0.1
-119.3
-79.5
632
841
842
Circular
4.5
0.013
855.24
855.07
166
0.1
-92.2
-65.4
633
842
843
Circular
4.5
0.013
855.07
854.92
152
0.1
-92.2
-65.3
634
843
844
Circular
4.5
0.013
854.92
854.82
101
0.1
-92.2
-66.7
635
844
LE-32
Circular
4.5
0.013
854.82
854.79
226
0.0
-92.2
-69.2
636
846
L9_32
Circular
3
0.013
855.96
854.98
140
0.7
55.9
36.3
638
848
1.9_32
Circular
3
0.013
855.21
854.79
310
0.1
43.4
30.3
PAMp1s\21 MN27\23271072 Edina Water Res.- Mgtm Plan Update \WmtFiles\QAQC Model fm PandWi=MMa SWMM-hydmWic_outpuUO06UPDATEfuuaLNVIL veri6catim.xb CorneliA_Conduit Update
Table 7.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adarn's Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Upstream Invert Downstream IOOY Peak Flow IOY Peak Flow through
Conduit ID Upstream Node
PAMplst23 MM2723271072 Edina Water Itesoutuea Mgmt Plan Update %WotkFilo\QAQC Model for PonMiraMM,_S WMM -hydmulie_OutpuL.2006UPDATELrLna _Nwltiveriruation.xb Comeli4Conduit Update
Downstream
Node
Shape
Conduit
Condui`
Dimensions (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Elevation
(R)
Invert Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(fQ
Slope (9h)
through Conduit
(cfs)
Conduit
(cfs)
639p
849
848
Circular
3
0.013
855.47
855.21
130
0.2
43.3
30.2
640p
850
849
Circular
3
0.013
855.64
855.47
115
0.1
43.4
30.1
641p
851
850
Circular
3
0.013
1 856.00
855.64
150
1 0.2
43.7
30.1
643p
853
852
Circular
3
0.013
856.49
856.30
95
0.2
39.9
34.5
645p
855
LE-34
Circular
2
0.013
860.27
860.00
25
1.1
14.5
13.1
646p
856
855
Circular
1.5
0.013
860.84
860.27
171
0.3
14.4
13.1
650p
859
860
Circular
1.75
0.013
853.85
853.65
99.9
0.2
15.8
12.3
667p
876
LE-11
Circular
4
0.013
824.24
823.79
327
0.1
67.1
72.1
670_p
879
880
Circular
4
0.013
821.99
821.38
277.1
0.2
81.4
76.0
671p
880
1 881
Circular
4
0.013
821.38
1 820.77
277.1
0.2
81.4
75.1
672p
881
882
Circular
4.5
0.013
820.77
820.59
83.5
0.2
81.3
74.9
673p
882
883
Circular
4.5
0.013
820.59
820.00
234
0.3
92.6
82.9
676p
886
IE_10
Circular
1.25
0.013
823.33
822.82
42.4
1.2
5.8
5.6
678p
889
LE_1
Circular
1.5
0.013
823.47
822.00
366.5
0.4
16.5
16.4
699p
914
LE_16
Circular
1.75
0.013
838.74
838.00
310
0.2
17.1
16.5
1852p
2312
2300
Circular
3.5
0.013
865.12
864.53
399.6
0.1
71.7
753
1855P
2315
NC--107
Circular
3
1 0.013
864.37
864.27
214.2
0.0
■35.7
48.8
1858p
2318
NQ-57
Circular
3.5
0.013
863.48
862.33
261.8
0.4
75.1
78.2
1870
NC-156
2333
Circular
1.25
0.013
876.25
872.60
19
19.2
14.0
13.9
1873p
2286
2336
Circular
1.25
0.013
877.30
876.94
37.5
1.0
5.1
5.1
1878
NC-77
2057
Circular
3.5
0.013
862.23
861.63
190
0.3
98.2
100.6
1880p
2340
2220
Circular
1.25
0.013
871.39
870.38
54
1.9
12.2
14.4
1885p
NC 4l
Circular
3.25
0.013
906.92
901.60
231
2.3
40.0
23.9
1887
NC 45
NC 47
Circular
1.5
0.013
914.44
910.28
70
5.9
1 7.1
8.1
1888p
2350
NC 47
Circular
1
0.013
912.90
1 910.58
100
2.3
1.3
-1.0
1892p
2354
NC-46
Circular
2
0.013
912.55
1 911.08
80.3
1.8
12.1
10.1
1889p
2351
2347
Circular
3
0.013
907.94
906.92
63
1.6
40.1
24.9
1890p
2352
2351
Circular
3.25
0.013
910.45
907.94
250.6
1.0
40.1
25.5
1896p
2358
2357
Circular
1.5
0.01
919.12
917.70
159
0.9
13.0
10.1
1898p
2324
2360
Circular
2
0.013
865.89
866.69
57
-1.4
-22.5
-25.9
I 927p
2388
1579
Circular
1.5
0.013
871.90
870.97
48
1.9
6.6
5.6
1 999P
2466
NQ-69
Circular
1.5
0.013
865.51
864.30
92
1.3
14.7
13.1
2005
NQ- 112
2469
Circular
1
0.024
866.50
1 864.74
18
1 9.8
5.9
6.6
2006
NC-92
2221
Circular
1.25
0.013
878.90
868.67
233
4.4
14.2
13.5
2007
AHR_21
1557
Circular
1
0.013
868.60
867.78
83.5
1.0
5.0
6.8
2009p
2171
2819
Circular
1
0.013
868.60
868.15
35
1.3
2.6
5.5
201 I-P
2472
AHR_18
Circular
1.25
0.013
866.55
866.50
15.7
0.3
10.1
11.7
3115_p
2796
1834
Circular
1
0.013
865.00
864.70
8
3.8
4.3
4.2
2014
AHR_18
2476
Circular
2
0.013
865.70
862.30
381
0.9
17.7
16.8
1636p
2068
2067
Circular
1.5
0.013
868.13
867.65
75
0.6
-11.2
-12.7
2212p
2769
NC-2
Circular
3.5
0.024
860.00
855.90
24
17.1
76.9
47.4
2225
NC_l16
2314
Circular
3
0.013
876.97
876.80
77
0.2
3.7
7.2
2232
NC 49
2769
Circular
4
0.013
860.00
860.00
158
0.0
76.9
47.4
2550
AHR_17
2155
Circular
1.25
0.013
854.58
854.57
l0
0.1
7.5
4.6
2555p
2329
2779
Circular
1.25
0.013
876.15
875.64
20
2.6
10.9
9.3
2558
NQ-153
2781
Circular
1.25
0.013
878.41
878.05
37.4
1.0
6.8
8.3
311 1-p
NC--30
NC-3
Circular
5
0.024
858.00
858.00
226
1 0.0
-56.9
-67.5
3112
NC-30
NQ -3
Circular
5
0.024
858.00
858.00
226
1 0.0
-56.9
-67.5
311 8-p
NC_136
NC-74
Circular
1.25
0.013
866.34
865.49
53
1 1.6
10.1
10.0
PAMplst23 MM2723271072 Edina Water Itesoutuea Mgmt Plan Update %WotkFilo\QAQC Model for PonMiraMM,_S WMM -hydmulie_OutpuL.2006UPDATELrLna _Nwltiveriruation.xb Comeli4Conduit Update
Table 7.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream
Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(fl)
Downstream
Invert Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope (%)
IOOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
I OY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
3119
NQ-137
2800
Circular
1.5
0.013
862.65
862.57
8
1.0
9.7
9.4
3122p
2800
NC 71
Circular
1.5
0.013
862.57
861.24
20
6.7
9.7
9.3
3125p
2802
2801
Circular
1.5
0.013
853.72
853.23
50
1.0
15.6
12.8
3136
NQ-33
NC-27
Circular
1.25
0.013
884.64
883.71
51
1.8
7.4
-4.2
3139p
2817
2816
Circular
2
0.013
856.20
857.04
32
-2.6
27.7
-24.5
3155
LE-5
2829
Circular
1.5
0.013
836.77
836.60
28
0.6
15.7
15.9
3156p
2829
LE-27
Circular
1.75
0.013
836.00
834.20
221
0.8
14.0
15.2
3159
LE-27
LE-3
Circular
2
0.013
833.55
827.80
350
1.6
31.6
35.2
3161
LE-37
LE_3
Circular
l
0.013
838.90
829.60
67.8
13.7
5.8
5.5
3162p
LE_2
LE_27
Circular
2
0.013
1 834.50
834.20
6
5.0
1 11.4
14.6
3170p
2841
NQ-109
Cir.UFU
2
0.013
867.17
866.50
187
0.4
-14.8
14.6
3192
NQ- 146
2879
Circular
2
0.013
866.32
865.00
60
2.2
41.8
28.8
3243p
2903
Circular
1.25
0.013
872.34
872.14
53.1
0.4
5.3
7.4
326Q-p
NC_125
2913
Circular
1.5
0.013
868.22
868.06
32
0.5
-10.4
9.6
3261p
2842
Circular
1.5
0.013
868.06
867.95
22
0.5
7.3
9.8
3301p
2216
Circular
1.25
0.013
864.11
863.19
19
4.8
12.1
15.0
3940
NC 62
SC-1
Circular
I
0.013
859.00
1 859.00
80
0.0
6.7
4.0
3158p
2839
LE-1
Circular
3
0.024
818.35
817.60
112
1 0.7
49.3
50.0
1895p
2357
2356
Circular
1.5
0.01
917.70
915.10
134
1.9
13.0
10.1
1881
NQ-147
2340
Circular
1.5
0.013
872.23
871.39
57
1.5
8.8
9.6
3165
LE-39
Lk-4
Circular
1.25
0.013
834.70
823.10
45
25.8
4.8
5.7
1891
NC.-46
2352
Circular
3.25
0.013
910.88
910.45
77.5
0.6
40.1
25.1
1893p
2355
2354
Circular
1.75
0.01
914.09
912.55
4
38.5
12.1
10.1
1886
NC-47
2345
Circular
1.5
0.013
910.18
905.63
261
1.7
13.4
13.8
1884p
2345
NQ-41
Circular
1.75
0.013
905.63
904.00
295
0.6
12.1
12.9
3166p
2844
2845
Circular
1.25
0.013
871.80
871.55
50
1 0.5
6.8
9.9
3163p
LE-4l
LE_38
Circular
3
0.013
822.55
820.80
177
1.0
73.2
73.1
698p
LE_18
914
Circular
1.75
0.013
839.51
838.74
319.6
0.2
10.8
9.4
695
1.1� 21
LF-19
Circular
1.5
0.013
847.50
842.47
40
12.6
25.8
19.8
3164
I-E 4
LE-41
Circular
3
0.013
822.85
822.55
319.3
0.1
69.7
70.4
3167p
2845
2841
Circular
1.25
0.013
870.38
870.28
l0
1.0
8.2
9.9
697
LE-25
LE-18
Circular
1.75
0.013
841.03
839.51
630.9
0.2
10.8
14.8
693
LE-29
909
Circular
1.5
0.013
851.23
847.70
280
1.3
12.6
11.9
637
LE-31
846
Circular
2.25
0.013
862.50
856.02
162
4.0
55.9
37.7
649
LE-32
859
Circular
1.75
0.013
854.59
853.85
370
0.2
-14.3
9.3
63 I-p
LE--33
841
Circular
4.5
0.013
855.39
855.24
152
0.1
-92.2
-65.4
648
LE 35
LE-36
Circular
1
0.024
863.84
863.50
83.5
0.4
2.8
2.9
675p
LE.-7
886
Circular
1
0.013
825.00
823.33
172
1.0
5.8
5.6
679
LE_8
LE-1
Circular
1.5
0.013
823.50
1 821.00
200
1.3
1 9.9
7.4
680
LE -9
IE_l
Circular
1.5
0.013
822.75
821.42
133
1.0
13.8
13.4
657p
N543
LE 16
Circular
l
0.013
848.67
847.69
249.5
0.4
6.2
-2.7
3133
NQ-41
NQ-21
Circular
2.5
0.013
901.60
892.00
375
2.6
50.2
41.6
2557p
2780
2333
Circular
1.5
0.013
873.04
872.60
115
0.4
12.9
13.6
2559p
2781
2337
Circular
1.25
0.013
878.05
877.92
13
1.0
6.3
7.7
513
NC_l1
703
Circular
3
0.013
930.67
930.09
145
0.4
45.8
34.6
3140p
2818
2057
Circular
1
0.013
873.29
872.30
42
2.4
4.3
-1.7
2004_p
2469
821
Circular
1.25
0.013
864.74
864.30
51
2.9
5.9
6.6
1851
2313
NC- 11
Circular
1.25
0.013
873.36
872.86
49.2
I.0
4.0
!.6
602
NC_I 18
805
Arch
42" a
0.013
858.71
857.64
317
0.3
62.2
48.3
PAMpb\21 MM27\21271072 Editu Water Resouttxa Mgmt Plan Updae\WmkFJm\QAQC Madel fm PondWinWRA SWMM- hydmulic_mtpm 2006UPDATF fiwaL NW1,verificatim.xb ComeliiLConduit Update
Table 7.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Lake Cornella/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream
Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream
Invert Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope (%)
IOOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
IOY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
3153
NC-141
819
Circular
1
0.013
863.30
862.74
67
0.8
5.4
5.8
3154
NC-I10
2388
Circular
1.25
0.013
873.35
872.10
169.2
0.7
6.6
5.6
3157p
2831
LE-27
Circular
1.25
0.013 1
843.90
835.45
55
15.4
0.0
0.0
3193p
2879
NC-94
Circular
2
0.013
865.00
863.64
60
2.3
43.7
29.0
612
NC-128
816
Circular
3
0.013
861.68
861.00
314
0.2
26.6
25.7
3117p
1834
NC-74
Circular
1.25
0.013
864.70
864.39
9
3.4
7.7
9.5
3242p
2903
2307
Circular
1.25
0.013
872.14
871.48
17.4
3.8
-6.2
8.2
600
NC-148
NQ -3
Circular
1.25
0.024
862.93
861.27
30
5.5
4.0
3.7
521
NC-15
711
Circular
3.5
0.013
911.10
909.87
205
0.6
100.7
89.6
3121p
2186
NC-73
Circular
3
0.013
862.35 1
861.93
71.7
0.6
50.4
32.6
1874p
2336
2334
Circular
1.25
0.013
876.93
873.47
29
11.9
5.1
4.9
1897
NC-44
2358
Circular
1.5
0.013
919.91
919.12
72
1.1
13.0
10.1
527p
NC_17
718
Circular
4
0.013
904.44
903.91
75
0.7
126.1
122.5
525
NQ-19
NC-17
Circular
4
0.013
906.29
904.44
305
0.6
123.7
118.4
534
NC-22
725
Circular
4
0.013
858.80
858.26
133.5
0.4
158.6
135.6
523
NC-23
NC-19
Circular
4
0.013
907.98
906.29
297
0.6
106.0
103.6
562
NC75
755
Circular
1.25
0.013
875.13
875.08
18
0.3
12.2
12.5
554
NC 28
747
Circular
1.25
0.013
861.70
1 860.41
126
1.0
10.0
10.0
598p
NC 4
NC 3
Circular
5.5
0.024
859.08
859.23
149
-0.1
84.5
73.3
569
NQ-31
NC 32
Circular
1
0.013
895.50
877.07
365
5.0
8.4
7.9
560
NC-34
NC-29
Circular
3.5
0.013
870.07
867.85
215
1 1.0
125.6
124.5
552
NC 37
NC22
Circular
4
0.013
855.34
855.19
103.5
0.1
111.4
55.8
556
NC-39
749
Circular
1.25
0.013
863.20
863.08
18
0.7
8.3
9.4
1857p
2317
2318
Circular
4
0.013
863.88
863.48
160.1
0.3
1 75.1
78.3
1862p
98
NC 89
Circular
2
0.013
868.35
866.45
216
0.9
12.9
12.9
1853p
2314
2315
Circular
3
0.013
864.47
864.37
63
0.2
-45.7
49.0
3132p
42
2811
Circular
2.5
0.013
890.00
884.00
188
3.2
68.1
61.4
605
NC--61
809
Circular
1.3
0.013
861.85
860.83
99
1.0
8.5
7.1
2017p
2477
AHR_6
Circular
3
0.013
856.40
854.00
73
3.3
57.6
46.7
587
NC 65
NC-30
Circular
1.5
0.013
862.27
861.97
73
0.4
14.1
13.5
567
NC-67
760
Circular
1.25
0.013
886.26
884.73
50
3.1
-0.0
5.9
590p
NC.-68
NC-30
Circular
1.25
0.013
864.36
863.00
62
22
1 9.2
10.8
3131p
2811
2813
Circular
2.5
0.013
884.00
881.00
195
1.5
68.1
61.4
2138
NC 85
NC-147
Circular
1
0.013
873.18
872.23
134
0.7
7.8
7.7
321 I-p
AHR30
2817
Circular
2
0.013
857.27
856.20
10
10.7
27.7
24.1
607
NC_75
809
Circular
3.5
0.013
860.75
860.83
193
0.0
52.5
40.2
2016
AHR_7
2477
Circular
2
0.013
856.25
856.40
45
-0.3
-28.0
-26.5
3116
NC 79
1834
Circular
1.25
1 0.013
865.17
864.70
56
0.8
5.9
6.6
3300p
NC 132
2968
Circular
1.25
0.013
864.46
864.11
66
0.5
12.1
15.2
1866p
NC_151
2329
Circular
1
0.013
880.29
876.15
44
1 9.4
3.1
4.2
3123
NQ-73
NC-71
Circular
3
0.013
861.93
861.30
210
0.3
34.7
34.5
515
NC-9
NC_12
Circular
3
0.013
925.14
1 923.20
484
0.4
46.6
37.1
498
SC -2
687
Circular
0.75
0.013
867.50
1 866.00
255
0.6
2.6
2.4
506
SC-3
694
Circular
1.5
0.013
874.71
874.59
56
0.2
8.3
2.8
501p
SC_5
SC-I
Circular
1 3
0.013
859.94
858.90
378
0.3
61.5
36.6
496
SC-6
SC-1
Circular
1
0.013
872.92
858.66
163.5
8.7
9.0
6.1
495
SC -7
SC-1
Circular
1.25
0.013
861.00
859.00
140
1.4
13.0
10.1
494
SC -8
SC-1
Circular
1.25
0.013
861.00
859.00
135
1.5
6.4
4.1
497
SC-9
SC-1
circular
1
0.024
863.22
860.52
20
13.5
5.8
5.5
PAMp1st23 MNt27t23271072 Fditu Water Resoutoes Mgtm Plan Update %WarkFi1w QAQC Model fm PooMineMaA-S WMM-hydmulic_ mtput -2IX16UPDATE-finaLNWL_vcifiratianah CanelhLCooduit Update
Table 7.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream
Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream
Invert Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope (%)
IOOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
IUY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
1074p
SC_I
NC-l17
Circular
1
0.024
860.22
859.55
90
0.7
-2.5
1075
NC_117
1369
Circular
1
0.024
859.55
859.28
28
1.0
5.4
5.3
1076p
1 1369
NC-62
Circular
1.25
0.024
859.28
859.51
25
-0.9
5.4
-5.3
1077p
1373
Circular
1.5
0.013
869.65
865.25
145
3.0
25.3
25.0
1082p
1377
NC 56
Circular
2.5
0.013
872.80
872.30
71
0.7
6.3
6.0
1084
NC-50
1379
Circular
1
0.013
872.90
871.60
124
1.0
7.0
6.8
1086p
1381
NQ-52
Circular
2.5
0.013
868.30
867.70
51
1.2
48.4
35.1
1087
NC-52
NC 51
Circular
3.5
0.013
866.80
866.00
150
0.5
119.5
95.1
1097
NC-86
1390
Circular
1.75
0.013
873.59
869.44
150.5
2.8
25.1
23.6
1098P
1 1390
1391
Circular
2.5
1 0.013
869.44
868.97
117
1 0.4
36.5
26.3
1099P
1391
NC_126
Circular
2.5
0.013
868.97
868.39
145
0.4
36.5
26.4
1238
NC-154
1555
Circular
2.25
0.013
872.00
870.83
175
0.7
29.2
27.4
1239_p
1555
AHR_13
Circular
2.25
0.013
870.83
866.70
509
0.8
25.5
24.0
1242p
1558
AHR_6
Circular
2.25
0.013
862.74
854.90
130
6.0
40.4
36.4
1244
AHR_ll
AHR_8
Circular
2
0.013
862.00
860.04
310
0.6
26.0
17.0
1245
AIM-8
1563
Circular
2.75
0.013
860.04
857.19
285
1.0
59.7
49.2
1246p
1563
AHR_6
Circular
2.75
0.013
857.19
854.00
226
1.4
1 59.7
47.6
1247
AHR_6
1564
Circular
4
0.013
854.00
849.75
465
0.9
134.7
126.8
1250p
1566
1567
Circular
4
0.013
845.86
843.34
280
0.9
157.7
138.3
1251p
1567
1568
Circular
4
0.013
843.34
840.51
225
1.3
157.8
138.2
W2-p
1569
1570
Circular
2.5
0.013
849.25
845.49
436
0.9
4.0
0.0
1253p
1570
AHR_4
Circular
3
0.013
845.49
842.75
428
0.7
-10.3
0.0
1254
AHR_4
1568
Circular
3.5
0.013
842.75
841.00
160
1.0
103.5
52.3
1255p
1568
AHR_5
Circular
5
0.013
839.52
838.05
120
1.2
280.0
204.6
1256
AHR_5
AHR_1
Circular
5
1 0.013
838.05
831.88
467
1 1.3
297.7
211.6
1257
AHR_1
1574
Circular
5.5
0.013
831.88
830.43
168
0.9
308.4
213.7
1259p
1576
NC_154
Circular
2
0.013
871.81
871.72
84
0.1
18.3
17.1
1260
NC-154
1577
Circular
2
0.013
871.72
871.46
118
0.2
15.1
19.9
1261p
1577
1578
Circular
2.5
0.013
871.46
871.19
210
0.1
14.9
18.2
1262p
1578
1579
Circular
2.5
0.013
871.19
870.97
90
0.2
14.7
18.0
1263p
1579
NC_1 15
Circular
2.5
0.013
870.97
870.56
180
0.2
14.3
19.3
1264
NC_115
1581
Circular
2.5
0.013
870.56
870.21
252
1 0.1
21.0
28.2
1265p
1581
1582
Circular
3
0.013
870.21
869.77
237
0.2
30.4
30.4
1266p
1582
1583
Circular
3
0.013
869.77
869.13
220
0.3
38.8
32.6
1267p
1583
1584
Arch
36" eq
0.024
869.13
868.71
160
0.3
21.8
40.7
1268p
1584
NC-122
Arch
36" eq
0.024
868.71
868.48
140
0.2
26.2
49.6
1269p
1586
1587
Circular
3.5
0.013
861.51
860.79
402
0.2
89.2
78.6
1270p
1587
NC 4
Circular
4.5
0.024
860.79
1 860.10
100
0.7
95.7
79.9
1304p
NC 76
NC -4
Arch
72" ecl
0.024
861.08
860.50
119
0.5
191.0
170.3
1486
NC-64
1833
Circular
1
0.013
867.07
866.25
116
0.7
1 4.3
4.1
1487p
1833
2796
Circular
1
0.013
866.25
865.00
228
0.5
4.3
4.2
1489
NC-71
NC-3
Circular
3
0.013
861.24
861.15
33
0.3
51.0
47.8
1579p
1972
1974
Circular
3
0.013
819.00
818.00
240
0.4
40.2
17.9
1585-p
1996
LP-22
Circular
2
0.024
856.96
855.71
405
0.3
12.8
10.5
1586p
1997
1996
Circular
2
0.013
857.73
856.93
258
0.3
12.8
10.5
1587p
99
1 1997
Circular
2
0.013
1 859.00
1 857.73
1 258
0.5
12.8
10.5
1604p
2020
2021
Circular
1.25
0.013
879.00
878.85
22
0.7
15.8
11.4
1605
2021
NC_133
Circular
1.25
0.013
878.85
869.98
66
13.4
15.8
13.7
1614
NC-104
2027
Circular
2
0.013
870.13
869.49
297
0.2
12.0
14.6
PAMpLA27 MN\27\27271072 Edina Water Resources Mgnu Plan Update\WarkFiles\QAQC Model for PondWiueMtl< SWMM-hydraulic_ amput_ 2006UPDATF ,_nmLNWf�verifirationatls Camelia _Conduit Update
Table 7.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Lake Comella/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream
Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions` (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream
Invert Elevation
(fl)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope (Yo)
I UOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
I OY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
1615p
2027
NC-105
Circular
2
0.013
869.49
868.81
269
0.3
12.0
12.6
1616
NC_105
98
Circular
2
0.013
868.81
868.35
182
0.3
12.8
12.7
1625p
2057
NC-76_
Circular
3.5
0.013
861.63
861.08
234
0.2
185.2
165.6
I 626p
1586
NQ-81
Circular
1.25
0.013
875.20
872.76
66
3.7
-11.0
-6.9
1627
NC 81
2057
Circular
2
0.013
872.76
870.78
124
1.6
31.5
32.6
1628
NC-129
2057
Circular
4.5
0.013
862.37
861.63
130
0.6
72.3
66.2
1630p
2062
NC-100
Circular
4.5
0.013
863.92
863.27
217
0.3
64.4
-59.4
1631p
2063
2062
Circular
4.5
0.013
864.67
863.92
251
0.3
64.0
60.9
1632
NC_150
2063
Circular
3.5
0.013
865.46
864.67
264
0.3
35.3
42.5
1633p
2065
NC-150
Circular
3.5
0.013
866.16
865.46
238
0.3
-45.0
-41.6
623_p
I NC_88
830
Circular
1
0.013
860.00
859.50
40
1 1.3
2.3
2.3
1698P
2138
NC-3
Circular
2
0.013
860.76
860.31
32
1.4
27.2
22.6
1699
NC 69
2138
Circular
2
0.013
864.52
863.22
119
1.1
27.2
22.6
1700
NC-60
NC 128
Circular
I
0.013
862.30
861.68
63
1.0
6.8
9.0
1701
NC 101
2063
Circular
4
0.013
865.53
864.67
220
0.4
77.8
58.0
I 702p
2143
823
Circular
l
0.013
865.61
865.23
35
1.1
-4.0
3.4
1703p
2144
2143
Circular
1.25
0.013
865.62
865.66
66
-0.1
-4.0
-3.4
1704p
NC_I14
1584
Circular
1.5
0.013
869.70
868.71
86
1.2
1 7.1
9.6
1705
NC-121
2067
Arch
36" rq
0.024
868.09
867.65
176
0.3
29.2
49.8
1706
NC-122
NC 121
Arch
36" eq
0.024
868.56
868.09
179
0.3
-24.1
-39.3
1707p
AHR_4
Circular
1
0.013
850.00
844.75
82
6.4
13.5
10.3
1709p
2150
1560
Circular
1.75
0.013
864.39
863.40
134
0.7
10.2
4.1
1710
NC-123
2786
Circular
1
0.013
879.00
875.38
54
6.7
9.9
9.7
171 I-p
2786
1581
Circular
1.25
0.013
875.38
873.28
64
3.3
9.9
10.3
1712p
2153
1566
Circular
1.5
0.013
853.70
1 845.86
37
1 21.2
8.5
4.6
1713p
2154
2153
Circular
1.5
0.013
854.37
853.70
168
0.4
7.6
4.6
1714p
2155
2154
Circular
1.25
0.013
854.57
854.37
45
0.4
7.5
4.6
666
LF-13
876
Circular
4
0.013
824.77
824.24
327
0.2
67.2
72.7
669
LE-23
879
Circular
4
0.013
822.60
821.99
277.1
0.2
81.4
77.3
1729
AHR_19
2172
Circular
1
0.01
870.50
870.00
50
1.0
4.8
5.7
677
LE-10
LE-1
Circular
1.5
0.013
822.82
822.00
205.5
0.4
17.7
16.1
696
LE_24
1E_25
Circular
2
0.013
1 841.93
841.03
463.5
0.2
-19.9
-16.5
1747p
2188
NQ-74
Circular
2
0.013
872.00
865.50
300
2.2
13.0
8.8
1748p
2189
2188
Circular
2
0.013
877.08
872.00
300
1.7
13.0
8.8
1749
NC-127
2189
Circular
2
0.013
878.30
877.08
244
0.5
13.0
8.7
1760
NC 73
NQ -3
Circular
5
0.013
860.31
859.66
180.9
0.4
174.8
152.6
1761
NC-131
NC_73
Circular
5
0.013
860.87
860.31
360
0.2
151.6
149.7
1762p
2215
NC_131
Circular
5
0.013
861.66
860.87
358
0.2
147.9
140.6
1763_p
2216
2215
Circular
5
0.013
1 862.01
861.66
206
0.2
125.0
128.6
1764p
2217
2216
Circular
4.5
0.013
862.88
862.01
390
0.2
118.1
118.6
1765
NC_84
2217
Circular
4.5
0.013
863.64
862.88
306
0.2
118.1
118.6
1766p
2219
NC_84
Circular
4.5
0.013
864.49
863.64
340
0.3
93.4
96.5
1768p
2221
NC.-126
Circular
3.5
0.013
868.67
867.89
300
0.3
40.4
39.5
1769p
2222
2221
Circular
3
0.013
869.23
868.67
225
0.2
31.4
30.2
1770
NC-133
2222
Circular
1 3
0.013
869.98
869.23
310
0.2
31.3
29.4
1771
2223
NC-133
Circular
2.5
0.013
870.71
869.98
292
0.3
22.3
21.7
1775
NC_80
NC_131
Circular
1.25
0.013
873.82
872.49
34
3.9
5.4
5.2
1777
2229
2228
Circular
1.5
0.013
867.49
866.42
51
2.1
15.0
4.9
1778
2230
2229
Circuhr
1.25
O.Ol3
870.51
867.49
122
2.5
7.3
5.4
P.%Mplslil N=7\23271072 Edim Waa Reraaaea Mg= Plan Upd- %WmkRO1QAQC Model for PonMim�Watht_hydmulic aapm- 2006UPDATE- rmaLNWL-vaifica iomxls C nieGn-Coaduit Update
Table 7.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream
Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream
Invert Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope (%)
IOOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
IOY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
1779p
98
2230
Circular
1.25
0.013
879.99
877.96
92
2.2
7.4
4.9
1780p
2232
2219
Circular
1.25
0.013
868.72
867.50
51
2.4
5.7
8.6
1791p
2232
Circular
1.25
0.013
869.62
868.63
50
2.0
6.1
8.5
1794p
2238
2220
Circular
1.25
0.013
871.29
869.02.
142
1.6
11.2
9.2
1785
NC 94
2238
Circular
1.5
0.013
872.22
871.29
22
4.2
11.3
9.2
1786
NQ-93
2220
Circular
1.25
0.013
875.00
870.34
130
3.6
13.5
12.1
1788p
2240
1393
Circular
1.25
0.013
874.24
872.40
51
3.6
6.7
8.0
1789
NC-134
2240
Circular
1.25
0.013
874.60
874.24
36
1.0
6.6
8.0
1384p
1681
LE_31
Circular
1.75
0.013
865.03
863.70
140
0.7
24.1
22.9
1828
NC-152
2286
Circular
1.25
0.013
879.45
877.35
208
1.0
4.9
5.1
1836
NC_l11
2299
Circular
3
0.013
864.63
864.70
245.4
0.0
-09.0
A6.0
1839p
2300
2301
Circular
4
0.013
864.53
863.38
300
0.4
58.6
64.3
1840p
2301
2302
Circular
4
0.013
863.38
863.38
190
0.0
56.3
60.0
1941p
2302
2303
Circular
3.5
0.013
863.38
863.15
44.6
0.5
72.9
72.2
1942p
2303
2304
Circular
3.5
0.013
863.15
862.14
128.9
0.8
71.9
71.8
1943p
2304
1586
Circular
3.5
0.013
862.14
861.51
482.9
0.1
71.3
73.1
1845p
2306
NC_111
Circular
3
1 0.013
865.05
864.63
283.1
1 0.1
-44.3
-33.9
1849
NC-109
NC-139
Circular
3
0.013
866.50
866.11
129.9
0.3
30.0
32.6
1850
NC-139
2312
Circular
3.5
0.013
866.11
865.12
484.6
0.2
72.4
75.8
500
SC-4
SC-5
Circular
2.5
0.013
863.13
859.94
207
1.5
44.1
30.0
516
NC-12
NC-10
Circular
3
0.013
923.10
921.08
337
0.6
46.5
39.7
517
NC-10
NC-16
Circular
3
0.013
915.00
913.50
270
0.6
75.5
57.3
518
NC_16
NC-15
Circular
3.5
0.013
913.50
911.10
400
0.6
94.8
78.5
520
NC-14
NC_15
Circular
1
0.013
923.20
920.00
320
1.0
6.0
6.6
524p
715
NQ-19
Circular
1.25
1 0.013
913.00
912.54
116
0.4
-10.4
0.0
530p
720
721
Circular
3
0.013
860.12
859.56
140
0.4
80.3
86.3
531p
721
722
Circular
4
0.013
859.56
859.44
38
0.3
101.6
100.1
535p
725
NC-62
Circular
5
0.024
858.26
858.00
36
0.7
152.4
135.1
536p
727
NC-22
Circular
1.75
0.013
861.26
860.20
78
1.4
27.3
20.9
537p
728
727
Circular
1.75
0.013
863.98
861.26
200
1.4
19.6
19.3
538
NC-24
728
Circular
1.75
0.013
867.06
863.98
226
1.4
27.0
23.5
542
NC_18
734
Circular
1
0.013
870.29
860.75
298
3.2
7.2
7.5
543p
734
NC_38
Circular
1.5
0.013
860.75
860.55
29
0.7
19.7
17.0
544
NC-38
NC-79
Circular
2.25
0.013
860.55
859.00
90
l.7
42.9
35.8
545
NC-36
738
Circular
2
0.013
901.75
901.19
8
1 7.0
26.4
26.7
548
NC_35
741
Circular
2
0.013
885.45
884.71
96.5
0.8
52.4
50.0
549_p
741
742
Circular
2
0.013
882.11
874.80
219.5
3.3
56.5
50.0
559
NC 29
747
Circular
3.5
0.013
862.28
859.15
285
1.1
127.1
125.9
565
NC-27
NC-34
Circular
3
0.013
873.08
870.07
298
1.0
113.9
110.7
568
NC 32
NC-27
Circular
2.75
0.013
877.07
873.08
266
1.5
88.7
89.6
572p
766
NC-62
Circular
1.75
0.013
860.69
860.62
16
0.4
26.2
20.6
573p
768
766
Circular
1.75
0.013
860.83
860.69
22
0.6
26.2
20.6
574p
769
768
Circular
1.75
0.013
860.99
860.83
35
0.5
25.9
20.6
575
NC 26
769
Circular
1.75
0.013
861.27
860.99
50
0.6
20.7
20.6
576p
771
NC-26
Circular
1.5
0.013
861.53
861.27
50
0.5
11.9
12.0
577p
NC_40
771
Circular
1.25
0.013
861.68
861.53
16
0.9
11.0
12.0
584
NC 66
782
Circular
1.25
0.013
864.16
862.73
296
0.5
4.8
592
NC--48
793
Circular
2.25
0.013
863.22
862.62
100
0.6
38.R
8.
18.4
593
793
NC-49
Circular
2.25
0.013
862.62
862.00
(06
0.6
24.5
18.4
P:N4p1sU3 MNt27t23271072 Edina Water Resoutm Mgmt Plan Update\WatkFH.s QAQC Model for PonMineMr_ =- acWtrrot_ bydmulic_ outpuLMUPDA7F,JmW-NWl-veri6wtionih Carnetia-Coodait Update
Table 7.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Lake Cornelia/Lake Ed1ha/Adam's Full Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream
Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream
Invert Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
( ft)
Slope (%)
IOOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
l0Y Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
595p
796
NC 49
Circular
4
0.013
860.46
860.00
25.5
1.8
27.3
44.1
598
NC -4
NCS
Circular
5.5
0.024
859.08
859.23
149
-0.1
84.5
-57.8
601P
805
NC-62
Arch
54" eq
0.024
857.64
857.59
44
0.1
62.2
48.3
606
NC-70
NQ-61
Circular
l
0.013
862.02
861.25
207
1 0.4
3.5
4.0
608p
813
NC-75
Circular
3
0.024
859.48
858.77
127
0.6
30.6
29.2
609
NC-120
813
Circular
3
0.013
859.85
859.48
223
0.2
332
29.2
610
NC_1 13
NC 120
Circular
2
0.013
862.00
861.22
193
0.4
16.1
17.3
614p
819
818
Circular
2
0.013
862.66
862.15
162
0.3
10.8
11.4
615p
820
819
Circular
2
0.013
863.56
862.66
204
0.4
6.8
7.9
620p
825
826
Circular
2
0.013
1 868.78
868.60
36
0.5
20.5
26.9
625p
831
NC-86
Circular
1.75
0.013
876.50
875.23
635
0.2
6.9
5.3
642p
852
851
Circular
3
0.013
856.30
856.00
150
0.2
39.0
32.7
644p
LE_34
853
Circular
3
0.013
856.86
856.49
183
0.2
36.4
36.4
651p
860
861
Circular
1.75
0.013
853.65
853.26
196.3
0.2
14.9
11.9
652p
861
LE_40
Circular
1.75
0.013
853.26
852.42
421.9
0.2
14.0
11.8
653p
LE 40
863
Circular
1.75
0.013
852.42
851.81
305
0.2
18.1
15.3
654p
863
LE-16
Circular
1.75
0.013
848.61
848.00
304
0.2
24.5
17.0
658
LE-16
868
Circular
2
0.013
838.00
835.32
318.9
0.8
45.3
46.5
659p
868
869
Circular
2
0.013
835.32
835.25
13
0.5
31.7
31.8
660_p
869
LE-15
Circular
2
0.013
835.25
835.01
48
1 0.5
33.0
33.6
661
LE--15
871
Circular
2.25
0.013
835.01
833.04
231
0.9
37.7
38.1
662p
871
LE-17
Circular
2.25
0.013
833.04
830.52
231
1.1
37.7
37.7
663p
L.E17
LE-12
Circular
3
0.013
830.52
827.70
330
0.9
54.4
54.5
664_p
LE_12
874
Circular
3
0.013
1 827.70
825.32
299
0.8
60.4
62.8
665_p
874
14_13
Circular
3
0.013
825.32
824.77
48
1.1
60.1
62.5
668
LF 11
LE-23
Circular
4
0.013
823.79
822.60
355
0.3
71.6
74.5
674p
883
LE_1
Circular
4.5
0.024
820.00
820.00
36
0.0
92.6
82.9
694p
909
L R 21
Circular
1.5
0.013
847.70
847.50
28
1 0.7
12.5
11.7
1078p
1373
NC -5
Circular
1.5
0.024
865.50
864.50
24
4.2
12.2
12.2
1080
NC-54
NC -5
Circular
1.5
0.013
864.05
863.80
15
1.7
17.8
15.7
1081
NC-55
1377
Circular
1
0.013
874.90
873.40
45.5
3.3
6.3
5.8
1083
NC-56
1379
Circular
2.5
0.013
872.30
870.70
287
0.6
33.2
33.7
1085p
1379
1381
Circular
2.5
0.013
870.70
868.30
528
0.5
37.3
35.1
1088p
NC 53
NC-52
Circular
2
0.013
888.60
870.80
329.8
5.4
50.7
43.9
1089p
NC 59
NC-53
Circular
1.5
0.013
900.20
888.60
360
3.2
21.0
21.4
1100
NQ-126
1393
Circular
3.5
0.013
867.84
867.03
300
0.3
70.5
60.4
1236p
NC 124
1553
Circular
1.25
0.013
875.78
874.08
74
2.3
9.2
9.4
1237p
1553
NQ-1 54
Circular
1.25
0.013
874.08
873.58
30
1.7
10.7
10.7
1240
AHR_13
1557
Circular
2.25
0.013
866.55
866.25
69
0.4
30.1
24.5
1241p
1557
1558
Circular
2.25
0.013
866.25
862.74
564
0.6
35.3
27.4
1243p
1560
AM-11
Circular
1.75
0.013
863.40
862.00
164
0.9
10.4
4.1
1248p
AHR2
Circular
4
0.013
849.75
849.07
70
1.0
134.7
127.8
1249
AHR_2
1566
Circular
4
0.013
849.07
845.86
196
1.6
152.9
136.1
1385
LE 28
1681
Circular
1.75
0.013
866.01
865.03
140
0.7
22.8
22.9
1388
14_43
856
Circular
2
0.013
860.67
860.84
38
-0.4
8.2
-13.0
1390
LE-6
889
Circular
1.25
0.013
828.00
823.47
46
9.8
13.8
14.0
1490
NC--87
NC-91
Circular
1.25
0.013
874.52
878.70
255
-1.6
8.2
-9.9
1491p
AHR_15
1568
Circular
1.5
1 0.013
855.84
843.74
265
4.6
25.7
23.8
1603
NC 95
NC-92
Circular
1
1 0.013
879.80
878.90
217
0.4
4.2
4.4
P:\MpLst23 MM27\23271072 Edina Water Rea Mgna Plan Update\WtrkFiks\QAQC Model fm PonMi wMlLc SWMM-hYdmulic_outpu[_2006UPDATE finel_NWI,_vaifi®tio is CwneGa-Condidt Update
Table 7.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Lake Comella/Lake Edlna/Adam's Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 1212006)
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream
Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upsuearn Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream
Invert Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope ('90)
IOOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
I OY Peak Flow through
Conduit
(cfs)
1629p
NC_100
NC_129
Circular
4.5
0.013
863.27
862.37
300
0.3
67.4
59.0
1634p
2066
2065
Arch
42" eq
0.024
867.02
866.16
285
0.3
-39.8
-47.5
1635p
2067
2066
Arch
42" eq
0.024
867.65
867.02
208
0.3
26.4
47.6
1637�p
2069
2068
Circular
1.25
0.013
868.88
868.13
146
0.5
4.5
4.1
1638
LE--14
914
Circular
1.25
0.013
855.11
838.74
28
58.5
14.1
10.0
1697p
738
NC 35
Circular
1.5
0.013
901.19
885.45
337
4.7
26.8
26.3
1708
AHR_3
2148
Circular
1
0.013
852.50
850.00
40.5
6.2
10.5
10.4
1728p
2171
Circular
1
0.013
869.30
869.30
8
0.0
3.0
5.6
1746_
NC_74
NC.-138
Circular
2.5
0.013
864.39
863.50
269
0.3
25.1
29.2
1767p
2220
2219
Circular
4
0.013
865.50
864.49
300
0.3
87.1
91.2
1772_p
2224
2215
Circular
1.5
0.013
865.50
864.17
72
1.8
18.8
14.6
1773p
2225
2224
Circular
1.5
0.013
866.75
865.50
80
1.6
18.6
14.7
1774
NQ-82
2225
Circular
1.25
0.013
868.98
867.60
40
3.5
14.0
14.7
1776p
2228
NC_84
Circular
1.5
0.013
866.42
865.50
51
1.8
-13.2
-13.6
1782p
2234
2233
Circular
1.25
0.013
870.76
869.62
26
4.4
6.6
8.5
1787p
1393
2220
Circular
3.5
0.013
866.99
865.61
300
0.5
62.7
65.4
1844p
2305
NC_1 11
Circular
1.25
0.013
1 875.49
874.64
84
1.0
7.0
9.2
1847p
2308
2307
Circular
3
0.013
865.65
865.58
33.5
0.2
-41.1
33.0
1848
NQ-143
NC_109
Circular
2
0.013
866.63
866.50
20
1 0.7
24.5
28.4
1854p
2299
2314
Circular
3
0.013
864.70
864.47
71.9
0.3
-46.0
45.9
1856
NC-107
2317
Circular
4
0.013
864.27
863.88
108.3
0.4
79.8
90.9
1859
NC-57
NC-Y7
Circular
3.5
0.013
862.33
862.23
290.1
0.0
89.7
90.4
1860
NC-106
NC_107
CUVAU
3
0.013
876.80
864.27
43
29.1
89.7
60.0
1861
NC 89
2324
Circular
2
0.013
866.45
865.89
153
0.4
21.3
26.2
1863
NQ-144
2308
Circular
2
0.013
873.09
865.65
244
3.0
17.2
34.6
1864p
2327
NC-144
Circular
1.5
0.013
874.40
873.09
250
0.5
8.2
7.9
1867p
2329
Circular
1
0.013
877.96
876.15
57
3.2
6.2
6.1
1868p
2332
1576
Circular
2
0.013
872.33
871.81
167
0.3
18.3
17.2
1869p
2333
2332
Circular
1.5
0.013
872.60
872.33
128
0.2
18.3
16.8
1872
NC-155
2334
Circular
1
0.013
879.85
873.47
157.5
4.1
4.8
4.8
1876p
2337
2338
Circular
1.25
1 0.013
877.92
874.30
11.5
31.5
5.8
6.7
1877p
2338
2334
Circular
1.5
0.013
874.30
873.47
160.8
0.8
5.3
6.2
1879
NC-83
2234
Circular
1.25
0.013
870.36
1 869.76
60
1.0
9.4
8.5
1894p
2356
2355
Circular
1.5
0.01
915.10
914.09
88.5
1.1
12.2
10.1
1899p
2360
NQ-139
Circular
2
0.013
866.69
865.62
71.5
1.5
36.0
34.1
1925P
AHR_12
2473
Circular
1.25
0.013
869.39
867.75
54
3.0
10.1
10.7
2WO-p
2467
2466
Circular
1.5
0.013
867.58
865.51
323
0.6
12.1
12.4
2001
NQ-149
2467
Circular
1.5
0.013
870.59
867.58
183
1.6
11.9
12.2
2002
NC 91
2302
Circular
1.25
0.013
865.77
864.00
385
0.5
13.1
14.6
2008p
2386
2472
Circular
1.25
0.013
867.30
866.55
47.6
1.6
10.1
11.7
20 1 O-p
2473
2386
Circular
1.25
0.013
867.50
867.30
17.7
1.1
14.8
14.8
2015p
2477
Circular
2
0.013
862.30
856.40
232
2.5
37.9
21.5
2219
NC-90
2761
Circular
2
0.013
874.00
873.00
103
1.0
18.1
12.8
2224p
2761
NC 81
Circular
2
0.013
873.00
872.00
112
0.9
22.3
12.9
2226p
NC_103
2305
1 Circular
1 1.25
0.013
875.75
875.49
26.2
1.0
5.6
7.4
2228p
2307
NQ-108
Circular
3
0.013
865.84
865.38
121.3
0.4
-45.0
-37.9
222
1 NQ-108
2306
Circular
3
0.013
865.38
865.05
156
0.2
-39.1
-34.1
2230
NC_63
785
Circular
1
0.013
865.72
865.54
40.5
0.4
5.2
4.0
2231_
2767
NC-54
Circular
1
0.013
864.40
864.05
28
l.3
-0.3
-0.3
P:Wpb%23 MNU7%27271072 Edi- wata Reswtoa Mgt Plan UpdmelWOrkFdatQAQC Model Car Po ndWtM �WMM-byd. ulic_ wtpw _2006UPDATE_fwL.NWt,vaifi®tia b CmneGtLConduit Update
Table 7.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina/Adam's Hill Pond Drainage Areas (Revised 12/2006)
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream
Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
Elevation
Downstream
Invert Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(n)
Slope (%)
IOOY Peak Flow
through Conduit
(cfs)
IOY Peak Flow througfi
Conduit
(cfs)
2233p
NC 51
NC -5
Circular
4
0.013
866.00
861.40
138
3.3
177.0
111.0
2235
NC-145
NC 93
Circular
1.5
0.013
875.36
875.00
22
1.6
-16.2
7.7
2500
LE-52
LE-51
Circular
1.5
0.013
831.97
831.30
232
0.3
16.1
13.8
2553
NC-102
NC-144
Circular
1.5
0.013
874.11
873.09
30
3.4
7.1
8.8
2554_p
2779
2327
Circular
1.5
0.013
875.64
874.40
70
1.8
10.8
8.6
2556 -p
2334
2780
Circular
1.5
0.013
873.47
873.04
52.5
0.8
13.1
13.9
2560
LE-36
856
Circular
1
0.024
862.27
860.84
101
1.4
3.8
3.4
2561
NC_l19
2144
Circular
1
0.013
866.27
865.62
120
0.5
2.3
3.4
311 I-p
NC-30
NC_3
Circular
5
0.024
858.00
858.00
226
0.0
-56.9
-67.5
3113_p
AHR_10
2150
Circular
1.25
0.013
1 865.24
864.39
37
2.3
4.7
4.1
3114
AHR-14
AHR_8
Circular
1.5
0.013
861.29
860.04
19
6.6
22.9
18.7
3120
NC-138
2186
Circular
2.5
0.013
863.50
862.35
154.1
0.7
38.8
33.4
3124_p
2801
AHR 2
Circular
1.5
0.013
853.23
849.07
23
18.1
15.5
12.7
3126p
2803
2802
Circular
1.25
0.013
854.25
853.72
36
1.5
15.2
12.7
3127
AHR_16
2803
Circular
1.25
0.013
854.36
854.25
9
1.2
17.9
12.7
3130
NC -21
NC 42
Circular
2.5
0.013
892.00
890.00
105
1.9
62.6
59.0
3134
NC 43
NC-32
Circular
2.5
0.013
879.00
877.07
150
1.3
71.9
73.2
3135p
2813
NC 43
Circular
2.5
0.013
881.00
879.00
225
0.9
58.7
60.6
3138p
2816
AHR_7
Circular
2
0.013
857.50
857.00
18
2.8
27.7
24.5
3141p
2819
AHR-13
Circular
1.5
0.013
868.15
867.79
8.3
4.3
-5.1
-7.0
3160
I E_3
LE_4
Circular
2.5
0.013
827.80
822.85
350
1.4
53.3
56.3
3168
NC-142
2842
Circular
1.25
0.013
870.00
869.71
58
0.5
10.2
12.3
3169_
2842
2841
Circular
2
0.013
867.64
867.17
155
0.3
-18.2
16.8
3262
1-E 19
!&_24
Circular
I
0.013
842.47
841.93
213
0.3
6.4
1 -6.5
P:V4p1A23 MNVWU3271072 Edim Wata ltaouroes Mgmt Plan UpdatetWarWd=XQAQC Modd fm Pom WIMMLe. S cqWDUydmurr _outpuL.2006UPDAlEJwaLNWl-voifwatio is Comeh- Conduit tlpdae
Nine Mile Creek - South
8.0 Nine Mile Creek- South
8.1 General Description of Drainage Area
Figure 8.1 depicts the Nine Mile Creek- South drainage basin. The Nine Mile Creek- South drainage
basin is located in the southeast portion of Edina. The drainage basin encompasses approximately
1,162 acres that ultimately drain to the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek between West 701h Street and
the south Edina city limits.
8.1.1 Drainage Patterns
The stormwater system within this drainage area is comprised of storm sewers, ditches, overland
flow paths, wetlands, and ponding basins. The Nine Mile Creek- South drainage basin has been
divided into several major watersheds based on the drainage patterns. These major watersheds are
depicted in Figure 8.2. Each major watershed has been further delineated into many subwatersheds.
The naming convention for each subwatershed is based on the major watershed it is located within.
Table 8.1 lists each major watershed and the associated subwatershed naming convention.
Table 8.1 Major Watersheds within the Nine Mile Creek —South Drainage Basin
Major Watershed
Subwatershed Naming
Convention
# of
Subwatersheds
Drainage
Area (acres)
Centennial Lakes
CL ##
39
215
South Pond
SP ##
16
202
Nine Mile South
NMS ##
1 107
746
8.1.1.1 Centennial Lakes
The Centennial Lakes watershed is located in southeast Edina. The 215 -acre watershed drains to
Centennial Lakes. The watershed is bordered by West 691h Street on the north, West 78th Street on
the south, France Avenue on the west and York Avenue on the east. Runoff from France Avenue
between West 691h Street and just south of Gallagher Drive drains to Centennial Lakes. France
Avenue drainage south of Gallagher Drive flows to the South Pond. The watershed is characterized
by mainly commercial and high- density residential land use. Centennial Lakes span 9.5 acres,
stretching from Gallagher Drive south to Minnesota Drive, and receive runoff from the direct
watershed as well as flow from Adam's Hill Pond (10 cfs). The normal elevation of Centennial
Lakes is 838 MSL, controlled by a weir structure that discharges to the South Pond.
8.1.1.2 South Pond (Border Basin)
The South Pond is located on the border between Edina and Bloomington, just west of the
intersection of Minnesota Drive and West 77th Street. The watershed draining to the South Pond
encompasses 202 acres. The land use within the watershed is entirely commercial and industrial,
thus highly impervious. In addition to the runoff from the direct watershed, the South Pond receives
Barr Engineering Company
PAMpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
8 -1
flow from Centennial Lakes. The South Pond was categorized as a Type 4 wetland in the wetland
inventory, a shallow (0.5 to 3 feet), marshy wetland with vegetation such as grasses, cattails, and
bulrushes. The normal elevation of the South Pond is controlled at 814.5 MSL by a weir structures.
Discharge from the South Pond flows west through the storm sewer system along Viking Drive and
eventually discharges to the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek.
8.1.1.3 Nine Mile South
The Nine Mile South watershed encompasses the area that drains to the North Fork of Nine Mile
Creek between West 70th Street and the southern border of Edina. The 746 -acre watershed extends to
Cahill Road to the west, France Avenue to the east, West 66th Street to the north, and West 78th Street
to the south. The watershed is characterized by multiple land uses, including residential,
commercial, industrial, highway, and golf course. The portion of the watershed west of the North
Fork of Nine Mile Creek is almost entirely commercial and industrial, thus highly impervious. The
northern portion is low- density residential. The southeast portion of the watershed consists mainly of
high- density residential, a large commercial and industrial area, and the Fred Richards Golf Course.
The golf course is characterized by a series of.ponding basins that receive runoff from an area of
approximately 188 acres. Discharge from the golf course ponds flows southward through a storm
sewer system located between the 4700 and 4660 West 77th Street properties. This system connects
to the trunk system that flows westward from the South Pond to the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek.
-8.2 Stormwater System Analysis and Results
,8.2.1 Hydrologic /Hydraulic Modeling Results
The 10 -year and 100 -year frequency flood analyses were performed for the Nine Mile Creek- South
drainage basin. The 10 -year analysis was based on a '/z -hour storm of 1.65 inches of rain. The
100 -year analysis was based on a 24 -hour storm event of 6 inches of rain. Table 8.2 presents the
watershed information and the results for the 10 -year and 100 -year hydrologic analyses.
The results of the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency hydraulic analyses for the Nine Mile Creek- South
drainage basin are summarized in Table 8.3 and Table 8.4. The column headings in Table 8.3 are
defined as follows:
Node /Subwatershed ID— XP -SWMM node identification label. Each XP -SWMM node
represents a manhole, catchbasin, pond, or other junction within the stormwater system.
Downstream Conduit — References the pipe downstream of the node in the storm sewer system.
Flood Elevation —The maximum water elevation reached in the given pond /manhole for each
referenced storm event (mean sea level). In some cases, an additional flood elevation has been
given in parenthesis. This flood elevation reflects the 100 -year flood elevation of Nine Mile
Creek, per the Nine Mile Creek Watershed Management Plan, May 1996.
Barr Engineering Company 8 -2
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \Work Files \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
Peak Outflow Rate —The peak discharge rate (cfs) from a given ponding basin for each
referenced storm event. The peak outflow rates reflect the combined discharge from the pond
through the outlet structure and any overflow.
NWL —The normal water level in the ponding basin (mean sea level). The normal water levels
for the ponding basins were assumed to be at the outlet pipe invert or at the downstream control
elevation.
Flood Bounce —The fluctuation of the water level within a given pond for each referenced storm
event.
Volume Stored —The maximum volume (acre -ft) of water that was stored in the ponding basin
during the storm event. The volume represents the live storage volume only.
Table 8.4 summarizes the conveyance system data used in the model and the model results for the
storm sewer system within the Nine Mile Creek- South drainage basin. The peak flows through each
conveyance system for the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency storm events are listed in the table. The
values presented represent the peak flow rate through each pipe system only and do not reflect the
combined total flow from an upstream node to the downstream node when overflow from a
manhole /pond occurs.
Figure 8.3 graphically represents the results of the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency hydraulic
analyses. The figure depicts the boundaries of the drainage areas, subwatershed boundaries, the
modeled storm sewer network, surcharge conditions for the XP -SWMM nodes (typically manholes),
and the flood prone areas identified in the modeling analyses.
One of the objectives of the hydraulic analyses was to evaluate the level of service provided by the
current storm sewer system. The level of service of the system was examined by determining the
surcharge conditions of the manholes and catch basins within the storm sewer system during the
10 -year and 100 -year frequency storm events. An XP -SWMM node was considered surcharged if the
hydraulic grade line at that node breached the ground surface (rim elevation). Surcharging is
typically the result of limited downstream capacity and tailwater impacts. The XP -SWMM nodes
depicted on Figure 8.3 were color coded based on the resulting surcharge conditions. The green
nodes signify no surcharging occurred during the 100 -year or 10 -year storm event, the yellow nodes
indicate surcharging during the 100 -year event, and the red nodes identify that surcharging is likely
to occur during both a 100 -year and 10 -year frequency storm event. Figure 8.3 illustrates that several
XP -SWMM nodes within the Nine Mile Creek- South drainage basin are predicted to experience
surcharged conditions during both the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency storm events. This indicates a
probability greater than 10 percent in any year that the system will be overburdened and unable to
meet the desired level of service at these locations. These manhole and catch basin are more likely to
experience inundation during the smaller, more frequent storm events of various durations.
Barr Engineering Company 8 -3
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFIIEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
Another objective of the hydraulic analyses was to evaluate the level of protection offered by the
current stormwater system. Level of protection is defined as the capacity provided by a municipal
drainage system (in terms of pipe capacity and overland overflow capacity) to prevent property
damage and assure a reasonable degree of public safety following a rainstorm. A 100 -year frequency
event is recommended as a standard for design of stormwater management basins. To evaluate the
level of protection of the stormwater system within the Nine Mile Creek- South drainage basin, the
100 -year frequency flood elevations for the ponding basins and depressed areas were compared to the
low elevations of structures surrounding each basin. The low elevations were initially determined
using 2 -foot topographic information and aerial imagery in ArcView. Where 100 -year flood levels of
the ponding areas appeared to potentially threaten structures, low house elevations were obtained
through field surveys. The areas that were predicted to flood and threaten structures during the
100 -year frequency storm event are highlighted in Figure 8.3. Discussion and recommended
implementation considerations for these areas are included in Section 8.3.
8.2.2 Water Quality Modeling Results
The effectiveness of the stormwater system in removing stormwater pollutants such as phosphorus
was analyzed using the P8 water quality model. The P8 model simulates the hydrology and
phosphorus loads introduced from the watershed of each pond and the transport of phosphorus
throughout the stormwater system. Since site - specific data on pollutant wash -off rates and sediment
characteristics were not available, it was necessary to make assumptions based on national average
values. Due to such assumptions and lack of in -lake water quality data for model calibration, the
modeling results were analyzed based on the percent of phosphorus removal that occurred and not
based on actual phosphorus concentrations.
Figure 8.4 depicts the results of the water quality modeling for the Nine Mile Creek- South drainage
basin. The figure shows the fraction of total phosphorus removal for each water body as well as the
cumulative total phosphorus removal in the watershed. The individual water bodies are colored
various shades of blue, indicating the percent of the total annual mass of phosphorus entering the
water body that is removed (through settling). It is important to note that the percent of phosphorus
removal is based on total phosphorus, including phosphorus in the soluble form. Therefore, the
removal rates in downstream ponds will likely decrease due to the large soluble fraction of incoming
phosphorus that was unsettleable in upstream ponds. The watersheds are depicted in various shades
of gray, indicating the cumulative total phosphorus removal achieved. The cumulative percent
removal represents the percent of the total annual mass of phosphorus entering the watershed that is
removed in the pond and all upstream ponds.
Ponds that had an average annual total phosphorus removal rate of 60 percent or greater, under
average climatic conditions, were considered to be performing well. For those ponds with total
phosphorus removal below 60 percent, the permanent pool storage volume was analyzed to determine
if additional capacity is necessary. Based on recommendations from the MPCA publication
Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas, March 2000, the permanent pool for detention ponds
should be equal to or greater than the runoff from a 2.0 -inch rainfall, in addition to the sediment
Barr Engineering Company 8 -4
P: \Mpls \23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 12151IREV.docx
storage for at least 25 years of sediment accumulation. For ponds with less than 60 percent total
phosphorus removal, the recommended storage volume was calculated for each pond within the
drainage basin and compared to the existing permanent pool storage volume.
8.3 Implementation Considerations
The XP -SWMM hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analyses and P8 water quality analysis helped to
identify locations throughout the watershed where improvements to the City's stormwater
management system may be warranted. The following sections discuss potential mitigation
alternatives that were identified as part of the 2003 modeling analyses. As opportunities to address
the identified flooding issues and water quality improvements arise, such as street reconstruction
projects or public facilities improvements, the City will use a comprehensive approach to stormwater
management. The comprehensive approach will include consideration of infiltration or volume
retention practices to address flooding and /or water quality improvements, reduction of impervious
surfaces, increased storm sewer capacity where necessary to alleviate flooding, construction and /or
expansion of water quality basins, and implementation of other stormwater BMPs to reduce pollutant
loading to downstream waterbodies.
8.3.1 Flood Protection Projects
The 2003 hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analysis identified several locations within the Nine
Mile Creek- South drainage basin where the 100 -year level of protection is not provided by the
current stormwater system. The problem areas identified in 2003 are discussed below.
As part of the 2003 modeling analysis, potential corrective measures were identified for the problem
areas for purposes of developing planning -level cost estimates. These preliminary corrective
measures are also discussed below. As the City evaluates the flooding issues and potential system
modifications in these areas, consideration will be given to other potential system modifications,
including implementation of stormwater infiltration or volume retention practices, where soils are
conducive.
8.3.1.1 7001 8 7025 France Avenue (CL_51)
A depression area exists at the properties of 7001 and 7025 France Avenue. The depression area is
drained by an 18 -inch storm sewer pipe that connects into the trunk system along France Avenue.
During intense storm events, such as the 100 -year frequency storm, high flows through the France
Avenue trunk system restrict the drainage from the depression area and the area becomes inundated
with stormwater. The 100 -year frequency flood elevation for this depression area is 862.6 MSL.
Flooding problems have been historically noted in this area. A flapgate was added to the collection
pipe at this area to prevent the France Avenue system from backing up and causing further
inundation. However, with the flapgate closed, there is no outlet from this area and the storage
volume in the parking lot is not sufficient to prevent flooding of the structures. Prior to construction
of the bank currently located on this property, the property owner was informed of the flooding
potential. No recommendations to alleviate the flooding are being made at this time.
Barr Engineering Company 8 -5
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
8.3.2 Construction /Upgrade of Water Quality�Basins
The 2003 P8 modeling analysis indicated that the annual removal of total phosphorus from several
ponds in the Nine Mile Creek- South drainage area was predicted to be below the desired 60,percent
removal rate, under average year conditions. For those ponds with total phosphorus removal below
60 percent, the permanent pool storage volume was analyzed to determine if additional capacity is
necessary. The ponds that exhibited deficiencies in total phosphorus removal and permanent pool
volume are listed below, along with recommended pond upgrades.
Construction of new or expansion of existing water quality basins is one method to increase the
pollutant removal achieved prior to stormwater reaching downstream waterbodies. Many additional
techniques are available to reduce pollutant loading, including impervious surface reduction or
disconnection, implementation of infiltration or volume retention BMPs, installation of underground
stormwater treatment structures and sump manholes and other good housekeeping practices such as
street sweeping. As opportunities arise, the City will consider all of these options to reduce the
volume and improve the quality of stormwater runoff.
A large portion of the stormwater runoff from the Nine Mile Creek- South drainage basin drains
directly to the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek through storm sewer system, without any water quality
treatment prior to entering the Creek. The large area draining directly to the Creek (approximately
500 acres) is depicted in Figure 8.4. To remove pollutants and improve the quality of the discharge
to Nine Mile Creek, it is recommended that the City consider installation of a water quality treatment
basin upstream of the discharge location at West 77th Street and T.H. 100 (discussed in additional
detail below) , as well as other water quality treatment techniques throughout the untreated area as
opportunities arise.
8.3.2.1 West 774h Street & T.H. 100
The southwest portion of the Nine Mile Creek- South drainage basin is an industrial, highly
impervious area. Stormwater from this area is collected via storm sewer and discharged into the
North Fork of Nine Mile Creek without any water quality treatment prior to discharge. To provide
some pollutant removal from the stormwater prior to discharge into the Creek, construction of a
water quality basin is being considered in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of T.H. 100 and
West 77`h Street. The basin will receive runoff from an area of approximately 50 acres along
Industrial Boulevard. Based on the MPCA recommended design criteria for permanent pool storage
volume in detention basins, the total required dead storage volume for this basin is 4.4 acre -feet.
8.3.2.2 NMS-76
Pond NMS _76 is located in on the east side of the Fred Richards Golf Course, just northwest of the
intersection of West 76`h Street and Parklawn Avenue. The pond receives runoff from an area of
approximately 120 acres. The pond outlets to Pond NMS _104 via a 108 -inch round equivalent arch
pipe. The pond is a Type 5 wetland and was assumed to have an average depth of 4 feet. Based on
this depth assumption and the pond area from the 2 -foot topographic data, the permanent pool storage
volume was estimated to be 4.4 acre -feet in 2004. In comparison with the MPCA recommended
Barr Engineering Company 8 -6
P: \Mpls \23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAMEdina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
storage volume for Pond NMS_76, there is not an adequate amount of permanent pool storage in the
basin. In 2008, the City removed approximately 0.9 acre -feet of sediment from Pond NMS_76. To
upgrade the pond to meet the NURP standards, it is recommended that an additional 1.6 acre -feet of
dead storage volume be provided.
8.3.2.3 NMS-104
Pond NMS _104 is located along the southeast border of the Fred Richards Golf Course, just north of
the parking lot for the Pentagon Park office complex. This detention basin receives discharge from
Pond NMS_76, in addition to runoff from the adjacent parking lots. Based on the wetland inventory,
the pond is a Type 5 wetland, and was assumed to have an average depth of 4 feet. Pond NMS _104
is connected to the downstream pond NMS _72 by two 30 -inch equalizer pipes. Based on the MPCA
recommended storage volume for detention basins, there is not an adequate amount of permanent
pool storage in this basin. It is recommended that an additional 0.2 acre -feet of dead storage volume
be provided.
8.3.2.4 NMS-72 & NMS-74
Ponds NMS _72 and NMS _74 are located within the Fred Richards Golf Course, connected by a
36 -inch equalizer pipe. Pond NMS _72 is upstream of NMS _74 and receives discharge from Pond
NMS-79 and NMS-104 as well as runoff from the 7 -acre direct watershed. Pond NMS 74 receives
discharge from NMS _72 in addition to the runoff from the 6.5 -acre direct watershed. Both ponds are
Type 5 wetlands, based on the wetland inventory, and were assumed to have an average depth of
4 feet. Based on this depth assumption and the pond areas from the 2 -foot topographic information,
the permanent pool storage volume of each pond is greater than the MPCA recommended storage
volume for detention ponds. However, because the water quality modeling results indicate that the
total phosphorus removal in Pond NMS _72 and NMS _74 is below desired removal levels, it is
recommended that the depth of the ponds be increased to improve removal efficiency.
8.3.2.5 SP —1 (South Pond /Border Basin)
Pond SP-1 is located on the border between Edina and Bloomington, just west of the intersection of
Minnesota Drive and West 77th Street. Pond SP_1 receives discharge from Centennial Lakes, as well
as stormwater runoff from a large, highly impervious, 215 -acre watershed. The water level in
Pond SP-1 is controlled by a weir structure. Discharge from the pond flows to the North Fork of
Nine Mile Creek on the west side of T.H. 100, just south of the West 77th Street crossing. The pond
is a Type 4 wetland and was assumed to have an average depth of 2 feet. Based on this depth
assumption and the pond area from the 2 -foot topographic data, the existing dead storage volume was
calculated to be 6.8 acre -feet. In comparison with the calculated MPCA recommended permanent
pool storage volume for Pond SP_1, there is not an adequate amount of permanent pool storage in the
basin. It is recommended that an additional 19.6 acre -feet of dead storage volume be provided to
meet the MPCA design criteria for detention basins and improve removal efficiency of total
phosphorus.
Barr Engineering Company 8 -7
P: \Mpls\23 MN\27 \23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \Report \December 15 2011 FINAL
DRAFT\Edina SWMP FINAL DRAFT 121511REV.docx
s
i-
NMS_1 7
NMS 0
NMS_39 1��y 1\
� �� � ,� , �r �' �, _ice ` ' �.... � w�+ M T��v �±3� �� � �•J
4.
t
4
J14 Gi
a '� �. � � may,`_• �,
G2@0 `
G
NMS_50
' NMS_62 � �,�� w.;.. � ��Y ' +a+ � ,' /" _:. • X 71 NM_I I NMS_62
NM _68
NMS_ NMS_34 �-
N� NMS NMS_27 Ifll�� �r'/ NMS_8"
NMS_32 �
NMS'lBi7 NMS _81
NMS_
i
NAM
Gg"
G MAX.
G� G�
G'N)
Gl�t'3
G2KI.
G1G� G'G GR" G �
Epi
GlCp rmca
alN
Bloomington
0
0
LL
t
� NMS_70
NNIS'
NMS_7 I�
NMS 9 I
NMS_7 I
SP_9
SP-1
f lil"'�01` NM _91 11
NMS_7
I� NM 71 SP_8
NMS_8 NMSi
NM S_9
NMS-421
sP_1s
SP_11
� -17 I SP_19
C3
Lakes
CL_ CL_20 CL_1
l �1
C _18 x_38 i
I
- CL_16
SP_12
0 e �:
O
IE39fl
Imagery Source: Aerials Express, 2008
Q
Feet
1,000 0 1,000
ENIM
Meters
300 0 300
Figure 8.1
NINE MILE CREEK SOUTH
DRAINAGE BASIN
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
City of Edina Boundary
Roads /Highways
'U
Creek /Stream
Lake /Wetland
C3
Nine Mile Creek - South
Drainage Basin
M
Subwatershed
Imagery Source: Aerials Express, 2008
Q
Feet
1,000 0 1,000
ENIM
Meters
300 0 300
Figure 8.1
NINE MILE CREEK SOUTH
DRAINAGE BASIN
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
n'•
r F
.70th St
. h
,.
J
U
u-
-ichf ield
Y _\
4i-
Nin Mile _ --
Creek South
Ran
Cen ennial
' L kes
Q
Out on — -1 I - - ( /\
Bloomington
0
s
t
o� e tr:
N N O
lass
[� City of Edina Boundary
Roads /Highways
Creek /Stream
Lake /Wetland
Nine Mile Creek South
Drainage Basin
(3 Major Watershed
Subwatershed
Imagery Source: Aerials Express, 2008
0
Feet
1,000 0 1,000
Meters
300 0 300
Figure 8.2
NINE MILE CREEK SOUTH
MAJOR WATERSHEDS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
G
Z
m
z
u�
0
z
DUGGAN PLA:
K
O
R"9dG I:lMC� 'S CHURCH F
ps�.aG1O,,"E1
2
7 P
-p 7H
Vii., ',GE UP.
W
0
O O
now
U 0
2 Z
i O
LL
O am
O O
AMUNDSON
NM _ 6'
k,
O
U
W
Z
O
0
ROLM
y � \ •1
ROLM Ow
� �S not
9M TR
tw
BMW
°0 OEM
Rom 0
73RD ST W
�yy)n
[t/ f ♦4
1
o
0
ar
S
N
N=
NMS_8 �'�
o �
z
IL
aEDWA
Figure 8.3
4TH ST W�
Rffl
• 9EYfr1
R• ,
2933
Nf.1S 64
NINE MILE CREEK SOUTH
HYDRAULIC MODEL RESULTS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
'2933
a,
°C•,
0
z
x
i
I,
M
a
0
0
W z
v
0
z
<
f
0
0
z
PAYTON CT
Lake
C�urllelia
0
J I.
m o
z
0 w
a
� z
00
0
z
BLVD
0.0 00
J`' 0 z •"�
IPia
Potential
City of Edina Boundary
100 -Year
Roads /Highways
1� Pipes
Creek/Stream
o Manhole
Lake /Wetland
Manhole
Nine Mile Creek South
Drainage
° 100 -Year
Basin
C3
Subwatershed
'2933
a,
°C•,
0
z
x
i
I,
M
a
0
0
W z
v
0
z
<
f
0
0
z
PAYTON CT
Lake
C�urllelia
0
J I.
m o
z
0 w
a
� z
00
0
z
BLVD
0.0 00
J`' 0 z •"�
IPia
Potential
Flooding During
100 -Year
Frequency Event
1� Pipes
o Manhole
Manhole
Surcharge During
° 100 -Year
Frequency Event
Manhole
Surcharged During
° 10 -Year Frequency
Event
Meters
iiiii
2"
27738 n39
NMS 2
MM 'L %
W77TH ST
�i
9D�'V
- 90ilEi
e
77TH ST UV
i10 •SI ►1 /l /1 /�lINL/
1
a
z
5
a
SP_10
Bloomington
101
'h�
E5
kW2I7i84 = N r`15116 61
a "Im
FROM 10051
0
w u
COVENTRY CT (PRIVATV
z
00
to PARKLAWN AVE
u.
Cr
0
Cr
0
'No.
VATV
4Jr
*7*4
w Jr
AOF
0
z C i)d
C
z
W-10
'd 9m
a*
A*v
01,
A.
ilk
I Richfield I
I I
4ft
*� Al
Cn
0
188
oe- / f
1, OAK
s •�
F
t
ti
0
t
s
af
T
U
d
� Im
LL
N
C
O
6
K
C
2
2
O
O
N
I
a
U
LL
� •o
Q
m
N
n
0
Bloomington
0
d
"s
t Imagery Source: Aerials Express, 2008
m
e
0
i.• Hsu
Percent TP Removal in Water Body*
This number represents the percent of the total annual mass
of phosphorus entering the water body that is removed.
0 - 25% (Poor /No Removal)
25 - 40% (Moderate Removal)
40 - 60% (Good Removal)
_ 60 - 100% (Excellent Removal)
Cumulative TP Removal in Watershed*
This number represents the percent of the total annual mass
of phosphorus entering the watershed and upstream watersheds
that is removed in the pond and all upstream ponds.
25 - 40% (Moderate Removal)
40 - 60% (Good Removal)
60 - 100% (Excellent Removal)
`Data based on results of P8 modeling.
Area Draining Directly to the North
Fork of Nine Mile Creek
Flow Direction
4
�J
Feet
1,000 0 1,000
Meters
300 0 300
Figure 8.4
NINE MILE CREEK SOUTH
WATER QUALITY
MODELING RESULTS
Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan
City of Edina, Minnesota
Table 8.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage
Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results'
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
CL-1
64.2
67
287.1
24.7
175.9
6.0
CL 10
0.9
40
4.3
0.3
3.9
0.1
CL 11
1.4
67
6.8
0.5
8.6
0.1
CL_ 12
1.9
16
8.7
0.4
4.2
0.1
CL- 13
8.4
62
37.8
3.1
23.1
0.7
C1_14
3.8
32
16.5
1.1
9.7
0.2
CL-15
3.0
21
12.7
0.7
6.1
0.1
CL-16
3.9
68
18.7
1.5
15.8
0.4
CL-17
2.6
80
12.6
1.1
12.9
0.3
CL 18
1.9
65
8.9
0.7
11.4
0.2
CL 19
1.6
37
7.2
0.5
5.9
0.1
CL 20
11.7
40
49.7
3.6
27.2
0.7
C1_21
1.9
80
9.0
0.8
10.8
0.2
CL 22
2.7
80
12.5
1.1
10.0
0.3
CL-23
3.8
80
17.6
1.6
13.3
0.4
CI,-25
4.6
75
22.0
1.9
19.9
0.5
C1,_27
9.5
80
37.3
4.0
17.7
1.0
CL _3
8.1
40
35.4
2.5
20.4
0.5
CL 35
2.9
80
14.1
1.2
18.7
0.3
CL-38
5.2
41
23.8
1.6
15.6
0.3
CL _4
3.6
35
16.8
1.1
11.9
0.2
CL_48
8.9
80
41.5
3.8
30.3
1.0
C1,_49
4.3
80
20.4
1.8
16.4
0.5
CL _5
7.5
34
30.1
2.1
15.5
0.4
CL 50
3.8
80
18.0
1.6
14.1
0.4
CL 51
5.2
80
24.6
2.2
20.6
0.6
CL 52
1.6
80
7.8
0.7
8.7
0.2
CL-53
7.4
80
30.3
3.1
15.2
0.8
CL 54
3.2
71
15.1
1.3
17.3
0.3
CL 55
6.1
79
28.0
2.6
20.0
0.7
CL 56
5.1
79
24.4
2.2
22.8
0.6
C1_57
2.7
51
12.6
1.0
10.2
0.2
CL-58
0.7
79
3.3
0.3
5.8
0.1
CL-59
0.7
1 80
3.2
0.3
4.8
0.1
CL-60
1.5
80
7.1
0.6
7.2
0.2
CL 61
3.4
80
16.1
1.4
13.2
0.4
CL 62
0.9
80
4.5
0.4
3.9
0.1
CL-8
1.8
40
8.4
0.6
6.4
0.1
CL-9
2.4
40
10.4
0.7
5.9
0.1
NMS-10
4.7
73
22.9
2.2
21.5
0.6
NMS-100
3.4
60
16.5
1.4
16.3
0.4
NMS _101
2.4
80
11.3
1.0
9.7
0.3
MS 102
2.5
16
11.6
0.9
8.2
0.2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMlLe_SWMM_ hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls NMS Runoff Results UPDATE
Table 8.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage
Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
]0 -Year Storm Results'
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
NMS-103
8.2
19
35.8
3.3
20.0
0.8
NMS 104
6.3
57
30.5
2.8
31.6
0.7
NMS 105
2.8
80
13.3
1.2
12.7
0.3
NMS-106
3.5
80
16.5
1.5
14.8
0.4
NMS-107
3.2
78
15.3
1.4
14.0
0.4
NMS-108
12.8
80
51.2
5.5
NM
NM
NMS-11
4.0
80
18.2
1.9
12.8
1.6
NMS-12
4.4
80
20.0
1.9
13.8
0.5
S_13
10.9
80
49.5
4.8
33.6
0.5
S_14
11.1
71
49.8
4.6
31.2
1.2
NMS 15
7.6
77
36.1
3.3
28.8
1.3
NMS-16
9.0
80
40.7
4.0
28.1
0.9
NMS- 18
5.8
80
27.1
2.5
21.6
1.0
NMS-19
1.2
80
5.6
0.5
5.6
0.7
NMS 20
5.4
80
26.0
2.4
24.4
0.1
NMS-21
3.1
80
14.4
1.3
11.8
0.6
NMS 22
8.7
77
41.7
4.0
38.7
0.4
NMS-23
0.5
29
2.5
0.2
2.4
0.9
NMS-24
3.3
20
13.7
1.0
7.0
0.0
NMS-25
6.4
78
28.1
2.7
16.7
0.3
NMS 26
3.2
48
15.0
1.1
12.0
0.5
NMS-27
17.9
80
76.7
7.9
45.8
0.4
NMS 28
22.9
71
100.5
9.5
59.1
1.9
NMS-29
12.2
70
56.5
4.8
39.4
2.2
NMS-30
10.2
80
34.8
4.4
14.7
1.3
NMS-31
17.2
80
71.9
7.8
41.1
1.2
NMS 32
8.7
79
39.0
4.0
26.2
2.1
NMS-33
2.3
77
11.3
1.0
14.4
1.0
NMS. 34
0.6
72
2.9
0.3
4.5
0.3
NMS-35
0.6
67
2.7
0.3
4.0
0.1
S_36
1.2
56
5.8
0.5
8.5
0.1
NMS-37
10.4
69
48.9
4.1
37.0
0.1
NMS 38
24.6
20
78.5
6.6
35.0
0.5
S_39
7.0
65
31.0
2.9
18.9
2.6
NMS-4
3.8
75
18.3
1.8
16.9
0.9
S_40
21.7
44
92.4
7.4
55.7
0.3
NMS-41
6.9
25
31.8
2.0
20.6
1.5
NMS 42
3.9
80
16.5
1.6
8.9
0.7
NMS-43
3.4
81
16.6
1.6
18.0
0.5
NMS 44
5.0
35
23.4
1.5
21.6
0.3
NMS 45
6.7
80
31.7
2.9
24.9
0.5
NMS 46
7.2
20
33.2
2.0
20.1
0.4
,INMS-47
14.1
19
1 53.1
3.8
24.7
0.4
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMH- e_SWMM_hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls NMS Runoff Results UPDATE
Table 8.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage
Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results'
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff
NMS-48
4.6
20
20.1
1.3
10.6
0.9
NMS 49
11.2
20
48.5
3.1
25.3
0.3
MS _5
2.7
72
13.2
1.3
15.0
1.4
NMS 50
17.8
20
61.5
4.8
27.9
0.1
NMS-51
16.3
80
56.7
6.9
23.2
1.9
NMS-52
5.7
20
24.5
1.8
13.2
1.2
NMS-53
3.5
67
17.1
1.6
17.0
0.7
NMS-54
1.3
37
6.2
0.4
5.7
0.3
NMS 55
9.0
49
40.5
3.2
27.3
0.1
NMS-56
2.9
80
14.1
1.3
13.1
1.0
NMS-57
11.4
80
43.6
5.0
21.4
0.3
NMS 58
5.8
80
27.4
2.5
22.5
1.3
NMS-59
1.3
49
6.1
0.5
7.3
0.6
MS _6
13.5
80
56.2
5.7
29.3
0.1
NMS-60
1.6
81
7.9
0.7
8.3
1.5
NMS 61
0.8
75
3.8
0.3
5.6
0.2
S_62
6.6
80
27.0
2.8
14.1
0.1
S_63
4.9
49
22.6
1.8
17.2
0.6
NMS-64
17.7
55
65.7
6.4
30.8
0.4
NMS-65
2.3
80
11.2
1.1
10.0
2.2
NMS 66
4.5
34
18.6
1.3
10.1
0.1
NMS-67
1.9
42
8.7
0.6
6.9
0.3
NMS 68
2.5
20
11.6
0.6
6.3
0.1
NMS-69
4.5
33
20.2
1.4
12.5
0.2
NMS _7
15.4
80
57.9
6.7
27.4
0.5
NMS-70
11.6
42
43.2
3.5
20.1
0.9
NMS_71
4.4
78
19.2
1.9
11.3
1.3
NMS-72
7.3
12
29.9
3.0
14.6
0.4
NMS 73
6.7
40
29.4
2.2
17.1
0.5
NMS-74
6.5
19
27.2
2.7
14.9
0.7
NMS-75
5.3
68
25.4
2.4
23.0
0.8
NMS-76
10.8
39
49.8
4.3
37.2
0.5
NMS 77
7.2
31
28.8
2.1
14.9
0.6
NMS-78
2.5
40
11.0
0.8
6.3
0.4
NMS 79
6.6
9
24.6
2.7
10.2
0.2
NMS-8
2.9
80
14.1
1.2
16.2
0.7
NMS 80
3.5
55
16.2
1.2
12.8
0.2
NMS 81
11.5
47
51.1
3.8
30.6
0.3
NMS-82
7.8
20
32.3
1.9
14.6
0.5
NMS 83
3.6
20
15.3
0.9
7.3
0.4
NMS-84
11.8
12
42.0
4.1
17.5
0.3
NMS 85
3.1
77
12.5
1.3
6.5
1.3
NMS 86
3.1
20
14.2
0.8
7.8
0.2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMlLe_SWMM_hydraulic_out put_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls NMS Runoff Results UPDATE
Table 8.2
Watershed Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage
Basin (Revised 12/2006)
Watershed Information
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results'
1/2 -Hour Event
Watershed ID
Total Area
(ac)
% Impervious
Area
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
Peak Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Total Volume
Runoff (ac -ft)
NMS-87
1.1
20
4.9
0.3
2.5
0.1
S_88
3.6
26
16.8
1.5
15.1
0.1
NMS 89
7.1
70
31.5
2.8
18.1
0.4
NMS-90
6.7
40
29.9
2.0
18.5
0.5
NMS-91
4.0
71
18.8
1.6
13.3
0.7
S_92
6.3
80
28.2
2.7
17.6
0.4
NMS-93
5.1
70
24.1
2.1
19.5
0.7
NMS-94
1.3
20
6.3
0.4
4.9
0.5
NMS -95
8.0
80
37.6
3.7
30.1
0.2
S_96
5.8
80
26.0
2.7
18.1
1.0
NMS-97
9.4
80
42.9
4.3
31.0
0.7
NMS 98
6.8
20
25.8
1.9
12.2
0.5
NMS-99
4.4
28
20.6
1.3
15.4
0.5
SP-1
89.8
80
235.7
39.4
88.2
0.5
SP 10
3.8
80
17.8
1.8
14.2
11.0
SP_11
5.6
80
22.8
2.4
11.9
0.4
SP 12
3.5
80
16.1
1.5
11.5
0.6
SP 13
4.6
80
21.3
2.0
16.2
0.4
SP-14
0.9
81
4.3
0.4
4.6
0.6
SP 15
4.6
80
22.1
2.0
25.2
0.1
SP-16
7.6
80
29.5
3.2
13.7
0.5
SP 17
7.0
80
27.9
3.3
15.1
0.9
SP-2
2.0
80
9.8
0.9
12.0
0.8
SP_3
3.8
80
18.3
1.6
17.7
0.2
SP _4
2.3
73
11.2
0.9
11.0
0.4
SP _5
11.6
80
55.1
5.4
47.6
0.3
SP-6
28.4
80
114.7
13.0
62.8
1.4
SP _7
14.9
80
70.2
6.5
55.4
3.2
SP 8
1.2
80
5.7
0.5
5.4
1.6
SP 9
11.4
80
50.4
5.0
31.9
0.1
1 NM = Not Modeled
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles \QAQC Model for
Pond\NineMILe_SWMM_hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _final_NWL_verification.xls NMS Runoff Results UPDATE
Table 8.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage Basin (Revised 12/206).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of Storage 2
NWL
(ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL
(ft)
Flood Bounce
(fl)
898
192Z_p
866.8
866.7
899
685p
866.9
866.6
901
687p
863.7
863.2
903
2214p
856.4
935
71%-p
863.6
861.6
936
72Q_p
855.1
854.6
937
721p
849.2
848.6
940
723p
860.5
860.5
941
724p
847.8
847.6
942
727_p
847.3
847.7
944
728p
1
842.7
947
73 I-p
841.0
839.3
948
732p
833.5
950
outfall
829.7
826.1
951
734p
842.6
955
738p
862.2
956
2240_p
862.6
859.3
958
740_p
855.6
852.8
959
741p
845.6
968
75Q-p
833.9
830.7
972
754-p
832.0
829.2
973
755p
827.6
975
757p
826.8
976
758p
826.2
978
761p
street
824.8
982
1997p
832.5
832.3
983
764p
835.6
986
767p
823.3
987
768p
826.1
823.3
990
770p
826.4
824.2
992
772p
827.9
824.9
993
773p
825.2
996
776p
826.7
826.5
1002
2003p
823.2
822.1
1005
783p
822.0
819.5
1006
784_p
821.5
817.9
1010
121 I-p
821.0
816.7
1011
787p
821.2
816.5
1012
789_p
821.8
820.6
1014
790p
820.7
816.3
1015
791p
821.0
1016
3215p
822.0
816.1
1017
792_p
821.7
816.5
1019
794p
820.3
1020
795p
820.0
1021
796p
1
820.6
1025
802p
815.5
1029
3219p
820.4
816.1
1222
to RR ditch
838.4
837.8
1227
968p
831.7
1229
97Q-p
830.6
830.6
1230
971p
829.7
829.1
1234
974p
826.3
1237
977p
825.6
822.2
1238
978p
821.9
1239
979_p
830.4
829.9
1240
outfall
824.9
820.1
1242
981p
829.0
1244
outfall
827.4
826.6
1245
983p
832.3
1248
986_p
828.0
825.4
1250
988p
823.5
1251
outfall
823.1
820.0
1254
1539p
823.1
817.6
1487
1 176p
858.0
857.6
1489
1178p
854.8
854.5
1490
11724
852.9
852.5
P:WphX23 W2723271072 Edina Water Resources Mgnal Plan Updaw%WorkFilatQAQC Model for Pond WincMll.e_SWMM_hydraufc_mtput- 2006UPDATE_f ul_NWIL verif- tio-Is NMS NodcResults UPDATE
Table 8.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XPSWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage Basin (Revised 12/206).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of Storage''
NWL
(ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL
(ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
1491
11 80-p
849.8
849.6
1492
1181p
842.0
841.1
1493
1182p
841.4
839.5
1498
1186p
840.8
839.3
1500
11 87-p
847.9
847.5
1503
11 90-p
842.9
840.1
1508
1 194p
NM
825.0
1509
1195p
NM
831.2
1513
11 98-p
837.2
837.6
1515
1200p
833.0
832.5
1516
1201p
832.9
830.9
1517
1202p
832.7
829.6
1518
1203p
832.6
828.0
1519
1204p
832.4
827.2
1520
3221p
832.2
824.6
1521
1205p
835.2
834.9
1522
1206p
833.8
831.8
1523
1207p
832.5
829.0
1528
121 1p
840.5
832.6
1529
1212p
837.2
831.1
1530
1213p
835.7
1
829.8
1531
1214p
834.0
829.4
1532
1216p
834.1
826.5
!221
1219p
859.9
855.1
1536
1221p
859.7
854.3
1538
1223p
859.1
853.8
1539
1224p
856.0
851.5
1540
1225p
854.8
1
851.2
1542
1227p
851.7
852.9
1544
1229p
847.8
847.5
1545
1230p
842.7
841.5
1547
1231p
860.7
856.1
1549
1233p
857.7
852.2
1550
1234p
856.3
852.0
1683
1807p
853.7
844.9
1685
1386p
853.7
844.8
1696
1391p
839.1
838.9
1713
1404p
840.9
840.3
1718
1408p
859.9
855.5
1719
1409p
859.9
855.9
1724
1414p
851.5
851.3
1725
to Th 494 system
836.7
836.6
1726
1415p
862.1
857.6
1840
1492p
850.6
846.5
1841
1493p
853.4
847.6
1842
1494p
853.9
848.2
1843
1495p
854.6
849.2
1847
1499p
827.6
826.1
1851
1501p
831.1
street
829.5
1852
1502p
833.0
832.4
1901
1534p
836.8
1
834.4
1902
1535p
838.9
837.5
1905
1538p
824.0
823.4
1906
outfall
821.0
814.3
1907
1540p
820.4
814.2
1908
outfall
820.4
813.4
1910
1542p
826.7
826.2
1911
outfall
824.2
824.1
1913
1544p
828.6
827.8
1961
outfall
826.0
822.7
1963
outfall
825.9
824.7
1965
outfall
825.5
824.3
1971
outfall
824.9
819.8
2102
to TH 100 system
882.2
881.9
2106
1669p
820.4
813.4
2107
outfall
812.6
2108
1670
1670
820.6
817.1
PAMpls\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Wata Rmoun Mgmt Pim Update \WorkFdes\QAQC Model for Pmd\Ni=MlLc SWMM hydraulic output 2006UPDATE _finaLNWL�vairimion.xls NMS NodeResults UPDATE
Table 8.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage Basin (Revised 12/206).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of Storage'
NWL
(ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL
(ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
2252
1798p
NM
837.6
2253
1799p
NM
837.6
2254
1800p
NM
837.8
2256
1802p
857.5
850.0
2258
1803p
855.1
845.6
2259
1808p
853.6
844.7
2260
1805p
853.9
844.8
2262
1809p
852.9
844.4
2263
18 1 O-p
851.6
844.1
2264
1811
850.0
843.7
2266
1812p
NM
838.4
2267
1814p
NM
837.8
2268
1815p
NM
835.2
2269
1816p
NM
834.9
2270
1817p
NM
834.4
2361
1899=p
847.8
843.2
2362
1 900p
846.5
842.7
2363
1901P
844.7
842.0
2364
1903p
842.5
839.6
2370
2221p
859.1
858.9
2372
1910p
861.3
859.1
2373
1912p
863.3
863.0
2374
1913=p
863.3
863.0
2376
1915P
868.8
868.8
2379
1918p
867.1
867.0
2383
1923p
870.5
870.5
2389
1929p
853.6
844.7
2442
1981p
826.3
825.9
2446
1985p
845.5
843.6
2448
1987p
820.6
815.3
2501
outfa0
819.5
813.1
2584
2127p
830.7
830.6
2587
3103p
841.2
parking lot
836.5
2588
3104p
836.3
835.6
2590
3183p
833.0
832.8
2591
3184p
828.1
828.0
2737
2203p
820.4
819.2
2738
2200p
820.6
819.9
2739
2201p
820.7
820.1
2744
2238p
822.1
818.2
2746
3199p
827.8
821.9
2748
2237p
823.9
818.8
2752
2211
858.8
855.7
2753
2220p
858.8
853.1
2755
2213p
859.1
854.4
2784
3206p
836.3
832.5
2788
3194p
820.8
820.2
2789
3200p
820.8
820.2
2820
3195p
826.4
819.9
2821
3220p
828.7
822.5
2860
3197p
859.8
856.6
2861
3205p
859.8
857.4
2862
3204p
859.9
857.8
2863
3203p
859.9
858.2
2864
3202p
860.0
858.6
2866
3185p
827.6
827.8
2882
3212p
821.1
816.6
2884
3218p
821.1
814.8
2886
323 1-p
827.4
822.8
2887
3232p
827.7
823.1
2889
3230p
827.9
823.7
2892
3229p
828.4
825.3
2893
3226p
828.5
825.3
2894
3225p
825.4
2896
3235p
843.5
2897
3237p
842.3
2898
3236p
843.4
P:N1pLs\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WmkFihs\QAQC Model for Pond\NimMlLe_ SWMM_ hydraulic_ output_ 2006UPDATE _finul_NWL_verification.xis NMS_Nodeltesulu UPDATE
Table 8.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes In the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage Basin (Revised 12/206).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of Storage 2
NWL
(ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL
(ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
2899
3238p
843.3
843.2
2909
3248p
830.8
829.0
2910
3250p
830.8
830.5
2911
3247p
833.1
832.7
2932
3280p
828.3
826.5
2933
3281p
831.7
830.4
2934
3282p
834.7
831.8
CL-1
1211 -p
840.8
pond
838.0
2.7
839.3
838.0
1.2
C1_3
14%-p
856.6
855.7
C1_4
1189p
846.7
845.2
CL _5
1947p
864.2
859.5
CL-8
1403p
parking lot
848.9
CI-9
1497_p
849.0
848.6
SP_I
3213p
821.1
pond
814.7
5.4
816.8
814.5
2.3
SP _2
1196p
848.3
850.7
SP _3
11 99-p
835.7
835.8
SP_4
1641p
832.7
SP_5
2205p
821.1
820.5
SP_6
2239_ p
823.6
818.8
SP_7
3198p
830.6
823.3
SP_8
I I 97-p
840.7
841.6
SP-9
3285p
823.6
parldng lot
822.8
CL 10
1405p
844.7
844.7
CL 11
1185p
839.4
0_12
1188p
845.6
0_13
1222p
859.6
854.1
CL-14
1406p
860.5
855.6
CL-15
3201p
860.0
858.9
CL 16
1639p
858.0
857.1
CL-17
3274p
848.4
parking lot
847.3
CL-18
1235p
851.6
CI-19
1228_p
849.8
850.8
CL 20
1226p
852.8
CL-21
1232p
858.4
853.4
CL_22
1416p
parking lot
859.7
CL-23
1417p
863.8
859.0
CL 25
122Q-p
860.0
854.9
CI-27
1806p
851.8
CL-35
1934p
868.9
CL-38
1623p
parking lot
857.8
0_48
1175p
859.6
CL_49
1909p
862.4
CI-50
682p
parking lot
871.2
CL_51
1914p
parking lot
861.3
CL-52
191 I-P
863.5
863.0
CL_53
1898p
848.9
843.5
CL_54
2215p
858.8
852.5
CL-55
686_p
866.9
866.4
CL_56
1930p
853.5
844.4
CL 57
1804p
854.4
845.0
CL_58
1932p
844.7
C1_59
1933p
855.0
855.3
CL_60
1924p
873.3
CL-61
1920
868.0
parking lot
867.6
CL_62
1916p
868.1
868.0
NMS_4
1537p
824.4
NMS 5
990p
829.4
824.6
NMS 6
1503p
841.4
NMS-7
989p
830.9
828.4
NMS-8
1536p
839.3
838.2
SP 10
2204p
824.4
SP 11
3234p
824.5
SP_12
1397p
838.0
SP 13
3233p
loading
821.5
6.3
826.4
821.5
4.8
SP 14
2234
822.3
820.4
SP 15
3223p
827.7
SP 16
3228
828.4
825.2
P:\Mp 1s\23 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water Rmourcm Mgmi Plan Update \WorkFilcs\QAQC Model for PondW i= Mltr_ SWMM_hydmulic_outpui_2006UPDATE rmal_NWltverirication.xls WS_Nodelt -Its UPDATE
Table 8.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage Basin (Revised 12/206).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of Storage a
NWL
(ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(f)
NWL
(fl)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
SP-17
2236p
parking lot
820.6
494E_1
1413p
858.8
parking lot
858.3
NMS-10
167 1 -p
821.5
street
821.3
817.5
3.8
NMS_II
1988p
823.5
NMS 12
3284p
parking lot
819.8
NMS-13
3217_p
822.4
815.2
NMS-14
3249p
834.1
parking lot
833.3
NMS 15
1622p
830.6
830.3
NMS-16
987p
827.4
825.0
NMS-18
1532p
832.9
832.4
NMS_19
2202p
820.4
arkin lot
819.1
NMS-20
1533p
833.5
street
832.9
NMS-21
985p
parking lot
828.9
NMS-22
3216p
street
820.2
NMS-23
797p 795p
822.8
pond
818.2
4.6
820.1
818.2
1.9
NMS 24
1545p
829.5
NMS-25
965p
838.7
NMS-26
I 966p
835.1
NMS-27
976p
826.5
parking lot
824.1
NMS-28
980p
828.4
wetland
825.0
3.4
826.7
825.0
1.7
NMS 29
967p
836.1
ditch
830.0
6.1
833.7
830.0
3.7
NMS 30
973p
828.4
parking lot
827.5
NMS-31
1498p
parking lot
826.1
NMS-32
1569p
828.9
NMS-33
1573p
824.2
NMS-34
1578_p
824.9
1
820.7
NMS 35
1574p
826.1
826.0
NMS-36
1575p
830.0
828.9
NMS-37
964p
848.8
O.d'
848.8
NMS-38
717_p
869.8
867.9
NMS-39
969
831.4
831.3
NMS-40
729 (inletloutlet)
844.0
836.3
7.8
838.8
836.3
2.5
NMS-41
1666p
886.1
NMS 42
3227p
827.0
NMS-43
3214p
parking lot
817.0
NMS-44
733p
828.0
NMS-45
1500p
830.9
NMS-46
722_p
883.8
883.7
NMS-47
725p
847.7
NMS_48
735p
842.1
NMS_49
1667p
843.6
NMS 50
718p
street
866.2
WSJ]
984p
833.8
831.4
NMS-52
ditch
825.9
825.8
NMS 53
982p
parking lot
829.0
NMS-54
1986p
843.8
NMS-55
729p
840.2
NMS-56
3279p
parking lot
828.3
NMS-57
972p
parking lot
828.1
NMS-58
3275p
parking lot
826.4
NMS-59
1984_p
845.5
street
843.4
NMS-60
1504p
846.4
846.2
NMS 61
1621p
836.6
834.2
NMS-62
975p
street
826.3
NMS-63
overflow to creek
826.0
hwy ditch
823.6
2.4
825.0
823.6
1.4
NMS-64
3283p
835.5
field
829.0
6.5
834.8
829.0
5.8
NMS-65
to street
834.1
parking lot
833.7
NMS-66
3207p
838.8
NMS-67
765p
838.5
838.3
NMS_68
744p
836.0
834.1
NMS-69
756p
827.2
NMS-70
766p
826.2
street
823.5
NMS 71
1393p
838.9
838.8
NMS-72
1992p
pond
818.2
4.6
820.7
818.2
15
NMS _73
1998p
831.2
NMS-74
1991P
pond
818.2
4.6
820.5
818.2
2.3
P:Wpls\23 MW M3271072 Edina Water Resources Mgmt Plan Update \WorkFiles\QAQC Model for Pond\NineMI14_ SWMM hydraulic output_2006UPDATE final_NWL-verifiwtan.als NMS Node Results UPDATE
Table 8.3
Hydraulic Modeling Results for XP -SWMM Subwatersheds /Nodes in the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage Basin (Revised 12/206).
Subwatershed or
Node
Downstream Conduit
100 -Year Storm Results
24 -Hour Event
10 -Year Storm Results
1/2 -Hour Event
Flood Elevation
(ft)
Type of Storage 2
NWL
(ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
Flood Elevation
(ft)
NWL
(ft)
Flood Bounce
(ft)
NMS-75
778p
821.1
NMS_76
1996_p
825.8
pond
818.8
7.0
821.8
818.8
3.0
NMS-77
762p
826.8
823.0
NMS 78
759p
827.7
825.8
NMS 79
1995p
pond
818.2
4.6
820.6
818.2
2.4
NMS_80
775p
827.7
827.6
NMS_81
1392p
847.5
847.3
_82
748_
835.8
832.0
_83
753
833.9
street
830.0
_84
nNMS
landlocked
824.8
golf course
821.2
3.6
823.2
821.2
2.0
85
774
830.1
828.7
_86
743p
835. 7
835.4
NMS-87
751p
833.9
831.8
NMS 88
1989p
822.8
pond
818.2
4.6
819.9
818.2
1.7
NMS-89
771p
827.1
824.6
NMS 90
1394p
839.7
835.9
NMS_91
32 1 Q-p
842.6
842.5
NMS-92
1395p
830.9
830.7
NMS-93
769p
street
823.7
NMS_94
760p
832.0
street
826.7
NMS-95
793p
820.8
820.6
NMS_96
1825p
822.8
parking lot
820.2
NMS-97
3278p
varkinR lot
816.4
NMS 98
198Q-p
872.7
street
870.5
NMS 99
742p
845.7
845.5
NMS-100
1541p
street
814.4
NMS _I01
3101p
829.4
828.9
NMS-102
1543p
828.6
b d
823.7
4.9
827.8
823.7
4.1
NMS_103
199Q-P
822.8
pond
818.2
4.6
820.0
818.2
1.8
NMS-104
1993p
pond
818.3
4.5
821.1
818.3
2.8
S_105
3100_
831.3
S_106
E
3105
835.9
arkin lot
S_107
3102_
842.2
ditch
837.2
5.0
840.9
837.2
3.7
2 byd = backyard depression
PAMpIs\23 MN\27\23271072 Flinn Water Rcsom m Mgmt Plan Updaie\WorkFiIm\QAQC Made] for PmMimMlts_SWMM hydraulic output_2006UPDATE finaLNWL vvaifimion.als NMS_NodeResulm UPDATE
Table 8.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage Basin (Revised 1212006).
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope
IOOY Peak Flow through
Conduit' (cfs)
IOY Peak Flow through
Conduit t (cfs)
1920
CI-61
2379
Circular
1.5
0.013
862.00
862.27
72.4
-0.37
11.1
15.6
L393
2102
NMS-40
Circular
1.5
0.013
880.60
840.00
1025
3.96
21.1
19.9
686
CL 55
901
Circular
2
0.013
858.81
854.72
366
1.12
26.2
25.0
682_p
CL 50
CL-35
Circular
1.5
0.013
865.80
864.12
300
0.56
9.9
9.4
1214p
1531
1523
Arch
36" eq
0.013
827.62
827.39
45
0.51
79.1
27.4
718p
935
Circular
2.5
0.013
857.33
855.64
353
0.48
51.2
44.0
719_
935
936
Circular
2.5
0.013
855.64
854.00
341.5
0.48
51.2
44.0
720_
936
937
Circular
2.5
0.013
853.00
841.77
350
3.21
51.2
44.0
721_
937
NMS-47
Circular
3
0.013
841.77
841.16
126
0.48
51.2
44.0
722
NMS_46
940
Circular
1.25
0.013
879.45
859.29
397
5.08
15.9
16.2
723p
940
941
Circular
1.25
0.013
859.29
844.57
209
7.04
15.9
16.1
725p
942
Circular
3
0.013
841.16
841.13
427
1 0.01
36.0
50.9
728
944
NMS-55
Circular
3.5
0.013
838.16
836.26
522
0.36
71.5
68.1
729_
NMS_55
NMS-40
Circular
2
0.013
836.26
834.26
92
2.17
-31.1
24.7
730
NMS 55
947
Circular
3.5
0.013
836.26
835.50
69
1.10
108.8
79.1
731_
947
948
Circular
4
0.013
835.50
831.40
550
0.75
138.9
109.6
732
948
NMS_44
Circular
4
0.013
831.40
823.18
405
2.03
138.2
109.6
733
NMS 44
950
Circular
5
0.013
823.18
823.00
40
0.45
159.3
122.8
734_
951
NMS 48
Circular
2.5
0.013
838.37
838.52
92.4
-0.16
30.2
25.4
735_
NMS-48
947
Circular
2.5
0.013
838.52
835.50
264
1.14
43.3
35.9
738
955
956
Circular
1.5
0.013
861.12
858.16
230
1.29
18.4
10.3
742
NMS_99
944
Circular
1.75
0.013
840.33
840.06
80
0.34
23.5
24.5
743
NMS_86
NMS-68
Circular
1
0.013
832.30
831.76
136
0.40
4.4
4.6
744_
NMS_68
NMS 87
Circular
1.5
0.013
831.76
828.72
304
1.00
9.8
9.7
753_
NMS-83
972
Circular
3
0.013
826.81
825.83
175
0.56
59.0
40.8
754_
972
973
Circular
3
0.013
826.02
824.71
200
0.66
49.9
41.0
755_
973
NMS-69
Circular
4
0.013
823.18
822.68
267
0.19
67.9
56.5
760
NMS-94
978
Circular
1
0.013
825.50
821.02
194.5
2.30
5.6
4.6
1496
CL-3
1843
Circular
2
0.013
853.98
850.68
113
2.92
27.9
20.3
766P
986
Circular
3
0.013
819.30
818.62
311
0.22
20.1
17.5
767p
986
987
Circular
3
0.013
818.62
817.65
67
1.45
28.6
17.4
768p
NMS-76
Arch
44 "x72"
0.024
817.63
816.33
330.4
0.39
83.0
76.7
769p
987
Circular
3.5
0.013
819.12
818.74
50
0.76
62.2
60.5
773p
993
992
Circular
2.75
0.013
823.20
822.20
200
0.50
37.3
23.5
776_p
996
NMS-89
Circular
1
0.01
822.89
821.00
28
6.75
7.4
8.7
778p
NMS-104
Arch
84" eq
0.033
816.50
816.19
38
0.82
137.7
131.5
783p
1005
1006
Circular
2
0.013
816.25
815.36
177
0.50
19.1
19.6
784p
SP_I
Circular
2
0.013
815.36
815.11
42
0.60
19.0
19.6
787p
1011
1012
Rectangular
7
0.013
810.92
810.84
380
0.02
232.6
170.3
789p
1 1012
1014
Rectangular
7
0.013
810.84
810.82
95
0.021
252.8
172.0
790p
1014
1015
Rectangular
7
0.013
810.82
810.80
120
0.02
286.4
172.0
791p
1015
1016
Rectangular
7
0.013
810.80
810.75
260
0.02
285.0
172.0
792p
1017
1016
Circular
2.25
0.024
814.50
814.50
27
0.00
21.1
19.3
793p
1017
Circular
2.25
0.024
814.79
814.50
439
0.07
14.5
13.4
795p
1019
Circular
1.25
0.024
815.47
814.96
475
1 0.11
2.2
-2.3
796p
1021
NMS-95
Circular
3.66
0.013
815.08
814.84
70
0.34
-16.3
-14.1
797_p
1020
1021
Circular
2
0.01
817.13
815.08
471
0.44
18.0
-14.1
802-p
1025
NMS-13
Rectangular
7
0.013
810.65
810.55
500
0.02
278.5
185.9
1909P
2370
Circular
I
0.013
853.07
852.42
50
1.30
9.8
9.8
199 1 -p
NMS-74
NMS-23
Circular
3
0.024
816.50
816.50
149
0.00
15.6
17.3
3 1 00-p
NMS_105
2584
Circular
1.5
0.013
826.50
824.76
100
1.74
8.6
8.3
964P
NMS-37
1222
Circular
1.5
0.013
839.02
837.74
319
0.40
13.6
2.0
966p
NMS-26
NMS-29
Circular
2
0.013
831.34
828.31
505
0.60
11.7
18.7
PAMp1A23 MM2 712 3 27 1 07 2 Edina Wat r Raoutca Mgmt Plan Update\WorkR1m\QAQC Modd for PmcKNineMR.e_SWMM hydraulic mtput_2006UPDATE GnaLNWl_vciGwLim.xls NMS_ConduitRmulu UPDATE
Table 8.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage Basin (Revised 1212006).
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (f0
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
Downstream Invert
Elevation
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope
IOOY Peak Flow Through
Conduit (cl's)
TOY Peak Flow through
Conduit (cfs)
967
NMS 29
1227
Circular
2
0.024
830.00
825.74
189
2.25
17.2
11.8
969
NMS-39
1229
Circular
2
0.013
825.17
824.53
400
0.16
9.1
19.4
970_
1229
1230
Circular
2
0.024
824.53
823.87
431
0.15
9.0
12.9
971-2
1230
NMS-57
Circular
2
0.024
823.87
823.40
290
0.16
9.0
10.6
972_p
NMS 57
NMS-30
Circular
3
0.024
823.40
823.16
301
0.08
18.5
16.8
976
NMS _27
1237
Circular
3.5
0.024
822.00
818.28
57
6.53
56.7
67.1
977p
1238
Circular
4.5
0.013
818.28
818.14
135
0.10
56.6
67.1
978p
1239 _
Circular
4.5
0.013
818.14
817.93
210
0.10
56.5
67.1
979_
1239
1240
Circular
4.5
0.013
817.93
817.70
130,
0.18
56.3
67.1
980_
NMS-28
1242
Circular
1.5
0.024
826.48
826.12
300
0.12
-3.5
-2.5
981_
1242
NMS_53
Circular
2.5
0.024
826.12
826.01
94
0.12
-5.5
-6.7
982_
NMS-53
1244
Circular
2.5
0.024
826.01
825.50
423.8
0.12
13.3
11.3
983_
1245
NMS-51
Circular
3
0.013
824.58
822.82
346.6
0.51
31.2
44.3
984_
NMS-51
NMS-21
Circular
3
0.013
822.82
820.90
400
0.48
55.7
55.8
985
NMS-21
1248
Circular
3
0.013
820.80
819.00
375
0.48
62.1
60.8
987p
1250
Circular
4.5
0.013
818.35
817.64
222
0.32
152.7
137.9
988P
1250
1251
Circular
4.5
0.013
817.64
816.50
350
0.33
152.7
137.9
990P
NMS-5
1254
Circular
3
0.013
820.20
819.20
185
0.54
102.6
67.3
1175
CL_48
1497
Circular
3
0.013
857.85
855.75
398.5
0.53
41.4
30.4
11 76_p
1487
1498
Circular
3
0.013
855.75
854.21
288
0.53
41.2
30.7
1177p
1489
Circular
3
0.013
854.21
852.57
303.3
0.54
41.1
30.6
1178p
1489
1490
Circular
3
0.013
852.57
850.67
361.4
0.53
41.0
30.5
1179p
1491
Circular
3
0.013
850.67
848.57
399.5
0.53
40.8
30.3
11 80-p
1491
1492
Circular
3
0.013
848.57
838.20
287.8
3.60
40.8
30.3
1191
1492
1493
Circular
4
_ 0.013
838.20
838.00
100
0.20
50.6
40.2
1182-p
1493
CL_I
Circular
3
0.013
830.83
830.00
55
1.51
50.5
40.2
1185
CL-II
1498
Circular
3
0.013
833.26
833.25
46
0.02
6.7
15.1
1186p
1498
CL-1
Circular
3
0.013
833.25
830.31
167
1.76
6.7
9.5
1187p
1500
CL_12
Circular
2.5
0.013
846.83
844.73
274
0.77
10.1
5.9
I I88
CL 4
Circular
2.5
0.013
844.73
843.16
160
0.98
1 18.8
9.9
1189
-CL-12
CL_4
1503
Circular
3
0.013 _
842.76
840.00
138
2.00
67.3
41.0
I 190P
1503
CL-1
Circular
3
0.013
831.00
830.00
126
0.79
67.2
41.0
1194
1508
1509
Circular
3.5
0.013
834.14
833.83
150
0.21
NM
NM
1195
1509
CL I
Circular
3.5
0.013
831.15
831.06
45
0.20
NM
NM
1197
SP _8
1513
Circular
1.75
0.013
837.26
835.39
332
0.56
15.4
17.1
1198_
1513
SP-3
Circular
2
0.013
835.39
833.70
320
0.53
15.4
16.6
1199
SP-3
1515
Circular
2
0.013
833.70
831.04
94
2.83
33.5
33.6
1200
1515
1516
Circular
4.5
0.013
831.04
828.89
236
0.91
44.1
43.9
1201
1516
1517
Circular
4.5
0.013
828.89
827.86
275
0.37
43.7
44.0
12()2
1517
ISIR
Circular
4.5
0.013
827.86
826.16
256
0.66
43.7
44.4
1203
1518
1519
Circular
4.5
0.013
826.16
824.78
304
0.45
43.7
44.1
1204
1519
1520
Circular
4.5
0.013
824.78
823.97
124
0.65
43.6
43.9
12(15
1521
1522
Circular
1.5
0.013
834.15
829.05
280
1.82
6.8
7.2
1206
1522
1523
Circular
1.5
0.013
829.05
827.39
93
1.78
14.3
11.9
1207
1523
SP_15
Circular
3.67
0.013
827.39
826.70
55
1.25
81.7
29.9
1211
CL-1
1529
Circular
5
0.013
829.04
828.14
303
0.30
217.4
101.9
1212
1529
1530
Circular
5
0.013
828.14
827.46
103
0.66
217.4
101.9
1213
1530
1531
Circular
3
0.013
827.46
827.62
53
-0.30
79.1
27.4
1216
1532
1520
Circular
4
0.013
824.78
823.97
157
0.52
138.5
74.5
1219 -r
1534
CL-25
Circular
3
0.013
854.33
853.05
319
0.40
13.9
5.9
1220_
CL 25
1536
Circular
3
0.013
853.05
851.15
437
0.43
28.0
24.7
1221
1536
CL_13
Circular
3.5
0.013
851.15
850.13
264
0.39
29.5
24.0
1222
CL 13
1538
Circular
1 3.5
1 0.013
850.13
850.41
45
-0.62
59.6
1 45.8
PAMpl. +r23 MM27t23271072 Editu Water R-. Mgmr Plan Updarc%WorkF1a\QAQC Model for PoudWinaMlLe -SWMMUydm lic outpui 2006UPDATFGna1 _NWL_veiGwtion.als NMS_Condui1Rmulu UPDATE
Table 8.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006).
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(fq
Conduit Length
Slope
IOOY Peak Flow through
t
Conduit WS)
TOY Peak Flow through
t
Conduit (c(s)
1223p
1538
1539
Circular
4
0.013
850.41
848.80
336
0.48
101.6
69.9
1224p
1539
1540
Circular
4
0.013
846.26
845.00
184
0.68
101.7
86.5
1225p
1540
CL 20
Circular
4
0.013
845.00
844.44
119
0.47
101.7
101.0
1226
CL_20
1542
Circular
5
0.013
844.44
842.76
119
1.41
233.0
200.0
1228
CL-19
1544
Circular
5
0.013
842.76
841.92
102
0.82
238.8
254.2
1229p
1545
Circular
5
0.013
841.92
841.12
219
0.37
238.8
212.7
1230p
1545
CL-1
Arch
72" cq
0.013
831.71
830.75
192
0.50
238.8
212.4
1231-p
1547
CL 21
Circular
2.25
0.013
854.20
851.97
370
0.60
29.5
22.9
1232
CL-21
1549
Circular
3
0.013
851.47
850.45
183
0.56
34.1
29.5
1233p
1549
1550
Circular
3.5
0.013
849.67
847.20
475
0.52
51.7
46.7
1234p
1550
CL_18
Circular
3.5
0.013
847.20
845.15
392
0.52
65.3
69.3
1235
CL_18
CL-20
Circular
4
0.013
845.15
844.44
98
0.72
82.7
96.0
1396p
1685
1683
Circular
1.75
0.013
843.26
842.67
183.3
0.32
-11.7
-4.2
1397
SP-12
1521
Circular
1
0.01
836.00
834.15
94
1.97
6.9
6.4
1403
C4_8
1542
Circular
2
0.013
845.50
845.40
43
0.23
12.2
21.6
1404_p
1713
CL_I
Circular
1.25
0.013
840.00
834.00
103
5.83
4.3
3.9
1405p
1713
Circular
1.25
0.013
843.92
842.87
105
1.00
4.3
3.9
1406_
Cl.- 14
1538
Circular
2.75
0.013
854.78
850.41
67
6.52
46.6
25.2
W08-p
1718
1534
Circular
1 3
0.013
854.73
854.33
89
0.45
12.9
6.0
1409p
1719
1718
Circular
2
0.013
854.86
854.73
48
0.27
12.4
6.0
1413p
494E_1
1724
Circular
1
0.013
849.91
848.34
111
1.41
9.4
9.1
1414p
1724
1725
Circular
1
0.013
848.34
835.85
174
7.18
9.4
9.1
1415p
1726
1547
Circular
2.25
0.013
855.06
854.20
195
0.44
29.3
23.8
1416
CL-22
1726
Circular
1.5
0.013
858.11
856.49
40
4.05
16.0
11.3
1417
CI-23
1726
Circular
1.75
0.013
856.76
856.03
166
0.44
16.8
12.6
1492
1840
CL_4
Circular
2
0.013
843.15
842.96
130
0.15
34.4
20.4
1493
1841
1840
Circular
2
0.013
844.19
843.15
85
1.22
34.3
20.3
1494
1842
1841
Circular
2
0.013
844.49
844.19
49
0.61
32.0
20.3
1497
CL-9
1500
Circular
1.5
0.013
847.70
846.83
42
2.07
10.4
5.9
1498
NMS-31
NMS-16
Circular
2.5
0.013
821.24
818.35
410
0.70
33.6
32.5
1504
NMS-60
NMS -6
Circular
1.5
0.013
845.32
835.90
654
1.44
7.9
8.8
1532
NMS-18
1245
Circular
3
0.013
827.00
824.70
451
0.51
30.0
36.0
1533_
NMS-20
NMS-18
Circular
2.5
0.013
828.50
827.00
340.6
0.44
-23.4
26.7
1534
1901
NMS-61
Circular
2
0.013
832.29
831.27
38
2.68
14.3
15.6
1535
1902
1901
Circular
2
0.013
836.01
832.40
452
0.80
14.0
16.1
1536
NMS-8
1902
Circular
2
0.013
836.38
836.11
26.6
1.02
14.1
16.2
1537
NMS _4
1905
Circular
1.5
0.013
821.20
820.90
42
0.71
11.6
11.9
1538
1905
1254
Circular
1.5
0.013
820.90
819.30
160
1.00
11.6
11.7
1539
1254
1906
Circular
4
0.013
814.60
812.20
238
1.01
109.7
78.9
1540
1907
1908
Circular
5.5
0.013
812.19
811.99
198
0.10
51.0
27.0
1541
NMS 100
1907
Circular
5.5
0.013
812.20
812.19
102
0.01
51.0
27.1
1542
1910
1911
Circular
1.25
0.013
823.30
823.00
76
0.39
9.2
8.3
1543
NMS-102
1910
Circular
1.25
0.013
823.65
823.30
70
0.50
9.2
8.3
1545
NMS-24
1913
Circular
1.25
0.013
824.83
824.17
131
0.50
7.3
7.0
1573
NMS-33
1961
Circular
4
0.024
821.88
820.85
71
1.45
44.1
39.9
1574
NMS-35
1963
Circular
1.5
0.013
825.35
824.22
30
3.77
2.7
4.0
1575
NMS_36
1965
Circular
1.25
0.013
823.79
823.00
30
2.63
17.2
15.6
1578
NMS.-34
1971
Circular
1.5
0.013
819.77
819.25
31
1.68
2.9
4.5
1621_
WS_61
1245
Circular
2
0.013
831.27
824.58
429.5
1.56
17.8
19.9
1623
CL-38
IS50
Circular
1.25
0.013
856.47
849.42
34
20.74
19.9
19.7
1639
CL-16
1549
Circular
2.5
0.013
856.47
849.67
90
7.56
18.6
15.8
1641
SP-4
1515
Circular
4
0.013
831.30
831.04
143
0.18
11.1
1 10.3
1666
NMS_41
2102
Circular
1.5
0.013
881.08
880.60
42
1.14
20.9
20.2
P:Wplst231sIM27t23271072 Edim Wata Rooutca Mpm Plan UpdatLAWorkFjla%QAQC Model for PondWina%ULcLSWMMUydmulic output 2000UPDATFfaW _NWILvaificatioo.xls NMS_Condukitmuly UPDATE
Table 8.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006).
Conduit ID
Upstream Nodc
Downstream Nodc
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions- (0)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
(ft)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope
I OOY Peak Flow through
Conduit'
IOY Peak Flow through
Conduit (cl's)
1669p
2106
2107
Circular
1.5
0.013
812.30
811.90
20
2.00
4.6
6.0
1670p
2108
2106
Circular
1.5
0.013
816.00
814.60
134
1.04
4.6
6.0
1671
NMS-10
2108
Circular
1
0.013
817.50
816.20
130
1.00
4.7
6.0
1798_p
2252
1513
Circular
1
0.013
837.01
835.39
78
2.08
NM
NM
1799p
2253
2252
Circular
1
0.013
837.56
837.48
25
0.32
NM
NM
1800P
2254
2253
Circular
1
0.013
837.82
837.56
53
0.49
NM
NM
1802
2256
2258
Circular
3.5
0.013
848.70
841.20
157
4.78
125.5
62.5
1803
2258
CL-57
Circular
3.5
0.013
841.20
840.04
86
1.35
126.3
62.8
1804
CL 57
2260
Circular
4.5
0.013
840.04
840.30
64
-0.41
143.7
65.2
1805
2260
2259
Circular
5
0.013
840.30
840.13
96
0.18
143.6
65.5
1806
CL_27
2259
Circular
2
0.013
849.79
848.87
92
1.00
35.6
17.7
1807p
1683
CL_57
Circular
1.75
0.013
842.50
841.44
41
2.59
-12.5
-4.4
1808
2259
2262
Circular
5
0.013
840.13
839.82
102
0.30
174.2
94.2
1809P
2263
Circular
5
0.013
839.82
839.45
84
0.44
223.7
107.0
1810
2263
2264
Circular
5
0.013
839.45
838.94
141
0.36
223.8
106.4
1811
2264
CL-53
Circular
5
0.013
838.94
838.83
65
0.17
223.8
106.4
1812
2266
2254
Circular
1
0.013
838.44
837.82
104
0.60
NM
NM
1814
2267
2268
Circular
2
0.013
837.82
836.90
41
2.24
NM
NM
1815
2268
2269
Circular
3
0.013
835.15
834.93
182
0.12
NM
NM
1816
2269
2270
Circular
3
0.013
834.93
834.37
115
0.49
NM
NM
1817p
1 2270
1508
Circular
3.5
0.013
834.37
834.14
138
0.17
NM
NM
1825p
NMS_96
NMS-103
Circular
2.5
0.013
817.97
817.50
189
0.25
NM
NM
1898P
CL 53
2361
Circular
6
0.013
838.83
838.39
128
0.34
249.9
121.4
1899P
2361
2362
Circular
6
0.013
838.39
838.35
83
0.05
253.2
123.2
1 900P
2362
2363
Circular
6
0.013
838.35
837.59
292
0.26
253.2
123.0
1901P
2363
2364
Circular
6
0.013
837.59
837.31
82
0.34
1 253.1
122.8
1903p
2364
CL-1
Circular
3.5
0.013
832.60
831.00
118
1.36
83.8
43.5
1904p
2364
CL-1
Circular
3.5
0.013
832.60
831.00
112
1.43
84.6
43.5
1912p
1 2373
CL_52
Circular
1.25
0.013
856.10
854.20
97
1.96
11.0
9.3
1914p
CL_51
2374
Circular
1.5
0.013
858.00
857.10
85
1.06
11.0
9.2
1915p
2376
CL 35
Circular
l
0.013
864.80
864.12
46
1.48
4.4
-3.1
1916
CL 62
2376
Circular
1
0.013
865.19
864.80
21.5
1.81
-6.8
-6A
1922p
898
899
Circular
2
0.013
861.67
859.70
35
5.63
20.3
20.6
1923P
2383
CL-50
Circular
l
0.013
866.01
865.80
36
0.58
-4.4
5.3
1924
CL-60
2383
Circular
1
0.013
867.06
866.76
91
0.33
1 5.6
5.8
1929P
2389
CL_56
Circular
1.25
0.013
840.14
839.72
76
0.55
12.6
4.0
1930
CL-56
2262
Circular
4.5
0.013
839.72
839.65
27
0.26
91.1
24.7
1931p
2389
1685
Circular
1.75
0.013
840.14
843.30
95
-3.33
-12.4
-3.9
1932
CL 5R
2259
Circular
1.75
0.013
843.91
840.13
22
17.18
17.1
6.7
1933
CL-59
2361
Circular
1.25
0.013
854.29
853.67
32
1.94
3.3
4.8
1947
CL_5
CI-14
Circular
2.25
0.013
858.05
854.78
355
0.92
30.1
15.5
1980
NMS-98
955
Circular
1.25
0.013
867.18
863.34
139
1 2.76
12.5
10.3
1981P
2442
NMS 33
Circular
3.33
0.013
825.08
821.88
44
7.27
33.1
28.1
1984p
NMS 59
944
Circular
1.5
0.013
839.99
838.16
65
2.82
9.8
8.4
1985p
1 2446
2896
Circular
1.5
0.013
840.75
840.44
38
0.82
5.7
5.4
1986p
NMS 54
2446
Circular
1.5
0.013
841.08
840.75
76
0.43
5.8
5.6
1987p
2448
NMS-100
Circular
5.5
0.013
812.38
812.20
182
0.10
15.6
13.3
1988
NMS I1
2448
Circular
1.5
0.013
818.65
818.50
154
0.10
15.5
12.8
1992p
NMS_72
NMS-74
Circular
3
0.024
1 816.50
816.50
30
0.00
24.6
35.0
1993
NMS-104
NMS 72
Circular
2.5
0.024
816.75
816.75
66
0.00
15.2
23.8
1996
NMS 76
NMS_75
Arch
53 "x85"
0.033
818.80
816.50
400
0.58
127.4
128.2
2003p
1002
SP_14
Circular
l.5
0.01
818.46
818.00
72
0.64
16.0
18.3
2200
2738
2739
Circular
1
0.013
815.15
1 815.11
40
0.10
-2.1
3.0
P:Wptst23 M�927t23271072 Edim Wata Remote Mgm Plan UpdadWorkFde tQAQC Modd for PondWio dtme }WnuthydauGcompuL2o06UPDA7 _finaLNWI vnifkalioaxls N4fs_eaoauiuteWu UPDATE
Table 8.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006).
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Nodc
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions" (ft)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
ft
Slope
Slope
I OOY Peak Flow through
t
(cfs)
IUY Peak Flow though
t
Conduit (cfs)
2201p
NMS -22
Circular
1.5
0.013
815.28
815.02
26
1.00
-2.1
-3.2
2202
NMS-19
2737
Circular
1
0.01
815.50
815.44
60
0.10
-2.1
3.0
2203p
2737
2738
Circular
1
0.013
815.44
815.15
291
0.10
-2.1
3.0
2204
SP-10
1002
Circular
1.25
0.01
820.78
819.13
282.9
0.58
7.9
8.4
221 1-p
2752
2753
Circular
1.5
0.013
854.47
853.02
31
4.68
12.7
11.6
2215
CI-54
2256
Circular
3.5
0.013
849.50
848.70
222
0.36
119.0
61.4
2220
2753
CL-54
Circular
2
0.013
852.12
850.30
39
4.67
14.0
11.6
2221
2370
2752
Circular
1.25
0.013
852.36
854.47
54
-3.91
11.8
11.6
2234
SP 14
1005
Circular
2
0.01
818.00
817.00
122
0.82
19.1
19.6
2236
SP-17
2748
Circular
2
0.024
819.75
815.91
42
9.14
26.6
15.1
2237
2748
SP-6
Circular
3
0.013
815.91
815.00
58.5
1.56
26.6
15.1
2238
2744
SP_1
Circular
7
0.024
813.26
812.92
42.5
1 0.80
415.8
178.1
2239
SP-6
2744
Circular
7
0.024
813.79
813.26
65.6
0.81
415.9
178.0
3101
NMS-101
2591
Circular
1.67
0.013
826.56
826.26
165
0.18
11.3
9.7
3104
2588
NMS_106
Circular
2
0.013
834.02
833.65
122
0.30
15.5
6.7
3184
2591
2866
Circular
3.33
0.013
826.26
825.86
10
4.00
32.9
28.1
3185
2866
2442
Circular
3.33
0.013
825.86
825.08
50
1.56
32.9
28.1
3195
2820
SP_6
Circular
7
0.024
816.16
813.79
323.5
0.73
306.7
141.4
3197
2860
1719
Circular
1.75
0.013
855.62
854.86
163
0.47
12.5
6.0
3198
SP 7
2821
Circular
6.5
0.013
822.31
820.88
342
0.42
314.5
108.9
3201
CL-15
2864
Circular
1.25
0.013
856.85
856.70
33
0.45
7.0
6.0
3202p
2863
Circular
1.25
0.013
856.70
856.40
21
1.43
7.0
6.0
3203p
2863
2862
Circular
1.25
0.013
856.40
856.31
15
0.60
6.9
6.0
32W_p
2862
2861
Circular
1.25
0.013
856.31
855.70
34
1.79
6.9
6.0
3205p
2861
2860
Circular
1.25
0.013
855.70
855.62
9
0.89
6.9
6.0
3207
NMS-66
2784
Circular
1 2
0.013
838.10
831.55
191
3.43
18.6
10.1
3212p
2882
1011
Rectangular
7
0.013
810.96
810.92
232
0.02
222.7
170.3
3213
SP -1
2882
Rectangular
7
0.013
811.00
810.96
168
0.02
235.8
170.1
3214
NMS_43
2882
Circular
1.5
0.013
814.00
813.66
34
1.00
8.7
16.7
3215p
1025
Rectangular
7
0.013
810.75
810.65
497
0.02
261.8
185.9
3216
NMS-22
1029
Circular
2
0.013
814.94
814.10
429
0.20
17.1
20.1
3217
NMS-13
2884
Rectangular
7
0.013
810.55
810.37
477
0.04
269.2
187.7
3218p
2884
EdCrk20
Special
8.07
1 0.013
810.37
810.10
378.5
0.07
296.5
191.6
3219p
1029
2884
Circular
4
0.024
813.96
812.12
974
0.19
14.1
22.8
3220p
2821
2746
Circular
7
0.013
819.00
818.61
206
1 0.19
304.9
109.1
3221
1520
SP 7
Circular
4.5
0.013
823.97
823.82
103
0.15
150.4
77.8
3223
SP_15
SP_7
Arch
42" eq
0.013
826.70
823.40
235
1.40
84.0
32.9
3225
2894
2893
Circular
2.5
0.013
823.98
823.87
7.5
1.47
14.8
8.7
3226
2893
2892
Circular
2.5
0.013
823.87
823.21
29
2.28
14.8
8.7
3228
SP_16
SP_lI
Circular
2.5
0.013
822.69
822.69
164
0.00
19.9
22.0
3229
2892
SP_16
Circular
2.5
1 0.013
823.21
822.69
62
0.84
14.7
8.7
3230
2889
1 2887
Circular
3
0.013
820.92
820.46
177.7
0.26
29.4
33.3
3231
2886
2746
Circular
3
0.013
820.15
819.61
40.5
1.33
32.5
37.9
3232
2887
2886
Circular
3
0.013
820.46
820.15
31.5
0.98
32.6
37.9
3234
SP 11
2889
Circular
3
0.013
822.69
820.92
243.5
0.73
30.8
33.4
3235
2896
NMS-59
Circular
1.5
0.013
840.44
839.99
40
1.13
5.7
5.3
3236p
2898
2897
Circular
1.25
0.013
839.82
839.13
83
0.83
-7.7
9.3
3237_p
2897
NMS-55
Circular
1.25
0.013
839.13
836.26
73
3.93
13.6
12.2
3238p
2897
Circular
1
0.013
840.91
839.13
35
5.09
-6.6
5.6
3250
2910
2909
Circular
1.5
0.013
825.96
823.44
262.5
0.96
8.5
9.5
3274
CL _17
CL_19
Circular
1.25
0.013
843.00
842.76
36
0.67
11.7
II.0
3275
NMS-58
1234
Circular
1.25
0.013
823.20
823.00
311
0.83
3.8
4.3
3278
NMS-97
1012
Circular
2.25
0.013
813.00
812.84
16
1.00
26.1
31.0
PAMplA23 MM27t23271072 Edina Wata It- Mgmt Plan UpdudWotkFdatQAQC Mold for Pond \Nine \WL _SWMM,Jrydmulic_mtpuL 2006UPDATFGnaLNWL _vaifiwim.x6 NMS_ConduilRaulu UPDATE
Table 8.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds In the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006).
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions* (ft q
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
Downstream Invert
Elevation
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope
I WY Peak Flow through
i
Conduit (cfs)
IOY Peak Flow through
Conduit (cl's)
3279
NMS-56
2932
Circular
1
0.013
824.00
823.70
217
0.14
3.2
4.0
3280p
2932
NMS-62
Circular
1.25
0.013
823.70
823.60
18.2
0.55
3.1
4.0
3284
NMS_12
1017
Circular
1.25
0.024
814.70
814.50
40
0.50
7.9
6.6
3295p
SP_9
1002
Circular
1.5
0.01
819.80
818.33
40
3.68
10.0
15.6
685p
CL_55
Circular
2
0.013
859.70
858.81
89
1.00
20.3
20.6
687_
901
CL 52
Circular
2
0.013
854.72
854.30
44.5
0.94
28.6
28.5
717
NMS_38
NMS-50
Circular
2
0.013
860.98
860.43
43
1.28
31.3
28.4
724
941
NMS-47
Circular
1.5
0.013
844.57
841.96
37
7.05
12.3
13.3
727_
942
944
Circular
1.75
0.013
841.13
838.16
77
3.86
36.0
39.5
740
958
959
Circular
1.5
0.013
852.30
841.03
232
4.86
20.8
10.3
741_
959
NMS 99
Circular
1.5
0.013
841.03
840.33
43
1.63
8.1
9.0
748
NMS _82
968
Circular
2.5
0.013
830.55
828.17
238
1.00
- 35.5
24.3
750p
NMS-83
Circular
2.5
0.013
828.17.
827.09
69.1
1.56
29.7
23.2
751_p
NMS-87
NMS-83
Circular
1.75
0.013
828.72
827.09
285.6
0.57
12.8
11.7
756p
975
Circular
4
0.013
822.68
822.54
28
0.50
79.0
66.9
757p
975
976
Circular
5
0.013
821.70
820.84
171
0.50
168.6
130.5
758p
NMS-78
Circular
5
0.013
820.84
819.67
26
4.50
174.2
130.5
759p
978
Circular
5
0.013
819.67
818.54
282
0.40
140.6
135.4
761p
978
NMS 77
Circular
5
0.013
818.54
817.64
225
0.40
127.3
140.5
7625
NMS-77
NMS 76
Circular
5
0.013
817.64
816.80
211
0.40
180.4
152.5
764p
982
Circular
2.25
0.013
830.27
826.72
240
1.48
39.5
43.7
765p
NMS-67
983
Circular
2
0.013
833.51
830.27
240
1.35
32.8
33.3
770p
NMS_93
Circular
3.5
0.013
820.00
819.12
200
0.44
45.0
46.0
771p
990
Circular
3.5
0.013
821.00
820.00
200
0.50
56.6
46.0
772p
NMS-89
Circular
3
0.013
822.00
821.00
200
0.50
36.4
21.8
774_p
NMS 85
993
Circular
2
0.013
824.80
823.80
200
0.50
22.9
23.5
775p
996
Circular
1
0.01
824.04
822.95
273.5
0.40
5.3
5.4
794p
1019
NMS 95
Circular
1.25
0.024
814.96
814.94
55
0.04
2.2
-3.3
965_p
NMS 25
NMS_26
Circular
1.5
0.013
833.50
831.34
415
0.52
9.0
10.4
968p
NMS_39
Circular
2
0.013
825.71
825.17
385
0.14
8.3
7.9
973_
NMS 30
1234
Circular
3
0.024
823.16
822.71
559.9
0.08
19.3
19.9
974_p
1234
NMS-62
Circular
3.5
0.024
822.71
822.69
59
0.03
23.8
21.3
975_
NMS _62
NMS-27
Circular
3.5
0.024
822.69
822.52
426.4
0.04
42.1
26.6
986_
1248
NMS_16
Circular
4
0.013
819.00
818.35
40
1.63
106.2
91.0
989
NMS-7
NMS-5
Circular
3
0.013
821.04
820.20
441
0.19
66.9
58.8
1196
SP-2
SP-8
Circular
1.25
1 0.013
942.53
837.50
333
1.51
9.8
11.0
1215
1530
1532
Circular
4
0.013
827.46
824.88
112
2.30
138.5
74.5
1227p
CI-19
Circular
5
0.013
842.76
842.76
112
1 0.00
240.7
272.2
1391p
1696
NMS-67
Circular
1.75
0.013
834.61
833.51
62.3
1.77
'20.2
17.7
1392
NMS-81
1696
Circular
1.75
0.013
942.61
834.61
291.4
2.75
26.4
26.3
1393
NMS-71
NMS 67
Circular
2
0.013
833.58
833.51
49
0.14
19.1
19.6
1394
NMS 90
973
Circular
1.5
0.013
831.60
830.60
25
4.00
27.7
18.5
1395
NMS_92
NMS_85
Circular
1.5
0.013
826.20
824.80
200
0.70
13.3
13.5
1495p
1843
1842
Circular
2
1 0.013
845.58
844.49
101
1.08
29.8
20.3
1499p
1847
NMS-31
Circular
2.5
0.013
821.41
821.24
27.3
0.62
14.2
18.3
1500
NMS _45
1847
Circular
1.5
0.013
825.74
821.91
479
0.80
10.4
12.6
1501P
1851
NMS-7
Circular
2.5
0.013
822.14
821.50
108
0.59
42.4
34.0
1502p
1852
1851
Circular
2.5
0.013
824.24
823.50
349.1
0.21
35.5
33.4
1503p
NMS_6
1852
Circular
2
0.013
835.45
824.80
603
1.77
30.6
31.4
1544p
1913
MS '02
Circular
1.25
0.013
824.17
823.65
81
0.64
4.9
5.8
1569_
NMS 32
NMS_57
Circular
3
0.024
823.43
823.43
315.1
0.00
33.6
34.3
1622
NMS_15
1248
Circular
2.25
O.Ol3
822.35
819.00
461.3
0.73
28.6
30.3
1667
NMS 49
951
Circular
2.5
0.013
1 836.95
838.71
137.8
-1.28
1 44.0
25.3
PAMpJA23 I.IN\27\23271072 Edina WatcRo- Mgtm Plan Update\WodcFlo\QAQC MWd for Pond\NinGNR <_SWMM- hydraulic omput2006UPDATP`GnaLNWL vcifimtim xds NMS Comluidt -Im UPDATE
Table 8.4
Conduit Modeling Results for Subwatersheds in the Nine Mile Creek- South Drainage Basin (Revised 12/2006).
Conduit ID
Upstream Node
Downstream Node
Conduit Shape
Conduit
Dimensions' (f)
Roughness
Coefficient
Upstream Invert
Elevation
(Cq
Downstream Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Conduit Length
(ft)
Slope
IOOY Peak Flow through
Conduit' (efs)
I OY Peak Flow through
Conduit' (efs)
1902p
2364
CL_I
Circular
3.5
0.013
832.60
831.00
112
1.43
84.6
43.5
1910P
2372
903
Circular
2.5
0.013
852.10
850.27
177.5
1.03
49.8
44.2
191 I-P
CL 52
2372
Circular
2
0.013
854.20
852.10
212.5
0.99
36.9
36.5
1913p
2374
2373
Circular
1.5
0.013
857.10
856.10
41
2.44
11.0
9.3
1918p
2379
898
Circular
1.75
0.013
862.27
861.90
74
0.50
11.1
15.6
1934_
CL-35
898
Circular
2
0.013
864.12
862.49
292
0.56
18.0
20.5
1989P
NMS-103
Circular
1.25
0.024
817.50
817.50
190
0.00
-1.8
-1.9
1990_
NMS-103
NMS-23
Circular
1.5
0.024
817.50
817.50
60
0.00
-3.9
-3.7
1993
NMS-104
NMS-72
Circular
2.5
0.024
816.75
816.75
66
0.00
15.2
23.8
1995
NMS-79
NMS 72
Circular
1.25
0.024
817.50
817.50
87
0.00
1.6
-2.8
1997p
982
NMS-73
Circular
2.5
0.013
826.72
824.57
179
1.20
41.7
49.6
1998
NMS-73
975
Circular
2.5
0.013
824.57
822.50
63
3.29
57.5
69.8
2127p
2584
NMS_36
Circular
1.5
0.013
824.76
823.79
361.5
0.27
9.8
10.3
2205_p
SP_5
SP_I
Circular
3
0.024
817.05
813.00
561
0.72
28.9
33.3
2213p
C1_54
Circular
2.5
0.013
849.84
849.50
35
0.97
70.9
44.2
2214_p
903
2755
Circular
2.5
0.013
850.27
849.84
41
1.05
56.1
44.2
2240p
956
958
Circular
1.5
0.013
858.16
854.27
146
2.66
18.8
10.3
3102
NMS_107
2587
Circular
1
0.013
837.19
835.08
103
2.05
7.4
6.7
3103p
1 2587
2588
Circular
1.5
0.013
835.08
834.02
170
0.62
15.5
6.7
3 1 05-p
NMS-106
2590
Circular
2
0.013
833.65
832.01
182
0.90
21.7
18.8
3183p
2590
2591
Circular
2
0.013
831.71
826.26
236
2.31
21.7
18.8
3194p
2788
2789
Circular
1.25
0.013
816.63
816.02
61.2
1.00
-2.1
3.6
3199p
2746
2820
Circular
7
0.024
818.61
816.16
275
0.89
268.2
141.5
3200p
2789
NMS-95
Circular
1.25
0.013
815.92
815.82
9.8
1.02
4.3
-4.0
3206p
2794
NMS-82
Circular
2
0.013
831.55
830.55
66
1.52
17.4
10.1
3210p
NMS_91
NMS-71
Circular
1.5
0.013
837.70
833.58
216
1.91
13.4
13.3
3227
NMS-42
2894
Circular
2
0.013
825.74
823.98
512
0.34
14.8
9.1
3233
SP-13
2887
Circular
1
0.013
821.53
820.46
162
0.66
4.6
5.3
3247p
2911
2910
Circular
1.5
0.013
826.90
825.96
262.4
0.36
10.1
10.7
3249p
2909
NMS-32
Arch
24" eq
0.013
823.44
823.43
52.2
0.02
8.5
9.5
3249
NMS_14
2911
Circular
2
0.013
826.94
826.90
334.5
0.01
12.0
13.1
3281p
2933
NMS_15
Circular
1.5
0.013
823.69
822.35
40
3.35
20.2
1 7.5
3282p
2934
1 2933
Circular
1.75
0.013
827.72
824.20
400
0.88
16.8
6.3
3283p
NMS 64
2934
Circular
1
0.013
829.00
827.72
271.4
0.47
5.5
5.4
3305
2973
1029
Circular
2
0.013
814.94
814.47
230
0.20
2.7
NM
3306
NMS-108
2973
Circular
1.5
0.013
815.91
815.50
489
0.08
-1.5
NM
NM = Not Modeled
PAMp1923 MN\27\23271072 Edina Water R..-. Mgnu Plan Updatc\WorkFda\QAQC Model for Pond\NineMRe_SWN94_hydraulu mtput_ 2006UPDATE_GnaLKWI _v.ili- tion.xis NMS_Coodui R.Wu UPDATE