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