Appendicies

Appendix A

Appendix A - Technical Appendix

Technical Memorandum

Methodology for HHPLS P-Load Model Application to

Development of Subwatershed Rules under Performance-Based Management

Details how the MCWD 2003 Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and Pollutant Loading Study (HHPLS) modeling was used to develop the phosphorus load and annual water volume assumptions for this plan.  It also explains how Ultimate Development conditions were calculated.

Ultimate Land Use Models

Spreadsheets for the major receiving waters in the watershed, showing the 2000, 2020, and Ultimate Development modeled conditions and resulting lake response.  These models were used to calculate the phosphorus load reductions necessary to attain in-lake total phosphorus concentration goals.

Ultimate Volume Control Model 

Spreadsheets summarizing annual runoff data the HHPLS and Ultimate Land Use modeling.  The spreadsheets show the calculation of the estimated annual volume of runoff that could be expected under various infiltration scenarios – infiltrating the first 0.5?, 0.75?, 1.0? of runoff.  The purpose of this modeling was to determine how much of the new runoff volume that might be generated from new development could be captured on site through small-event infiltration, and how much new volume would run off.

Technical Memorandum

MCWD Management Plan Revision

Calculation of Subwatershed Phosphorus Load Reductions

 

Explains how LGU expected phosphorus load reductions were calculated.

 

Technical Memorandum

MCWD Management Plan Revision

Subwatershed Phosphorus Load Reductions Compared to HHPLS

 

Explains how the LGU expected Phosphorus Load Reductions in this Plan compare to those considered in the HHPLS 

 


 

 

The 2003 MCWD Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and Pollutant Loading Study (HHPLS), through an extensive public input process, established lake water quality goals (later adopted by the Board) and identified strategies for reducing phosphorus in modeled lakes within the MCWD.  For many lakes one of the strategies was a phosphorus load reduction that could result from generalized application of BMPs in residential and other developed land uses across a subwatershed.  The expectation was that local governments could achieve these reductions through the application of various BMPs as opportunities arise. 

 

The HHPLS included these types of general reductions by the LGUs for some subwatersheds, but not for all.  For consistency and fairness, the District has proposed in each subwatershed plan of the 2006 MCWD Water Resources Management Plan a required reduction by the LGUs in the subwatershed of the phosphorus load contributed by existing land uses.  The requirement is a 15 percent reduction in loading from existing residential land use; 25 percent from agricultural land use; and 10 percent from other developed land use.  The exception to this requirement is where a TMDL has determined what the lakeshed load reduction should be; the TMDL reduction is required instead.

 

This reduction can be accomplished through:

  • · Application of BMPs such as additional street sweeping, local water quality ponds, reduction of runoff volume, rain gardens and infiltration swales, and agricultural BMPs that reduce erosion or treat runoff or drain tile discharge;
  • · Prevention of future load increases through the conservation of lands previously identified for development; or
  • · Achieving load removals in excess of the minimum required.

 

The LGUs must identify in local water management plans specific steps to accomplish these minimum reductions.  The LGUs must also annually report to the District their progress toward accomplishing this requirement.

Calculation Method

 

This reduction was calculated using HHPLS modeling data.  That analysis assigned a land cover/use category to each subwatershed unit polygon using Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) data.  Expected volume and phosphorus loading could then be calculated based on land cover/use.  The subwatershed phosphorus load was then summed by land cover/use category for each subwatershed, or lakeshed where more than one lake is present in the subwatershed, and percentages applied to calculate the proposed load reduction.  Where a subwatershed unit is landlocked, no reduction was calculated.

 

Because MLCCS data is not available for most of the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed, load reductions for that subwatershed had to be calculated in a slightly different manner.  Developed land use accounts for about 75 percent of the land area of the subwatershed.  To reflect the higher concentrations that typically run off impervious surfaces, 80 percent of the modeled load was used as the ?base? from which to calculate the load reduction.   A 10% reduction closely meets the subwatershed load reduction to achieve the phosphorus concentration in Minnehaha Creek necessary to achieve the Lake Hiawatha TMDL reduction.

 

The calculated load reductions for each subwatershed or lakeshed are then partitioned between the LGUs in the subwatershed based on area within each drainage area.  The following tables illustrate the calculation for the Gleason Lake subwatershed.

 

Gleason Lake BMP Load Reduction Allocations Calculation

 

Rcvg

Other-Developed

Residential

Other-Vac/Ag

 Agricultural

 

Shed

Water

 P-load

10%

 P-load

15%

 P-load

10%

 P-load

25%

Total

GLC-1

Gleason

     3.673

0

  105.906

16

     2.776

0

          -  

0

16

GLC-2

Gleason

     0.506

0

    26.954

4

     4.495

0

     0.002

0

4

GLC-3

Gleason

     0.596

0

  122.824

18

     0.617

0

          -  

0

18

GLC-4

Gleason

    25.547

3

    35.409

5

    27.182

3

     0.231

0

11

GLC-5

Gleason

     1.368

0

  123.276

18

    12.782

1

          -  

0

19

GLC-6

Gleason

    14.216

1

    67.025

10

     1.239

0

     0.076

0

11

GLC-7

Gleason

     5.664

1

  109.953

16

     4.136

0

     0.038

0

17

GLC-8

Gleason

    11.646

1

    21.539

3

     1.542

0

     0.120

0

4

GLC-9

Gleason

    23.429

2

    82.752

12

     8.001

1

     0.078

0

15

TOTAL

Gleason

 

8

 

102

 

5

 

0

115

HL-1

Hadley

    16.526

2

  114.998

17

     0.859

0

     0.011

0

19

HL-2

Hadley

          -  

0

    37.027

6

     5.946

1

     0.122

0

7

TOTAL

Hadley

 

2

 

23

 

1

 

0

26

GLC-10

Creek

     0.625

0

    17.390

3

     0.438

0

     0.086

0

3

GLC-11

Creek

    16.990

2

    25.353

4

     0.390

0

     0.039

0

6

HL-3

Creek

     0.080

0

    11.599

2

     0.011

0

     0.056

0

2

HL-4

Creek

     0.050

0

    56.733

9

     0.803

0

          -  

0

9

HL-5

Creek

    20.283

2

    58.068

9

     5.236

1

     0.054

0

12

TOTAL

Creek

 

4

 

27

 

1

 

0

32

TOTAL

TOTAL

 

14

 

152

 

7

 

0

173

 

 

Rcvg

 

 

 

 

 

Shed

Water

Plymouth

Wayzata

Minnetonka

Orono

Total

GLC-1

Gleason

16

0

0

0

16

GLC-2

Gleason

4

0

0

0

4

GLC-3

Gleason

18

0

0

0

18

GLC-4

Gleason

11

0

0

0

11

GLC-5

Gleason

19

0

0

0

19

GLC-6

Gleason

11

0

0

0

11

GLC-7

Gleason

17

0

0

0

17

GLC-8

Gleason

4

0

0

0

4

GLC-9

Gleason

10

5

0

0

15

TOTAL

Gleason

110

5

0

0

115

HL-1

Hadley

19

0

0

0

19

HL-2

Hadley

7

0

0

0

7

TOTAL

Hadley

26

0

0

0

26

GLC-10

Creek

1

2

0

0

3

GLC-11

Creek

0

6

0

0

6

HL-3

Creek

0

0

0

2

2

HL-4

Creek

6

3

0

0

9

HL-5

Creek

3

8

0

1

12

TOTAL

Creek

10

19

0

3

32

TOTAL

TOTAL

146

24

0

3

173

 


 

 

The 2003 HHPLS included load reductions that could result from generalized application of BMPs in residential and other developed land uses as part of developing phosphorus load reduction plans for modeled lakes within the MCWD.  These reductions were calculated for some subwatersheds but not all.  District staff has asked Wenck to calculate reductions for those subwatersheds where no BMP allocation was made, on the same basis as those made in the HHPLS so that this requirement can be applied uniformly across the District.

 

We have reviewed the HHPLS and the P-load spreadsheets used by EOR in the development of that study.  We have found that those BMP load reduction allocations in the HHPLS were not calculated in the same manner for all subwatersheds.  

 

To provide consistency in those allocations, we have used EOR's data and applied a uniform method to calculate potential reductions.  This method would calculate the load reduction as follows:

 

  • 15% of existing modeled P-load from residential land use
  • 10% of existing modeled P-load from other developed land uses
  • 10% of existing modeled P-load from land uses characterized as ?vacant/agricultural? but where the MLCCS code indicates there is some amount of impervious cover indicating it is developed
  • 25% of existing modeled P-load from agricultural land uses

 

Because MLCCS data is not available for most of the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed, we have used the following method.  Developed land use accounts for about 75 percent of the land area of the subwatershed.  To reflect the higher concentrations that typically run off impervious surfaces, we used 80 percent of the modeled load as the ?base? from which to calculate the load reduction.   We have calculated load reductions as both a 10% reduction and as a 5% reduction.  A 10% reduction appears to most closely meet the needs outlined in the Lakes TMDL for Creek concentration reduction.

 

Table 1 summarizes the basis it appears was used in the HHPLS to calculate an LGU load reduction, the reduction in the HHPLS, and the reduction as recalculated using the consistent method described above. 
Table 1.  Summary of BMP Load Reduction Allocations in HHPLS and as Proposed.

Subwatershed

Receiving Water

Basis for HHPLS Load Reduction Allocations

HHPLS Total BMP Load Reduction Allocation

Revised Total BMP Load Reduction Allocation

Dutch

 

15% of total P-load on all land uses, plus 10% of DL-3 for 'shoreline BMPs?

44

28

Langdon

 

None except 10% of that part of LL-5 not tributary to the proposed pond area on W side of lake (50% if 55ug/L goal is selected)

10

20

Schutz

 

Same as proposed

14

17

Virginia

Minnewashta

Same as proposed, except included landlocked basins

30

29

Virginia

Same as proposed

24

TMDL

Christmas

 

None

-

10

Gleason

Gleason Lake

None

-

115

Creek

 

-

58

Long

Long Lake

None

-

118

Tanager Lake

None

-

38

Painter

 

None

-

157

Six Mile

Auburn E

15% of residential and 25% of agricultural

28

34

Auburn W

None

-

3

Lundsten

None

-

23

Marsh

None

-

31

Mud

None

-

39

Parley

None

-

TMDL

Pierson

25% of residential, agricultural, and vacant/agricultural  load

27

19

Steiger

25% of residential, other, and vacant/agricultural load

19

28

Stone

25% of agricultural load

3

2

Wasserman

25% of agricultural, 15% of residential and vacant/ agricultural load

28

TMDL

Zumbra

10% of residential load

5

8

Direct & Minor

See detail

In direct drainage area, generally a 50-60% reduction in total load to achieve target flow-weighted mean average concentration in runoff.   In minor watersheds, 278 pounds across all subwatersheds.

-

413

Minnehaha Creek

Creek (above Hiawatha)

Lakes TMDL: approx 15% watershed load reduction

-

363

(assumes 10% decrease)

Brownie

None

-

12

Cedar

None

-

56

Isles

None

-

23

Calhoun

None

-

92

Harriet

None

-

28

Nokomis

Lakes TMDL: various activities including P-free fertilizer, street sweeping, operation of weir, neighborhood BMPs

198

TMDL

Diamond

Lakes TMDL: various activities including P-free fertilizer, street sweeping, increased infiltration

124

TMDL

Hiawatha

Lakes TMDL: increasing infiltration, reduce loads, P-free fertilizer in upstream creekshed: general BMPs

1706

TMDL

Creek (below Hiawatha)

None

-

18

 

Powderhorn

Not modeled

-

TMDL

 

 


 

Introduction

One of the objectives of the Third Generation MCWD WRMP is to develop rules for land development which, when implemented, will help lakes in the watershed meet water quality goals.  These rules are to be based on modeling conducted for the HHPLS, i.e., the P-Load watershed loading model and the WiLMS lake response model.  The supporting analysis should show that water bodies are projected to meet water quality goals when the watershed reaches ?Ultimate Land Use? (or full development) and MCWD capital projects and other load reductions are implemented.

 

The reader is directed to the HHPLS report for detailed description of the P-Load and WiLMS methodologies.  The descriptions below are provided to elucidate the main implications of the of the model and parameter selections included in the models.

 

This section is also to document the methodology proposed for the assessment and demonstrate its application to a specific subwatershed, namely Stubbs Bay, before application to all subwatersheds.

 

P-Load Background

Water quality modeling of annual runoff, pollutant loading and lake response is carried out using GIS analysis, PLOAD, and WiLMS. 

 

The PLOAD model estimates watershed nutrient export on the basis of runoff volume and assigned event mean concentrations.  These concentrations are assigned on the basis of land use / land cover.  The model is strictly a loading model; as such it does not reflect nutrient loss or substantial recycling in lakes and wetlands.  The model approach is based on a ?normal? year and is not suited to model year-to-year variation in watershed runoff or nutrient export.  Its strength is the representation of land use in terms of nutrient export and expectations for future changes in loading.  Its weakness include the broad assumptions of runoff concentrations for use across the watershed and the target annual runoff depths to which the model was calibrated.  These depths, because they range only from 4.2 to 5.0 inches per year, are not likely to represent the actual variation in runoff volume across the watershed.  The runoff in the PLOAD model is not tied to the calibration of the District's XP-SWMM model, and only partially to the results of the District's hydrodata program.

 

WiLMS

The Canfield-Bachman in-lake water quality response models applied from WiLMS are a common and accepted approach for assessment of nutrient load effects on lakes in Minnesota.    Typically, the watershed loading was not high enough to explain the in-lake concentrations observed in the lakes.  The additional load needed to calibrate to the average in-lake conditions was called ?unknown? in the HHPLS, or attributed to internal loading from the lake sediments.  The lake models would be improved with an independent assessment of internal loads.

 

Implicit Assumptions of the HHPLS P-Load Model

There are three main inputs that to the determination of loads using P-Load:

  • Percent impervious – for determination of runoff coefficient (determined from land use / land cover and associated percent impervious)
  • Annual precipitation depth (average conditions) and the calibration factor, called the ?ratio of storms producing runoff?
  • Total phosphorus event mean concentrations (determined from land use / land cover data)

 

These imperviousness assumptions are described below:

Percent Imperviousness Associated with Land Cover

Land Cover Type

Percent Impervious Used in Models

Upland soils with planted, maintained, or cultivated coniferous or deciduous trees, shrubs, or grasses.

1%

Upland soils – row cropland or close grown cropland

1%

Forest, woodland, upland shrubland, savanna, grassland

1%

Hydric soils with planted, maintained, or cultivated coniferous or deciduous trees, shrubs, or grasses.

10%

Hydric soils – row cropland or close grown cropland

10%

Semi-permanently, or permanently flooded shrubland, wet meadow, wet prairie, cattail marsh

10%

Swamp, wet meadow shrub

10%

Floodplain forest, lowland hardwood forest

10%

Open water, including littoral aquatic beds, open water wetlands, floating algae

100%

 

 

Percent Imperviousness Associated with Artificial Surfaces

Percent Impervious Range from MLCCS Codes

Percent Impervious Used in Models

0 - 10%

5%

4 - 10%

7%

11 – 25%

18%

26 – 50%

38%

51 – 75%

63%

76 – 90%

83%

91 – 100%

95.5%

 

The correlation of land use / land cover with phosphorus event mean concentrations was completed using the Minnesota Land Cover Classification system and MCES 2020 Land Use projections (based on comprehensive planning by the municipalities and other data sources).  By their nature, these two data sets are different and do not lend to comparison based on individual areas.  The HHPLS model is based on the 2000 land cover, and altered for 2020 to describe the new development.  The model cannot be explicitly updated to other data sets without repeating the GIS analysis of each subwatershed. 

 

The phosphorus event mean concentrations implicit to the model are listed below.

 

Total Phosphorus Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs)

Associated with Land Cover and Land Use

Land Cover (Undeveloped Land)

TP [mg/L]

Cropland

0.32

Forest/Shrub/Grassland

0.04

Open Water

0.01

Wetlands

0.01 – 0.04

Land Use (Developed Land)

TP [mg/L]

Farmsteads

0.46

Single Family Residential

0.46

Multi-Family Residential

0.32

Vacant/Agricultural

0.32

Airports

0.28

Commercial

0.28

Industrial

0.28

Public Industrial

0.28

Public/Semi Public

0.28

Public/Semi Public Not Developed

0.28

Park and Recreation

0.04

 

There are some special cases of phosphorus EMCs (e.g. wetlands and ponds) described in HHPLS report.

 

Through the combination, or overlay, of the various GIS layers, each subwatershed is parsed into multiple polygons.  These polygons have a wide range of sizes depending upon the source data and intersections of the data.  As an example, in the Classen Creek subwatershed, there are 354 polygons in the 2000 model and 408 in the 2004 model, with an average area of 2.8 and 2.4 acres, respectively.  The range for polygon sizes is from 0.001 to 44 acres.  Median polygon sizes are 0.84 and 0.56 acres, for 2000 and 2020 respectively.

 

Development Impacts as Assessed by P-Load

The main development impacts in much of the MCWD will be seen in the alteration of existing agricultural and forested land to residential land use (e.g., Fig. IV.K.2-2 from the HHPLS, see below).  Much of the new development in the Stubbs Bay watershed will be relatively low density residential, with impervious cover fractions being in the 4 to 25 percent ranges, with practically no additional development in the higher impervious categories.

 

Some examples of the development impacts on phosphorus loading, as predicted by the P-Load model, are summarized in the table below:

 

The per-acre phosphorus loads shown are the maximum predicted by the model.  The specific sub watershed models predict 30 to 80 percent of the volumes and loads.

 

Modeled Impact of Development

Based on the tabular approach described above, the P-Load model developed for the MCWD will predict dramatic increases in load, when considered on a project basis.  For example, if an area with upland soils cultivated for cropland is developed into a low-density single-family development, the model would predict that runoff volume would increase by 250 percent, loads would increase by 417 percent.  Commercial development would increase runoff by 1200 percent and phosphorus loads by 1100 percent. 

 

And all forms of development will far exceed the existing loading from forest areas.

Effect of P-Load Volume Calibration

The P-Load model, as developed for the HHPLS, was calibrated to match annual runoff values as mapped in the Minnesota Hydrology Guide.  Therefore the runoff from all subwatersheds averaged 4.4 to 6 inches annually.  In all cases (i.e. subwatersheds) the model predicted a larger annual runoff volume than determined from the Hydrology Guide.  But there was also substantial variation amongst the subwatersheds; the Pj values ranged from 0.25 to 0.75.  The model, without such calibration would have predicted 1.3 to 3.7 times the runoff and hence load from an otherwise similar area in different subwatersheds. For example, the load from a home site in the Painter Creek watershed would be predicted to be three times that in an identical home site in the Lake Minnetonka Direct subwatershed.  The subwatershed Pj values are summarized at right:

 

 

Methodology for Predicting Ultimate Development Loads

  1. The model results for existing conditions (2000) and 2020 conditions will be used as reported in the HHPLS report and the associated P-Load spreadsheets. 
  2. Ultimate development will be considered as complete development of agricultural lands, and development of one half of the forest lands estimated to exist in 2020. 
  3. The land developed between 2020 and Ultimate Development will be split according to the proportions of new development types predicted for 2000 to 2020.  That is, the Ultimate Development will follow the same proportions of low and high density residential, commercial and other development types as predicted as the development from 2000 to 2020.   

 

 

Prediction of Lake (Water Resource) Load Reduction Requirements

The WiLMS model inputs (annual runoff volume, annual phosphorus loads, internal loads and lake morphometry) developed in the HHPLS will be used in conjunction with the Canfield-Bachmann lake response formulation.  Due to the error in the WiLMS modeling, the internal loads will be reassessed using the corrected model and the average in-lake concentrations developed for the HHPLS/WiLMS.  As in the HHPLS, internal load will be taken as the additional load necessary to explain the observed in-lake concentrations using the corrected model and the P-Load results for 2000.  For each annual runoff volume (existing, 2020, and ultimate) the model will be used to estimate the load (and load reduction) to achieve in-lake phosphorus goals.  The model is relatively insensitive to changes in inflow volume; in some cases a single inflow volume may be sufficient.

 

Methodology for Load Reduction Requirements

For each lake (or stream) with a particular water quality goal, the Canfield-Bachman lake response model will be used to estimate the allowable load that will achieve the target in-lake phosphorus concentration. The lake phosphorus – load relationship will be estimated and plotted for the 2000 and 2020 runoff volume estimates.  The 2000, 2020 and Ultimate Land Use load reductions will be reported without application of BMPs.

 

Evaluation of Performance-Based Rules

The model results will be used to determine, on a watershed by watershed basis:

  • Lake response to development under future conditions without BMPs.
  • Lake response to development under future conditions and current MCWD rules.
  • Proposed framework for revised rules.

 

The results can be used to assess additional reductions needed through capital projects

 

Demonstration Application to Classen Creek and Stubbs Bay  / Maxwell Bay

Determine inputs:

  • Collect loads from Volume IV-Appendix 2 in HHPLS
  • Check total loads and volumes against WiLMS model inputs
    • If necessary track down differences in load.  Differences in volume should be ignored and use the total unless otherwise known to be necessary.  If there are differences explain in a separate sheet called ?Notes?.
    • Deduct or otherwise adjust for the lake surface load and volume.

 

For extrapolation to Ultimate Land Use, utilize the following procedure to determine the Ultimate annual volume and the ultimate annual phosphorus load:

  • Collect the 2020 load and volume;
  • Determine the remaining land area to be developed between 2020 and ultimate land use:
    • Assume all MLCCS 1xxx codes are developed in 2020 and not available for further development;
    • Include all 2xxx as remaining cropland, which will become developed at 100 percent;
      • Determine the total of remaining forest and woodland developable area as all 3xxx (forests), 4xxx (woodlands), 5xxx (shrubland) areas with the exception of areas whose description indicates wetland by including the words such as 'seasonally flooded?, ?wet?, 'swamp?, and 'semi-permanently flooded?.   In the case of Classen Creek watershed example, this leaves the following codes and descriptions:

 

Code

Description

3215

Maple-basswood forest

3217

Boxelder - green ash disturbed native forest

4213

Disturbed deciduous woodland

5213

Non-native dominated upland shrubland

 

 

(This approach is consistent with the HHPLS, which indicated that in almost every subwatershed, grasslands were shown as not being developed.  In fact, much of the area included in the grassland category is wetland.)

  • Sum up the volumes and loads from these areas from the detailed P-Load calculations in the HHPLS. 
  • Subtract these loads and volumes from the P-Load results for 2020 land use.

 

  • Determine the new loads for the development expected to occur between 2020 and ultimate conditions:      
    • Assume that the new development will occur as residential with either 4 to 10 percent imperviousness or 11 to 25 percent imperviousness.  This is based on the fact that in each of the subwatershed P-Load summaries (as in the example for the Minor Watersheds, which include Classen Creek), practically all of the development expected to occur between now and 2020 is in these two categories. 

 

 

 

  • Determine the ratio between the 4 to 10 percent and 11 to 25 percent categories from the corresponding HHPLS figure as shown above.  The ratios for each subwatershed is determined as follows:

 

Subwatershed

Fraction of New Development in 4 to 10 Percent Impervious Category

Fraction of New Development in 11 to 25 Percent Impervious Category

Painter Creek

46

54

Dutch Lake 

80

20

Langdon Lake 

54

46

Six Mile Creek

25

75

Long Lake Creek

93

7

Gleason Lake Creek

100

0

Schutz Lake 

17

83

Lake Virginia

70

30

Christmas Lake 

100

0

Lake Minnetonka Direct Drainage

79

21

Minor Watersheds

56

44

Minnehaha Creek (Lower Watershed)

100

0

 

  • Determine the load from the future developed areas.  The load from the developed areas will be calculated according to P-Load using 7 and 18 percent imperviousness, and the corresponding 0.46 mg/L phosphorus concentration.  The actual volume of runoff and load will depend on the subwatershed Pj value (See above). 

It is important to note that following exhaustive attempts, it was not possible to correlate the P-Load results with the categories and results presented in the HHPLS report.  This results from the different codes used in the 2000 and 2020 models.  Also, the land areas (i.e. the GIS polygons) are different.  Therefore the categories of land use and cover reported in the figures in the HHPLS report cannot be correlated with the categories in the P-Load model.  Therefore, the procedure outlined above makes use of the 2000 and 2020 P-Load model results as they are, and uses an incremental methodology to assess Ultimate Development loads.

 

 

Appendix B

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District

Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Plan Development Process

 

 

The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan 2007-2017 is the culmination of a several-year planning effort that incorporated an extensive public and technical planning process.  As detailed in Section 4.1 of the Plan, since 2000 the District has completed analyses of all its major hydrologic systems, including surface water quantity and quality modeling; water quality goal setting; stream assessments for Minnehaha Creek and the primary streams of the upper watershed; functions and values assessments of the wetland resources of the District; and a Visioning process to identify options and public preferences for the future management of Minnehaha Creek.  In addition, specialized studies on specific water resources have been conducted, including the Painter Creek Feasibility Study, the Stubbs Bay Feasibility Study, and the Gleason Lake Management Plan.    Most of these past planning efforts included an extensive public participation process.  This Plan integrates these past planning efforts into a long-range Management Plan for the watershed and the eleven subwatershed planning units.

The Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Pollutant Loading Study, or HHPLS, used an extensive public input process involving nearly 100 public meetings across the watershed to share modeling results, identify problems and gain input on appropriate approaches to addressing problems.  Participants in these Regional Teams included city staff, agency representatives, and citizens.   Most significantly, these public input sessions resulted in the development of new or refinement of existing water quality goals for 62 lakes or bays within the District.   That planning process and those goals form the foundation of this Plan.

As work began on this Plan, the Board of Managers met in a series of workshops to discuss various policy issues.  The Managers convened a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of City representatives and state and other agency staff to review and comment on these policy questions, assumptions, methods, and initial recommendations of the plans.  The TAC met seven times between May 2005 and January 2006, and discussed:

 

  • Performance Management Approach
  • Regulatory Integration
  • Land Conservation Program
  • Wetland Management Planning
  • Method for Calculating Ultimate Development
  • Method for Calculating LGU Phosphorus Load Reductions
  • Individual Subwatershed Plans

 

The Board of Managers also convened a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) of interested citizens appointed by their cities of residence to review and comment on policy questions and to provide advice and perspective on prioritizing resources.  This CAC was a separate body from the Board's standing CAC, although there was overlap between members.  The CAC met initially five times to obtain background information on topics similar to those covered by the TAC, then met several more times to review the draft subwatershed plans and to prioritize the water resources and issues in each subwatershed.

 

District staff periodically sent email updates to an extensive email correspondence list advising interested parties as to the status of the planning process and how they could provide input.  Planning drafts of the subwatershed plans were also posted on the District's Web site for public review and comment.

 

 

Formal Review Process

 

Minnesota State Statute 103B.231 provides a specific formal review process that includes the following milestones:

  1. 60-day release of the DRAFT Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan for review and comment to counties, the Metropolitan Council, State review agencies, the Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources, Soil & Water Conservation Districts, towns and statutory and home rule charter cities.
  2. Response in writing to comments received from the organizations noted above within 30-days of close of comment period
  3. Watershed District public hearing on the DRAFT Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
  4. Revision of DRAFT Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan and release of the FINAL Plan to Metropolitan Council, State review agencies and the Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources
  5. Final approval by the Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources
  6. Adoption of the FINAL Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan by Watershed District

On September 21, 2006 the MCWD Board of Managers approved the DRAFT Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan for release.  The DRAFT Plan was submitted directly via electronic copy on compact disc to fifty-three different public and private organizations, posted on the MCWD website for download and a hard copy was made available for the public review at the MCWD offices.  Individuals requesting personal copies of the DRAFT Plan were also forwarded CD copies.

 

During the 60-day review period between September 21, 2006 and November 21, 2006, MCWD held four informational briefings at different locations throughout the watershed including Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Mound, and the MCWD offices.  Meetings consisted of a presentation by MCWD staff providing an overview of the DRAFT Plan components followed by a question and answer period.  Meetings were generally well attended and hosted approximately 90 individuals representing various organizations as well as members of the community.  As follow-up to the briefing meetings, MCWD provided presentations to two cities within the watershed at the request of city staff.

 

MCWD officially closed the 60-day review period following November 21, 2006.  In total, MCWD received comments from thirty-two different organizations and individuals, nineteen of which were statutory review organizations (State review, agencies, cities, counties, etc.).  MCWD provided response to all comments received by December 21, 2006.

 

On December 21, 2006, MCWD held a public hearing to allow for direct input from the general public on the DRAFT Plan and to discuss changes to the Plan as a result of the comments received during the review period.  Unfortunately, this meeting, while well-attended, coincided with a bout of bad winter weather and the MCWD Board of Managers resolved to continue the public hearing until January 18, 2007 to allow unable to attend the meeting an opportunity to be present at a future public hearing.  On January 18, 2007, the MCWD Board of Managers reopened the public hearing to hear comment and testimony regarding the DRAFT Plan.  Upon closing of the public hearing and a discussion by the Board, it was resolved to authorize the release of a FINAL MCWD Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan conditional upon updating the DRAFT Plan with a list of specific changes.

 

Upon competing that update, the FINAL MCWD Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan was submitted to the Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR) for its final, 45-day review.  The BWSR transmitted copies to the state review agencies for final review.   On June 11, 2007 the BWSR Metro Water Planning Committee reviewed the FINAL Plan and recommended to the full BWSR Board that it be approved.  On June 27, 2007, the Board of Water & soil Resources reviewed and approved the FINAL Plan.

 

On July 5, 2007, the MCWD Board of Managers adopted the FINAL plan.

 

Attached to this summary:

  • Comments received during the 60-day review period and written MCWD responses to those comments
  • MCWD Board of Managers meeting minutes for public hearings on December 21, 2006 and January 18, 2007
  • Copies of additional written correspondence received on or before the dates of the public hearings
  • List of review organizations and persons and organizations that provided comments on the DRAFT Plan
  • Errata corrected and substantive changes made to the DRAFT Plan in response to comments received
  • Comments on the FINAL Plan received from review agencies
  • Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources Order Approving Watershed Management Plan


Minutes: December 21, 2006

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT

BOARD OF MANAGERS

 

December 21, 2006

CALL TO ORDER

The regular meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers was called to order by President James Calkins at 6:52 p.m. at the District offices, 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephaven, Minnesota.

 

MANAGERS PRESENT

 

James Calkins, Pamela Blixt, Jeffrey Casale, Lance Fisher, Ethel Smith.

 

MANAGERS ABSENT

 

Richard Miller, Lee Keeley.

 

OTHERS PRESENT

 

Eric Evenson, District Administrator; Michael Wyatt, District Planner; James Wisker, District Permitting Officer; Renae Clark, District Projects Coordinator/Technician; Michael Panzer, District Consulting Engineer; Louis Smith, Michael Welch, District Counsel.

 

MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR

 

None.

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

 

Manager Calkins requested that Agenda Item 6.1, Checking, be removed from the consent agenda.  It was moved by Manager Fisher, seconded by Manager Smith, to approve the agenda as amended.  Upon vote, the motion carried.

 

CONSENT AGENDA

 

It was moved by Manager Fisher, seconded by Manager Smith, to approve the Consent Agenda, consisting of the Minutes of the September 7, 2006, and October 19, 2006, meetings; the Petty Cash and Surety check registers; and the Contingent Levy.  Upon vote, the motion carried.

 

REGULAR AGENDA

 

Administrator's Report

 

Mr. Evenson distributed a revised Administrator's Report, noting the addition of the project-tracking whiteboard to the wall behind the managers in the meeting room.  Relevant to paragraph 7 on the Administrator's Report, Manager Blixt indicated her continuing interest in keeping the monitoring station at the sheriff's office in Spring Lake Park.

 

Watershed Management Plan Update Public Hearing

 

Manager Calkins opened the public hearing on the Watershed Management Plan.  Mr. Wyatt provided handouts including the comments in a new format, all of the letters received and the responses thereto, and an errata sheet.  Mr. Wyatt also provided copies of additional comments from the City of Minnetonka, Mr. Augburg and Steve Moan. 

 

Mr. Wyatt noted that the concerns roughly fell into three areas: the rules; load allocations getting ahead of TMDLs; and the capital improvements program.  Mr. Wyatt noted that he would focus on the errata sheet and changes thereto, and that the request for Board action is an approval of Resolution 06-073, authorization to update the Plan in response to the comments, and send it to the state agencies.

 

The Managers discussed whether to act on the Request for Board Action at that meeting or to delay to a later meeting.  In light of the recent letter to Hennepin County and the information supplied by Mr. Evenson noting that there were additional persons and organizations that wished to comment on the plan who were not able to make it to the meeting that evening, the Managers noted that they were inclined to delay action on the resolution to approve the plan.

 

Manager Calkins solicited comments from those in attendance.  Jim Johnston, Lyman Development Company, noted that he appreciated staff meeting with him one-on-one.  He asked the Board to think through all the ramifications of imposing the proposed abstraction standards.  He noted that there would be an impact on future residents and that the ability to infiltrate is very low because of clay soils in the northern part of the District.  He noted that he appreciated the need to remove phosphorous from stormwater runoff, but that the burden to do so needed to be shared.  He added that homes would cost an extra five figures in Minnetrista while others in the District blew grass clippings into the street as a way to illustrate his issue with regards to fairness of the abstraction burden.

 

Jamie Vagle, Builder's Association of the Twin Cities, noted that he appreciated working with staff on the preliminary review and stormwater management requirements in the Plan, and that the revised versions were vast improvements.  Mr. Vagle noted that his focus in his comments this evening were on the rulemaking process and that his organization was particularly interested in ensuring that the process included meaningful opportunities for stakeholders to have input on the issues.  He noted the buffer standard in particular, and stated that the proposed 300 ft. width is scientifically debatable.  He noted that the Builder's Association was working with the Met Council to complete a study on buffer width.  Mr. Vagle noted that he realized the Plan was not final, but wondered where it sits in relation to the rulemaking and wanted clarity in that regard.

 

Mr. Wyatt noted that the rulemaking process would be discussed later in the agenda, and added that the Builder's Association had made helpful suggestions for rulemaking.

 

Matt Goldstein, a developer, thanked staff for their time.  Mr. Goldstein noted that the detailed approach to matters of policy in the plan makes them look like rules.  He asked the Board to avoid relying on the plan during the rulemaking process and to avoid being confined to particular rules because of the Plan.

 

Lee Gustafson, City of Minnetonka, noted that his staff had found errors in a map late in the day, and that Minnetonka had not had a chance to review the responses it had received from the District.  Mr. Gustafson noted further that he had hoped to hear the managers thoughts on the comments received to this point, and he noted that he did not want the issues to be a done deal when it came to rulemaking.  Manager Calkins noted that comments and the responses thereto had been discussed at last week's meeting and will be discussed that evening.  He understands concerns that have been expressed, but notes that though the Plan is guidance, it is important guidance because the District has put a great deal of effort into the Plan.  He noted that the rulemaking process will be different and that the Plan is a starting point for that process. 

 

Manager Fisher asked whether the Plan, with regard to municipalities, would be enforceable.  Mr. Evenson noted that, yes, it would be.  Manager Fisher continued noting that he understood the rulemaking process was separate, but he was unclear as to the line between enforceable provisions and other components of the plan. 

 

Mr. Smith noted that an analogy to comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances.  Policies in the Plan will serve as guides going into the rulemaking process, but the rules had to be adopted in order to exercise regulatory authority to implement these policies.  Mr. Smith noted that the rulemaking process will require the managers to consider the plan, yet stay open to possible changes.  He noted several examples where the District commits to abstraction and buffer policies in the Plan, but rulemaking is required to develop specific regulatory requirements.  Mr. Smith noted that the Board should reach a point at which it was comfortable to submit the plan to state agencies.  Manager Fisher asked if the plan was enforceable.  Mr. Smith noted that within two years of the approval of the plan the municipalities must have updated their local water management plans.  Manager Blixt noted that Mr. Gustafson should understand that the Board had been very involved in the process of putting the plan together and that the Board supports the policies in the plan.

 

Mr. Gustafson continued with his comments.  He noted that the plan failed to include the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the county in its assignment of load reduction requirements.  Mr. Gustafson noted that all agencies should play a part in reduction of pollutant loading.  Mr. Gustafson also noted that while he realized abstraction would be addressed in the rulemaking process, a policy that applied everywhere in the District requiring abstraction was not logical or reasonable because of differences in soil types throughout the District.  Mr. Gustafson noted that flexibility could be addressed in the rulemaking process to account for different soil types and other conditions in the District.  He noted that the goal was great, and if the approach taken was reasonable, the City of Minnetonka would support it.  Manager Calkins noted that abstraction may have been understood to be infiltration only, but he noted that there were other ways that abstraction could be accomplished.  Mr. Gustafson agreed and noted that there are site-specific ways that stormwater can be managed.  Manager Fisher noted that if the policy were clearer in requiring abstraction where it was practical or feasible that may speak to Mr. Gustafson's comment.  Mr. Gustafson noted that a flexible policy that left the door open for future technology would indeed be acceptable.  He also noted that it would allow staff at the city to work out abstraction applications on site-specific basis with District staff.

 

Mr. Gustafson next noted concerns with the requirement to have developers submit concept plans early in the site-development process.  Mr. Gustafson noted that site plans change frequently during development.  Mr. Gustafson asked if the policy could be written to allow a city, when it doesn?t have staff in a particular area, to work with District staff and the developer.  Otherwise, he noted, there was too much burden on the developer to deal with multiple regulatory bodies throughout the process.  Manager Fisher responded, noting that the intent of the Board was to flesh out concept plans rather than throw them out.  The idea was to bring issues out earlier in the process.  Manager Fisher asked Mr. Gustafson where the right place in the site development process was for the District review.  Mr. Gustafson answered that the District should review site development concept plans at the same time it goes to the city planning commission.  Mr. Gustafson noted that the concept for site development plans gets pretty close to final when it goes to a planning commission.  Mr. Gustafson added that townships and smaller cities, which lack staff, may want District review earlier in the process, such as when a site development concept is first received.

 

Mr. Gustafson noted as well that Minnetonka has its own buffer policy and that he looked forward to discussing the buffer standard with the District in the rulemaking process.

 

Mr. Gustafson next discussed landlocked basins.  He noted discrepancies between the city's information and the Plan's.  He noted three basins listed in the Plan as ?landlocked? but have outlets according to the city's records.  Mr. Gustafson noted as well that the policy in the Plan is very restrictive. 

 

Manager Fisher asked whether errors found in the future could be fixed.  Mr. Smith noted that the Plan can be amended to fix errors.  There was further discussion of the District's intent to avoid directing all flow of stormwater to water bodies.  The District is trying to develop a policy whereby landlocked areas deal with stormwater runoff onsite.  Mr. Evenson noted that the draft plan could be revised to reflect the policy intent.  Manager Fisher noted that the fix should reflect the fact that the District has no intent of preventing repair in a basin that is overtopping.  Mr. Gustafson noted that he would find the language to which Manager Fisher is referring in the plan and suggest a revision.  Mr. Evenson noted that District staff would work with City of Minnetonka staff to resolve the matter.

 

Bo Spurrier, Water Resources Engineer, City of Minneapolis, noted that his office had received responses to its comments from District staff only that afternoon.  He requested additional time to respond, and noted that Minneapolis staff, with multiple departments weighing in, would have a hard time responding by January 4.  Further, Mr. Spurrier noted that he and his staff had met with District staff regarding the Capital Improvements Program and had submitted a list of projects for consideration.  He was curious about the status of the submission.  Mr. Evenson noted that another meeting with city staff had been arranged to review the city's submission.  Mr. Spurrier noted city concerns about coordinating the City's combined sewer overflow, on which the City of Minneapolis is facing a potential $7 million surcharge, and concerns with properties that have gutters hooked into the City's storm sewer system.  Mr. Spurrier also noted the need to coordinate timing with the city staff and District staff to get the Capital Improvements Program to match the city's plans.

 

Manager Calkins asked Mr. Spurrier's perspective on the relationship between the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.  Mr. Spurrier described the City's responsibilities as bringing runoff to a water body, at which point responsibility shifted to the Park Board.  The City of Minneapolis is the local government unit, but the city charter clearly defines lines of responsibility.  Any responsibility related to water quality on a water body within a park boundary is the Park Board's. 

 

Mike Salchert, Rice, Michels & Walther LLP, representing the Minneapolis Park Board, addressed the park board's legal status.  He noted that while the Park Board did not fall within the traditional definition of the local government unit, it was not settled as to whether the Park Board can be treated as an LGU.  The Park Board has its own elected body, and may wish to have its own LGU status.  Mr. Salchert acknowledged the comprehensive work that the District has undertaken, and that the Park Board wanted to work with the District as long as its plans were consistent with the Park Board's plans.

 

Mr. Salchert noted his concern with process.  He noted that the Park Board had received a ?flash flood? of information in the responses from the District that it has not had time to deal with them.  Mr. Salchert urged the District to stay in contact with the Park Board to ensure that things are not been missed during the rulemaking process.  He offered a hand of cooperation from the Park Board.  He noted that the Park Board wanted to be involved in the process, and would rather discuss issues with the District than fight over them.

 

The managers discussed whether to close or continue the public hearing.  Manager Blixt noted her concern that it would not be possible to get responses in and the public involvement process completed by January 4.  She questioned whether there would be a deadline problem with continuing to the following week.  Mr. Evenson said there would not, and noted that staff could start the budgeting process whether or not the Plan was finalized.  Manager Fisher moved to continue the public hearing until the 18th of January and to keep the record of the public hearing open until that time.  Manager Casale seconded the motion.  Upon vote, the motion carried.  Mr. Evenson noted that the Board had a discussion of the rulemaking process on its agenda that evening and encouraged audience members to stay for that discussion.

 

Managers and staff discussed the need to ensure clarity in the Plan regarding the abstraction policy.  Staff agreed to review the Plan and ensure that it was clear that abstraction would be pursued where reasonable and with a flexible approach.  Manager Calkins noted the need to ensure that there was a definition of abstraction in the Plan as well.

 

Manager Fisher raised the issue of the distribution of load allocation burdens on the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Hennepin and Carver Counties.  He noted that for purposes of permitting and planning and regulatory impact on water quality, MnDOT and the counties and the Minneapolis Park Board were a unique class of developers.  He added that he did not see how the District could allocate a load reduction requirement to these entities.  Manager Blixt agreed, but noted that the Plan assigns different responsibilities to different types of entities.  Managers and staff noted that MnDOT and the counties are MS4s, which means they own and manage storm sewers and therefore must address TMDL requirements.  The Plan is tailored toward cities.  Mr. Panzer pointed out that the cities are required to prepare local surface water management plans which are consistent with District policies as stated in the watershed plan.

 

Manager Blixt noted that there was some confusion as to whether the Minneapolis Park Board was an LGU independent of the city of Minneapolis.  Mr. Wyatt noted that for purposes of the Plan the city of Minneapolis is the LGU and that there were not load allocations assigned to the Park Board.  Mr. Wyatt noted that the status of various entities as local government units or not will be clarified in the Plan.

 

Manager Blixt asked, per Mr. Vagle's question, when the Plan becomes effective.  Mr. Evenson noted that the Plan is effective when it is approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resources.  After approval by BWSR, the Plan would be returned to the Board of Managers to be adopted.  Mr. Evenson noted that the issues that had been raised were related more to the capital projects than to the rules.  He further noted that in the rulemaking process the District goes far beyond the requirements for cities with regard to public involvement and outreach.  He noted also that the rulemaking process can be controversial.

 

Manager Blixt asked whether the current rules would remain in effect until new rules were enacted.  Mr. Evenson noted that, yes, the current rules would remain in effect.

 

Manager Fisher raised the issue of drain tiles.  He noted that commenters raised the issue of the difficulty of identifying drain tiles in some circumstances.  Mr. Evenson noted that while older drain tiles can be a challenge, for the most part identification of drain tiles on properties to be developed is not an onerous requirement.  He noted that drain tile identification is part of a field survey that is an important part of property development.  Manager Fisher added that he felt it was important to ensure that the plan does not impose a requirement on cities to identify drain tiles before development.

 

Manager Calkins solicited any further comments from the Board or the audience.  Hearing none, he proceeded to item 6.1 on the Agenda, the approval of the check register.  Mr. Evenson noted that three checks had been drafted by the District after the packets had gone out to the Board members: 27009, 27010, 27011.  Mr. Evenson noted that the treasurer had reviewed the checks and approved them.  Manager Blixt moved and Manager Fisher seconded that the check register be approved, with these additions for   checks 26928 through 27011 in the total amount of $345,674.91. Upon vote, the motion carried.

 

Sunram Construction Agreement for Phase 1 of the Painter Creek Project

 

Ms. Clark reviewed the history of the Sunram construction agreement and the Painter's Creek Improvement Project.  The District had solicited bids and hired the contractor, Sunram, for work in the Painter's Creek improvement area.  Ms. Clark reviewed the communications with the seven landowners for the nine properties in the project area.  She noted that the District had received verbal approvals of the easement agreement with the landowners, surveys had been completed, and legal easements had been drafted when bids were solicited and Sunram had been hired.  Because of erroneous information the District had received with regard to ownership of the Oakview Corporation properties, numbers 6 and 10 in the project area, all easement agreements had not been signed.  Ms. Clark noted that the request before the Board was to approve a negotiated agreement with the contractor to keep him onboard while the agreements are finalized.  She noted that the agreement had been reviewed by district counsel and the engineer.  Ms. Clark noted that the request was to approve the resolution to provide the District the option to proceed next year with the project.

 

Manager Fisher asked if there was any chance that the project would be completed this year.  Ms. Clark said there was not.  Manager Blixt moved approval of the Request for Board action and Resolution 06-072.  Manager Fisher seconded the motion.  Manager Blixt questioned whether the work proposed had to be completed in wintertime.  Ms. Clark indicated that some preparatory work could be done in the fall, but that the primary work had to be done in winter.  Upon vote, the motion carried.  Mr. Evenson commended staff for their efforts to keep the project moving.

 

DISCUSSION AGENDA 

 

RULEMAKING PROCESS

 

Mr. Wisker provided the Board with a brief overview of the rulemaking and rule revision process and the public involvement process, noting that the process would be fleshed out fully in the coming months. 

 

Mr. Wisker reviewed the handout he had provided to the managers.

 

Mr. Evenson noted that while the task force review was indeed a technical one indicating, for example, where infiltration might work, it is also appropriate for task force members to comment on the impact of the proposed rules on their organizations.  Also, Mr. Evenson noted that the task force can ask general questions of the Board.

 

Manager Blixt asked about the consultant to the task force and the staffing of the task force.  Mr. Wisker noted that the Board would appoint the members and that he had hoped two of the managers would be members of the task force.  Manager Blixt asked whether Mr. Wisker would be using the services of counsel and the engineer for the task force.  Mr. Evenson noted that Mr. Whisker would not be staffing the task force by himself and that other staff and counsel would be engaged as needed.  Manager Blixt noted that based on her prior experience, it was critical to have the resources necessary to address concerns that arise during the course of the rulemaking process.  Mr. Evenson explained that in some cases staff would answer questions from the task force on the spot, and in others it would be necessary for staff to consult with legal or engineering experts and get back to the task force.  Manager Fisher noted his agreement with Manager Blixt as to the necessity of legal counsel and other professional assistance.  Manager Casale and Manager Smith agreed that staffing of the task force was critical, that the task force should not be understaffed, and that District staff should not be overburdened in the process.

 

Manager Blixt asked about the form of recommendations to the whole Board, whether it would be general guidance or specific language.  Mr. Wisker indicated that the Board would give overall direction on the rule and comment on particular standards for the rule.  From there, specific rule language would be drafted.  Manager Blixt asked whether work product would be brought to the Board as it is developed.  Mr. Wisker indicated that the process would be clearly outlined in the agendas and that recommendations would be developed and brought to the Board.  Mr. Evenson added that the Builder's Association of the Twin Cities is particularly interested in clear agendas and deadlines. 

 

Manager Blixt underscored the need for deadlines, so the rulemaking process does not drag out.  Manager Blixt also noted the importance of inviting the Army Corps of Engineers to participate in the task force.  Mr. Evenson indicated that the Army Corps would be invited. 

 

Manager Fisher noted that it was important for the task force not to feel that it needed to reach consensus on each issue.  The Board would weigh the various considerations.  Manager Fisher also noted that it would be important for the facilitator to post draft rule language as it is developed, to maintain understanding that it was not the task force's job to write rules but to provide input, to give the task force a chance to add new rules if necessary, and that the rules needed to work together as a whole.  Mr. Evenson highlighted that it would indeed be a process that would include opportunities for public input and that it is unlikely that consensus would be reached on every issue. 

 

Manager Calkins solicited comments from those in attendance.

 

Mike Salchert noted that he was nervous about the enormity of the rulemaking process, and the fact that the public would not have a chance to comment until the third phase of the rulemaking.  Mr. Salchert felt that rather than the task force following staff direction alone, the draft rules could be posted to the web as a way to invite public participation throughout the rulemaking process.

 

Bo Spurrier noted that local government representatives to the task force should be encouraged to bring other staff with expertise for discussion of specific issues.  He noted that doing so would provide greater knowledge and experience to the process as the task force proceeds.

 

Lee Gustafson commented that the time for the task force meetings had already been set and wondered whether city or agency staff might more easily participate if the meetings were earlier in the day, at 3 p.m.  Mr. Evenson noted that the District had considered convening two task forces.  But, he noted, the decision was made to have a single task force because members of the staff force want to be involved in both policy and technical issues.  With regard to scheduling, Mr. Evenson had noted that the fourth Thursday of the month had been selected to allow Board members who participate to report back to the full Board from the task force process.

 

Mr. Gustafson noted that the earlier meetings would not preclude the private sector from participating.  Those who had a keen interest in the rules would find a participant to attend.

 

Mr. Gustafson noted that it was important to allow people to sit in on the meetings and hear the debate, and that having pre-set agendas allowed persons with specific interests to attend specific meetings and in that sense is very helpful.

 

Manager Casale noted that he had not been involved in the rulemaking process before, but that he agreed with Manager Blixt's comment about the Board not redoing the whole process over again.  Manager Casale felt that it was important that the task force felt that it was heard by the Board.

 

Manager Calkins noted that it was important that the task force be informed on the policies and goals that the Board hoped to achieve.  He added that the task force should not come back with reasons why certain policies and goals could not be achieved, but rather it should come back with creative ways to achieve the goals.

 

Manager Fisher noted that he supported the idea of broad involvement of the public in the process, and that the facility chosen for the task force meeting should be able to accommodate additional participants.  Manager Fisher also noted that where the task force was in agreement with a particular position it was important that it explain its rationale. 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

There being no further business, the regular meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers was adjourned at 9:54 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Lee Keeley, Secretary

Minutes: January 18, 2007

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT

BOARD OF MANAGERS

 

January 18, 2007

CALL TO ORDER

The regular meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers was called to order by President James Calkins at 6:55 p.m. at the District offices, 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephaven, Minnesota.

 

MANAGERS PRESENT

 

Pamela Blixt, Lee Keeley, Lance Fisher, Ethel Smith, Jeffrey Casale, James Calkins and Richard Miller.

 

MANAGERS ABSENT

 

None.

 

OTHERS PRESENT

 

Eric Evenson, District Administrator; James Wisker, District Permitting Officer; Michael Wyatt, District Planner; Julie Westerlund, District Education/Communications Specialist; Michael Panzer, District Consulting Engineer; Chuck Holtman and Michael Welch, District Counsel.

 

MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR

 

None.

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

 

Mr. Evenson requested that agenda item 12.1, presentation of groundwater-related issues in the Lower Glen, be removed from the agenda.  It was moved by Manager Fisher, seconded by Manager Keeley, to approve the agenda as amended.  Upon vote, the motion carried.

 

CONSENT AGENDA

 

It was moved by Manager Fisher, seconded by Manager Keeley, to approve the consent agenda, consisting of the Checking, Petty Cash and Surety check registers, including Check register check numbers 27012 through 27084 totaling $145,494.77 .  Upon vote, the motion carried.

REGULAR AGENDA

 

Amber Woods Office Center, Permit 06-441, Erosion Control, Stormwater Management (Orono)

 

Mr. Wisker discussed a request for an exemption from stormwater management Rule N for this office complex to allow for use of a downgradient MnDOT stormwater pond.  After discussion of this request at the January 11, 2007, meeting, staff was directed to discuss with the City of Orono why it had directed the permittee to use a downstream pond instead of the underground storage option that had been proposed.  Mr. Wisker reviewed the history of the permitting of the project at the City and explained that the City was concerned primarily about maintenance issues and cost, based on a review by the City engineer.

 

Manager Fisher asked whether alternative underground storage systems had been considered.  Mr. Wisker said no alternative systems had been considered in light of City resistance to an underground system.  The exception before the Board was a last attempt to get the project moving.  Manager Fisher asked why underground storage had been proposed in the first place.  Mr. Wisker explained that it had been proposed to meet District and City stormwater management requirements.  There was further discussion of the location of the pond, and the fact that it would be expanded in conjunction with the proposed project.  Mr. Wisker explained that the proposal with the exception before the Board meets District and City stormwater requirements.  It was moved by Manager Blixt, seconded by Manager Keeley, to approve the permit in accordance with staff recommendations.  Upon vote, the motion carried.

 

Watershed Management Plan Update Public Hearing

 

Manager Calkins announced that the public hearing was still open from the December 21, 2006, meeting.  Mr. Wyatt reviewed the process to date and explained that the comment period for the plan had closed on November 21, 2006.  Responses had been issued to all commentors, and on December 21 the public hearing had been extended to this evening.  Mr. Wyatt noted that staff recommended approval of the plan with the changes he passed out in an ?Errata? sheet.

 

Mr. Evenson reviewed the key issues for commentors to date.  He explained that staff had revised the language on the preliminary plat review to clarified that it was a review of concept plans, not an approval process.  The landlocked basins policy had been clarified to explain that no outlet would be allowed unless needed for flood control.  He noted that ?infiltration? had been changed to ?abstraction? throughout the draft, and that it had been noted that absratction will be required only to the extent feasible. 

 

Manager Fisher asked if there were new issues to discuss. Mr. Evenson noted that there were people in the audience who would speak to that, but that staff had met with City of Minneapolis representatives to discuss plans to integrate stormwater capital improvement programs and develop a comprehensive systems approach to city flooding issues, combined sewer overflows and rain leader disconnects.  Mr. Evenson noted that the District's CIP would remain the same, but a feasibility study with regard to these issues would be conducted, then a minor plan amendment would be undertaken as necessary.

 

Manager Calkins asked for comments from the audience.

 

Michael Schmidt, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, referenced a January 18, 2007 letter he sent to the District with further comments.  He noted that in the MPRB's initial comments to the District, it had erred in stating that it is not a ?local government unit? under the watershed law.  He noted that the MPRB is a unique LGU, with fee title to 6,400 acres of land, and powers of taxation, condemnation, and regulation.  He noted that the MPRB owns land outside the City.  He added that the MPRB was created in 1883 by an act of the Legislature and the Minneapolis Charter.  Mr. Schmidt noted that as an LGU the MPRB worked closely with the City of Minneapolis on its local surface water management plan.  He also stated that the MPRB will prepare its own surface water management plan by the end of 2008.

 

Mr. Schmidt stated that the MPRB does not agree with the rationale in the draft plan or the technical basis for the District's water quality goals.  He stated that the MPRB wishes to participate on the rulemaking task force.  He stated that the difference between lakes in undeveloped and developed areas is not adequately reflected in the plan.   He noted that, with regard to the load allocations in the plan, internal loading is not fully understood, and that credit for work done in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's needs to be more fully developed in the plan.  He also noted that the MPRB needs to fully integrate recreational values and that the plan does not reflect this integrated approach.  He added that the MPRB does not recognize District authority to require, in the permitting process, the dedication of MPRB land for the land conservation program.

 

Mr. Schmidt noted that the MPRB comments do not indicate a change in its desire to work cooperatively with the District; the MPRB supports the intent of the plan but has concerns about its implementation.  He noted the risk of spending public money on policies without achieving results.  He also noted a need for better communication and cooperation, and asked that until these issues are resolved, the Board not adopt the plan.

 

Manager Blixt asked whether the significant change in policy, with the MPRB requesting to be recognized as an LGU and the financial commitment that accompanies that, was shared with the MPRB Commissioners.  Mr. Schmidt noted that the MPRB has been an LGU for a long time.  He said the decision has not been adopted by the Board, but it is a policy board, not an operations board. 

 

Mr. Holtman asked Mr. Schmidt whether the question of the LGU status of the MPRB is of consequence to the District Board's adoption of the plan.  Mr. Schmidt noted that he wanted to correct the earlier mistake, and that in terms of the adoption of the plan whether or not the MPRB is an LGU, its reasons for asking the Board not to adopt the plan are the same.

 

Mr. Wyatt clarified that the MPRB's comments regarding dedications to the land conservation program as a permit requirement misunderstands a comment in his response letter to the MPRB.  He noted that the land conservation program is separate from the permit and regulatory work of the District, and that all land dedications in the program are voluntary.  Mr. Evenson added that there is no requirement that any developer dedicate land for conservation and that the only time land is required to be set aside in the permitting process is for stormwater management facilities such as buffers.  Mr. Schmidt said he appreciated the clarification, and would like it in writing.

 

Manager Miller noted that the MPRB representative was before the Board tonight without a resolution from the MPRB commissioners.  Mr. Schmidt replied that he does not doubt that he is within his authority.  Manager Miller asked if the City of Minneapolis recognizes the MPRB's independent status.  Mr. Schmidt noted that the MPRB is an independent entity.  He added that the MPRB was not attacking the District, but has its concerns, though with time he believes these concerns can be worked out.  He added that with regard to the MPRB relationship with the City, specifically regarding sewage and stormwater, the MPRB has an agreement that stormwater systems are a responsibility of the City. 

 

Manager Fisher asked whether or not the MPRB is an LGU has an impact on the Board's decision tonight to approve the draft plan.  Mr. Holtman answered that he did not believe so.  The approval of the plan, he added, depends on whether the policies in the plan are scientifically sound and consistent with the Board's policy goals.  He added that the MPRB's status is a narrow legal question that would depend, in part, on interpretations under the watershed law and the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, and therefore would involve the Board of Water and Soil Resources and the Metropolitan Council.  Manager Fisher asked whether the plan identified all of the LGUs in the watershed and excluded the MPRB.  Mr. Holtman suggested that the plan could indicate that the MPRB had raised the issue of its status.  Manager Fisher asked whether, if another municipality came into existence, that would need to be accounted for in the plan.  Mr. Holtman noted that the District had no legal obligation to make a change, but that it could be in the Board's interest to assess the impact on achieving the substantive goals in the plan.  Mr. Schmidt suggested that the District had, in the past, recognized the MPRB as an LGU.

 

Manager Casale suggested that the differentiation on water quality issues between developed and undeveloped areas was addressed by the plan's subwatershed approach.  Mr. Wyatt noted that the subwatershed approach is a fundamental outgrowth of the District's H&H study, noting that what was feasible for water quality depends on subwatershed characteristics.

 

Manager Blixt noted that the issues that had been raised would not be resolved that evening, but would require ongoing efforts.  Manager Keeley commented that the District had been through a long process to develop its plan, and she is surprised that there is a new level of concern coming forward.  Mr. Schmidt replied that the MPRB has been working with staff throughout the plan development process, but that issues have not been resolved to the MPRB's satisfaction. 

 

Rhonda Rae, on behalf of the City of Minnepolis Department of Public Works and Engineering, thanked District staff for working with City staff on a number of issues, and noted that she had not seen the final revision to the plan.  Ms. Rae noted that under Chapter 103B one of the goals is to minimize public capital expenditures to control flooding and improve water quality.  She said that the comments in the City's letter had not been fully addressed except for capital programming.  Ms. Rae noted that the MPRB and the District had collaborated with the City on a project at Lake Nokomis, but that water quality goals still were not being reached.  She indicated that a great deal of money could be spent, and still the District's goals would not be reached.  Ms. Rae submitted for the record a copy of a letter from Steve Kottke, DPWE Director. 

 

Ms. Rae addressed the requirement that the City update its local plan within two years of District plan adoption.  She stated that in the City's view, it is required to update its plan only when the plans of all four watershed management organizations affecting the City have been adopted.

 

Ms. Rae suggested that watershed districts do not have authority to conduct or enforce TMDLs, and that the NPDES authority is the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.  She asked that the standards set for urban lakes be removed from the Plan.

 

Ms. Rae noted that the plan sets goals and strategies that would strongly involve the District in local land use planning.  She added that the District's insistence on reviewing land use plans is constitutionally questionable.  She suggested that the District does not have the authority to impose land use regulation on local government units.  She asked that the District remove the requirement that LGUs enter into a memorandum of understanding with the District regarding allocation of regulatory roles.  She offered that watershed districts lack general police powers and must achieve their goals through enumerated powers.

 

Ms. Rae noted that the DPWE supports the District's plan, but asked that the District adopt the changes that the City requested, or not adopt the plan and work with the City to achieve resolution.

 

Manager Fisher said that the District does not intend to dictate land use.  Mr. Evenson explained that Ms. Rae's comment concerns the provision for early District engagement in stormwater plan review, which, as he noted earlier, is being clarified.

 

Manager Casale asked the purpose of reviewing plans for development early in the process.  Mr. Wyatt explained that the intention is to work with developers and cities early to identify potential problems.  Mr. Evenson noted that the District has proposed this process to streamline the review process and save time and money for all parties.  Manager Casale asked if the intent was to educate and consult with developers.  Mr. Evenson noted that it was and that the District wished to bring low impact development techniques to the attention of developers.  Manager Fisher asked that staff clarify the District's intent, and make it clear that it is not dictating land use. 

 

Manager Smith asked if the District should just request, rather than require, early review.  Ms. Rae noted that the City already was conducting an early review process with its ?One-Stop? program, and that it has been working well.  Manager Keeley noted that the District has the capability not just to review plans but to make suggestions regarding specific techniques and assist developers.

 

Manager Fisher asked whether the plan language needs to be modified to clarify that the District is not dictating land use.  Mr. Holtman concurred that the plan language should be clarified.  Mr. Evenson read the proposed change to the language.  Manager Fisher indicated that he favored to some degree a voluntary early review provision.

 

Nancy Gibson, St. Louis Park, a biologist and LCCMR member, noted that she had seen the story in the Star Tribune about the District's plan and had reviewed the plan.  She commended the plan and urged the Board to 'stay the course.? 

 

Dick Osgood, Lake Minnetonka Association, referenced his organization's clear and consistent message that the lake needs to be managed holistically.  He noted the organization's concern with Eurasian water milfoil, and its effect on recreation and lake ecology.  He is impressed that the plan addresses the ecology of the lake.  He requested, in a cooperative spirit, that the Lake Minnetonka Association, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, and the District begin to develop a management plan for Lake Minnetonka.  He noted that the last plan is 20 years old.  His principal concern is aquatic plant management, especially Eurasian water milfoil.  He requested that the first step be taken toward development of a plan by conducting an aquatic vegetation survey this season. 

 

Mr. Evenson noted that the District is undertaking activities along the lines Mr. Osgood is suggesting, including a bathymetric survey of Lake Minnetonka.  He added that there would be more detailed discussion of vegetation issues at the first or second meeting in February, and that curly leaf pondweed and an overall lake management approach would be discussed.  Finally, Mr. Evenson noted that there is strong support from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board for a lake management plan.  Manager Fisher asked if the watershed plan calls for lake management plans.  Mr. Evenson replied that it does and that these would include aquatic vegetation surveys.  Mr. Wyatt added that the Lake Minnetonka vegetation survey is scheduled for 2008.

 

Richard Curry Smith, Minneapolis, also commended the plan.  He is an environmental anthropologist who works in the Minnesota River watershed.  He noted that he has worked in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes with the MPRB and the City of Minneapolis.  Mr. Curry Smith advised that the efforts around the Chain of Lakes encountered significant and strong resistance, which he attributed to a lack of education.  He noted that the District's plan is an ecologically based one, and that he hops there will be education efforts conducted in association with it.  Manager Keeley replied that education is a strong part of the District's focus.  Mr. Curry Smith suggested that if people understand what the plan is trying to achieve, they will support it.  He suggested that economics are on the side of the plan, because property values are increased by better conservation. 

 

Ron Sternal, a Minneapolis resident who lives near Cedar Lake, commended the District on its plan and objected to a developer's comment in the Star Tribune article that the cost to achieve zero discharge ought to be borne by the public as a whole. 

 

Holly Kraft, planner with the City of Victoria, said that the City had provided comments and received a response from the District.  She said the City still has some concern about infiltration as applied to tight clay soils in the City.  The City wishes to be involved in the rulemaking process.  She also raised a concern about the feasibility of meeting the targeted phosphorus load reduction for East Auburn Lake, and noted that Hennepin Parks needs to be involved.  Ms. Kraft urged that the technical committee work with the citizen's committee on rulemaking so that there are not late conflicts.

 

Susu Jeffrey, Friends of Coldwater, asked the managers not to forget Camp Coldwater Springs.  She reported erosion of the hill behind the spring that is in urgent need of repair.

 

There being no further public comments, it was moved by Manager Miller, seconded by Manager Smith, to close the public hearing.  Upon vote, the motion carried.

 

The public hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m.

 

Mr. Wyatt noted that staff has met with interested cities, and has resolved issues with Hennepin County and the City of Minnetonka.  He noted that many comments have been incorporated into the plan, but that more comments and new comments were received today from Minnetonka concerning TMDLs and water quality goals.  He said that the rulemaking and landlocked basins issues had been resolved.  He also noted comments from the City of Victoria and the City of Minneapolis.  Mr. Wyatt said that staff has done its due diligence in reviewing and responding to comments and that many policy issues have been discussed.  He noted that the goals and objectives of the plan are based on sound science, and that significant time and effort has been spent listening to and working with state resource agencies.  He asked that the Board adopt the proposed resolution authorizing that the plan, with recommended changes, be forwarded for final agency review.

 

Manager Keeley commended staff and the consultants on the plan, and moved adoption of the proposed resolution, seconded by Manager Smith.  Manager Blixt said that she also wanted to acknowledge staff, and especially Mr. Wyatt.  She also wanted to note that the plan is not an end, but a beginning; a number of issues will continue to be addressed by the District in a cooperative manner.  Manager Fisher said that he favors approval, but asked that staff continue to tweak the language regarding preliminary plan review. 

 

Manager Fisher asked about the local update timeline as raised by the City of Minneapolis.  Mr. Evenson replied that the update of local surface water management plans is a state statutory requirement, and that the argument is a legal one.  Manager Fisher said that all comments have been considered.  Mr. Evenson emphasized that the plan gives flexibility to cities to reach the goals set.  Manager Smith requested a grammatical correction on page 6 from ?effect? to ?affect.? 

 

Manager Fisher asked if the Board had an opinion on whether preliminary plat submittal for early District review should be required or voluntary.  Manager Casale said that if it is not required, it will not happen.  Manager Blixt concurred that the District has been requesting early review with developers with only limited success; therefore the requirement is appropriate.  Manager Smith said that it is important that the plan be clear why the review is being conducted.  Mr. Evenson replied that staff would clarify that language.  Upon vote, the motion carried.

 

Manager Miller left at this time.

 

Manager Calkins announced a break at 9:05 p.m.

 

The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m.

 

Watershed Customer Satisfaction Survey

 

Ms. Westerlund discussed a Request for Board Action to hire Richardson, Richter and Associates, Inc., to conduct a ?customer satisfaction survey? for the District.  Ms. Westerlund explained that the $24,440 cost of the survey is addressed by $20,000 from the education and communications budget and $4,400 from permitting.  Mr. Evenson explained that the survey idea came out of his last performance review with the Board.  He noted that a survey of general water awareness is being deferred to seek a joint effort with other organizations.  He remarked that the proposal before the Board is somewhat more expensive than had been anticipated, but that the District does have the funds in its budget.  He also opined that the focus group work could be coordinated with the rulemaking process.

 

It was moved by Manager Casale to approve the Request for Board Action, seconded by Manager Blixt. 

 

Manager Fisher suggested that the third component of the proposed survey, interviews with the managers, is redundant.  Manager Smith agreed, noting that managers were interviewed in conjunction with Mr. Evenson's performance review.  Manager Fisher asked if the third component of the survey could be deleted without affecting the other parts of the survey.  He also asked if City staff would participate in focus groups.  Mr. Evenson answered that he did not know if staff would participate, but that previous efforts to engage City staff had drawn good attendance.  Ms. Westerlund advised that the third component of the survey could be removed without affecting the quality of the results. 

 

The motion was amended by unanimous consent to remove the third component of the survey.  Upon vote, the main motion carried.

 

DISCUSSION AGENDA

 

Long Lake Downtown Redevelopment Feasibility Study

 

Mr. Wyatt presented the final report by the Howard R. Green Company.  Mr. Wyatt noted that the plan had been put together over the summer, after the City approached the District about participating financially in the expansion of stormwater ponds for its downtown area redevelopment.  The District declined to participate in the pond expansion, but pursued the option of the water quality improvement project that was now before the Board.

 

At this time, Manager Fisher left.

 

Mr. Wyatt discussed opportunities to implement best management practices to achieve pollutant removal at the Pioneer Museum site.  Mr. Wyatt noted that the total cost of all proposed best management practices would be $63,750.  Manager Casale asked if those costs were for treatment above and beyond District requirements.  Mr. Wyatt indicated that analysis would have to be completed to answer that question, but that the plan provided treatment for not just the Pioneer Museum site but adjacent sites as well.  Manager Casale said that if the project came forward for funding, he would want to focus on the increment of treatment beyond what is required for compliance, and the cost of that increment.  Manager Keeley asked if a diatom study has been conducted for Long Lake.  Mr. Wyatt indicated that he did not know, but would respond to Manager Keeley.

 

Mr. Wyatt next discussed the Lakeside Mews development.  The concept plan calls for a green roof and underground retention to treat stormwater.  The cost for Lakeside Mews best management practices is $690,000.

 

Mr. Wyatt discussed the Lakeview Commons development.  Best management practices proposed are underground detention with porous pavement and a rain garden with swales.  Total cost for the proposed BMPs is $138,000.

 

Finally, Mr. Wyatt discussed the Rettingers development.  He reported that the developer has moved ahead with this project.  Best management practices identified in the feasibility report include porous pavement and bioretention.

 

Mr. Wyatt said that there are other opportunities to demonstrate low impact development techniques in the area, including the Burger King site.

 

Mr. Wyatt summarized that the total phosphorus reduction achieved by implementation of the BMPs proposed would be 3.7 pounds per year, at a cost of $960,000, but that there would be education benefits to the project as well.  He is not asking for any Board action at this time, just a sense of how to proceed.

 

Manager Casale asked what phosphorus loading reduction had been achieved from the Mound project.  Mr. Wyatt replied that phosphorus would be reduced from 27 pounds per year to 9 pounds per year if the Mound plan is fully implemented. 

 

Mr. Wyatt noted that the concept plan would be presented to the City.  Manager Blixt feels that some of the alternative ideas Mr. Wyatt presented, including the shopping center site and Burger King, represent the more interesting opportunities.  Manager Blixt also said that she would like more information on all sources of subwatershed phosphorus loadings before making any decision to fund work.

 

Discussion Concerning MPRB Status

 

Manager Blixt asked whether the District should pursue further information about the MPRB's status as an LGU and follow up with the MPRB.  Mr. Wyatt said that staff had just received the MPRB's letter yesterday and that staff was consulting legal counsel on the issue.  Manager Blixt wondered whether the MPRB Commissioners had seen Mr. Schmidt's letter to the District. 

 

Manager Casale believes the District should respond, especially to clarify that the land conservation program rests on purely voluntary landowner involvement.  He noted that three of the issues brought up by Mr. Schmidt are misunderstandings of the plan that need to be addressed. 

 

Manager Keeley asked whether there should be clarification of the LGU issue.  Manager Blixt said that the District's letter should outline the obligations of an LGU under the watershed law, to ensure the MPRB understands those responsibilities.  Mr. Holtman added that the MPRB also would assume responsibilities under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.

 

It was moved by Manager Casale, seconded by Manager Blixt that staff send a response letter to the MPRB.  Mr. Holtman advised that the District had not yet evaluated the MPRB's claim to be an LGU.  He recommended that rather than take a position on the question, the response letter could simply indicate that the District would review the question and could describe the MPRB's responsibilities under the watershed and metropolitan planning laws.

 

The Board concurred.  Manager Calkins asked whether the MPRB or City of Minneapolis had raised any new questions of District authority.  Mr. Holtman replied that in counsel's view, the plan and its elements are within the District's legal authority provided the technical basis is sound.

 

By unanimous consent, the motion was amended to direct staff to directly copy the letter to all MPRB Commissioners and to all others copied on Mr. Schmidt's letter. Upon vote, the main motion carried.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

There being no further business, the regular meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Lee Keeley, Secretary

Appendix C

GENERAL LGU REQUIREMENTS
Local Plans must meet the general requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 as well as the requirements of the District's Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP). Individual subwatershed plans and specialized studies such as the Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and Pollutant Loading Study (HHPLS) identify on a more detailed basis particular issues of concern to the District that must be addressed in the Local Water Management Plans. These are summarized for each city in an Appendix to the WRMP. General requirements are summarized below. Refer to the WRMP for more specific details and LGU requirements.


1. Describe the existing and proposed physical environment and land use.
2. Define drainage areas and the volumes, rates, and paths of stormwater runoff, including a map of the stormwater system.
3. Include a stormwater system map that shows ponds, streams, lakes and wetlands that are part of your system; structural pollution control devices (grit chambers, separators, etc.) that are part of your system; pipes and pipe sizes and other conveyances in your system; and outfalls and all other points of discharge from your system that are outlets.
4. Identify areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance standards established in the subwatershed plans.
5. Identify areas of known flooding and areas identified in the HHPLS where modeling predicts that public roads, private roads, or private drives might overtop during infrequent events or there may be minimal freeboard above the flood level. Local plans must assess whether the risk of occasional flooding is acceptable or should be addressed, and set forth a plan for making improvements as necessary.
6. Identify land-locked subwatershed units and basins and strategies to manage water volumes in those land-locked areas to minimize flooding.
7. Assess the condition of locations identified in the HHPLS where modeling predicts that under existing or future development conditions higher velocities than desired may result in erosion at outlets or culverts, potentially warranting erosion control or energy dissipation. The local plan must assess the need for such measures, and set forth a plan for making improvements as necessary to correct existing or prevent future erosion.
8. Define water quality and water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan.
9. Identify specific steps you will take to achieve the annual phosphorus load reductions assigned in the subwatershed plans affecting your community.
10. Identify regulated areas, such as Outstanding Resource Value Waters.
11. Identify Key Conservation Areas in the WRMP in your community, and assess the adequacy of local policies and regulatory controls in place to conserve hydrologic and ecologic values of the resources within those Areas. The plan must set forth a plan and schedule for the amendment of those policies and controls as necessary to meet performance standards established in the subwatershed plans.
12. Assess the consistency of the LGU's wetland regulation, including any wetland classification system and specific wetland classifications, with the management classifications, classification system and proposed regulation set forth in this Plan.
13. Set forth an implementation program, including a description of official controls and, as appropriate, a capital improvement program.
14. Describe your permitting process for land and wetland alteration work, including an assessment of the adequacy of current official controls and a plan and schedule for the amendment of those controls as necessary.
15. Describe your conformance with NPDES requirements for MS4s including TMDL and Nondegradation requirements. The local plan must include the LGU's Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP) or a summary of its contents.


Integration with Land Use Planning
As a part of the Local Water Management Plan and City Comprehensive Plan development process, LGUs should carefully examine how water resources management and protection can be integrated into land use planning and development. The District will look for each local plan to do the following:


1. Examine city- or township-wide land use needs, both within the planning period and beyond, in the context of resource maps and inventories; and describe how land use and regional water resource needs are being reconciled to secure the greatest degree of long-term water resource protection.
2. Describe efforts to integrate Safe Drinking Water Act and other wellhead protection plans, as well as the protection of sensitive surface- and groundwater resources, into the local zoning code.
3. Describe how water resource protection priorities have been integrated into local parks, open space, recreation and land acquisition plans.
4. Describe how local authority to require land or easement dedication or protective covenants as a part of subdivision regulation is being used for water resource protection purposes.
5. Consult with District staff on approaches to low-impact site design that preserve natural hydrological systems and capability to assimilate development impacts; examine how those approaches can be integrated into local land use regulations; describe constraints or competing concerns that prevent further integration; and describe how you will integrate such approaches into your development code.
6. Identify how conflicts between (i) development code setbacks and (ii) water resource requirements in local ordinances or District rules will be reconciled to give due weight to water resource protection goals.
7. Show that your development code requires stormwater facilities and wetlands in residential subdivisions that are subject to future maintenance obligations under local ordinance or District rule to be located entirely on outlots, and justify exceptions to this requirement.
8. State that the local subdivision ordinance requires, or within 180 days will be amended to require, that a copy of each proposed preliminary plat, and iterations thereof, be provided to the District for informational purposes at the time it is submitted to the locality.

Housekeeping Requirements


The WRMP does not obligate LGUs to specific land management and housekeeping practices. Rather, you should consider changes in these practices as one set of tools to achieve water resource performance goals. The Local Plan should:


1. Describe current practices.
2. Examine potential improvements in these practices.
3. Identify any barriers to implementing these improvements.
4. Indicate what changes the LGU will make.
5. Describe, with appropriate quantification, the impact these changes are expected to have toward achieving water quality and other water resource goals.

Permit Program


In accordance with statute, on the request of a city or township, the District will cease to apply its rules and permit requirements within the boundaries of that LGU on its approval of the local water plan. To approve a local plan, however, the District must find that the local permit program is at least as protective of water resources as the District rules. An LGU may meet this standard by stating in the plan that it is authorizing the District to continue to apply its rules within the locality. Alternatively, if an LGU wishes to assume the sole regulatory role, the District will evaluate its plan according to the following:


1. The local plan must identify those District rules for which it wishes to assume sole regulatory authority.
2. For those District rules, the local plan must include existing or proposed ordinances for a District determination that they are at least as protective of water resources as the District rules.
3. Procedural details of local ordinances may differ from District rules provided they do not compromise water resource protection.
4. The local plan must describe a compliance monitoring and enforcement program in adequate detail.
5. For those areas for which the LGU wishes to assume sole authority, it must describe the technical expertise it has or will acquire to implement its ordinances, describe how it will monitor and enforce compliance, and present an estimate of its annual cost to implement its program.
6. The local plan must state whether the LGU intends to assume the role of ?local government unit? responsible to implement the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act within that part of the LGU that lies within the watershed, or whether it chooses for the District to assume that role. If the former, it must describe the technical expertise it has or will acquire to implement WCA, describe how it will monitor and enforce WCA compliance, and present an estimate of its annual cost to implement and enforce WCA.
7. The local plan must state that within one year after the District provides notice that it has significantly revised a District rule, the LGU will submit for District approval, adopt and put into effect a revised ordinance consistent with the District rule change (the LGU should allow 60 days for District review). If the LGU chooses not to make the revision, it can simply authorize the District to apply its revised rule within LGU boundaries.
8. If an LGU chooses to exercise sole regulatory authority with respect to one or more District rules, the District's approval of the local plan will be given effect through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) executed by the District and the LGU. The MOU will:
     a. Describe the regulatory roles of each party;
     b. State that the District must approve the granting of any variance to a water resource ordinance by the LGU;
     c. Specify ongoing or periodic communication between the District and the LGU to allow for District awareness of the LGU's water resource permitting activity; and
     d. Reserve the District's ability to exercise its regulatory authority within LGU boundaries if the LGU is not implementing its regulatory program in accordance with its local plan.

Appendix D