Loading...
2001-02-26 Agenda PktAGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Monday, February 26, 2001 7:00 P.M. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes — January 22, 2001 III. Surface Water Management Plan — Second Generation Planning IV. Discuss Management of City Nature Areas V. Other Business VI. Adjourn G:\Environmental Comm ission\Agendas\022601.doc GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes January 22, 2001 Present: Richard Baker, Nancy Burke, David Fellman, Dawn Hill, Alan Kuentz City Staff: Jeff Oliver, City Engineer; Al Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator; Deb Somers, Administrative Secretary Absent: Alicia Brown and Sue Hess I. Call to Order Called to order at 7:00 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes — December 20, 2000 No changes. MOTION: Moved by Fellman, seconded by Baker, approve the minutes of the December 20, 2000 meeting as submitted. III. General Mills Uadate: An agreement, in principal, has been reached, between General Mills and the DNR to discontinue General Mills' once through cooling system. As a result, the EAW for the General Mills Nature Preserve has been indefinitely postponed. Due to the Pillsbury acquisition, General Mills is planning to expand their main campus by constructing a 324,000 sq. ft. office tower and four -level parking ramp for the Pillsbury employees, with the potential for another 275,000 sq. ft. in the future. The DNR is to provide the official written agreement to extend the existing permit until the new building is operational with a conventional heating, ventilating and air conditioning system. General Mills would like to move the Pillsbury staff as soon as possible and plan to complete the new building within 2-5 years. General Mills must prepare a mandatory EAW for the new office tower through the City Planning and Development department. There are several issues regarding the new construction such as flood plain, wetlands and traffic that need to be worked out. The status of the Bassett Creek Nature Preserve is unknown. General Mills does plan to use a portion of the proposed land for flood plain mitigation. Hill advised that the Commission's comments did not get presented, however, it is part of the packet of comments regarding the EAW. Fellman remarked that the comments that came in from various environmental agencies were interesting. For the record, Fellman corrected himself regarding his explanation of the sucking out of water from Medicine Lake. The actual term for this is induced recharge. Several agencies commented that the induced recharge issue needed work in the document. All major environmental agencies called for an environmental impact study if the General Mills EAW would have been approved. IV. Review Stormwater CIP: Oliver explained that every year the City reviews the five-year plan process for the stormwater CIP. A portion of the stormwater funds is dedicated to the CIP from the additional fee on each resident's water bill. Oliver distributed a draft of the stormwater CIP for 2001-2005. Staff needs to review this plan with the City Finance department and some items may be reorganized. 2000 (Projects Started/Approved CIP) a. Reconstruction of Culvert on Bassett Creek — Completed b. Minnaqua Pond — Work is in progress. c. Hampshire Pond — Pond construction completed, landscaping work to begin shortly. 2001 a. Residential Storm Sewer Improvements (Pavement Management Program) — Ongoing. b. Pond & Flood Storage — Boone Ave & Golden Valley Rd (Purchase Property) — This will be combined with Pond & Flood Storage in 2003. c. Stream Bank Stabilization — Bassett Creek (Inventory). This to be completed by either the City or the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC). The City may pay for the inventory. d. Water Quality Ponding — Perpich Center for the Arts High School. The City hopes this project will be completed this year. e. Cost Participation with City of Crystal/Residential Storm Sewer Improvements. This is for Pavement Management work to be done on 34th Avenue between Regent Avenue North and TH 100. It also includes improvements to the storm sewer that runs in the backyards Golden Valley resident's on 34th Avenue. 2002 a. Residential Storm Sewer Improvements (Pavement Management Program) 18411110 a. Residential Storm Sewer Improvements — (Pavement Management Program). b. Pond & Flood Storage — Boone Avenue & Golden Valley Road (Construct Pond). This to be done if the City is successful in their bid to purchase the property. c. Stream Bank Stabilization — Bassett Creek (Stabilization Program). Lundstrom is unsure where the first stabilization will occur. This to be identified in the near future. d. Pond Retrofits — Brookview Park. Crews are to change piping/elevation to gain benefits. e. Pond Bank Stabilization — Brookview Park. Some pond banks are sloughing. 2004 a. Residential Storm Sewer Improvements (Pavement Management Program). b. Stream Bank Stabilization — Bassett Creek (Stabilization Project). 2005 a. Residential Storm Sewer Improvements (Pavement Management Program). b. Stream Bank Stabilization — Bassett Creek (Stabilization Project). Staff will meet within a few weeks to begin reviewing the "wish list". They will be looking at grants for funding to complete these projects. Management of the 2001 CIP will be discussed, with approval in March 2001. V. Environmental Education Update: Lundstrom provided an update of current Environmental Education projects, which are listed below. The Phase 2 Storm Water Rules and the Second Generation Planning are both due in the next two years. The City has purchased a video outlining the effects of using phosphorous fertilizers. Lundstrom played the video, which will be placed on the City's web site. The video could be used as an "education in a box" tool and taken to schools, etc. It will be located under Water Resources on the web site. Lundstrom and Cheryl Weiler, Communications Coordinator, have hired a company to design a new theme for environmental education brochures. The Shade Tree and Compost brochures have been completed. Lundstrom distributed a copy of each brochure to all present. Weiler is working on the Recycling brochure. The Recyclopedia will not be redesigned to match the other brochures, as a metro group produces it. A list is being created of all lake front property owners. In the future, publications will be mailed to them regarding issues pertinent to their situations. Lundstrom is in the process of completing the Environmental Communications Plan. He is working on completion of the final dates listed in the back of the plan. Once the plan is in final form, it will be brought back to the Commission. VI. Overview of Recycling Program: Curbside Recycling Currently the City provides curbside pickup for brush (spring only) and leaf drop off (fall only). Other recyclables being picked up include, glass, newspaper, mixed paper, etc. Golden Valley, Minnetonka and Plymouth have signed a new joint contract with Waste Management. During negotiations, Waste Management's proposed cost to haul and process recyclables was $46 per ton. BFI, the other bidder, proposed a $48 per ton cost. As a part of the plan, Waste Management offered to refund 100% of the dollars over the processing fee ($46/ton) and return it to each city. Waste Management also offered to pickup recyclable aerosol cans, paint cans, empty plastics with residual auto fluids. Golden Valley does not want to recycle aerosol cans as they can explode during compaction in the truck. Staff also did not want paint cans and automotive plastics that might contain fluid to be recycled at this time. Approximately 65% of Golden Valley residents participate in the curbside recycling program. Residents living in a 1-4 plex home pay $4 per quarter for curbside recycling. Any apartment complex that is larger than a four-plex is considered commercial and cannot be a part of the curbside recycling program. Owners of these apartment buildings usually offer a recycling program by providing large dumpsters for various recyclables. Sandra Thorn at Hennepin County can help set up a program for complexes larger than a four-plex. As a result of the negotiations, wet strength paper was added to the curbside recyclables. This includes pop and beer cases. Not allowed are freezer boxes with a waxy outside finish and used pizza boxes due to possible contamination. The inside paper liner in cereal boxes should be removed prior to recycling. Golden Valley receives Governor's Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) funds from Hennepin County. These funds are based upon the amount of Certified Dwelling Units (CDU's), 1-4 plex. Spring Brush Pickup Residents like the spring brush pickup program. The City has been running this program smoothly for years. Residents are mailed a postcard advising of the date of the brush pickup in their area. In a three-week span of time, the City collects between 4,000 — 6,500 cubic yards of brush. The brush has been taken to SRG Recycling in Anoka County (the facility is actually in Andover). Fall Leaf Drop -Off Residents bring leaves to the Brookview Park parking area for recycling. The City provides four days (two weekends) for residents to bring their leaves. This past year, crews collected 530 cubic yards of compacted leaves for compost. This equals between 17-20 garbage truck hauls. VII. Other Business: Expiration of Environmental Commission Terms: Alan Kuentz and Nancy Burke's terms on the Environmental Commission will expire March 2001. Oliver asked if they wanted to remain members of the Commission. Both do. Oliver will advise the Mayor of their desire to continue as members of the Environmental Commission. 2001 Meeting Dates: Oliver distributed the list of Environmental Commission meetings for 2001. There are conflicts with the schedule on May 28, 2001 and December 24, 2001. Fellman suggested changing those two meetings to May 21, 2001 and December 17, 2001, respectively. MOVED by Fellman, seconded by Burke, and the motion carried unanimously to change the May 28, 2001 and December 24, 2001 Environmental Commission meeting to May 21, 2001 and December 17, respectively. Staff will advise members of the location of these two meetings. Sheriff's Firing Range: Kuentz asked where the sheriff's firing range is located. Oliver advised that it is located just west of the James Ford Bell Center on eleven acres of land. The City has an option to acquire the land for possible housing in the firing range open area. The surrounding neighborhood is to decide what will happen with this property. Management Practices for Parks: Oliver distributed new colored City maps to all Commission members. Somers to send a map to Brown and Hess. The map lists nature areas and parks. Kuentz asked who was responsible for these areas. Oliver stated that various divisions of the Public Works Maintenance department are responsible for maintaining these areas, depending of the issue. Joint Meeting with Open Space and Recreation Commission: Kuentz asked to meet with the Open Space and Recreation Commission. Oliver stated that this is on a future agenda for management (inventory) plan. If the Stormwater CIP is approved, staff will do the inventory. After completion of the inventory, the Environmental Commission will meet with the Open Space and Recreation Commission. VIII. Adjourn MOVED by Kuentz, seconded by Burke, and motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The next meeting will be held on February 26, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, —Co'O,b'� Deb Somers Administrative Secretary Department of Public Works city 0f Go en a Id wwwxIle y i.golden-valley. mn. us March 20, 2001 DAWN L HILL City Hall ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 7800 Golden Valley Road 2000 KELLY DR Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427 763-593-8000 763-593-8109 (fax) 763-593-3968 (TDD) Subject: Proposed Bassett Creek Nature Preserve Environmental Assessment Worksheet Mayor and Council 763-593-8006 Dear Ms. Hill: City Manager Thank you for submitting your comments and questions regarding the proposed 763-593-8002 Bassett Creek Nature Preserve and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Public Safety that was prepared by General Mills, the project's proponent, and the City of Police: 763-593-8079 Golden Valley. Fire: 763-593-8055 will be submitted to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) in late March. The 763-593-8098 (fax) I am writing to let you know that General Mills has recently withdrawn its proposal Planning and zoning to build a nature preserve. The company has decided to terminate the use of its Works once through cooling system pursuant to construction of new cooling towers as 763-593-8030 part of a proposed expansion at the General Mills Headquarters site located at 763-593 3988 (fax) Number One General Mills Boulevard in Golden Valley. Inspections 763-593-8090 The proposed expansion of the headquarters site requires preparation of a new 763-593-3997 (fax) Environmental Assessment Worksheet. This worksheet has been prepared and, pending authorization by the Golden Valley City Council, it is anticipated that it Motor Vehicle Licensing will be submitted to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) in late March. The 763-593-8101 worksheet will also be available on the City's web site (www.ci.golden- Planning and zoning valley.mn.us), at the Golden Valley City Hall and at the Golden Valley Branch of 763-593-8095 the Hennepin County Library. It is expected that the comment period will run from April 2 to May 2, 2001. Finance 763-593-8013 If you have questions, please contact me at 763-593-8035. Assessing Sincerely, 763-593-8020 q.�� DN)Uy Park and Recreation 200 Brookview Parkway Golden Valley, MN 55426-1364 Jeannine Clancy 763-512-2345 Director of Public Works 763-512-2344 (fax) 763-593-3968 (TDD) C: William S. Joynes, City Manager Peter Smith, General Mills Larry Sawyer, General Mills GAProjects\Bassett Creek Nature Preserve\Correspondence\Withdrawal of EAW.doc 21.Mar 01 17:01 Ltjnch Rssoc 952-492-3155 p.2 HYDROLOGICIHYDRAULIC AND POLLUTANT LOADING MODEL OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED 2/01/01 The Proiect The Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) hired a team of consultants to develop and implement an integrated district -wide hydrologic and pollutant data system. The objective is to develop a data management system for the entire watershed that would allow the District to track changes in the watershed and determine the resultant impacts to the District's water resources. The program will be patterned after the approach used to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for pollutant loading to water bodies as outlined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. It is estimated that the entire project will take three years. There are six work areas envisioned to accomplish this project: Watershed Data Collection & Geographic Information System (GIS) Construction; Hydraulic and Hydrologic Modeling (H/H); Public Involvement; TMDL Modeling; TMDL Implementation and Groundwater Analysis. Public Involvement The Public Involvement Component is a collaborative process that promotes stakeholder understanding, involvement and support throughout the entire project. It is designed to meet the following key objectives: •Maintain and enhance MCWD's working relationships *Capture stakeholder interest and involvement .Develop and enhance stakeholder understanding .Progressively integrate city, county and state resources A comprehensive and well-defined community process minimizes conflict. The stakeholder participation for this project is comprehensive and includes: regional teams, a project advisory committee, a technical advisory committee and regional source groups. A Regional Team Approach The Upper (Lake Minnetonka) and Lower Watershed (Minnehaha Creek) are divided into "Regional Teams." These Teams are developed based upon similar land uses, such as: housing densities, lot sizes, open space, recreational uses, transportation, commercial and industrial uses and infrastructure. These Teams are the foundation for the public participation process. The Teams are comprised of representatives from the District's local governments, businesses, nonprofit organizations and citizens. 21 Mar 01 17:01 Lynch Assoc 952-492-3155 P.3 Their role is to help identify pollutants, sources of pollution and to develop a process to involve point source and non -point source stakeholders in the development of a wasteload reduction plan. They engage those stakeholders in definition of the problems, enhance education regarding pollutants and facilitate their involvement in the development of options and the development of a wasteload reduction plan. Lower Watershed Team 1 --Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, Edina and Richfield Team 2 --Hopkins and Minnetonka Upper Watershed Team 3 --Plymouth, Wayzata, Woodland and Deephaven Team 4 --Medina, Long Lake and Orono Team 5 --Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood and Shorewood Team 6 --Mound, Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach Team 7 --Victoria, Chanhassen, Laketown Township and Waconia Township Team 8 --Watertown Township, Minnetrista and St. Bonifacius Team 9 --Independence and Maple Plain Regional Team Meetings Each Team will have 12-15 members. The Teams are expected to meet 4 times from the 4th quarter 2000 until the 2nd quarter of 2002. The first meeting is anticipated to be within the next month. The meeting time and location will be convenient to the participants. Currently, a list of possible participants is being compiled. For more information, please contact Diane Lynch, Public Participation Coordinator, Lynch Associates at 952-492-7722. 2 United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-001 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 1.0 E PA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule An Overview Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Why Is the Phase II Storm Water Program Necessary? Fact Sheet Series Since the passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the quality of our Nation's waters has Overview improved dramatically. Despite this progress, however, degraded waterbodies still exist. According to the 1996 National Water QualityInvento(Inventory),rya biennial summary of 1.0 - Storm Water Phase II Final State surveys of water quality, approximately 40 percent of surveyed U.S. waterbodies are Rule: An Overview still impaired by pollution and do not meet water quality standards. A leading source of this Small MS4 Program impairment is polluted runoff. In fact, according to the Inventory, 13 percent of impaired rivers, 21 percent of impaired lake acres and 45 percent of impaired estuaries are affected by 2.0 -Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview urban/suburban storm water runoff and 6 percent of impaired rivers, 11 percent of impaired lake acres and 11 percent of impaired estuaries are affected by construction site discharges. 2.1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s Phase I of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's s (EPA) storm water program was promulgated in 1990 under the CWA. Phase I relies on National Pollutant Discharge 2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage to address storm water runoff from: (1) "medium" and "large" municipal separate storm sewers stems (MS4s) generally serving Minimum Control Measures populations of 100,000 or greater, (2) construction activity disturbing 5 acres of land or greater, and (3) ten categories of industrial activity. 2.3 - Public Education and Outreach The Storm Water Phase II Final Rule is the next step in EPA's effort to preserve, protect, 2.4 - Public Participationl and improve the Nation's water resources from polluted storm water runoff. The Phase II Involvement program expands the Phase I program by requiring additional operators of MS4s in urbanized 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection areas and operators of small construction sites, through the use of NPDES permits, to and Elimination implement programs and practices to control polluted storm water runoff. See Fact Sheets 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff 2.0 and 3.0 for overviews of the Phase II programs for MS4s and construction activity. Control 2.7 - Post -Construction Runoff Phase II is intended to further reduce adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat by Control instituting the use of controls on the unregulated sources of storm water discharges that have the greatest likelihood of causing continued environmental degradation. The environmental 2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping problems associated with discharges from MS4s in urbanized areas and discharges resulting from construction activity are outlined below. 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements MS4s in Urbanized Areas Storm water discharges from MS4s in urbanized areas are a concern because of the high 2.10 - Federal and State -Operated MS4s: Program Implementation concentration of pollutants found in these discharges. Concentrated development in urbanized areas substantially increases impervious surfaces, such as city streets, driveways, Construction Program parking lots, and sidewalks, on which pollutants from concentrated human activities settle 3.0 - Construction Program and remain until a storm event washes them into nearby storm drains. Common pollutants Overview include pesticides, fertilizers, oils, salt, litter and other debris, and sediment. Another 3.1- Construction Rainfall concern is the possible illicit connections of sanitary sewers, which can result in fecal Erosivity Waiver coliform bacteria entering the storm sewer system. Storm water runoff picks up and transports these and other harmful pollutants then discharges them - untreated - to Industrial "No Exposure" waterways via storm sewer systems. When left uncontrolled, these discharges can result in 4.0 - Conditional No Exposure fish kills, the destruction of spawning and wildlife habitats, a loss in aesthetic value, and Exclusion for Industrial Activity contamination of drinking water supplies and recreational waterways that can threaten public health. Fact Sheet 1.0 — Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Page 2 Construction Activity Uncontrolled runoff from construction sites is a water quality concern because of the devastating effects that sedimentation can have on local waterbodies, particularly small streams. Numerous studies have shown that the amount of sediment transported by storm water runoff from construction sites with no controls is significantly greater than from sites with controls. In addition to sediment, construction activities yield pollutants such as pesticides, petroleum products, construction chemicals, solvents, asphalts, and acids that can contaminate storm water runoff. During storms, construction sites may be the source of sediment -laden runoff, which can overwhelm a small stream channel's capacity, resulting in streambed scour, streambank erosion, and destruction of near - stream vegetative cover. Where left uncontrolled, sediment - laden runoff has been shown to result in the loss of in -stream habitats for fish and other aquatic species, an increased difficulty in filtering drinking water, the loss of drinking water reservoir storage capacity, and negative impacts on the navigational capacity of waterways. Are Municipally Operated Sources Exempted by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 Affected by the Final Rule? Provisions within ISTEA temporarily delayed the deadline for Phase I industrial activities (with the exception of power plants, airports, and uncontrolled sanitary landfills) operated by municipalities with populations of less than 100,000 people to obtain an NPDES storm water discharge permit. Congress delayed the permitting deadline for these facilities to allow small municipalities additional time to comply with NPDES requirements. The Phase II Final Rule ended this temporary exemption from permitting and set a deadline of no later than March 10, 2003 for all ISTEA- exempted municipally operated industrial activities to obtain permit coverage. How Was the Phase II Final Rule Developed? EPA developed the Phase II Final Rule during extensive consultations with a cross-section of interested stakeholders brought together on a subcommittee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and with representatives of small entities participating in an advisory process mandated under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. In addition, EPA considered comments submitted by over 500 individuals and organizations during a 90 -day public comment period on the proposed rule. Why Does Part of the Phase II Final Rule Use a Question and Answer Format? The provisions pertaining to operators of small MS4s are written in a "readable regulation" form that uses the "plain language" method. Questions and answers are used to create more reader -friendly and understandable regulations. The plain language method uses "must" instead of "shall" to indicate a requirement and words like "should," "could," or "encourage" to indicate a recommendation or guidance. Who Is Covered by the Phase II Final Rule? The final rule "automatically" covers two classes of storm water dischargers on a nationwide basis: (1) Operators of small MS4s located in "urbanized areas" as delineated by the Bureau of the Census. A "small" MS4 is any MS4 not already covered by Phase I of the NPDES storm water program. See Fact Sheets 2.1 and 2.2 for more information on small MS4 coverage. (2) Operators of small construction activities that disturb equal to or greater than 1 (one) and less than 5 (five) acres of land. See Fact Sheet 3.0 for more information on small construction activity coverage. Waivers Permitting authorities may waive "automatically designated" Phase II dischargers if the dischargers meet the necessary criteria. See Fact Sheets 2.1 (small MS4 waivers overview), 3.0 (construction waivers overview) and 3.1 (construction rainfall erosivity waiver) for details. Phased -in Permit Coverage Permitting authorities may phase-in permit coverage for small MS4s serving jurisdictions with a population under 10,000 on a schedule consistent with a State watershed permitting approach. Additional Designations by the Permitting Authority Small MS4s located outside of urbanized areas, construction activity disturbing less than 1 acre, and any other storm water discharges can be designated for coverage if the NPDES permitting authority or EPA determines that storm water controls are necessary. See Fact Sheet 2.1 for more information on the designation of small MS4s located outside of urbanized areas. Fact Sheet 1.0 — Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Page 3 What Does the Phase II Final Rule Require? Operators of Phase II -designated small MS4s and small construction activity are required to apply for NPDES permit coverage, most likely under a general rather than individual permit, and to implement storm water discharge management controls (known as "best management practices" (BMPs)). Specific requirements for each type of discharge are listed below. Small MS4s ❑ A regulated small MS4 operator must develop, implement, and enforce a storm water management program designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from their MS4 to the "maximum extent practicable," to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the CWA. The rule assumes the use of narrative, rather than numeric, effluent limitations requiring implementation of BMPs. ❑ The small MS4 storm water management program must include the following six minimum control measures: public education and outreach; public participation/involvement; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction site runoff control; post -construction runoff control; and pollution prevention/good housekeeping. See Fact Sheets 2.3 through 2.8 for more information on each measure, including BMPs and measurable goals. ❑ A regulated small MS4 operator must identify its selection of BMPs and measurable goals for each minimum measure in the permit application. The evaluation and assessment of those chosen BMPs and measurable goals must be included in periodic reports to the NPDES permitting authority. See Fact Sheet 2.9 for more information on permitting and reporting. Small Construction Activity ❑ The specific requirements for storm water controls on small construction activity will be defined by the NPDES permitting authority on a State -by -State basis. ❑ EPA expects that the NPDES permitting authorities will use their existing Phase I general permits for large construction activity as a guide for their Phase II permits for small construction activity. If this occurs, a storm water pollution prevention plan will likely be required for small construction activity. See Fact Sheet 3.0 for more information on potential program requirements and appropriate BMPs for small construction activity. What Is the Phase II Program Approach? The Phase II program, based on the use of federally enforceable NPDES permits: ❑ Encourages the use of general permits; ❑ Provides flexibility for regulated operators to determine the most appropriate storm water controls; ❑ Allows for the recognition and inclusion of existing NPDES and non-NPDES storm water programs in Phase II permits; ❑ Includes public education and participation efforts as primary elements of the small MS4 program; ❑ Attempts to facilitate and promote watershed planning and to implement the storm water program on a watershed basis; and ❑ Works toward a unified and comprehensive NPDES storm water program with Phase I of the program. How Does the Phase II Final Rule Address the Phase I Industrial "No Exposure" Provision? In addition to establishing a deadline for ISTEA facilities and designating two new classes of dischargers, the Phase II Final Rule revises the "no exposure" provision originally included in the 1990 regulations for Phase I of the NPDES storm water program. The provision was remanded to EPA for further rulemaking and, subsequently, included in its revised form in the Phase II rule. Under the Phase II Final Rule, a conditional no exposure exclusion is available to operators of all categories of Phase I regulated industrial activity (except category (x) construction activity) who can certify that all industrial materials and activities are protected by a storm resistant shelter to prevent exposure to rain, snow, snowmelt, and/or runoff. To obtain the no exposure exclusion, written certification must be submitted to the NPDES permitting authority. The final rule includes a No Exposure Certification form for use only by operators of industrial activity in areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. See Fact Sheet 4.0 for more information on the conditional no exposure exclusion for industrial activity. Fact Sheet 1.0 — Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Page 4 What Is the Phase II Program Implementation "Tool Box?" EPA is committed to providing tools to facilitate implementation of the final Phase II storm water program in an effective and cost-efficient manner. The "tool box" will include the following components: ® Fact Sheets; ® Guidance Documents; ® Menu of BMPs; ® Information Clearinghouse/Web Site; ® Training and Outreach Efforts; ® Technical Research; ® Support for Demonstration Projects; and ® Compliance Monitoring/Assistance Tools. A preliminary working toolbox is available on EPA's web site at www.epa.gov/owm/sw/toolbox. Three years after publication of the final rule, when the general permits are issued, a fully operational tool box is scheduled to be available. What Is the Schedule for the Phase II Rule? ❑ The Phase II Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999 (64 FR 68722). ❑ The Conditional No Exposure Exclusion option is available February 7, 2000, in States where EPA is the permitting authority. ❑ The NPDES permitting authority will issue general permits for Phase II -designated small MS4s and small construction activity by December 9, 2002. ❑ Operators of Phase II "automatically" designated regulated small MS4s and small construction activity must obtain permit coverage within 90 days of permit issuance. ❑ The NPDES permitting authority may phase-in coverage for small MS4s serving jurisdictions with a population under 10,000 on a schedule consistent with a State watershed permitting approach. ❑ Operators of regulated small MS4s must fully implement their storm water management programs by the end of the first permit term, typically a 5 -year period. For Additional Information Contacts U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management • Phone: 202 260-5816 • E-mail: SW2@epa.gov • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 Ew Your NPDES Permitting Authority. (A list of names and telephone numbers for each U.S. EPA Region is included in Fact Sheet 2.9. A list that includes State storm water contacts can be obtained by contacting the U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management.) Reference Documents ow Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 9w Storm Water Phase II Final Rule (64 FR 68722) • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 • Contact the U.S. EPA Water Resource Center — Phone: 202 260-7786 — E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov Or What is the Phase II Implementation schedule? The dates below are approximate. Specific compliance dates will be set by each NPDES permitting authority as it changes appropriate regulations and issues general permits. • December 8, 1999: The final Phase II rule is published in the Federal Register, with Conditional No Exposure Exclusion option available 60 days later for facilities for which EPA is the permitting authority. • October 2000 (1 year from the date of signature of the final rule): EPA is obligated to issue a menu of recommended BMPs for regulated small MS4s. • October 2001 (1 year after the issuance of the menu of BMPs): EPA is obligated to issue guidance on the development of measurable goals for regulated small MS4s. • December 8, 2002 (3 years from the date of publication of the final rule): The NPDES permitting authorities are required to issue general permits for Phase II regulated small MS4s and small (less than 5 acre) construction activity. • March 10, 2003 (3 years and 90 days from the date of publication of the final rule, or by the time specified in the permit): Operators of Phase II regulated small MS4s and small construction activity are required to obtain permit coverage. • By the end of their first permit terms (typically 5 years), operators of regulated small MS4s would have to fully implement their storm water management programs. Return to Top of Page How can one obtain more Information on the Phase II Program Effort? More information can be obtained by calling EPA's Storm Water Phase II Rule Hotline at (202) 260-5816, or by sending an e-mail to sw2Qa,epa.gov. Return to Too of Page Storm Water Program I NPDES I OWM I OW I EPA I Contact Us I Search Disclaimer: The information contained on these pages is a general statement of policy. It does not establish or affect legal rights or obligations. It does not establish a binding norm and is not finally determinative of the issues addressed. Agency decisions in any particular case will be made by applying the law and regulations to the specific facts of the case. This applies to all pages in the NPDES Storm Water Program web hierarchy (http://www.epa.gov/ownVsw/...). This page was last updated on August 3, 2000. 1 nf4 02/26/2001 9:40 AM 1n Water Small MS4 Program Requirements limitations in the form of measurable goals. The six Minimum Control Measures http://www.epa.gov/owni/sw/ms4/small/requirements/ Return to Top of Page. The Phase II Rule outlines a small MS4 storm water management program comprising six required program elements that, when implemented in concert, are expected to result in significant reductions of pollutants discharged into receiving waterbodies. These six elements, termed "minimum control measures," are: 1. Public Education and Outreach Distributing educational materials and performing outreach to inform citizens about the impacts polluted storm water runoff discharges can have on water quality. 2. Public Participation/Involvement Providing opportunities for citizens to participate in program development and implementation, including effectively publicizing public hearings and/or encouraging citizen representatives on a storm water management panel. 3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Developing and implementing a plan to detect and eliminate illicit discharges to the storm sewer system (includes developing a system map and informing the community about hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste). 4. Construction Site Runoff Control Developing, implementing, and enforcing an erosion and sediment control program for construction activities that disturb 1 or more acres of land (controls could include for example, silt fences and temporary storm water detention ponds). 5. Post -Construction Runoff Control Developing, implementing, and enforcing a program to address discharges of post -construction storm water runoff from new development and redevelopment areas. Applicable controls could include preventative actions such as protecting sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands) or the use of structural BMPs such as grassed swales or porous pavement. 6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Developing and implementing a program with the goal of preventing of 3 02/26/2001 7:19 AM Financial Impact for Local Governments in Minnesota in Implementing USEPA Phase II Regulations Implementing Phase II of the NPDES Storm Water Regulations — Workshop February 15, 2000 Hennepin Technical College Eden Prairie, Minnesota Joel G. Schilling, Sr. Scientist Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. The implementation of the USEPA's Phase Il Storm Water Regulations (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 122) will have a measurable financial impact upon local governments in the United States. From an applicability perspective in Minnesota, the rule will automatically apply to the following three medium sized MS4's (municipal separate storm sewer system): Duluth, Rochester and St. Cloud (see Appendix 3 of the rule). Additionally, Dilworth, East Grand Forks, La Crescent, Moorhead and Waite Park will likely be included in the Fargo, ND, Grand Forks, ND, La Crosse, WI and St. Cloud, MN permits, respectively. 40 The rule may also apply to 125 small sized MS4's in Minnesota (see Appendix 6 of the rule). Of the 125 local governments, there are 96 cities, 15 counties, 13 townships and Fort Snelling. There are 17 cities, generally in "greater" Minnesota that have populations of at least 10,000 and a density of least 1,000 persons per square mile that potentially may be included in the rule (see Appendix 7 of the rule). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is the NPDES permitting authority for the federal rule implementation. The MPCA may likely through a state rule-making process determine those local governments that will be subject to the NPDES Phase II rule. With respect to the financial impact upon local government, USEPA prepared a report to Congress' addressing several issues. EPA estimates that nationally the annual cost to local governments to implement the six minimum control measures would be $297 million. This may be an overestimation because MS4's with a population below 10,000 may receive a waiver from the permitting authority. EPA conducted an in-depth analysis of 4,455 municipalities (less than 50,000 population) comparing annual estimated compliance costs with annual municipal revenues. They then evaluated cost -to -revenue ratios for the municipalities to determine significance with respect to economic impacts. The evaluation was included in the EPA's economic analysis for the final rule. Based upon the economic analysis, EPA concluded that the financial impact upon 89% of the 4,455 municipalities would be less than 1% of revenues. USEPA, 1999. Report to Congress on the Phase II Storm Water Regulations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water (4204), EPA 833-R-99-001. Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Page 1 EPA estimated annual municipal costs based upon a fixed cost component and variable cost component (ibid.). They estimated a fixed cost of $1,525 including municipal costs for the permit application, record keeping and reporting activities. The variable cost included those associated with annual operations to comply with the six minimum rule measures. The basis for the variable cost component came from data for Phase I communities and cost data gathered from Phase II communities by the National Association of Flood and Storm Water Management Agencies (NAFSMA). EPA estimated the costs on a per household basis from the two data sets (Phase I and NAFSMA). Annual average costs per household were very similar across both data sets: $8.93 (NAFSMA) and $8.85 (Phase 1). Total annual cost for hypothetical municipality would be calculated as the sum of the $1,525 fixed cost and the urbanized area household estimate multiplied by the per household cost from NAFSMA. EPA used a household conversion factor of 2.62 persons based upon the 1990 Census data. An equation would look like the following: Annual Cost = $1,525 + (households * $8.93) Thus, a city with 1,000 households will have an annual estimated cost as follows: $ 10,455 = $ 1,525 (1000 * $8.93) Within the published rules 2, EPA used a NAFSMA average cost of $9.16 per household. This can be found on page 68791 of the Federal ReVster. The household cost was an average of the combined fixed cost and variable costs . This change effectively removed the use of an equation within the rule preamble resulting in per household cost figure. It's well to note that the EPA also presented an average household cost using the same method resulting in $9.08. Using the $9.16 per household cost did not have a significant appreciable effect upon the overall estimated compliance cost nationally for municipalities as the total increased from $297 million to $298 million. With respect to Minnesota, the attached spreadsheets present results of applying the $9.16 per household cost upon the 142 local governments included in Appendices 3, 6 and 7. The population and households are 1998 estimates from the State Demographer's Office In Minnesota, the annual cost of compliance with the six minimum Phase II measures is estimated to be at least $7.3 million. It is important to note, however, that these are not Federal Register, 2000. 40 CFR, Parts 9, 122, 123, and 124 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm Water Discharges; Final Rule. Report to Congress on the Phase II Storm Water Regulations; Notice. Vol. 64, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 1999/Rules and Regulations pp. 68722-68851. 3 Personal Communication, 2000. Discussion with Ms. Laura Palmer, USEPA - Washington, D.C. on the change in the estimated municipal costs coefficient for Phase II compliance (February 14, 2000). ' State Demographic Center, 1999. Estimates of City and Township Populations on April 1, 1998. Minnesota Planning. State Demographic Center at: www.mnplan.state.mn.us/demo(-,raphy. Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Page 2 necessarily new or future anticipated municipal expenditures. For local governments that have been anticipating Phase II or can readily document best management practices in their municipal operations, these are costs they are already incurring with respect to labor, materials and expenses. For those local governments that may have to change their operations significantly to comply with the rule, these estimated annual costs are useful for budget planning purposes. It's well to note that new revenue streams are not likely from state or federal sources with respect to compliance. However, many municipalities in Minnesota have or will establish storm water utilities to pay for both capital and operational costs resulting from the rule. A storm water utility is a charge that can be substantiated as cost related to imperviousness and land use. In addition, it is clearly a defensible charge associated with compliance with federal and soon to be state rules. The last page of the spreadsheet includes several additional groups of local governments. The first is a group of Phase I cities (Columbia Heights, Edina, Richfield and St. Louis Park) which were not included in Appendix 6 of the rule, but may have had a portion of their area included in City of Minneapolis, Phase I permit. They were included as a matter needing clarification by the MPGA. The next group of cities (Chaska, Cloquet, Elk River, Hibbing, Red Wing, and Shakopee) did not show up in either Appendix 6 or 7 and may likely be included in Phase II as a result of their population increase since the 1990 Census. There may well be other cities in Minnesota which fall into this category. 40 The last group of cities and towns that have been shown are examples of areas which could be included by the MPCA if they choose to address the discharge of any pollutants to impaired waters affecting their designated uses. It should be noted that this latter list is by no means inclusive or exclusive of any others. Municipalities should be aware that their location on sensitive waters could trigger their inclusion by the MPCA. Irrespective of these examples, it would appear that the impact of the Phase II storm water rules upon local governments in Minnesota could be significant for those cities whose operations require major improvements or capital expenditures. Finally, the EPA's economic analysis and rule discussion does not address well the impact issues to state and county highway departments. While these entities may either be issued individual permits or be a co -permitter by the MPCA, the matter of revenues and cost allocations in the implementation of best management practices should be addressed in the state rule-making process. Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Page 3 2/14/00 PHASE II Storm Water Rules Cities, Counties and Townships MS4 - Cities auto.) Population 1998 est. Households (1998 est.) Projected Annual Cost Duluth 85,249 35,045 $321,012 Rochester 80,186_ 32,569 $298,332 St. Cloud - 59,584 - - 21,989 - --- $201,419 TOTALS: 225,019 89,603 $820,763 MS4 - Cities (maybe) Population (1998 est.) Households (1998 est.) Projected Annual Cost Andover 23,213 7,152 $65,512 17,964 - - 6,940 ----- $63,570 Apple Valley 43,468 14,786 $135,440 Arden Hills 9,737 3,043 $27,874 Birchwood 1,032 366_ Blaine --- ---- 44,8-- --- 8 52 -- --- ---- --- --- -- _$3,353 $137,611 Bloomington -- 87,476 -.-----.--.--1-5,023 ----- 35,846 ---------------- -- $328,349 Brooklyn Center 28,535 11,295_ Brooklyn Park 631940 23,594 _ _ _$103,462 $216,121 Burnsville 58,705 22,661 $207,575 Champlin 20,385 6,847 $62,719 Chanhassen 17,381 6,008 $55,033 Circle Pines 4,772 1,662 $15,224 Coon Rapids 61,904 21,712 Cottage Grove ---- 30,630 9,675 __$19_8,882 $88,623 Crystal---------- --- ---23,677 9,422 --___ -_ - Dayton 5,144_ 1,648 __$86,306 $15,096 ------_-- Deephaven -- --- - - - -- - - - --------------3--,706 --- - -- -- -- - - - -- ------------ 1,383 -- - ---- $12,668 Dilworth 3,015 1,153 _ $10,561 Eagan _ 60,073 22,481 _ $205,926 East Grand Forks_ _ 8,044 3,036 $27,810 Eden Prairie --_----_-_-_ _ _ 50,681 ---_ 18,755 $171,796 Excelsior 2,348-------- 1,162 $10,644 Falcon Heights _ _ 5,386 2,066 $18,925 Farmington - - _ _ _ ---_---_- 10,563 _ _ 3,656 $33,489 -_- Fridley 28,626-------__-_-- 11,264 $103,178 Gem Lake 458 148_ $1,356 Golden Valley 21,001 _ 8,439 _ _ $77,301 Grant 4,178 1,353 $12,393 Greenwood 705 291 $2,666 Ham Lake 12,029 3,776 $34,588 Hermantown ------ ----------- -- 7,211 2,496 $22,863 Hillto____-_ 777 413 ----_ _$3,783 Hopkins 16,887_ _ - 8,173 $74,865 Inver Grove Heights 29,151 - - 10,439 - --- - $95,621 La Crescent4,733 - -- - -- - - - --.. -- -- -- _ 1,843 $16,882 Lake Elmo 6,4932,243 - -38,506_. -- - - - -- ..------- ----- -- -- -- $20,546 Lakeville 12,282 $112,503 Landfall 633 304 $2,785 Lauderdale 2,728 1,195 $10,946 Lexington 2,279 855 _ $7,832 Lilyda_le 600 420 $3,847 Lino Lakes 15,053 4,443 $4_0,698 Little Canada 9,626 - -- - -4,296 - - - - $39,351 ,Long Lake 1,915 752 $6,888 Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Page 4 • 2/14/00 PHASE II Storm Water Rules Cities, Counties and Townships Loretto 526214 $1,960 ht Maomedi 7,282 _ 2,477 $22,689 Maple Grove 47,164 15,668 $143,519 Maple Plain -- - - -2,223 790 $7,236 Maplewood 35,355 13,599$124,567 Medicine Lake 374 170 _ $1,557 Medina ----- -- 3,756_____ 1,235 $11,313 endota 162 71 -- $650 Mendota Heights - 10,293 3,860 $35,358 Minnetonka 52,691 21,213 $1.94,311 Minnetonka Beach 582 209 V,914 Minnetrista 4 106 - - - - - - - - 1,446 - - -- - -- $13,245 Moorhead 33,928 12;117 $110 992 Mound_ 9,778 . - - -- 3,863 - -- --- --------- $35,385 Mounds View - 12,859 941 4, $45,260 New Brighton __ 22,854 - _ __ ._ -- .. - --- 9,121 - --- -------------- $83,548 New Hope - 21,610 8,582 $78,611. Newport - - -- - - - - 3,719 - -- -- 1 ' $12,503 North Oaks -- 3 844 -- ------ - --- - -------- 1 281 -- -- $11, 734 North St. Paul 12,801 -26,0-6-1,---- 4,698 $43,034 Oakdale - -- - - - - -- - --- Orono 7,702 _9,847 - 2,793 _$90,199 $25,584 Osseo ...--. - -Plymouth- 2,646 1,011 $9,261 - - _ __--- 62,979 23,211 $212,613 Prior Lake _ 14,687 - - - - -- 5 081 - ------$-4--6- _-- _-- 542 Proctor 3 007 1 230 $11,267 Ramsey - 18,079 5,485 _._---_-_$50,243 Robbinsdale _ - -------------- _ - _ 14,149 6,090 Rosemount -- --- --- -----------------. -13,146 ------------------------- ,278 4,278 4 _ _$55,784 $39,186 Roseville _ ---- - - --- 34,306 14,504 $132,857 Bartell8,551 Sa------- --- -- ------ -- --- --- --------------- 3,063 . -- ------ ---------------- Sauk Rapids - - - - - --- - -- - ---------- 9,590 -------- 3,653 ---- --$28,057 $33,461 - avage.----- _ -------------- ------- ---------- -------17,040---- ---- -___ - ------------ 5,705 - --- $52,258 Shoreview ---- 26,427 ------ 9 987 $91,481 Shorewood 7 008 2,463 $22,561 South St. Paul 20,268 8 079 $74,004 Spring Lake Park 7,113 2,708 $24,805 Spring Park 1 826 888 $8,134 St. Anthony _ 8,419- 3,896 $35,687 St. Paul Park 5,046 1 840 $16,854 Sunfish Lake 4-80---1-6- _ -1,505-,- 6 $1,521 Tonka Ba 619 $5,670 Vadnais Heights 13,284 - 4858 $44,499 Victoria _ --- --._ 3,792 1,289 $11,807 Waite Park6,190 -_ _ _ - -- -------a -. --- 2 ""-- 587 $23,697 WY zata _ 4128 1,920 $17,587 West St. Paul 19,521 _ 8,682 $79,527 White Bear Lake - -- - - - 26,485 -- - - . 9,969 $ -- - - -- Willernie 571 230 $2,107 Woodbury 38,845 13,733 - $125,794 25,7 Woodland 498 - _ -3 .. - 179 - - . $1,640 TOTALS: 1,599,476 593,761 $5,438,851 Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Page 5 2/14/00 PHASE II Storm Water Rules Cities, Counties and Townships Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Page 6 Ll Townships (maybe) Population (1998 est.) Households (1998 est.) Projected Annual Cost Cascade -- - 3,312 1,146 $10,497 - - - --- - - Credit River - --- -- ------ 3,979 - ------ _ 1_,_225 --- _ $11,221 Haven 2,265 737 $6,751 La Crescent 1,403 481 $4,406 Le Sauk _ 2,053 65_5 Marion 6_,452 - ----1,533 2,221_- _$6,00_0 $20,34_4 Midway - - - -496 - -$4,543 Minden 2,114_ 6_95 $6,366 Moorhead 481 - 156 - - - - Oakport 1,585 528 _$1,429 $4,836 Rochester 3,129 1,072 _ $9,820 Sauk Rapids878 285 $2,611 White Bear 10,925 3,909 $35,806 TOTALS: 40,109 13,606 $124,631 Counties (maybe) Population (1998 est.) Households (1998 est.) Anoka 290,871 100,685 Benton 34,431 12,809 Carver 63,358 22,444 Clay 53,183 19,136 Dakota 339,256 123,541 Henne in 1,081,875 445,149 Houston 19,412 7,354 Olmsted 119,038 46,111 Polk 31,765 12,010 Scott 77,924 26,739 Sherburne 59,945 19,755 Stearns 131,981 45,538 St. Louis 199,454 81,156 Washington Wright _ - 192,979_ 84,926 67,399 29,073 _ - Other Population 1998 est. Households (1998 est.) Projected Annual Cost FortSnelling 93 7 $64 Cities (potentially) Population 1998 est. Households (1998 est.) Projected Annual Cost Albert Lea 17,953 7,589 $69,515 Austin _ 22,028 9,610 -$88,028 Bemidji 12,090 4,628 $42,392 Brainerd 13,183 5,554 $50,875 Faribault 19,177 _ 7,223 $66,163 Fergus Falls 13,224 5,575 $51,067 Hastings 17,626 6,374 $58,386 Hutchinson 12,989 5,224 $47,852 Mankato32,062 - _ - --- - - -- .. 11,850 - --. ... -- $108,546 Marshall --w - --- 12,686 _ - _ 4,950 - - --- --- ----- - $45,342 NeUlm14_,010 - - -- - ---- _._ - - _ - - - - -- ---- _ .. 5,529 -- - --------------- $50,646 North Mankato 11,764 - ---- --------------------------- 4,510 $41,31_2 Northfield 16,206 4,827 $44,215 Owatonna 21,186 8,365 $76,623 Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Page 6 Ll 2/14/00 PHASE II Storm Water Rules Cities, Counties and Townships Stillwater 16,133 5,929 $54,310 Willmar 18,889_ - 7,514 - - $68,828 Winona 26,590 ---- -10,033- - - - - $91,902 TOTALS: 297,796 115,284 $1,056,001 TOTALS FOR CITIES: 2,122,291 798,648 $7,315,616 Phase I Cities Population (1998 est.) Households (1998 est.) Projected Annual Cost Columbia Heights ' 18,6997,806 $71,503 Edina ' 47 235 _ 21,010 $192,452 Richfield ' 34,261 15,210 $13_9,3_24_ St. Louis Park' 44,244 20,400 $186,864 TOTALS: 144,439 64,426 $590,142 Future MS4's Population (1998 est.) Households (1998 est.) Projected Annual Cost Chaska- 15,361 5,699 $52,203 Cloquet " 11,154 4,591 $42,054 Elk River " 15,714 5,335 $48,869 Hibbing" - 17,720 7,478 $68,498 Red Wing `" 15,854 6 421 $58,816 Shakopee " 16,043 -------------- 5,890 ------------------- $53,952 TOTALS: 91,846 35,414 $324,392 Target Cities & Towns Population (1998 est.) Households 1998 est. Projected Annual Cost Alexandria "' 8,599 3,869 $35,440 Alexandria Township 4,637 1,641 $15,032 TOTALS: 13,236 _ _ 5,510 $50,472 9,675 3,432 -- -- -- $31,437 Buffalo Township - - 1,635 - -- - -- 520 $4,763 TOTALS: 11,310 3,952 $36,200 Forest Lake "` 6,808 2,736 $25,062 Forest Lake Township 7,880 2,576 $23,596 TOTALS: 14,688 5,312 $48,658 Grand Rapids "' 8,495 3,540 $32,426 Grand Rapids Township 3,105 1,060 $9,710 TOTALS: 11,600 4,600 $42,136 «. Virg na-9,100 4,298 $39,370 Mountain Iron 3,328 1,354 $12,403 TOTALS: 12,428 5,652 $51,772 Detroit Lakes "' --7,,3.68---''-- 3,321 $30, 11 420 Fairmont "' 11,316 _ 4,83-2-- $44,261 Worthington "` 10,304 4,264__ - $39,058 ' MS4's that may have been included in the Minneapolis Phase 1 permit. " Possible MS4's that were not included in EPA rule appendices, but may be included by MPCA. Some examples of potential cities located on sensitive receiving waters. Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Page 7 4L Bassett Creek Water Management Commission PLANNING PROCESS HANDBOOK SECOND GENERATION PLAN BARR -1 Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Introduction The Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) is in the process of preparing its Second Generation Water Management Plan. Revisions are necessary to the existing plan in order to comply with the provisions of Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the Water Resources Management Policy Plan, and other approved regional plans. The BCWMC has prepared this handbook to serve as a guide in the preparation of the Second Generation Water Management Plan. The Commission felt it was necessary to prepare the handbook to make certain everyone was aware of the process the Commission would be undertaking in the preparation of the new plan. A draft handbook will initially be sent out to all interested parties for review and comment. Comments received will be considered for inclusion in the final draft of the handbook prior to distribution. The handbook is intended to specifically address why a new plan is needed, what will be included, and the process for preparing the new plan. The handbook also defines the regulatory requirements for preparing new plans, non -regulatory issues that need to be considered, and how each requirement and issue will be addressed within the plan. The plan's appendix includes background information such as historical roles and responsibilities, the Commission's Joint Powers Agreement, and related state statutes and rules. The BCWMC believes that public participation is an essential element in preparing its Second Generation Water Management Plan. This watershed planning process provides an excellent opportunity for all interested parties to review BCWMC's past, current, and future activities. The handbook lists specific events when public participation will be scheduled with the Commission. These events are typically in large groups with a formal format. Public feedback and comments are, however, encouraged throughout the entire planning process. The respective roles and responsibilities of the cities and BCWMC will also be defined during the planning process. Defining roles and responsibilities will require certain guidelines to be established in the management of the watershed's water resources. Such guidelines could take the form of specific purpose and strategy statements that could eventually be included in the Commission's Second Generation Plan. The Commission has included a draft "Statement of Purpose and Strategy" to assist in developing the Commission's Second Generation Plan. The Commission believes this statement will likely provide the framework for the new plan, and is therefore requesting all cities and interested parties to review and comment on the draft "Statement of Purpose and Strategy" to make certain that there is consensus on the direction that the Commission is taking. The attached Notice of Watershed Planning was sent out on March 9, 2000, to all parties who were known to have an interest in the Commission's watershed planning process, as well as all cities within the District and many media publications. Comments received from this notice were recorded and are kept at the office of Barr Engineering, the Commission's engineer. Please contact Pat Schutrop (952-832-2652), the Commission's BCWMC representative, regarding any questions about this document. E-mail requests should be directed to Pat at pschutrop@barr.com. Sincerely, Lee Gustafson Chairman, Bassett Creek Water Management Commission August 17, 2000 Version BASSETT CREED: WATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Charlie LeFevere, Attorney Kennedy & Graven 470 Pillsbury Center Vlinneapolis, MN 55402 t'hone: 6121337-9215 Fax: 612/337-9310 Leonard Kremer, Engineer Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis MN 55435-4803 Phone: 6121832-2600 Fax: 6121832-2601 NOTICE OF WATERSHED PLANNING To: Public Interested in the Bassett Creek Watershed From: Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Subject: Second Generation Plan Date: March 9, 2000 WATERSHED PLANNING Crystal Golden Vallev Medicine Lake Minneapolis Minnetonka New hope Plymouth Robbinsdale St. Louis Park The Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) is in the beginning stages of preparing its Second Generation (water management) Plan. Revisions are necessary to the existing plan in order to comply with the provisions of the Metropolitan Area Local Water Management Rules (Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410), the Metropolitan Surface Water Management rules 103B and the approved county groundwater and other regional plans. The objective of this notice is to inform the public and other interested parties that the BCWMC is beginning these planning activities and to identify stakeholders that are interested in the planning process. A key part.of this effort will be to incorporate public concerns into the management and planning of watershed activities. HISTORY The BCWMC was formed in 1969 to manage the water resources within Bassett Creek watershed. Its purpose is to control flooding along the Bassett Creek trunk system and to maintain and enhance the quality of surface and ground water resources in the watershed. Representatives from the nine municipalities within the watershed make up the Commission. The nine municipalities represented by the BCWMC include: • Crystal e New Hope • Golden Valley • Plymouth • Medicine Lake • Robbinsdale • Minneapolis • St. Louis Park • Minnetonka 212959.doc To: Public Interested in the Bassett Creek Watershed From: Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Subject: Second Generation Plan Date: March 9, 2000 Page: 2 WATERSHED The Bassett Creek Watershed covers more than 40 square miles and is divided into the following four major subwatersheds: • Main Stem: the Main Stem of Bassett Creek originates in Medicine Lake and generally flows east to the Mississippi River. It drains portions of southeast Plymouth, northeast Minnetonka, a large portion of Golden Valley, northwest St. Louis Park, southern Crystal, southern New Hope, southern Robbinsdale and a portion of Minneapolis. • Medicine Lake Branch: the Medicine Lake Branch drains parts of northwest Golden Valley, southwest New Hope, northern Minnetonka, and portions of Plymouth that discharge to Plymouth Creek. Plymouth Creek originates in western Plymouth and generally flows southeast through Plymouth to Medicine Lake. • North Branch: the North Branch of Bassett Creek drains portions of northeast Plymouth, southern New Hope and southern Crystal and joins the Main Stem immediately upstream of Highway 100. • Sweenev Lake Branch: the Sweeney Lake Branch drains portions of northern St. Louis Park and southern Golden Valley and joins the Main Stem in Theodore Wirth Park near Golden Valley Road. PI—MA Nen..x.Pt C"Aal obbimJ:ilt lStrJitine r [telae Go1Jen Ynnev - hlinnrnPnli' �t I.nui. PArk.. HinneWnlw N A a 1 Bassett Creek Watershed I • 40 To: Public Interested in the Bassett Creek Watershed From: Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Subject: Second Generation Plan Date: March 9, 2000 Page: 3 STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS Over the years, the BCWMC has implemented several changes intended to improve the quality of life in the Bassett Creek Watershed, including several flood control improvements that were completed between 1982 and 1996 by the BCWMC, St. Paul District Corps of Engineers, and member municipalities. As part of the process, the Commission implemented an extensive public participation program to involve citizens in the decision-making process. Some of the more significant water quality and flood control improvements include: • Completion of a new $28,000,000 tunnel to carry Bassett Creek through Minneapolis to the Mississippi River. About $10,000,000 was saved by constructing only one enlarged tunnel, designed for several uses. The Commission also succeeded in obtaining funding for 75% of the total project from the federal government and other state agencies. • 1Construction of ten channel crossing improvements, five control structures and storage basins and removal of a bridge along Bassett Creek. • Replacement of the Medicine Lake dam and construction of the Plymouth Creek fish barrier in Plymouth to improve the quality of Medicine Lake. • Completion of the Highway 55 control structure in Minneapolis in June 1987, that prevented millions of dollars in flood damages from the 1987 "Super Storm," which occurred one month later. • Floodproofing of several homes. The techniques that were used have been recognized as state-of-the-art and have become a model for floodproofing residential structures throughout the country. • Construction of the Wisconsin Avenue and Golden Valley Country Club flood control structures in Golden Valley. • Construction of the Bassett Creek Park flood control and water quality project in Crystal. The Commission received a "Seven Wonders of Engineering" award from the Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers based on the unique engineering elements and social significance of these improvements. WATER QUALITY In 1992, the BCWMC started its water quality program. Since then, the Commission has: • Adopted a water quality policy in 1994 to provide protection and improvement to water resources. • Prepared individual Lake and Watershed Management Plans for 13 water bodies. • Reviewed over 260 individual water quality plans as part of development proposals during the previous five years. In addition, the Commission regularly performs water quality monitoring for ten primary water bodies. To: Public Interested in the Bassett Creek Watershed From: Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Subject: Second Generation Plan Date: March 9, 2000 Page- 4 PARTICIPATION Please fill out the attached form and mail or e-mail it to address listed below, if you are interested in periodic status reports regarding the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission's Second Generation planning process. Name: Representing: Address: City/State/Zip Code: Phone Number: — E-mail Address: I would be interested in participating if an advisory panel were formed. I would like to receive periodic status reports regarding the planning. I have the following concerns regarding the Bassett Creek Watershed (Also see Bassett Creek Website: http://www.barr.com/bassett/index.html) Mail form to: Barr Engineering Co. Attn: Pat Schutrop 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis MN 55435-4803 or e-mail comments to Pat Schutrop at Barr Engineering Company: pschutrop@barr.com 0 • ^Yi Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Major Issues As it prepares its second generation plan, the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission will consider a large number of water -management related issues. One of the most critical outcomes of the second generation planning process will be a renewed focus on the key water -management issues in the watershed. To develop that focus, the planning process will prioritize the issues and make a determination about the appropriate role for the Commission in addressing them in coming years. The topics have and will come from citizens, regulatory requirements, and other guidance received by the Commission. Broadly, the issues will relate to: • Understanding the condition of water bodies in the Bassett Creek watershed. • Prioritizing the water bodies in the watershed for action by the commission and recommending action by other agencies or organizations. • Review and/or revision of certain classifications that apply to the water bodies in the watershed. • Review and/or revision of the water -body classification system used by the commission and its agents. • Runoff collection and storm water management. • Erosion. • The effect of development and redevelopment projects on water quality and quantity in the watershed. • The role of the commission relative to other groups, organizations, agencies and boards that have a stake and a role in management of water in the Bassett Creek watershed. • The development of goals, as well as strategies and tactics for achieving them. • The development and implementation of commission policies. The following sections include a preliminary list of requirements and issues that need to be reviewed and possibly resolved as part of the Commission's second generation planning process. Section A includes primarily regulatory requirements that must be included within the new plan. Section B includes issues that were suggested and/or recommended to be included within the new plan by other regulatory agencies. Section C includes comments from citizens, commissioners, and cities that will be addressed during the planning process. Comments and recommendations that are received during the planning process will likely be added to one of the previously mentioned sections, or to another area of the handbook. Included within each section is a notation as to where each individual recommendation, issue, or comment will be addressed within the work plan phase. The issues identified in the following list are a starting point The list is neither comprehensive nor definitive. The issues included have not been prioritized and the order of presentation does not indicate priority. Draft Planning Process Handbook — Second Generation Plan Page 1 August 17, 2000 Version r Bassett Creek Water Management Commission A. Regulatory Requirements Work Plan Task 1. Need to revise existing water management plan by late 2001 or early 2002. 9.0 2. Plan must contain an inventory of the functional value of wetlands, a provision to create the inventory within a set time frame or adopt a process to identify the functional values on a case-by-case basis for the review of the project proposals for 7.1 those cities where the Commission is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU). 3. The relationship of the Commission's management envelop and any information 4.1 published in a Federal Emergency Management Agency, flood insurance study must be tabulated and described. 4. Plan needs to contain groundwater information as required by County Groundwater 7.2 Plan to allow groundwater issues to be addressed and pollutant sources included in County plan must be referenced. The Commission must request a summary of the relevant water management policies and goals of local, regional and state review authorities identified in Minnesota state 2.0 statutes. A tabulation of water resource -related problems should also be requested. 7.0 Comments have been requested from appropriate state agencies and the Metropolitan 9.1.1 Council. Requests for comments need to be submitted to the cities in the watershed and Hennepin County. The criteria for, and purposes of, advisory groups and public information programs 6.0 need to be addressed. The possibility of managing public ditch systems in the watershed needs to be 3.5.2 reviewed and the possibility that maintenance activities would affect Commission goals needs to be evaluated. The Commission needs to decide the degree of involvement the organization will have 7.0 in groundwater management. 7.2 The Commission will need to identify high priority areas for wetland preservation, 7.1 restoration, and establishment. Draft Planning Process Handbook — Second Generation Plan Page 2 August 17, 2000 Version 0 C7 ,a Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Work Plan Task 10. An assessment of potential water resource -related problems identified by residents, cities, regional and state agencies must be completed. At a minimum, the assessment must address: lake and stream water quality; flooding and stormwater rate control; 3.0 effects of stormwater quantity and quality on recreation and wildlife; impact of erosion 4.0 on water quality; impact of land -use practices on water quality and quantity; the 5.0 adequacy of existing regulatory controls to minimize impacts on public waters and 7.1 7 2 wetlands; the adequacy of existing programs to limit soil erosion, preserve and maintain the value of natural storage systems, and maintain water control structures; 8 1 the adequacy of capital improvement programs to address water quality, management of water quantity, fish and wildlife habitat and public waters and wetland management and recreational opportunities and future problems that may occur in the next 20 years based on growth and development identified in local comprehensive plans. 11. The Commission will need to develop an implementation program to resolve problems, issues and goals. The responsibilities of the Commission and the cities in carrying out 8 1 the implementation program needs to be defined. 12. An annual written communication must be prepared describing the activities of the Commission and published or distributed so that it reaches the general population. 6.0 13. The Commission must assess or require local plans to assess the following: need for and frequency of parking lot sweeping; need for and frequency of stormwater outfall, sumps and pond inspections; adequacy of maintenance programs for flood control and stormwater facilities; need for spill containment; and the need for other management 7.0 programs. The entity responsible for implementation of these requirements must also be decided. 14. The Commission must investigate the feasibility of structural solutions to problems that 3.0 cannot be mitigated by regulatory programs or preventative programs. Cost estimates 4.0 and funding recommendations need to be prepared and priorities must be assigned for 7.0 each structural solution. 8.0 15. The Commission must review existing local controls and programs and the 8.0 administrative and financial ability of the local units of government to adopt and enforce needed controls and programs. 16. The Commission will need to analyze the financial impact of the implementation of 8.0 regulatory controls and programs on cities and identify possible sources of funds. Draft Planning Process Handbook — Second Generation Plan Page 3 August 17, 2000 Version ,,- Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Work Plan Task 17. The Commission must develop a schedule for implementation of needed controls or 8.0 programs by the Commission or local units of governments. 18. The Commission must identify the procedure to be followed to enforce violations of 5.0 controls of the Commission and the local units of government. 8.0 19. The Commission will need to review its plan amendment procedures. 8.2 B. Recommendations from Other Agencies Draft Planning Process Handbook — Second Generation Plan Page 4 August 17, 2000 Version • The Board of Water and Soil Resources/Metropolitan Council: Work Plan Task 1. Recommends that the plan identify methods for measuring success and for revising 5.0 strategies over time. 2. Recommends that the Commission create an annual or biannual cycle to review and 5.0 update the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). 3. Recommends that the Commission develop a watershed education program relative to 7.0 NPDES and Met Council load restrictions. 4. Recommends that the Commission outreach to large commercial/industrial and public 7.0 landowners to identify natural resources restoration sites. 5. Recommends that the plan include a public land inventory to document opportunities Completed for BMP retrofits. 6. Recommends that the Commission or cities be required to perform water quality 3.4.1 compliance assessments. 5.2 7. Recommends that the Commission participate in educational programs (such as Ongoing WOMP, CAMP, etc.). 8. Recommends that the Commission identify outside sources of funds and outside 8.0 partners for implementing projects. 9. Recommends that the Commission establish a process to access private or public grant 8.0 monies. 10. Recommends that the plan include a wetland function and value assessment. 7.0 11. Recommends that the Commission inventory and identify the potential of open space 7.0 sites for restoration of stream, wetland, and upland habitat. Draft Planning Process Handbook — Second Generation Plan Page 4 August 17, 2000 Version • Bassett Creek Water Management Commission C. Issues Identified Dy `Citizens, Commissioners, and Cities Work Plan Task 1. Commission needs to determine whether streambank erosion and maintenance is a 3.4.2 Commission or city responsibility. 8.1 9.1 2. Commission needs to decide how capital improvement projects are to be financed. 8.1 3. Commission needs to establish a stakeholder involvement plan. Plan should determine need for a: • Citizen advisory group (CAG) 6.0 • Technical advisory group (TAG) made up of local, regional, and state technical staff • Policy advisory group (PAG) 4. Commission needs to develop a plan for monitoring the success or failure of 5.0 Commission and local water quality and quantity management programs and improvements. The responsibility of each entity must also be established. 5. Commission shall assess its role regarding wetland issues. 7.1 Draft Planning Process Handbook — Second Generation Plan Page 5 August 17, 2000 Version Work Plan Task 12. Recommends that the plan identify appropriate BMPs to buffer the effects of Completed impervious land cover. 13. Recommends that the plan include quantifiable goals and policies that address water 3.6 quantity, water quality, recreation, fish and wildlife, enhancement of public 4.4 participation, groundwater, wetlands, and erosion control. 5.2 7.1.1 7.2.1 14. Recommends that the plan address regional park issues. 7.0 15. Recommends that the plan address Medicine Lake issues. Ongoing 16. Recommends that the Commission develop a water quality -monitoring program or Ongoing partner with other agencies that may be monitoring streams, lakes, etc. 17. Recommends that the plan identify regulatory controls that the Commission enforces 7.0 and/or regulatory controls that the cities enforce. 18. Recommends that the Commission adopts requirements for, or require cities to adopt 7.1 requirements for wetland buffer zones. C. Issues Identified Dy `Citizens, Commissioners, and Cities Work Plan Task 1. Commission needs to determine whether streambank erosion and maintenance is a 3.4.2 Commission or city responsibility. 8.1 9.1 2. Commission needs to decide how capital improvement projects are to be financed. 8.1 3. Commission needs to establish a stakeholder involvement plan. Plan should determine need for a: • Citizen advisory group (CAG) 6.0 • Technical advisory group (TAG) made up of local, regional, and state technical staff • Policy advisory group (PAG) 4. Commission needs to develop a plan for monitoring the success or failure of 5.0 Commission and local water quality and quantity management programs and improvements. The responsibility of each entity must also be established. 5. Commission shall assess its role regarding wetland issues. 7.1 Draft Planning Process Handbook — Second Generation Plan Page 5 August 17, 2000 Version rel 7 Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Commission shall evaluate benefits of classifying streams based on a physical and/or ecological classification system. Commission shall assess its role to review and verify that goals are being met (plat review, construction site inspections, etc.). Work Plan Task 3.3 5.0 Draft Planning Process Handbook — Second Generation Plan Page 6 August 17, 2000 Version 11 • Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Bassett Creek Water Management Organization Statement of Purpose and Strategy — DRAFT (November 7, 2000) The Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) was established as a joint powers organization in 1967 to resolve severe flood problems along Bassett Creek and to prepare and adopt plans to ensure that other flooding and water resource problems would not occur as the watershed developed. Since then, most of the flooding problems have been resolved by the BCWMC and member cities and the primary emphasis of the Commission has slowly evolved towards improving surface water quality. The BCWMC continues to work closely with its nine member cities to assign responsibility for water resource issues seeking to efficiently and effectively use the cities' and the Commission's planning and implementation resources. In an effort to enhance past and current initiatives, the BCWMC will continue to assist citizens and communities with the management of water resources, in the following areas: • Partner with member communities in the management of surface and groundwater for the benefit of citizens within the watershed and region. • Work with citizens, citizen advisory groups and member communities to establish goals and prioritize and implement initiatives that will preserve and improve water resources within the watershed. • Collect, develop, and distribute information regarding watershed surface water and groundwater in the watershed to assist citizens and watershed communities in the preparation of local plans for the management of water resources. 1. Water Resource Management The BCWMC will look to member communities for primary management of runoff and water management issues. The BCWMC will provide leadership and assist member communities with the following water management issues: • Coordinate intercommunity stormwater runoff planning and design— BCWMC will: (a) review community water resource management plans for consistency with BCWMC goals and intercommunity consistency, and (b) assist in calculating or calculate when necessary, the apportionment of costs between adjoining communities for water resource projects with intercommunity participation. This role applies to both water quantity and water quality issues. • Water quality — BCWMC will require implementation of best management practices (BMPs) in the Bassett Creek Watershed that will improve the quality of stormwater runoff wherever possible. BCWMC, in cooperation with the member communities will continue to set reasonably attainable goals and identify areas where improved BWs are desirable and will have the greatest effect Draft Planning Process Handbook— Second Generation Plan Page 7 January S, 2001 Version Z�4- Bassett Creek Water Management Commission This effort will continue to include monitoring of stormwater runoff to collect data about the quality of water in lakes, streams, and storm sewers within the BCWMC to create a water quality database. This database will be used to develop intercommunity water quality models for the purpose of planning watershed -based initiatives to improve runoff water quality, and to assess the success of past and future municipal water quality initiatives and applied BMPs. The member communities can also use the water quality database to do more localized water quality modeling. • Lake and stream management The BCWMC and member cities will, with input from the public, set goals for streams and water bodies in the watershed. The BCWMC will implement water management activities and water quality improvement projects for water bodies with regional significance based on feasibility, prioritization, and available funding. The BCWMC has performed lake monitoring to determine the condition and use attainability of these major resources, classified the water resources according to their current and attainable uses (based on the data collected, municipal water management plans, and regional goals), and is developing management plans for these water bodies to help these priority resources meet their intended use. Management activities include recommendations for land -use controls, plans for integrated water resource management (parks/nature centers, etc.), and passive or active water treatment projects or facilities • Wetland management— Unless assistance is requested from the BCWMC, cities will manage wetlands in accordance with the Wetlands Conservation Act. 2. Local Water Management Activity Assessment The BCWMC will work with member communities to assess each community's progress toward agreed upon expectations. The BCWMC will use the following assessment process: • The BCWMC and the cities will identify and prioritize initiatives that support outcome -based goals of the BCWMC water management plan. Outcome -based goals might include phosphorus limits for specific water resources, turbidity limits in streams, implementation of BMPs, education programs, etc. Together, the cities and the BCWMC will set expectations of performance in terms of effort and schedule. The water quality of the watershed's water resources will continue to be monitored. The monitoring program will be reviewed annually, or as needed, to determine progress. Successes will be celebrated, and failures will be brought to the attention of policy makers to encourage meeting the BCWMC goals. The BCWMC will work to support the staff and elected officials to meet the agreed upon expectations. Draft Planning Process Handbook — Second Generation Plan Page 8 January S, 2001 Version • Bassett Creek Water Management Commission 3. Public Education and Participation in Water Management A general goal of the BCWMC is to increase watershed awareness among its residents and provide them with information on how to live "properly" within the watershed. The strategy of the BCWMC is to work within existing education programs whenever possible and not duplicate the education efforts of others. Another general goal of the BCWMC is to (continue to) provide its member communities with useful information about the BCWMC, its activities, and water resource management. In addition to its required annual report and ongoing education efforts (e.g. brochures, news releases, internet website, citizen participation in resource monitoring), other efforts might include creating a standing citizens advisory group, establishing guides and issuing/distributing technical memoranda, and promoting active training (e.g. targeted presentations to neighborhood or public organizations). During the planning process, the BCWMC will be looking for recommendations from the Citizens Advisory Group regarding the development of an effective long-term public information and public involvement program. Draft Planning Process Handbook — Second Generation Plan January S, 2001 Version Page 9 L{� Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Work Plan This work plan describes tasks that are necessary in preparing the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission's (BCWMC) second generation watershed management plan (WMP). This work plan is not an outline of the WMP, only of the work. Most water management plans follow the format inferred by MN Rules 8410: an inventory of resources and related infrastructure; identification of issues or problems; establishment of standards, goals and policies relating to the issues; and description of implementation initiatives (including costs and financing) and capital improvement schedules. Within this format, the plan must present information regarding precipitation, geology, topography, ditches, wetlands, the hydrologic system, groundwater, soils, land use, parks and recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, unique features, and pollutant sources. Although MN Rules 8410 describes the appropriate content of a WMP, rules allow the Commission to vary the format to best meet our needs. This work plan focuses on issues key to BCWMC rather than a presumed report format. This method allows the inventories, problem assessments, policies, and implementation plans to be built around the key issues. The key issues identified to date are: Plan Emphasis • Water quality in lakes, ponds and streams • Management of surface water flows and flooding • Development and redevelopment issues • Developing a system of accountability and performance evaluation for the WMO and member communities • Development/continuation of public information program Work Plan Outline Task Description Schedule 1.0 Develop Work Plan, Budget, and Planning Handbook January—September 2000 2.0 Continue Evaluation of Draft Statement of Purpose and Strategy January—September 2000 3.0 Review Existing Water Quality Goals and Policies January—November 2000 4.0 Identify Past, Current, and Potential Flooding Issues September—December 2000 5.0 Establish a Method for Monitoring and Evaluating Plan Implementation November 2000—March 2001 6.0 Develop Effective, Long -Term Public Information Program January—May 2001 7.0 Review and Address Wetland and Groundwater Goals, Characterize Watershed Climate, Topography and Soils, and Other Water Resource Elements September 2000—May 2001 8.0 Define Structural and Nonstructural Programs Needed to Address Issues November 2000—July 2001 9.0 Develop and Adopt Watershed Management Plan November 2000—December 2001 Draft Planning Process Handbook — Second Generation Plan Page 10 August 17, 2000 Version City, A r? City Administration/Council o1,de" nValley763-593-8002 / 763-593-8109 fax Date: February 22, 2001 To: Golden Valley Commissions, Boards and Foundation From: Mary E. Anderson, Mayor Subject: Commission Guidelines The Golden Valley City Council has reviewed and revised the Guidelines for Advisory Commissions. Attached are the proposed updated Guidelines. We are asking each Commission, Board and the Foundation to review. The Council Members who are the liaisons to each Advisory Commission will schedule a meeting with the commission in March or April. At that time, Commission Members may share their questions and comments. The Civil Service Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals and Building Board of Review do not have Council liaisons. These groups may send comments through their staff liaison. If they wish the Mayor or a Council Member to meet with them, please contact the Mayor and request a meeting. The Council will then review and consider the comments and questions before finalizing the Guidelines. After the Council formally adopts the Guidelines, each Commission, Board, and Foundation member will receive a copy. We ask that all comments and questions be submitted to the Mayor by the end of April. CURRENT GOLDEN VALLEY STANDING COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS: The Golden Valley City Council currently has four standing advisory commissions. They are: Environmental Commission Human Rights Commission Open Space and Recreation Commission Planning Commission There is one advisory foundation: Golden Valley Human Services Foundation The Civil Service Commission is an independent commission that has absolute control and supervision over the employment, promotion, discharge, and suspension of police officers of the Public Safety Department. The Board of Zoning Appeals hears requests for variances from the city zoning code. The Building Board of Review advises and assists administrative officers of the city on building codes and the issuance of building permits. Short term advisory committees are appointed as needed The attached Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Boards and Committees apply to each of these groups as appropriate and as permitted by the laws and ordinances which establish them. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Committees, Boards and Councils The City Council wishes to express its appreciation to the many citizens who take time away from their personal and professional lives to serve the community through their membership on the Council's advisory groups. Golden Valley has had a history of extensive citizen involvement. At present approximately 60 advisory commission, board, and committee members participate in providing specialized expertise so that Council decisions can be made with more complete background and knowledge than would otherwise be possible. The Council and the entire community benefit from this invaluable service. Golden Valley is a Statutory city. The legislature established it as a city in the early 1970's. The State Statues provide: "In any such city, there shall be...no administrative board or commission... the Council shall itself perform the duties and exercise the powers and shall govern and administer the functions for which no independent boards are authorized by statute. The Council, may, however, create boards or commissions to advise the Council with respect to any municipal function or activity or to investigate any subject of interest in the City." This Council, and others before it, recognizes the many advantages to be gained from this approach. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to the Council's advisory commissions. The Council is directly responsible for the actions of its advisory commissions. It is hoped that through these guidelines the expectations of the Council, with respect to its advisory commissions will be clearly understood and followed. The Mayor and Council Members welcome any request for discussion or clarification of information that is contained or thought appropriate to be contained in these guidelines. The goals of the Council are better communication with is advisory commissions and better service to the citizens of Golden Valley I. LEGAL BASIS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS As stated above the State Statutes govern the creation of Council advisory groups. These groups are authorized to exercise all duties which the Council has legally assigned to them. They are frequently authorized to conduct investigations and make recommendations. It should be remembered, however, that advisory commissions may not make decisions on behalf of the Council. In many cities, it is routine practice for the Council to accept an advisory commission recommendation if the commission has done a thorough and competent job. It must be emphasized, however, that it is the Council's final decision on the matter and not simply the commission recommendation which is effective to bind the municipality. No recommendation of any advisory commission takes effect unless it has been adopted by formal action of the Council. These advisory commissions may be organized in any manner deemed appropriate by the Council. The City Council may create and dissolve them, appoint persons to serve on them, and exercise powers of general supervision over them. A Planning Commission, however, must be established by ordinance and, once established may be dissolved only by an ordinance, which passes, by 2/3 majority vote of the Council. II. OPEN MEETING LAW All meetings of all public bodies in Golden Valley must be open to the public. There can be no such thing as a "closed", "private", or "executive" meeting or session. The only exceptions that have be recognized in the past are certain disciplinary action conducted by the Police Civil Service Commission and some personnel and legal matters before the Council. The Minnesota Statute requiring City Council meetings to be open to the public has been in existence for many years. A 1973 amendment and court decisions and rulings by the Minnesota Attorney General have made commissions, subcommittees, and other public bodies subject to the statute. Any person violating the open meeting requirement is subject to civil penalty. Commissions and committees should be careful to observe the requirements of holding all meetings in public places and posting notices of meeting dates and times at the City Hall. Scheduling of meetings with the Deputy City Clerk will help prevent conflict with other groups over meeting times when public participation is particularly desired. Commission, board, and committee meetings will not be held on designated legal holidays or recognized religious holidays. Any questions regarding the meaning or application of the Open Meeting Law should be directed to the City Council. The Council will seek such advice from the City Attorney as may be necessary. COMMISSION ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES A. Term of Office: Appointments to commissions are made effective March 1 of each year. The length of each appointment is provided in the governing ordinance or resolution and is designated by the Council at the time of the appointment. Each permanent advisory commission should elect officers not later than its second meeting after March 1 in each year. The term of office should be one year, unless otherwise specified by the Council, prior to each election. (Chairpersons of special committees shall be appointed by the Council.) Voluntary resignations from a commission should be communicated by letter from the person resigning to the Mayor. Absences in one year should not exceed three consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the total meetings for the year. (Groups meeting once a month means three consecutive and three total. Groups meeting twice a month means three consecutive and six total. A standardized letter of warning will be sent from the respective chair to any member after two consecutive and two total for groups meeting once a month. For those meeting twice a month the letter would be sent from the chair after two consecutive or five total. If a member exceeds the allowable number of absences the Mayor will send a standardized letter stating the member must step down because of the importance of regular attendance and the number of citizens interested in serving.) B. By -Laws or Rules of Procedure: Each commission should propose By -Laws or Rules of Procedure governing its work. Such proposed By -Laws or Rules of Procedure should be submitted to the Council for prior review and approval. It shall be the responsibility of the chairperson to provide to each new member as soon as possible after that member's appointment, a copy of the current By -Laws or Rules of Procedure, minutes of meetings of the last one year, these Guidelines, and any other information necessary to orientation of new members. (Note: Council Members who are liaison to a Commission will meet with the Chairperson and new members as part of the orientation.) C. Acting as a private citizen: A commission member testifying before the Council as a private citizen should clearly note before testimony that he/she is not representing the advisory commission on which the person serves. D. Code of Ethics: Each commission member is subject to the terms of the existing Code of Ethics ordinance, a copy of which is attached to these Guidelines. Each person to whom the code applies is responsible to read and understand them. Questions regarding the meaning or application of the Code of Ethics should be directed to the Council. If the opinion of the City Attorney is necessary or desirable, the Council will so request. E. Expenditures: Each Commission is authorized to incur those specific expenditures included in its final budget, as adopted by the Council. Any other expenditures require specific Council approval prior to the time the obligation is incurred. F. Minutes: A person will be provided by the City to take minutes for the advisory commissions. All such minutes are matters of public record and shall be kept at the City Hall. Minutes serve the dual function of making an historical record of commission proceedings and of informing the Council regarding the commission's activities. The minutes should, therefore, contain an accurate report of the sequence of events and names of citizens who appear and are heard. In addition to the formal action of the commission, a summary of the reasoning underlying such action should be included in the minutes. G. Staff Liaison: The Council has adopted a policy of providing a staff liaison for each commission. The purpose of this policy is to provide direct information to each commission regarding City policy and practices within its area of interest. The City operates under the "Plan B City Manager" form of government, in which all employees are hired and supervised by the City Manager, who in turn is responsible to the Council. Neither the Council nor any commission member has the authority to direct staff personnel. Any commission recommendations for modification of City policy and practices should be directed to the Council. H. Subcommittees: From time to time, the Council may appoint subcommittees of certain commissions in order that special attention be concentrated in specified areas. At the same time, the Council also wants the opinion of the commission regarding each subcommittee's recommendations. Each subcommittee should submit any report or recommendations intended for the Council, first to the Commission for review and comment. Such review and comment should take place at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission. If it does not, the report or recommendation of the subcommittee shall be forwarded to the Council without Commission consent. The subcommittee report or recommendation, together with the commission's comments, should be submitted to the Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting. As in the case of commission presentations, a spokesperson for the subcommittee should attend the Council meeting and be prepared to make a presentation and answer questions. The Commission is free to appoint subcommittees of their membership as the commission sees a need. IV. COMMUNICATIONS TO AND FROM COMMISSIONS A. Council Requests to Commissions: From time to time, the Council will refer items to commissions for recommendation. The purpose of such a referral is to assist the Council in gathering all pertinent facts and sharpening the issues. The request will be referred to the commission in writing by the Mayor. The Council would request a written report from each commission with regard to each such referral. The report should set forth all the pertinent facts and detailed recommendations from the commission. The report should be submitted to the Council Secretary the Wednesday before the Council meeting so that it may be included in the agenda. Any time a commission report comes before the Council, one representative of the commission should be present to make a presentation and answer questions. In the event there is a difference of opinion on the commission, a minority report written by the Commission may be presented in the same manner. B. Commission Requests to Council: Any commission request or recommendation for Council action or legal opinion should be communicated by letter from the chairperson to the Mayor, giving a full explanation of the background of the matter. Along with the letter, the commission should submit or refer to the pertinent portion of its minutes on the subject. The letter to the Mayor should be delivered to the Council Secretary on the Wednesday before the Council meeting. A presentation for commission should be made by a representative from the commission. A minority report may also be presented. C. Communications with those other than the City Council: Based upon past experience, the Council believes that there is some potential for misunderstanding regarding communications with persons and governmental units or agencies other than the City Council of Golden Valley. It is essential that members of commissions understand and observe appropriate policies and practices in this regard. The essential principle involved is that the Council alone has the responsibility and authority to adopt the decisions, policies, and recommendations of the City of Golden Valley. The Council values the opinions and advice of its commissions and invites the communication of the same to the Council. The Council will take such opinions and advice into account in formulating the City's official position. This method of proceeding does not preclude a commission from gathering such information as may be pertinent to its activities. Commissions are free, without prior Council approval, to make inquiries and to give necessary background for such inquiries, but careful consideration must be given that these communications cannot be reasonably construed as statements of official City policy and opinion. The matter of distribution of information to the public is one that is not capable of specific rules of practice. In general, any such communication which purports to, or has the effect of communicating an official City position or decision, should be submitted to the Council for prior approval. Other types of communications, which are purely informational and do no involve unresolved questions of City policy, may be disseminated without prior Council approval. Draft revision December, 2000