HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-07 P & Z Packet PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CtcnteT-"1,11-C MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
6:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO
MAKE THIS MEETING,
1. Roll Call PLEASE LET US KNOW AS
II. APPEARANCES/PRESENTATION(S) SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK
YOU!
1. None
III. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Conditional Use Permit Request, 6995—20th Avenue South—(Mechanical Air Systems,
Inc.)
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Report& Recommendation, 6995—20th Avenue South - (Mechanical Air Systems, Inc.)
2. Metropolitan Council Draft Water Resources Policy Plan—Review& Comment
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. March 3, 2015 Planning& Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Street S\\eepulg - Commencing this week
('enter\elle Road ('lo,ure —Main Street to Dupre Road, Commencing Monday
Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting— April 1. 2015. 6.3() p.m. (Council Chamber—,)
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting— April 7. ?()I 5. ��"�� p m (( ��uncIl ('11,1111110-10I I'.H ('t P r,�)()�-��''"
\\enuc " \leclIanical \Ir Inc
City Council Meeting— \1)1-11 X. 2i i 15. 0:30 1) ui. ( 1 loudI ( hamhcr,
Se\ere \' Bather AxN areness ``1 eek April 13-17, 2015 (1:45 p.m. & 6:55 p.m. —April 16, 2015 Sirens)
City Council Meeting— April 22. 2015, 6:15 p.m. (Council ('hampers) (Board of Appeal & Equalization)
Local GoN ernment Officials !Meeting— April 29, 2015, 6:00 p.m. (Bunker Hills Activity Center, 550 Bunker
Lake Bled. N.%N,., Andover)
\lctropolitan Council NN'orkshop (Stonwvater Capture & .Adu1fcr Recharge. Q:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. (Arden
Hills)
Hydrant Flushing— May 11-15, 2015
2015 ('It,, `Fide Garage Sale Days —June 12 & 13, 2015
2015 Clean Up Day —June 20, 2015, LaMotte Park, 6970 LaMotte Drive, 8:00— 12:00 (noon)
Fete des Lacs 5, 8K's & Kids Fun Run—July 25, 2015 (Around Centerville Lake and Out and Back)
Out Run Homelessness, 5, 8K's &Kids Run/Walk— September 19, 2015 (Around Centerville Lake and Out
and Back)
en �'` e ��`�� 1880?Wain S1 reed,�enterzYffc,:19A -5038
°r<fc7�1t14�it'td �rc7,," 651-429-3232 orEa�651--729-8629
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING PUBLIC NOTICE
State of Minnesota)
County of Anoka )
City of Centerville)
I, Teresa Bender, being first duly sworn, depose and say:
I am a United States citizen, over nineteen (19) years of age, and the City Clerk of
the City of Centerville, Minnesota.
On March 25, 2015, acting on behalf of the said City, 1 deposited in the United
States Postal Box located at 1880 Main Street copies of the attached Public Hearin
Notice for request for Conditional Use Permit, Mechanical Air Systems, 2995 — 20t
Avenue South, in envelopes, with postage thereon fully paid, to the individual property
owners of the following address.
NAME ADDRESS
See attached sheet
There is delivery service by United States mail between the place of mailing and the
places so addressed.
Teresa Bender
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of M rch, 2015.
Notary Public
KRIS SWEENEY
�'�'w• ` S� r'•)TARY PUBLIC•MINNESOTA
�'` My(:ommission Expltes Jan.31,2020
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of
Centerville will consider a request from the City of Centerville for Conditional Use Permit for
6995 — 20th Avenue South to operate an HVAC company out of the existing premises
(Mechanical Air Systems, Inc.). The property is zoned B-1 Commercial and the proposed use is
similar to uses allowed in that zoning district but not specifically outlined as a permitted use.
The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. or shortly thereafter. The
purpose of the meeting is to obtain public comment regarding the above request.
The City Hall is ADA handicapped accessible. Requests for hearing assisted devices or a sign
language interpreter must be received before 4:00 p.m. April 3, 2015. All persons interested are
invited to attend and to be heard, verbally or in writing. You may call City Hall (651) 429-3232
if you have any questions.
Teresa Bender, City Clerk
Published in The Quad Community Press on March 24, 2015
i
ti
=t _
6 .
233122140035,LAR5ON LANA, 7044 COTTONWOOD CT,CENTERVILLE MN 55038
233122140036,JANSEN LINDA, 7041 COTTONWOOD CT,CENTERVILLE MN 55038
233122140048,FULLER BRUCE A and SCHWARTZ LISA, 7020 BRIAN
COURT,CENTERVILLE MN 55038
233122140049, SWENSON JOEL S and CHRISTINE C, 7016 BRIAN DR,CENTERVILLE MN
55038
233122140058,MUELLNER CYNTHIA, 100 MARVY ST,LINO LAKES MN 55014
233122140072,CENTERVILLE TOWNOFFICE PK MASTER ASSOC, 7029 20TH AVE
S,CENTERVILLE MN 55038
233122140073,EAGLE BROOK CHURCH OF WHITE BEAR LAKE,7015 20TH AVE,HUGO MN
55038
233122410007,BGL PARTNERSHIP, 705 W LAKE ST,MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408
233122410025,BEHREND JONATHAN, 1941 CENTER ST,CENTERVILLE MN 55038
233122410026, STROHMAN DMITRI, 1949 CENTER ST,CENTERVILLE MN 55038
233122410027,GRAFSKY DAVID, 1957 CENTER ST,CENTERVILLE MN 55038
233122410028,ANDERSON JESSE G and LEZALLA J, 1965 CENTER ST,CENTERVILLE MN
55038
233122410039,OSTEEN MARK, 658 HIGHLAND TRL,CIRCLE PINES MN 55014
233122410040,HANDAHL HILARY, 1937 EAGLE TRL,CENTERVILLE MN 55038
233122410041,LONGEN MICHAEL D and SUSAN M, 1945 EAGLE TR,CENTERVILLE MN
55038
233122410042,MOSHER DARRIN L and JENNIFER T, 1949 EAGLE TRAIL,CENTERVILLE
MN 55038
233122410043,LOVE DARION A and SUSAN L, 1953 EAGLE TR,CENTERVILLE MN 55038
233122410044,LUTHER PAUL, 1955 EAGLE TRAIL NE,CENTERVILLE MN 55038
233122410045,REED BRENDA, 1952 EAGLE TRL, CENTERVILLE MN 55038
233122410046,WOOD THOMAS P and MITSCH WOOD K, 1946 EAGLE TR,CENTERVILLE MN
55038
233122410047,BISHOP JR ROBERT and BISHOP RANDEE, 8590 MAGNOLIA TRL APT
401, EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344
233122410052,LAKE AREA UTILITY CONTRACT, 2303 TART LAKE RD, LINO LAKES MN
55038
233122410053,LAKE AREA UTILITY CONTRACT, 2303 TART LAKE RD,LINO LAKES MN
55038
233122410054,REHBEIN PROPERTIES, PO BOX 368,HUGO MN 55038
243122320002,REHBEIN PROPERTIES, PO BOX 368,HUGO MN 55038
243122320003,REHBEIN PROPERTIES, PO BOX 368,HUGO MN 55038
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of
Centerville will consider a request from the City of Centerville for Conditional Use Permit for
6995 — 201h Avenue South to operate an HVAC company out of the existing premises
(Mechanical Air Systems, Inc.). The property is zoned B-1 Commercial and the proposed use is
similar to uses allowed in that zoning district but not specifically outlined as a permitted use.
The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. or shortly thereafter. The
purpose of the meeting is to obtain public comment regarding the above request.
The City Hall is ADA handicapped accessible. Requests for hearing assisted devices or a sign
language interpreter must be received before 4:00 p.m. April 3, 2015. All persons interested are
invited to attend and to be heard, verbally or in writing. You may call City Hall (651) 429-3232
if you have any questions.
Teresa Bender, City Clerk
Published in The Quad Community Press on March 24, 2015
MECHANICAL
s:
, :# '
AIR SYSTEMS, VVE.
1650 99th Lane NE—Blaine—MN—55449 1 Phone 763.951.20391 Fax 763.95i.2872
Mechanical Air Systems is a Residential/Commercial Heating and Cooling Contractor. Operating hours are
lam to Spm M-F with an occasional Saturday, depending on work load. Presently we are operating with 13
Full-Time Employee's. We currently have 5 trucks, 4 trailers and various equipment. We will be using
Both inside and Outside Storage. Outside storage would consist of trailers, trucks and equipment. Equipment
Can vary due to the different scopes of work we perform on different jobs. We will make every effort as to not
stack any equipment higher than the fence. We want to maintain a clean appearance for our company as well
As the property.
taurc
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
NAME:
FEE: $230 9.±Jioo.Qp
COMPANY:
PAID:
ADDRFSS: 1,
ThI.LPHONE NUMBER:
STREET OC"; TION OF PROPERTY:
PROPERI'N' IDE\TifiCATIOj\'-�N'UMBLR:
I EGA[ DFSCRIPTION 01'PROPERTY: r.
SIZE Of PAPCELIS):
CONDI'l IGNAL USE PER-MITREQUEST:
Cc,
III pwt W zg eo it
SignaUtre of ApplicaTil Ylvnarum of Pmperty Ov)lwr-
7
Date
(0'r'c'U st On
PLANNING&ZOINING ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
ih
z
r
i Sc
S-t
' z
y 4i`
t *06
w '
lip-
10�~ � 9a�
Ej �A 7 e�� as x-�; $ � a�• IIS �� ��
rag. ,x.
Yyi•^bvL�' 3 ::�3 9 " o� I0a not
4ia ~Z
�� 98- a l �" r eaoss•x-r " " " s '> F i ,u er.n �'-____ _ __ _ " .a a
t.S
C o '� � yLI ( 6r _...,,..„<M..a;,ryi>,•,.. .,e.r,....�r.z•, r..rr ' =� 9� S!b� " I `tee _- -}[�- ! '4:.:J
IQ e
.�'a v �f�r ��" ;�. �� � � /! ` fed.-�.s � r - �� 1 _ \ :a �\� +P• f� bV�
a-3g � ` •7P- 9 ''�,-�.--„'�'�'�"� 1 \'� ; � �.r/�(,I(;�.�T`-��.;.^�:i,;;r ' _•.._ _ �: \ "r'a 4.1� ,� x3
�3"ei ;'meq[ I , e '°7 i - " 4 • RSt$ //(�r F�.i ..' � -� .• �\ � .\.�\��\ .\�� �a a$
�-
§ a n - ,� `i 3 "� A ,x °,a• g r- =' ��¢; .K �to-r "� r i� g � \ e+ • ��--ib+ �
�!a i � � �' i"� � I{I{ �+ '~y `�.��/ M 'i��• � ) � 'S �y-=''�8.,'i i � � Y" �r \\ .�: [ `�O a � � �I
a' -4 r _ �2 iii ie � �, ,{. :a; i ,>a �.• �b-g'i,�� '�I/°
�'� x°: z �` • �r'a � d � ,� 3'I+el'_w I C'_ ,; �'i.----pk-�C' 'c---q-----b E��R{` ;� �p �'`
3 g-° - Pi' J �Y° - �•� r8' � ! i:� y - awe:.,
,o. 5!4-
HA—N,
4.- N a r"y�i+�� � .,° '; � ..-�� � i' s "3 .�-i.:,.;;�ea= 5t4'}�• a �e� irr; �i_
x $ '� ��, ,. A� .�� 9 0 � a�N y �r �A�i? \•�"-rr .'i SEEP i ! � i .i�"
- x ate`.^-` _ -r +^• �, _ ICS _'r�� �! �_ +',r g
--_—,.•.�- „ -L�o'.�r"- --�---�'�w'---- -N--A �-'Sr."'-:'•¢'- -" ! tlg -?: a F [' i� p •q
y � I� � � ,.s•s ne:t�BHfwwu fie. sA ___ ____' __-______�--� —f'__b--1_
m ��zs aEn�a � a� 92
CENTER VILLA SECOND ADDITION �,i "
a SEC,28.TW-n ma 22
• N8971'31 34427
wnor.GENnR HUA Mak.cw ty D ADDr,DN," —————— —
Y tn.ara 9.wa r.I Ell 1.0..m.,t.a.RP.n11
w n potty N Hw sccDN a ao n.r.er a.a�<mv m my Pvva=,a P w,.v N. " —1_ NRUNAa mB urun __ R ,,ya'j xuE 1
EAHE IAEA ununEs INC 3 rr— ____1xm5750---i-----____�\```
/ _ $
� sn„w H E...e,a Pr..awt
e ,P
W sTA o
� couNm of
P,..awt
i e l LOT 1
p oa;, —d.-
-b-
.dlam I
.�
a,.na�,y aW;.,�
.a .t a
w,R”PI,t mm,mw
.wu.PI,t
5„a3.�P,tN.a,t.
a,l P.NI,<.,y.,,..R�n we I�.I.a w t.,.
I
----- :----- - -------------------J
D,t.a 2D_ o
m
ae.w E R,a EI<w..a Es,as„_p ------------------------------ a
Da_o,NIN I
gTH”en.t„m—r...dma 9 B.1a..m.tm.—.1 20_ y ..,E H.a
I _
�'$ I NORTH
ly Ny cw,�m
�4en E,pree .nn..,. _— —— Y I w 1 tl p�Ipl
——— A a R GRAPHIC SCALE
I '
pn cgNGu.arr rc cENrtHuuE,uwNEsOrA
gJof r, a on 20 me.ore Plat„u,=unP wre.gym t,P a e.,n..,uwn.wt,sbtui.. •.• . - I It u„B w, t�
Section 505 of—2 J „
C.—. D—IR,
cit c n= c. or
By Mop By coax
I I i0
CGDN1.—I. „
I
wa,pp m..
Anake G, y p 9 II I I
OurLOT A
GOUNtt„DaFGRrntE.suRER �� C i �°���, a� I I
S05
2,2.2 wt...a
2D_
I
GO—RE DERMEGSTRAR OE5
I ae,my
D,=,mewnt<N,,ay—1H,.PI,t.,GE„TER GD DNcwmr 0;9 ,w
N1.— „ 20 .1yw
1
n
L-------------------- J o¢
C y crcmr/Regutrur o�Titees
By ueP r o CG ESeNesnisLu IROR IPE --- — _ -—/7— S8 _V_ES DR0
DRANAGE AND URUTY EAGENENTS ARE NTHus
UNLEGS5DF0UERN ON w uuENT uARHED HES tl9BOB /."I I •uw nOT A b
• /
TM uHE a W
-- 110 FOR 1HE PURPOSES Oi'TflS PEAL THC
I
_ L—_ KIRNC OF SO—99E DEGREES 2rEUINuTES M
EINES.DNLES1 OTHER. HD»~DN DNDG EAST E 6_ Ban g SONS. INC_
Ill PEAT "�'Professional land Surveyors
Mike Ericson
From: Paul Palzer
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 10:40 AM
To: Mike Ericson
Subject: Met Council Draft Plan
Hi Mike—
I briefly went through the Met Council Plan and several things jump off the page. First, White Bear Lake has a
watershed recharge area that is only 3.2 times larger than the lake. This is the 12th smallest in the metro area of 114
lakes identified in the study, in the bottom 10%. Thus, White Bear Lake has an historical fluctuation of 6-9 foot elevation
correlating to rainfall amounts within this small recharge area. In contrast, Peltier Lake's recharge area is 120.4 times
larger. Bald Eagle Lake is 18.7. 1 understand that lakes also gain water from springs running into them and some lakes
have few springs while others have many. To me it would be a simple calculation of the watershed area to the lake area
with evaporation taken into the equation to determine how large the watershed needs to be to maintain a constant lake
level for a normal year and then to plug in draughts&wet years to determine drawdowns levels and recharge quantities
to label normal high and low water marks for a given lake. It would not be cost effective to micro manage Nature's
natural course designed for each lake by trying to pump water into a lake. It seems a little due diligence on behave of a
perspective buyer of a lake home to understand how lake levels may rise &fall based on this readily available
information. This would give them an idea how the lake levels will fluctuate over many years.
Nature has seasonal and cyclical weather patterns and thus lake levels follow these and may take years and even
decades to return to certain levels. Look at Lake Superior. It has taken many years for it to rebound back from being
down just 18". The Met Council should adopt a policy to try to maintain lake levels on those lakes that have a recharge
watershed area greater than 5 to 1 and identify lakes below this as susceptible to fluctuations due to normal weather
patterns.
Met Council has suggested that certain lakes are tied directly to the aquifer. If this was true, one would expect that
when an aquifer falls even a foot at 180 down in depth,this would create a 18.6 psi of suction from the lake. The
opening draining the lake would increase dramatically in size in a matter of weeks, let alone years. We see this on every
water main leak. One day is barely bubbling out of the ground and three days later it is boiling out of the ground.To the
contrary, when the aquifer were to rise,the lake would creep outside of its high water mark and historical data should
show this too if it is the case.
To put in perspective, a study of those lakes with a recharge area of less than 3.5 could be compared over the last 50
years, along with rainfall amounts and lake levels for each month. Along with this study, another study determining how
much of the rainfall within the watershed recharge area actually reaches the lake. This possible could show the effective
recharge area to be less than the size of the lake, which I would guess is the case with White Bear Lake.
Paul
1
Draft Water Resources Policy Plan
JANUARY, 2015
4ALM.-
METROPOLITAN
C 0 U N C I L
Contents
The FIcte ci the Councii ird Vater Resources.................................. ..
Thrive Misp 2040.................
ThriveOutcomes........................................................................................................................ 4
ThrivePrinciples ........................................................................................................................ 5
Response of the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan to Thrive's Policy Direction....................... 5
Prosperityand Livability.......................................................................................................... 5
Equity..................................................................................................................................... 5
Sustainability and Stewardship............................................................................................... 6
RegionalGrowth Forecasts........................................................................................................ 7
CommunityDesignations ........................................................................................................... 7
Metropolitan Urban Service Area............................................................................................ 7
RuralService Area................................................................................................................. 8
LocalComprehensive Plans......................................................................................................11
t fro'c-gar F:e-. Stca,&g,y iSr !YF_"16r R�eFC,L;dC6-e.............................
Working toward Sustainability using the Watershed Management Approach ............................13
Working toward Sustainability of our Water Supplies ................................................................15
Planningfor Regional Growth ...................................................................................................17
Servingthe Urban Area.........................................................................................................17
Servingthe Rural Area..........................................................................................................19
Use of Private Wastewater Systems......................................................................................20
Water Conservation and Reuse ................................................................................................21
Assessment of Regional Water Resources ...............................................................................22
Investment................................................................................................................................25
WastewaterServices ................................................................................................................28
Sustainability................................. .... ... . .. .......................................................................28
InflowandInfiltration..............................................................................................................28
Finance.................................................................................................................................30
:asfs`-.ate -rte-t P[a.n _...............3`
ExistingFacilities ......................................................................................................................31
Regional Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment System...................................................31
Non-Council Wastewater Treatment Plants...........................................................................33
Long-Term Wastewater Service Area .......................................................................................34
ConceptPlan.........................................................................................................................34
Long-Term Service Area of Existing Treatment Plants ..........................................................34
Potential Future Wastewater Treatment Plants......................................................................35
Capital Improvement Program ..................................................................................................36
WastewaterFlow Projections ................................................................................................36
CapitalImprovement Plan .....................................................................................................37
EnvironmentalSustainability.....................................................................................................41
WastewaterReuse....................................................................................................................42
Regulatory Scenarios for Wastewater Treatment......................................................................43
Substantial Impacts and Substantial Departures from the Metropolitan Wastewater System Plan
.................................................................................................................................................44
Appendices..................................................................................................................46
AppendixA—Wastewater.........................................................................................................46
Table A-1:MCES Flow Variation Factors for Sewer Design ..................................................46
Table A-2. Wastewater Flow Variation Factors for Determining Infiltration/Inflow Mitigation
Goals.....................................................................................................................................47
Table A-3. Community Forecasts of Sewered Population, Households, and Employment.....48
Table A-4. Community Wastewater Flow Projections ............................................................56
Appendix B —Surface Water Management ...............................................................................64
Appendix B-1: Nonpoint Source Pollutants............................................................................64
Appendix B-2: Priority Lakes List...........................................................................................65
Appendix C - System Plan Requirements .................................................................................73
Appendix C-1: Wastewater System Plan Elements................................................................73
Appendix C-2:Local Surface Water Management Plan Elements..........................................75
Appendix C-3: Local Water Supply Plan Elements.............................................................. .77
Appendix D— Summary of Policies and Implementation Strategies ..........................................79
Water Resources Policy Plan Overall Goal and Policy..........................................................79
Working toward Sustainability using the Watershed Management Approach.........................79
Working toward Sustainability of our Water Supplies.............................................................79
Planning for Regional Growth................................................................................................80
Water Conservation and Reuse.............................................................................................82
Assessment of Regional Water Resources............................................................................83
Investment.............................................................................................................................84
WastewaterServices..................................................................................... .......................85
AppendixE — Definitions...........................................................................................................88
Appendix F — Map of Regional Wastewater System Long-Term Service Areas.........................93
List of Figures
Figure 1. Thrive MSP 2040 Community Designations...............................................................10
Figure 2. Communities Served by the Prairie du Chien Jordan Aquifer.....................................16
Figure 3. Priority Lakes and the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space System..........................24
Figure 4. Metropolitan Plant Effluent Total Phosphorus, 1998-2013..........................................26
List of Tables
Table 1. Regional System Wastewater Treatment Plants..........................................................32
Table 2. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants .....................................................................33
Table 3. Planned Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity (million gallons per day) ....................36
Table 4. Sewered Population and Employment Forecasts (thousands).....................................37
Table 5. Treatment Plant Flow Projections (million gallons per day)..........................................38
Table 6. Long-Term Capital Improvement Program ($ millions) ................................................39
Table 7. Estimated Replacement Value of Regional Wastewater System .................................41
2040 WATER RESOURCES POLICY PLAN
SUSTAINING THE REGION'S WATERS, SUSTAINING THE
REGION
The Twin Cities metropolitan area enjoys a wealth of water resources. Our area boasts of 950
lakes and three major river systems—the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix. They provide
valuable habitat, support natural ecosystems, and offer a wide variety of recreation
opportunities. In addition to their natural features, our rivers serve as important waterways for
transporting agricultural products and industrial goods.
The region's extensive wetlands support our diverse plant and animal species, and filter
pollutants from urban and agricultural runoff before it affects the soil and groundwater. A prolific
groundwater system, in combination with surface water from the Mississippi River, supports our
drinking water needs. Abundant, high-quality water plays a major role in advancing the region's
economic prosperity, growth, and livability, and our region's infrastructure for water supply,
stormwater and wastewater is crucial for managing this essential resource.
Sustainability of our water resources is a high-priority issue as our region continues to grow and
we put more demands on them. Compounding the situation, we find ourselves having to adapt
to the effects of high-frequency and intense storms intermixed with periods of drought. Ensuring
sustainable water resources requires a regional strategy that addresses a variety of needs and
issues. The region's water resources must be managed and protected to meet our household,
business and industrial needs; support aquatic habitat and wildlife; and provide aesthetic and
recreational opportunities for all current residents and future generations.
To achieve this goal, the Water Resources Policy Plan directs its attention to both the quantity
and quality of our water resources. It includes policies and strategies to ensure a sufficient,
sustainable water supply and to manage surface water runoff and our wastewater systems to
protect water quality. The Council has prepared this Policy Plan under state law(Minn. Stat.
473.145) directing it to prepare a metropolitan development guide that includes a plan for the
region's wastewater collection and treatment system, along with supporting policies, goals,
standards, and maps. The Policy Plan is also prepared in response to Minn. Stat. 473.157
requiring the Council to adopt a water resources plan and federal requirements for a regional
management plan to address pollution from point sources (such as treatment plant discharges)
and nonpoint sources (such as stormwater runoff). When adopted by the Council, this Policy
Plan will replace the current plan adopted in May 2005 with amendments in 2006 and 2010.
The Role of the Council in Water Resources
A wide range of governmental organizations are responsible for planning, monitoring and
managing water resources in the region —from the federal to the local level. The extensive list of
water resource partners includes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Board of Water
and Soil Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Departments of
Health, Agriculture and Natural Resources, local governments, watershed and conservation
organizations, municipal water suppliers, and the Metropolitan Council. All serve important roles
and, together, make possible a broad front of cooperative, coordinated planning and action on
behalf of water resources in the region.
1
The Metropolitan Council has roles and responsibilities that provide a unique regional
perspective for planning and management, all aimed at protecting our region's valuable water
resources. Through its world-class wastewater treatment system and surface water
management and planning activities, the Council works to ensure there is adequate water
quality to support economic development, the tourism industry, drinking water needs, and the
quality of life for all residents of the region. The Council provides wastewater services to
municipal and industrial customers in the region at highly competitive rates, fostering a
favorable economic environment for growth and development. In addition, the Council promotes
sustainable water resources through its planning and technical assistance for surface water and
water supply.
Wastewater Collection and Treatment. The Metropolitan Council owns and operates the
regional wastewater collection and treatment system for the urbanized portion of the metro area
(over 90% of the metropolitan area population). The Council operates and maintains
approximately 610 miles of regional sewers that collect flows from over 5,000 miles of sewers
owned by 108 communities and treats approximately 250 million gallons of wastewater daily at
eight regional treatment plants.
Water Quality Management Plans and Programs. The Council is designated as the areawide
water quality planning agency under Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act. As part of this
designation, the Council is responsible for ensuring that water quality management policies and
programs are implemented in the metro area for point- and nonpoint-source pollution. As part of
its responsibilities, the Council monitors and assesses the condition of area lakes, rivers and
streams, provides technical assistance related to surface water management, and reviews local
water management plans, watershed plans and local sanitary sewer plans to make sure they
are consistent with Council policies and regional goals.
Regional Water Supply Plan. The Twin Cities metro area Master Water Supply Plan, adopted
by the Council in 2010, serves as the framework for achieving a sustainable water supply that
meets the needs of current and future generations. Responding to state legislation (Minn. Stat.
473.1565) and prepared in cooperation with a wide range of partner organizations, the Master
Water Supply Plan lays an essential foundation of data, analysis and alternatives to establish a
regional consensus and plan for action. The Council is currently updating the Master Water
Supply Plan with the assistance of the Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee, a
16-member group that includes local officials from within and outside the metro area and
representatives of state agencies.
The overall theme of this Policy Plan is to move the Council further toward integrating our roles
in wastewater, water supply, and surface water planning, management and operation. The
conventional approach considers one dimension of water at a time, but the usefulness of this
approach has reached its limit. Meeting the challenges of water supply, water quality issues,
and environmental stewardship needs strategies that look at the whole water picture and
consider how efforts in one area could benefit the others. For example, an integrated approach
would move beyond treating wastewater only to meet regulatory compliance, to viewing
wastewater as a resource that could be available for reuse and reduce demand on groundwater.
For the Council, it also means leading by example and working across Council divisions to
promote water sustainability. The Council will work with partners to identify emerging issues and
challenges for the region as we work together on solutions in order to promote a more
2
sustainable region. Only through cooperation and collaboration can the region expect to
manage its water resources in a sustainable way aimed at:
• Providing an adequate water supply for the region
• Promoting and implementing best management practices aimed at protecting the quality
and quantity of our resources
• Providing efficient and cost effective wastewater services to the region
• Efficiently addressing nonpoint and point sources pollution issues and solutions, and,
• Assessing and monitoring of lakes, rivers, and streams so that we can adequately
manage, protect and restore these valued resources.
In another respect, integrating the Council's roles means that the Council will continue to
provide high quality, affordable wastewater collection and treatment services to support
economic growth and development in ways that protect our valued water and land resources.
The Council will work with our partners to identify emerging issues and challenges for the region
as we work together on solutions in order to promote a more sustainable region. Issues and
challenges include:
• Sustainable and plentiful high quality water resources that provide a firm foundation for
the region's future economic growth and prosperity, livability and high quality of life.
• A growing economy that creates and provides jobs for the citizens of the region.
• A good transportation system that fairly and equitably links citizens with job opportunities
and affordable housing.
• Natural and water resources that provide for recreational opportunities and that support
a high quality of life.
The Minnesota Legislature has charged the Council with providing regional direction for
planning and management of our water resources to support the orderly and economical
growth and development of the region. The Council's regional vision and perspective considers
the interrelationships of land use, growth patterns, transportation and other regional services,
and water resource protection. Managing and using the region's water resources wisely, will
sustain the region now and in the future.
Thrive MSP 2040
From its frontier origins, the Twin Cities metropolitan area has grown, prospered, and emerged
as one of the major metro areas in the nation. It's renowned for its high quality of life, strong
economy and many assets:
• A diverse and resilient economy
• Vibrant arts, music and theatre communities, and professional sports teams
• Rich cultural diversity
• Abundant parks, recreational trails, conserved open space, fertile agricultural lands, and
natural resources
• Hundreds of lakes and three great rivers
3
• A tradition of shared civic action
Today, the metro area is a thriving region of nearly three million people living in 186
communities across the seven counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott
and Washington. The region has emerged as a great place to live, work and do business.
As we plan for our next 30 years, key challenges lay ahead —constrained fiscal resources, new
demands stemming from demographic shifts, emerging environmental challenges, and the
increasing necessity of regional economic cooperation.
To meet these challenges, the Metropolitan Council is responsible, under state law, for
preparing a comprehensive development guide for the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan
area. The Council's Thrive MSP 2040, adopted in May 2014, provides a framework for a shared
vision for the future of the region over the next 30 years. Thrive establishes the policy
foundation used by the Council to develop its regional systems and policy plans, as well as
development policies and implementation strategies. Taken together, these constitute the
comprehensive development guide that directs the orderly and economical development of the
region. State statute specifies four metropolitan systems plans —for regional transportation,
aviation, water resources, and regional parks.
In addition to these statutory metropolitan systems plans, the Council has developed a housing
policy plan. The Housing Policy Plan provides an expanded policy framework that the Council
will use in reviewing the housing plan and housing implementation programs of comprehensive
plans that local governments prepare under state law.
Thrive Outcomes
Thrive's regional vision includes five desired outcomes: stewardship, prosperity, equity, livability,
and sustainability. These outcomes provide policy direction for this 2040 Water Resources
Policy Plan.
Stewardship. Stewardship advances the Council's longstanding mission of orderly and
economical development by responsibly managing the region's natural and financial resources,
and making strategic investments in our region's future.
Prosperity. Prosperity is fostered by investing in infrastructure and amenities that make our
region competitive in attracting and retaining successful businesses, a talented workforce, and
strong economic opportunities.
Equity. Equity means connecting all residents to opportunity and creates viable housing,
transportation, and recreation options for people of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities
so that all communities share the opportunities and challenges of growth and change.
Livability. Livability focuses on the quality of our residents' lives and experiences in the region,
and how places and infrastructure create and enhance the quality of life that makes our region a
great place to live.
Sustainability. Sustainability seeks to protect our regional vitality for generations to come by
preserving our capacity to maintain and support our region's well-being and productivity over the
long term.
4
Thrive Principles
Thrive identifies the principles of integration, collaboration, and accountability to carry out the
Council's work. The three principles reflect the Council's efforts to integrate policy areas,
support local governments and regional partners, and promote and implement the Thrive
regional vision.
Integration. Integration is the intentional combining of related activities to achieve more
effective results, using multiple policy tools to address complex regional challenges and
opportunities.
Collaboration. Collaboration recognizes that shared efforts advance our region most effectively
toward shared outcomes. Addressing the region's issues requires collaboration because no
single entity has the capacity or authority to do the work alone.
Accountability. For the Council, accountability includes a commitment to monitor and evaluate
the effectiveness of our policies and practices toward achieving shared outcomes and a
willingness to adjust course to improve performance.
Response of the 2040 Dater Resources Policy Plan to Thrive's Policy
Direction
Prosperity and Livability
Water resources have strategic importance in achieving economic growth, competitiveness, and
high quality of life. The Council's regional strategy balances the demands of growth with
protection and management of our lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater.
The Council recognizes the need to coordinate decisions about water supply, surface water
management, wastewater collection and treatment, land use, transportation, housing, and
natural resources. Regional transportation and wastewater systems investments and services
help shape growth patterns. Unplanned growth can put a strain on natural areas, availability and
quality of groundwater, the cost of services and other resources. Maximizing the benefits of
readily available wastewater treatment, water supply and stormwater infrastructure plays a key
role in supporting the competitive position of the region.
Accordingly, this Policy Plan includes policies and implementation strategies on growth that
focus our wastewater system expansion on supporting the orderly and economic redevelopment
in the urban area and urban centers, and development in the suburban, suburban edge, and
emerging suburban edge. It also includes policies and implementation strategies that promote
the livability of the region through access to adequate water supplies for drinking water and
promoting the protection and restoration of our water resources for recreational use.
Equity
An important consideration of this Policy Plan is its impact on all populations in the region,
including low-income populations, communities of color, persons with disabilities, and persons
with limited English proficiency. Equity connects all residents to opportunity and creates viable
housing and transportation options for people of all races, ethnicities, incomes and abilities so
that all communities share the opportunities and challenges of growth and change. For our
region to reach its full economic potential, all of our residents must be able to access
opportunity that leads to success, prosperity, and a high quality of life.
5
This Policy Plan supports regional balance with policies and implementation strategies that
provide for uniform rates in the region for all of our wastewater customers. The Council provides
equal access to the affordable wastewater systems for customers within the metropolitan urban
service area, and uniformly maintains all parts of the regional wastewater system infrastructure.
Outreach to underrepresented communities is essential as the Council develops plans and
implements future projects and other activities. This Policy Plan was prepared under the
Council's Public Participation Plan and has built on the extensive outreach and engagement
completed for Thrive MSP 2040, including targeted community engagement with historically
underrepresented communities. This Policy Plan commits the Council to expanding on and
fostering public engagement in its system planning and in project development.
Sustainability and Stewardship
Sustainable water resources means having adequate high-quality groundwater and surface
water resources to support the region's growing water supply needs and the region's unique
and intricate ecosystems. And it means managing our resources in a way that ensures
availability of our water resources for current and future generations.
The Minnesota State Legislature has defined sustainability as it relates to water supply:
"Water is sustainable when the use does not harm ecosystems, degrade water quality or
compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
The Council is committed to collaborating with our partners, including federal, state, local and
regional agencies and organizations, to promote the long-term sustainability of the region's
water resources for surface and ground water quality and quantity and wastewater collection
and treatment. To promote sufficient and high-quality ground and surface water, the Council will:
• Promote water sustainability through the Water Resources Policy Plan, the wastewater
system plan, the Master Water Supply Plan and through the review of local water supply
plans, surface water management plans, and comprehensive sewer plans.
• Practice a high level of environmental sustainability in our wastewater treatment system
operations, leading by example in the sustainability of our operations in the following
areas:
- Energy conservation and renewable energy generation
- Emissions reductions
- Water conservation
- Solid waste conservation and recycling
• Collaborate with our partners to save dollars, share expertise and accomplish more.
- Lead the Council's team to address climate change on a community level and
environmental sustainability in all the Council's operations
- Work with external partners on climate change and sustainability to learn from each
other, develop and lead regionwide sustainability strategies
• Promote the wise use of water at the community level through optimizing surface water
and groundwater use, conservation, reuse, and aquifer recharge.
• Collaborate with partners, including providing technical assistance to local governments
about wastewater, water supply and surface water management.
6
• Plan for the long-term reliability, resiliency, security and cost-effectiveness of the
region's water supplies.
• Incorporate water sustainability considerations in all areas of Council policy and actions,
including overall development patterns, water management, transportation, housing, and
regional parks.
• Identify subregional and local water sustainability solutions that balance regional needs
and local objectives.
Regional Growth Forecasts
The pressures on the region's water resources will increase as our population and economy
grow. During the last four decades, the region grew by over 975,000 people. Between 2010 and
2040 it is projected that the region will grow by over 824,000 residents and 391,400 households.
1970 2000 2010 2040 2010-2040
Projected
Increase
Population 1,874,600 2,642,062 2,849,567 3,675,660 824,093
Households 573,600 1,021,456 1,117,749 1,510,090 391,421
Jobs 779,000 1,606,263 1,543,872 2,102,090 550,508
Community Designations
Thrive forecasts show that, over the next 30 years, growth and redevelopment will occur
throughout the region, but with variations from area to area. The seven-county region contains a
wide range of communities, from agricultural townships to densely developed downtown
neighborhoods. Recognizing that one size does not fit all, the Council uses community
designations to group communities with similar characteristics in order to implement regional
policy at the local level through comprehensive plans (See Figure 1). Community designations
fall within two main categories, the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and the Rural Service
Area.
Metropolitan Urban Service Area
The Metropolitan Urban Service Area constitutes about half of the land in the region, but
accounts for more than 90% of the region's population. The Council supports the Metropolitan
Urban Service Area through investments such as regional wastewater services, regional
highways, transit service, the Regional Parks System, and programs that support
redevelopment. Some of the region's most popular regional parks are located in the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area, including Como Regional Park, Zoo and Conservatory;
Minnehaha Regional Park; and Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve. Trails including the
Bruce Vento and the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail; connect people to regional parks and
local amenities. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area is divided into five community
designations:
• Urban Center
• Urban
• Suburban
• Suburban Edge
• Emerging Suburban Edge
Urban Center communities include the largest, most centrally located and most economically
diverse cities of the region. Urban centers are located in the metropolitan urban service area
(MUSA) and have a minimum average net density of 20 units/acre.
Urban communities are adjacent to the Urban Center communities and have seen considerable
development and growth along highways. Urban areas are in the MUSA and have a minimum
average net density of 10 units/acre.
Suburban communities saw their primary era of development during the 1980s and early
1990s. Suburban communities also include places that were once resort destinations along
Lake Minnetonka and White Bear Lake and along the St. Croix River. Suburban communities
are in the MUSA and have a minimum average net density of 5 units/acre.
The Suburban Edge includes communities that have experienced significant residential growth
beginning in the 1990s and continuing to the 2010s. At least 40% of the land in these
communities is developed, but significant amounts of land remain for future development.
Suburban Edge communities are in the MUSA and have a minimum average net density of 3-5
units/acre.
The Emerging Suburban Edge includes cities, townships and portions of both that are in early
stages of transitioning into urbanized levels of development. In the majority of these
communities, less than 40% of the land has been developed. Parts of Emerging Suburban Edge
communities are in the MUSA and all have a minimum average net density of 3-5 units/acre.
Rural Service Area
About half of the land in the Twin Cities region is located in the Rural Service Area. This area
includes a range of land uses, including cultivated farmland, vineyards, hobby farms, gravel
mines, woodlands, small towns, scattered and clustered housing, open spaces, and significant
expanses of the region's natural resources. Aside from the Regional Parks System, investments
in regional service and infrastructure are limited in the Rural Service Area. The Rural Service
Area is divided into four community designations:
Rural Center
• Rural Residential
• Diversified Rural
• Agricultural
The Rural Service Area contains some of the Regional Parks System's large park reserves,
including Crow Hassan and Big Marine Park Reserves. In addition to providing passive
recreation opportunities, the park reserves also preserve, maintain, and connect high quality or
regionally important natural resources. The metropolitan system plans and policy plans seek to
carefully integrate regional land use, housing, transportation, wastewater, water supply, surface
water management, natural resources, and parks policies to achieve regional goals in each area
and avoid working at cross-purposes. In this Policy Plan, the forecasts are used in the planning
and capital improvement program processes to assess regional needs for wastewater treatment
8
and water supply needs of the region in order to serve growth in a timely, efficient and cost
effective manner.
Rural Centers are local commercial, employment, and residential activity centers serving rural
areas in the region. These small towns are surrounded by agricultural lands and serve as
centers of commerce to those surrounding farm lands. The density is 3-5 units/acre.
Diversified Rural communities are home to a variety of farm and nonfarm land uses including
very large-lot residential, clustered housing, hobby farms, and agricultural uses. Located
adjacent to the Emerging Edge Suburban communities, the Diversified Rural designation
protects rural land for rural lifestyles today with the potential of becoming urbanized after 2040.
Maximum allowable density is 4 units/40 acres.
Rural Residential communities have residential patterns characterized by large lots and do not
have plans to provide urban infrastructure. Maximum allowable density is 1 unit per-2.5 acres.
Agricultural communities encompass areas with prime agricultural soils that are planned and
zoned for long-term agriculture. Maximum allowable density is 1 unit/40 acres.
9
Figure 1. Thrive MSP 2040 Community Designations
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area _ — _—
ThriveMSP 2040
Community Designations ? C 0 j NOUTAN
AN A (;
WAS
_�.
RAMS£N � ., �..
HENNEPI
--------------
CARVER 1 �
DAKOTA
a ���.__ -1 /.��`.v.�iy l,,ro luer.p r ; ...re i�.ug,• .y \ ..,..a- y, \\" \,
w+[ ���'' SCOTT
e 'v-y
" 17
0 5 10 1s 20 r. 1 ...,o. ;� 1r,y26 mu
r"``
Mies d "° •r 1
Community Designations
Urban Service Areas Rural Service Areas Highways
Urban Center Rural Center —Interstate Highways
Urban Diversified Rural —State,US Highways and County Roads
Suburban Rural Residential E-- J County Boundaries
Suburban Edge Agricultural City and Township Boundaries
Emerging Suburban Edge Lakes and Rivers
Hanover,New Prague,Northfield,and Rockford are outside the Cauncrl's planning authority
10
Local Comprehensive Plans
The policy direction from Thrive MSP 2040 and the Council's system plans and policy plans —
including this 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan—assist communities in developing their
comprehensive plans. Under state law, each county, city and township in the metro area is
required to review and if necessary amend its local comprehensive plan every 10 years to
ensure that the local plan —and local fiscal devices and official controls - are consistent with the
Council's metropolitan system plans (MN Statute 473.864). Following adoption of the 2040
Water Resources Policy Plan and the issuance of system statements, local communities have
three years to amend their local comprehensive plans.
Local comprehensive plans are reviewed by the Council based on three primary criteria.
• Conformance with metropolitan system plans
• Consistency with Council policies
• Compatibility with adjacent and affected governmental units
When a plan meets these criteria, the Council authorizes it to be put into effect. If a plan does
not meet the review standards, the Council can require the jurisdiction to modify its plan to
reflect the Council's system plans.
Conformance: Conformance is achieved if the local plan:
• Accurately reflects the metropolitan system plans
• Integrates public facilities plans
• Addresses land use policies, plans for forecasted growth, meets density standards and
maximizes the efficiency and effectiveness of the regional system.
Consistency: Consistency is achieved if the local plan:
• Addresses the community role for land use policies contained in Thrive
• Addresses the linkage of local land uses and the metropolitan wastewater disposal
system
• Includes an implementation plan describing public programs, fiscal devices, and other
specific actions that implement the comprehensive plan and ensure conformance with
regional system plans
• Addresses official controls and includes a capital improvement program (sewers, parks,
transportation, and open space)that accommodates planned growth and development.
Compatibility: Compatibility with adjacent and affected governmental units is achieved if the
local plan:
• Adequately documents that it has addressed the concern (s) of all adjacent and affected
jurisdictions based on comments or concerns from these entities.
As local communities update their comprehensive plans, they are required to acknowledge and
plan for wastewater facilities in order to conform to the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan.
11
An Integrated Strategy for Water Resources
The quality and quantity of water in the region's lakes, rivers and streams sustain the health of
wildlife habitat and ecosystems while enhancing the quality of life for the region's residents.
Individual lakes and streams are important to their host communities, providing opportunities for
swimming, boating and fishing and enhancing the livability of the community. In addition, the
region's lakes, streams, and wetlands together form a system that discharges into the region's
major rivers (Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix), which provide drinking water for the urban
core, recreational uses, and barge transportation that support the region's economy and quality
of life.
Plentiful, high-quality water is essential to achieving regional outcomes of stewardship,
prosperity, equity, livability, and sustainability. The Council is committed to working with partners
to protect, conserve, and utilize the surface and groundwater resources in the region.
Achieving this goal requires that we consider how our activities in the individual areas of water
supply, surface water management, and wastewater management and operations can support
or reinforce each other. For example, the Council will:
• Continue to implement our inflow and infiltration mitigation program, which preserves
clear water, protects public health, and avoids pollution of our surface water.
• Support water supply solutions that promote the wise use of water at the community
level through conservation, reuse, aquifer recharge, and development of alternative
approaches to groundwater and surface water use.
• Promote treating stormwater on-site to support surface water needs while also allowing
it to infiltrate into the groundwater.
• Pursue opportunities for reusing wastewater to reduce the demand on our groundwater.
Thrive IPSP 2040 Water Sustainability Direction:
The region's water resources are sustainable, supported by a regional strategy that
balances growth and protection to improve and maintain the quality and quantity of water
in our lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater.
The Council will work with state, local and regional partners to provide for sustainable
water resources through effective water supply, surface water, and Wastewater planning
and management.
In response to this direction and input from our partners and stakeholders, the following water
sustainability goal has been developed.
Water Sustainability Goal.
To protect, conserve and utilize the region's groundwater and surface water in ways
that protect public health, support economical growth and development, maintain
habitat and ecosystem health, and provide for recreational opportunities, which are
essential to our region's quality of life.
12
Working toward Sustainability using the Watershed Management Approach
Focusing on the natural characteristics and functions of watersheds provides an essential tool
for managing water resources. The watershed approach to water management is the concept of
holistically managing our waters based on natural hydrologic boundaries in a defined
geographic area. The Council's activities supporting watershed assessment and management
provide value by targeting efforts to protect the region's natural environment, protect and
improve recreational opportunities, offset impacts of wastewater treatment plant discharges, and
protect drinking water supplies.
The Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, enacted in 1982, established comprehensive
surface water management in the metro area, creating watershed management organizations
and watershed districts with planning and management authorities.
Currently, there are 33 watershed management organizations that are required to prepare and
implement local watershed management plans to protect surface water resources in the seven-
county metropolitan area. The organizations include watershed districts, watershed
management organizations and county joint-powers organizations. These organizations use a
holistic view and approach to managing the water resources and issues in their defined
geographic areas. The watershed management programs required under the Metropolitan
Surface Water Management Act are intended to:
• Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention
systems
• Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality
problems
• Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater
quality
• Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater
management
• Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems
• Promote groundwater recharge
• Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities, and
• Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and
groundwater.
As part of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, all communities in the metro area
are required to prepare local water management plans, often referred to as local surface water
management plans or comprehensive water management plans in response to the watershed
plans that they are part of. Minnesota Statutes requires local water plans to:
• Describe existing and proposed physical environment and land use
• Define drainage areas and the volumes, rates, and paths of stormwater runoff
• Identify areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance
standards established in the watershed plan
• Define water quality and water quality protection methods adequate to meet
performance standards established in the watershed plan
• Identify regulated areas
13
• Set forth an implementation program, including a description of official controls and, as
appropriate, a capital improvement program.
Local water plans also need to be consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Rules Chapter
8410 (Appendix C includes the local water plan requirements).
Oversight of stormwater runoff from urbanized areas also happens at the state level. The
municipal separate storm sewer systems or MS4 permit program is mandated by federal law
and administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The primary goal of the MS4
permit program is to improve water quality by reducing the pollutants in stormwater that
discharge into our lakes, wetlands, streams, and rivers. All local public entities including
watersheds organizations, cities and townships that own or operate municipal separate storm
sewer systems such as curbs, ditches, culverts, stormwater ponds, and storm sewer pipes are
required to get a permit that focuses on preventing and reducing the impacts of stormwater
runoff on our lakes, wetlands, streams, and rivers. This is in addition to local water plans that
need to be prepared as part of the watershed management structure in Minnesota.
More recently, the State of Minnesota adopted a watershed approach that includes how, when
and where the organizations monitor, assess data, establish implementation strategies and
implement water quality activities. With these data, the state is preparing watershed-based
restoration and protection strategies for defined hydrologically based areas throughout the state
of Minnesota.
• • c , c
The Council also has responsibilities for surface water management, planning and assessment
in the region. The Council is in a unique position, through its comprehensive planning,
watershed management planning review, and federally designated areawide water quality
agency roles and responsibilities, to provide a regional perspective on water issues that
transcend community or watershed boundaries in the metro area. The Council works closely
with state agency and local partners in using the "watershed approach" to water management in
the metro area. The Council also works with watershed organizations on plan development,
review and implementation, as well as with cities and townships on the review of their local
water plans.
Policy on Watershed Approach:
The Council will work with our partners to develop and implement a regional watershed-based
approach that addresses both watershed restoration (improving impaired waters) and protection
(maintaining water quality in unimpaired waters).
Implementation Strategies:
• Work with the watershed management structure in the metro area on issues that
transcend watershed organization boundaries in order to prepare water management
14
plans that promote the protection and restoration of local and regional water resources
(lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater).
• Through the review process for comprehensive plans, local water plans, and watershed
management plans, make water resources management a critical part of land use
decisions, planning protocols and procedures to ensure these plans are making
progress toward achieving state and regional goals for protection and restoration of
water resources.
• Provide technical and financial assistance to local governments and other partners on
water issues and water management activities.
• Facilitate discussions on regional water issues that transcend community or watershed
organization boundaries.
• Provide technical information to watershed organizations on practices to use and
incorporate into their plans that protect water quality for our water supply sources.
Working toward Sustainability of our Water Supplies
A sustainable water supply is vital for future economic growth while ensuring quality of life for
the citizens of the region. A sustainable water supply means managing our resources in a way
that ensures its availability for current and future generations, including sufficient high-quality
groundwater and surface water resources to support the region's growing needs and unique,
intricate ecosystems.
With over half of the state's population, the region's water sources support a wide range of
demands. While State statute defines the highest priority use for water as domestic
(household) water supply, other uses are also critical for the region's economical growth and
development. Sustainable water supply management must consider water demand for
agricultural irrigation, industrial processes, power production and other uses along with
domestic needs.
Public water supply is the largest consumptive use of water in the region, and it is the fastest
growing. About 30% of public water supply demand is met by surface water; 70% by
groundwater. This represents a shift from when most development occurred in and near the
central cities and residents relied mostly on surface water. Reliance on wells increased as
development began to occur further from the urban core. By the 1980s, groundwater use
surpassed surface water use. This has put a strain on the aquifers, water-bearing porous soil or
rock strata that yield significant amounts of water to wells, most notably the Prairie du Chien
aquifer.
After public water supply, industrial and agricultural water demands are the biggest. The top
industrial uses are petroleum processing, agricultural processing and industrial process cooling
water. Although annual agricultural water use is not as high as industrial water use, summer
seasonal use is very large, particularly in areas with sandy soils such as Dakota County.
Managing water sustainably requires thinking and action that is broader than community or even
watershed boundaries; aquifers extend many miles across the metro area and are shared by
thousands of individual users. For example, the Prairie du Chien Jordan aquifer is shared by 83
communities in the metro area to supply municipal water demand (Figure 2). Other
communities also rely on that aquifer to supply private water demand.
15
Figure 2. Communities Served by the Prairie du Chien Jordan Aquifer
ANKAI
i
i.
i
�. &ASHINcs.ON
RA..SE I
-iENNEPIN 4
cbr
L _
�R\1FR
i
CA7OSA
H
i
s
N
W E
Miles
S 0 2.5 5 10 15 20
r+�W—s—cis.Mec:—I B—p PD—d Source Rivers,Counties,Highways IMC 2013)
16
Aquifers across the metro area are not all connected, though. Groundwater does not flow all the
way from Anoka County to Dakota County and vice versa. The region can be roughly divided
into six aquifer areas or subregions that have relatively similar aquifer characteristics.
Considering groundwater through this subregional aquifer approach can help organize the
Council's recommendations and decisions about water supply plan requirements and research
investments — including the location, scope and timing of different activities. The Council has
supported the development of subregional work groups that have focused on water supply
limitations in those areas. Groundwater limitations have been and continue to be a main focus
of these work groups.
As the permitting agency for water withdrawals, the Department of Natural Resources is a key
partner for the Council. The Council and DNR work closely on water supply issues, including the
development and review of water supply plans and actions, as well as on planning for any
designated groundwater management areas in the region.
Policy on Sustainable Water Supplies:
The Council shall support and plan for the sustainable use of water sources that focuses on the
implications of increasing groundwater use including impacts to surface waters, wetlands, and
ecological areas while ensuring that supplies of potable water are sufficient for the region's
current population and projected growth.
Implementation Strategies:
t Collaborate with agency partners in developing and implementing Groundwater
Management Areas, wellhead protection plans, review of water appropriation permits,
and aquifer recharge projects.
• Facilitate discussions on water supply issues that transcend community boundaries,
through subregional work groups and on ars ad hoc basis as needed.
• In partnership with subregional work groups and relevant agencies, identify desired
groundwater levels and other indicators for those subregional areas.
f Provide technical assistance to local governments and other partners on water supply
issues.
• Promote water supply resiliency by identifying and pursuing options to increase surface
water use, when economically feasible.
Planning for Regional Growth
The Council is responsible for providing direction on the planning for and management of our
water resources in support of the orderly and economical growth and development of the region
while taking into consideration the interrelationships of land use, growth patterns, transportation,
water resources protection, and other regional services. With a growing population, more
business and industry, and a changing environment, the long-range outlook for clean water is
challenging. Adequate access to high quality water supplies, proper treatment and disposal of
stormwater, and sustainable wastewater treatment options all need to be considered as we plan
for growth in the region.
Serving the Urban Area
The Council's wastewater system, built and modified to serve regional growth and development,
currently provides wastewater collection and treatment services to over 2.7 million people in 108
17
communities. The current system consists of seven wastewater treatment plants (Metropolitan,
Empire, Seneca, St. Croix Valley, Eagles Point, Blue Lake, and Hastings) and one wastewater
reclamation facility (East Bethel).
The Council's updated wastewater system plan for the seven-county metro area includes a
specific plan identifying how wastewater services will be provided to serve the region's projected
2040 growth, and a general plan to serve the region's growth well beyond 2040. Appendix F
includes the long-term service area map for wastewater treatment plants owned and operated
by the Council.
To ensure adequate wastewater treatment plant capacity and high quality water resources that
support ecosystem health, water supply needs and recreational uses, it is critical that regional
planning occur in partnership with the cities, townships, watershed organizations, state agencies
and other interested parties.
Communities in the metro area are required to prepare comprehensive plans consistent with
Council policy. The comprehensive plans have three chapters that take direction and guidance
from the Water Resources Policy Plan: the comprehensive sewer plan, the local surface water
plan, and the local water supply plan.
Policy on Serving the Urban Area:
The Council will use the Water Resources Policy Plan to support and plan for sustainable water
resources that protect public health, provide recreational opportunities, maintain habitat and
ecosystem health and ensure that supplies of potable water are sufficient for the orderly and
economical development and redevelopment of the metro area long into the future. A
community's comprehensive plan is expected to accommodate the forecasts and to meet the
densities specified in the Council's Thrive MSP 2040 plan.
A community's comprehensive plan must include:
• A water supply plan that is consistent with the Twin Cities metro area Master Water
Supply Plan, the Department of Natural Resources plan requirements, and Council
policy
• A local surface water management plan that is consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter
8410 and Council policy and does not adversely impact the regional wastewater
system, and
• A comprehensive sewer plan that is consistent with the regional wastewater system
plan.
Inconsistencies between the local plans and the Council's plans may result in the Council's
finding that the community's plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on, or
contain a substantial departure from, the metropolitan system plan, thus requiring modifications
to the local comprehensive plan.
Implementation Strategies:
• Update the Twin Cities metro area Master Water Supply Plan, which provides the
framework for coordinated water supply planning.
18
• Review local water supply plans to ensure consistency with the Twin Cities metro area
Master Water Supply Plan.
• Provide technical assistance to local units of government in developing local water
supply plans and wellhead protection plans, and in reviewing water appropriation permits
and aquifer recharge projects.
• Review local surface water plans to ensure consistency with Council policy.
• Provide a level of wastewater service commensurate with the needs of the growing
metro area, and in an environmentally sound manner.
• Provide sufficient capacity in the wastewater system to meet the growth projections and
long-term service area needs identified in approved local comprehensive sewer plans.
• Stage wastewater system improvements, when feasible, to reduce the financial risks
associated with inherent uncertainty in growth forecasts.
• Potentially implement early land acquisition and work closely with communities to
preserve utility corridors when it is necessary to expand its facilities or locate new
facilities needed to implement the wastewater system plan.
• Efficiently use existing sewer investments in developing and redeveloping areas.
• Preserve unsevered areas inside the Long-Term Wastewater Service Area for future
development that can be sewered economically.
• Extend wastewater service to suburban communities if the service area contains at least
1,000 developable acres.
• Require that all communities currently served by the regional wastewater system remain
in the system.
• Acquire wastewater treatment plants from suburban communities outside the current
service area, based upon request through the comprehensive plan and comprehensive
sewer plan process, after soliciting customer input and conducting a public hearing on
the request.
Serving the Rural Area
Where rural centers are willing to expand to accommodate the increased growth as forecasted
by the Council, they may want to have the Council involved in the possible acquisition, operation
and improvement of the wastewater treatment plant located in that community.
Policy on Serving the Rural Area:
The Council will acquire wastewater treatment plants owned by Rural Centers, based upon
request through the comprehensive plan and comprehensive sewer plan processes, and based
upon criteria that ensures direct identifiable regional benefits after soliciting customer input and
conducting a public hearing on the request.
Implementation Strategies:
• Accept the wastewater service request only when the following criteria are met:
- The community accepts the Council's growth forecasts, as well as preserves at least
1,000 developed or developable acres for growth through the land use planning authority
19
of the county or adjacent township(s) or through an orderly annexation agreement or
similar mechanism to provide for staged, orderly growth in the surrounding area.
- The community has adequate water supply.
- The community has adequate transportation access.
- The community lies within the long-term wastewater service area or other regional
benefits would result, such as economic development unique to the rural area or
preservation of high-value water resources.
- There are feasible and economical options for siting and permitting an expanded
wastewater treatment plant, or for extending interceptor service.
- The Council has sought customer input, has conducted appropriate financial analysis,
and has conducted a public hearing on the community's wastewater service request.
• Require that, if the most economical and beneficial wastewater service option is to construct
a regional interceptor to serve the community, the Council will not acquire the community's
wastewater treatment plant, and the community will be responsible for decommissioning its
treatment plant.
• Not allow connections to the regional wastewater system outside the sewered rural
community. The Council may construct capacity to serve the long-term needs of the rural
and agricultural planning areas, but will not provide service until the Council, in consultation
with the appropriate community, designates the area as a developing community and the
community amends its comprehensive plan accordingly.
• Preserve areas outside the Long-Term Wastewater Service Area for agricultural and rural
uses, while protecting significant natural resources, supporting groundwater recharge,
protecting source water quality, and allowing limited unsewered development.
Use of Private Wastewater Systems
There are more than 75,000 subsurface sewage treatment systems and many more community
systems in the metro area. Cities and townships located within the rural area have allowed
higher density development using community systems that are permitted by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. Both individual and community systems largely serve the parts of the
region where wastewater collection and treatment is not available. The Council's intent is to
work with communities to ensure that individual and community systems do not cause water
quality problems.
Policy on Private Wastewater Systems:
Communities that permit the construction and operation of subsurface sewage treatment
systems and other private wastewater treatment systems within their communities are
responsible for ensuring that these systems are installed, maintained, managed, and regulated
consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules. The Council will not provide financial
support to assist communities if these systems fail.
Implementation Strategies:
• The Council will use its review authority for local comprehensive plans to ensure that
communities fulfill their current and future obligations regarding subsurface sewage
treatment systems and other private wastewater systems.
20
• The Council will continue to support State rules for subsurface sewage treatment
systems and other private wastewater systems.
• The Council will allow a community to connect a failing subsurface sewage treatment
system or other private wastewater treatment system to the regional wastewater system
at the community's expense.
Water Conservation and Reuse
Sustainable and plentiful high quality water resources provides a firm foundation for the region's
future economic growth and prosperity, livability and high quality of life as long as we are good
stewards and use our resources wisely. A growing economy that creates and provides jobs for
the citizens of the region, a good transportation system that fairly and equitably links citizens
with job opportunities and affordable housing, sustainable natural and water resources that
provide for recreational opportunities and that support a high quality of life are all part of the
region that the Council strives to foster and maintain.
The overall theme of this Policy Plan is to move toward more sustainable water systems through
integration of our roles in wastewater, water supply, and surface water planning, management
and operation. On a Council level, integration means leading by example and working across
Council divisions to promote water sustainability. In MCES, integration means that the Council
will continue to provide high quality, affordable wastewater collection and treatment services in
support of new development and redevelopment in a manner that protects our valued water
resources for the long-term.
For example, the Council will look toward ways to increase our water supply from groundwater
resources through the reuse of wastewater in order to provide for recharge to our groundwater
system, through our inflow and infiltration mitigation program which preserves clear water and
avoids pollution of our surface water, by investigating the potential for water conservation or
increasing use of surface water resources to offset demands being placed on the groundwater
system, by promoting low impact development practices as a means for stormwater runoff
management that has the added benefit of increasing recharge to our groundwater.
The source of nearly all water in the metro area's aquifers is from infiltrated precipitation. The
amount of direct precipitation that is able to infiltrate from the land surface area and move below
the root zone is the maximum amount of water available to recharge the underlying aquifers.
This amount is dependent upon the rate and duration of precipitation, the soil type and land
cover, land use, topography, and evapotranspiration (water evaporated from soil surfaces and
transpired by plants into the atmosphere). The portion of infiltration that moves from the
unsaturated sediment below the root zone into the underlying aquifers (saturated zone) is
considered aquifer recharge.
Infiltration is similar, but considered different, than groundwater recharge. The most important
distinction between infiltration and groundwater recharge is the time lag between infiltration of
water past the root zone and recharge at the water table.
21
As part of •. • of •uncil's Empire Wastewater2004-2007,
Council ,ee-• a numberof •w impact development practices including a • - (vegetated) ••
on the reverse activated sludge building. two large infiltration basins within the plant area. a
raingarden at the plant entrance, vegetated swales, a prairie plant garden, and five permeable
paver parking areas to reduce the,Istormwater impacts on the site and ultimately to the
Vermillion River. a DNRJesignated Trout stream.
Policy on Water Conservation and Reuse:
The Council will work with our partners to identify emerging issues and challenges for the region
as we work together on solutions that include the use of water conservation, wastewater and
stormwater reuse, and low impact development practices in order to promote a more
sustainable region.
Implementation Strategies:
• Identify and pursue options to reuse treated wastewater to supplement groundwater and
surface water as sources of water to support regional growth, when economically
feasible.
• Promote water supply resiliency through the use of stormwater best management
practices that minimize aquifer impacts and maximize groundwater recharge, where
practical.
• Promote water conservation measures, including tool development and outreach.
• Encourage low impact development, land uses, and cooperative water use practices that
minimize impacts on aquifers.
• Investigate reusing treated wastewater, and when cost-effective, implement reuse.
• Provide research and guidance on best management practices to use for effective
surface water management.
• In partnership with others, research and promote the development of innovative best
management practices including low impact development technologies and agricultural
best practices.
• Install and monitor innovative nonpoint source pollution reduction practices at Council
facilities and support economically feasible projects that demonstrate new technologies
and their effectiveness.
Assessment of Regional Water Resources
The region's water resources must be sustainable for current and future generations.
Sustainable water resources means providing adequate sources of drinking water and other
sources of water needed for industry and agriculture, promoting sustainable management and
operations of our wastewater treatment systems and providing for available and high quality
water resources for fishing, swimming, and supporting our aquatic life and terrestrial habitat.
Thrive MSP 2040 includes accountability as its third principle to measure success in
implementing our policies and strategies. Accountability requires a commitment to monitoring
and evaluating the effectiveness of our programs and policies. In partnership with others in the
22
region, we will assess and evaluate the quality of the region's water resources and work to
maintain and improve these resources.
Some parts of the region expect to continue relying on groundwater as the main source of
supply to meet future growth, while other areas lack ready access to productive aquifers to meet
their water supply needs. Still others face the challenge of reconciling competing demands
between using groundwater to supply their communities and protecting surface waters that rely
on groundwater to maintain their integrity. Other concerns include aquifer contamination and the
inevitability of occasional droughts. The region needs to evaluate all available water supply
sources and, if feasible, minimize roadblocks to their use.
The Council plays a role in monitoring and assessing our surface water resources as well. In
the metro area, the Council plays a huge role in collecting water quality and flow data needed to
assess the condition of these valued resources in order to measure success in meeting our goal
of water sustainability. The Council works closely with state agencies, communities, and
watershed organizations in the metro area to fill gaps in monitoring and assessments needed
related to the condition of our area lakes, rivers and streams. For example, in partnership with
others the Council monitors and assesses the condition of around 200 lakes a year, 21 stream
sites, and 22 river sites.
Achieving the goal of water sustainability in the region will require partnerships and actions from
the many entities involved in water management, water supply and use, and implementation
today. The Council is committed to providing monitoring and assessment information and other
technical assistance. The Council is also committed to providing leadership in discussions,
decisions and implementation actions needed for sustainable water. Together, we can build on
the successes of the region to achieve our water sustainability goal.
Policy on Assessing and Protecting Regional Water Resources:
The Council will continue to assess the condition of the region's lakes, rivers, streams, and
aquifers to evaluate impacts on regional water resources and measure success in achieving
regional water goals.
23
Figure 3. Priority Lakes and the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space System
2014 Priority Lakes and7, _- f `z%!
The Regional Park System t� d t
{ i
li.tau" a.;- L_ ._I MEoTROPOL�ITAN
1 TVM _ = e_•l* i _
ANOKA' F°'ta' Bone
Kiln �, j
i/ i ilr Syroan �.'
P a GoaRM
��'' I ,..P„�.Y
11 :aY t• - r--K..sin°IIc BsS7. carna•'an Ls rwn
{ irate '.' �' e 'r' 1
ec,
4ZI
PWt _ - C)aYrr Or-g+c
HENNEPIN �- ,wr,. iaana' - ii
r,4:Prrtdt:rce. x I - r '` -.i,t _ .!'.ea'anbBrH.re'•'_— .y
IL
411
i o."rs
` RFrt,:SEY
1 i nvrtr.+r. _�.,nM I`•` t'���- _, CCC"'
WASHINGTON
it.sPr.,�_Porky ,oa,'Ina"tia-Suemq_. - ria^•- I Y
.
1 e��-, Fdae.n mss„'a meal a•r�v, zrorcu,e.`tr:,:re,-;r'- - - - -- - --- - - -
r,satnr3'�r -cc /
Prse ac+t - .__. t `• ri Rei S—a e
` Ny66
E M R CARVER isAL
V /
( .� co•aWyse �r v � (=- ' I �
LIS L—k-
! - dLt P'
- Ac•.. TP.dk �
U;P"
C_/ SCOT' rs• iJ{� DAKOTA'
_ cr,r
..� 0 25 S �0•�' i5�.._._.�._.�.
Mes
2014 Prnonty Lakes
Other Lakes and Mator Rivers
Regional Parks by Type
Af Park Reserve
Regional Park
Special Recreation Feature
OMetro Counties
I Cities b Townships
24
Implementation Strategies:
• With our partners, monitor the quality of regional lakes and rivers and quality and flow of
regional streams.
• Continue to assess and fill gaps in lake, stream, river, and groundwater data.
• Assess and evaluate long-term water quality trends for the region's lakes, streams, and
rivers and identify key issues to be addressed.
• Maintain a regional database that contains water quality, quantity and other water
related information collected as part of the Council's monitoring programs.
• Investigate the need to develop and/or recommend water monitoring and assessment
protocols, and other standard operating procedures for use by partners to move toward
consistent regional approaches.
• In partnership with others, complete technical studies to understand the region's long-
term water supply availability and demand and to identify water sources for a specific
community or subregional area.
• Evaluate the potential for enhancement of aquifer recharge, including identification of
high-potential areas for recharge.
• Assess the use, capacity, quality and vulnerability of the local and subregional water
supply systems and identify high-potential areas for recharge.
• Convene stakeholders and collaborate with partners to identify water quality
improvement implementation paths.
Investment
Beginning in early 2000, the Council began a major project to reduce phosphorus outputs from
our wastewater treatment facilities. Excessive phosphorus causes algal blooms and causes
nutrient problems in lakes that negatively affect the ecosystem health and limit recreational
opportunities on our lakes and rivers. The Council has installed new technology at the
wastewater treatment plants that allows them to capture and remove significant amounts of
phosphorus before it enters the rivers (Figure 4).
Pollution prevention is a key component to the Council's success in reducing adverse impacts
on the region's water resources. Pollution prevention programs, such as the mercury reduction
program jointly implemented with the Council and area dentists, have reduced the amount of
mercury entering MCES wastewater treatment plants by half, thus reducing MCES emissions to
rivers, the atmosphere, biosolids, and incinerator ash. The Council's permitting program for
industrial waste discharges also reduces loadings of other metals and toxic chemical, and has
contributed to our success in improving water quality in the region.
Even with all of the hard work done to protect the region's water resources, some pollutants still
make their way to area lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater systems from both
25
point and nonpoint sources. Point sources of pollution have identifiable points of entry into the
water such as a discharge from a pipe from a wastewater treatment plant or manufacturing
plant. Nonpoint sources of pollution are more diffuse and generally come from land areas that
contribute pollutants when rain runs over the land or snow melts and washes away the
pollutants. Nonpoint sources of pollution often pick up contaminants such as fertilizers from
lawns and pesticides from farmland, eroded soil from stream and river banks or gas and oil from
parking lots. Appendix B includes a list of common nonpoint source pollutants.
Figure 4. Metropolitan Plant Effluent Total Phosphorus, 1998-2013
25%of Meso Plant
converted Sio-P
2,500,OM Metro Plant Effluent Total Phosphorus, 1998-2013
n000
ol,s00,DM
VD
0
o
moi. 0 Metra P arst
t - - toff ertec to dila-P
d
f r
O
The Council has made significant progress in reducing our contribution from our wastewater
treatment plants given the technology we have today to reduce the pollutants of concern. Cities
have come a long way with reducing nonpoint sources of pollution by using best management
practices and low impact development practices to treat runoff from smaller urban sites and the
new Agriculture Certification Program aims to reduce pollutants from farm fields but there is still
a lot that can be done in this area.
26
Our goal with this Policy Plan is to look more broadly at opportunities and unintended
consequences throughout the water cycle and across the region before making costly
investments. In this way, the Council will identify the most valuable combination of actions. For
example, the Council will investigate whether or not we can more efficiently and effectively
reduce nonpoint source pollution instead of or to offset making costly upgrades to our
wastewater treatment plants.
The Investment Policy sets the stage for continuing to move forward in our infrastructure
investments by balancing costs and benefits as we make decisions on the need to spend more
on costly wastewater infrastructure improvements or offsetting some of those improvements by
addressing nonpoint sources of pollution. In addition, regionally, it is very important to identify
how communities could gain some economic and water resource efficiencies by sharing source,
treatment and/or storage facilities. In collaboration with local and state partners, the Council will
provide recommendations for the ongoing and long-term funding of capital investments. The
Council is committed to work with our partners to develop strategies and criteria for funding
regionally beneficial water supply infrastructure projects.
Investment Policy:
The Council will strive to maximize regional benefits from regional investments.
Implementation Strategies:
• Invest in nonpoint-source pollution control when the cost and long-term benefits are
favorable compared to further upgrading wastewater treatment.
• Consider pollutant trading or off-set opportunities with nonpoint-sources of pollution
when cost-effective and environmentally beneficial.
• Invest in wastewater reuse when justified by the benefits for supplementing groundwater
and surface water as sources of water to support regional growth, and by the benefits for
maintaining water quality.
• Potentially invest strategically to further the effectiveness of the region's nonpoint-source
pollution prevention and control program and to ensure efficient investment to achieve
regional water quality objectives.
• Support cost-effective investments in water supply infrastructure to promote sustainable
use and protect the region's water supplies by:
- Developing criteria to identify water supply projects with regional benefit.
- Promoting equitable cost-sharing structure(s)for regionally-beneficial water
supply development projects.
- Supporting cost-benefit analyses of alternative water supply options.
- Identifying funding mechanisms for regionally-beneficial water supply
development projects.
27
Wastewater Services
Sustainability
The Council owns and operates eight wastewater treatment plants, which process over 250
million gallons of wastewater each day. The Council works cooperatively with communities,
regulatory agencies, and citizens of the region to help ensure that costly infrastructure can be
efficiently built and operated in a sustainable manner.
Wastewater Sustainability Policy.
The Council will provide efficient, high-quality, and environmentally sustainable regional
wastewater infrastructure and services.
The Council shall conduct its regional wastewater system operations in a sustainable manner as
is economically feasible. Sustainable operations relates not only to water resources but also to
increasing energy efficiency and using renewable energy sources, reducing air pollutant
emissions, and reducing, reusing, and recycling solid wastes.
Implementation Strategies:
• Implement and enforce Waste Discharge Rules for the regional wastewater system.
• Preserve regional wastewater system assets of the Council through effective
maintenance, condition and capacity assessment, and capital investment.
• Accept septage, biosolids, leachate, and other hauled liquid waste at designated sites,
provided that the waste can be efficiently and effectively processed.
• Reuse treated wastewater to meet water needs within Council wastewater treatment
facilities where economically feasible.
• Provide industries with incentives to pretreat wastewater to reduce its strength and thus
provide the most environmental and economical benefit for the region.
• Generate energy from biosolids processing, utilize energy efficient processes and
equipment, and reduce building energy use.
• Pursue other renewable energy sources, such as solar power generation, thermal
energy recovery, and new technologies - such as fuei cells - as they become proven
and economical.
• Stabilize and reduce the volume of biosolids through thermal processing or anaerobic
digestion, and utilize the remaining solids as fertilizer and soil conditioner.
• Improve sustainability of wastewater operations, when economically feasible.
Inflow and Infiltration
Inflow and infiltration are the ways that clear water makes its way into sanitary sewer pipes,
takes up capacity, and are then treated, unnecessarily, at wastewater treatment plants.
With inflow, clear water enters the wastewater system through rain leaders, storm sewer cross
connections, sump pumps or foundation drains that are connected to sewer lines. Private
28
service laterals can also be a source of inflow. Factors that contribute to their susceptibility
include; age, condition, pipe material, construction, soils, and water table elevation.
In the case of infiltration, groundwater seeps into cracked or broken wastewater
pipes. Infiltration is a steady contributor to the problem, causing water that should be filtering
down and recharging the region's aquifers to end up in rivers and flow out of Minnesota.
Misr
nticrvwexcn
The addition of clear water into the local sewer systems creates multiple problems. First, the
additional flow takes capacity that was built to accommodate new development and, in some
cases, the additional flow exceeds the available sewer system capacity. When the capacity of
the sewer is exceeded, the wastewater backs up into basements or spills out of a manhole
causing water quality concerns. Second, the clear water that gets into the wastewater system is
eventually treated and discharged into the rivers, hence lost to Minnesota. Moreover, the
Council charges communities the same rate for its clear water as it does for sewage. Therefore,
communities have a fiscal as well as a public policy reason for ensuring that the total system
functions effectively and conforms to regulations.
Minneapolis, St. Paul, and South St. Paul are communities originally constructed with combined
(storm and sanitary) sewer systems. Because of this, these communities continue to face
additional challenges in eliminating sources of inflow.
I'lliligip 11.
Policy on Inflow and Infiltration:
The Council will not provide additional capacity within its interceptor system to serve excessive
inflow and infiltration.
The Council will establish inflow and infiltration goals for all communities discharging
wastewater to the regional wastewater system. Communities that have excessive inflow and
infiltration in their sanitary sewer systems will be required to eliminate the excessive inflow and
infiltration within a reasonable time period.
Implementation Strategies:
• Maintain and rehabilitate Council interceptors to minimize inflow and infiltration.
• Develop inflow and infiltration goals for all communities served by the regional
wastewater system.
29
• Require all communities served by the regional wastewater system to include its inflow
and infiltration mitigation program in its comprehensive sewer plan, including a program
to mitigate sources of inflow and infiltration from private property.
• Limit expansion of service within those communities where excessive inflow and
infiltration jeopardizes the Council's ability to convey wastewater without an overflow or
backup occurring, or limits the capacity in the system to the point where the Council can
no longer provide additional wastewater services. The Council will work with those
communities on a case-by-case basis, based on the applicable regulatory requirements.
• Potentially institute a wastewater rate demand charge for those communities that have
not met their inflow and infiltration goal(s), if the community has not been implementing
an effective inflow and infiltration reduction program as determined by the Council, or if
regulations and/or regulatory permits require Council action to ensure regulatory
compliance.
The wastewater demand charge will include the cost of wastewater storage facilities
and/or other improvements necessary to avoid overloading Council conveyance and
treatment facilities, and the appropriate charges for use of capacity beyond the allowable
amount of inflow and infiltration.
• Work with the State to attempt to (1) make funds available for inflow and infiltration
mitigation, and (2) promote statutes, rules, and regulations to encourage 1/1 mitigation.
• Develop a program to assist communities with reducing inflow and infiltration from
private property sources.
Finance
The Council uses a regional approach to setting municipal wastewater and industrial rates to
optimize equity of costs across the region and support economic development. The Council's
approach to rate design is based on a regional cost-of-service philosophy. Communities pay for
the wastewater flow originating within their borders. New users pay for the capacity they
demand through a sewer availability charge (SAC). Industries pay for the cost of treating their
higher-strength discharges through a strength charge. Haulers pay for wastewater loads based
on the cost of receiving and treating the loads. In other words, users are charged for the costs
that the Council incurs to provide the specific services used.
Material changes proposed to SAC or other fees, that may not be improvements to the cost of
service basis, will be subject to a stakeholder process, a public hearing, and at least 3 months
notice before implementation, including but not limited to the establishment of a task force or
work group to make recommendation(s) to the Council. The Council will have final approval of
any and all recommendations.
Wastewater System Finance Policy:
The Council will continue to implement regional wastewater service fees and charges based on
regional cost of services and rules adopted by the Council.
Implementation Strategies:
• Metropolitan wastewater charges will be allocated among local government units based on
volume of wastewater treated.
30
• Industrial wastewater strength charges will be based on actual or average discharge
strength above domestic wastewater strength.
• Load charges for septage, portable-toilet waste, holding-tank wastewater and out-of-region
wastes will be uniform for each type of load, and based on the volume of the load, the
average strength of the types of loads, and the costs of receiving facilities.
• Sewer availability charges (SAC)will be uniform within the urban area based on capacity
demand classes of customers and the SAC Procedure Manual. Sewer availability charges
for a rural center will be based on the reserve capacity and debt service of facilities specific
to the rural center.
• Other fees recovering costs of specific services may be imposed, as approved by the
Council.
• Cost-sharing between the Council and a local governmental unit may be used when
construction of regional wastewater facilities provides additional local benefits for an
incremental increase in costs.
• Facilities that are no longer a necessary part of the regional wastewater system will be
conveyed to the benefiting local governmental unit, or will be abandoned or sold, pursuant to
related statutes.
• Seek customer input prior to, and give at least three months notice of, any material changes
in the design of charges.
• Continue efforts to work to simplify and improve SAC and to communicate to customers.
Wastewater System Plan
Existing Facilities
Regional Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment System
The Metropolitan Council provides wastewater collection and treatment services to 2.7 million
people in 108 communities, which represents about 95% of the seven-county metropolitan
area's population. The regional wastewater system includes eight wastewater treatment plants,
60 pump stations, and 610 miles of regional interceptors that convey flow from approximately
5,000 miles of local sewers to these treatment plants.
The system treats approximately 250 million gallons per day of wastewater from homes,
industries, and businesses. The long-term service area map (Appendix F) shows the location of
all metropolitan interceptor sewers and wastewater treatment plants in the metro area. Table 1
presents information about the treatment plants.
The Council works with more than 800 industrial clients to substantially reduce the amount of
pollution entering the wastewater collection system. The Council also accepts septage from
private subsurface sewage treatment systems, community and/or cluster systems, biosolids
from municipal wastewater plants, and leachate from landfills throughout Minnesota, and other
hauled industrial wastewater.Waste haulers pay for the cost of service through various
wastewater fees established by the Council.
31
Table 1. Regional System Wastewater Treatment Plants
Avg. Current Receiving Liquid Solids
Treatment Design Flow Location Water Treatment Processing
Plant Flow (mgd)
(mgd)
Blue Lake 32 27 Shakopee Minnesota NH3, P AD, Drying,
River Land
Eagles Point 10 4.4 Cottage Mississippi NH3, P To Metro
Grove River
East Bethel 0.4 New East Bethel Ground TN, P To Metro
Water
Empire 24 10 Empire Mississippi NH3, P AD, Land
River
Hastings 2.3 1.6 Hastings Mississippi Secondary To Metro
River
Metropolitan 251 180 St. Paul Mississippi NH3, P Inc./Energy
River
St. Croix 4.5 3.0 Oak Park St. Croix P To Metro
Valley Hts. River
Seneca 34 24 Eagan Minnesota NH3, P Inc.
River
Total 358 250
Notes: NH3 = ammonia removal
P = phosphorus removal
TN = total nitrogen removal
AD = anaerobic digestion
Land = application to agricultural land
Inc. = incineration
Energy= energy recovery as steam and electricity for in-plant use
Secondary= biological treatment to remove organics and suspended solids (used by
all plants at a minimum)
There are approximately 200 metering stations used to measure wastewater flow from the
communities served by the Council. The flow meters are regularly calibrated and maintained to
provide accurate measurements of wastewater flow rates and volumes from each community.
Wastewater volume is used to allocate the primary wastewater service charges among the
communities served.
32
Non-Council Wastewater Treatment Plants
There are 15 wastewater treatment plants in the metro area that are municipally owned and
operated (See Table 2). The Council plans to provide regional service as follows:
1. Rogers is a suburban community which owns and operates its own wastewater
treatment plant. It is expected that Rogers will request that the Council acquire its
wastewater treatment plant as the City continues to grow.
2. Loretto will be served by the Blue Lake Plant via the Maple Plain Interceptor by 2020,
based on state regulatory requirements, i.e. elimination of their discharge as part of
implementing the Total Maximum Daily Load for Lake Independence.
3. The Council has a wastewater treatment plant acquisition agreement with the City of
New Germany.
Table 2. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Treatment Design Design Receiving Water Effluent
Plant Capacity, Capacity, Limits (2)
gpd (1) gpd (1)Avg.
Avg. Wet Dry
Weather Weather
Belle Plaine 840,000 400,000 Minnesota River B, P. S
Bethel 37,500 31,000 Ground Water B, S
Cologne 325,000 260,000(4) Ditch to Lake Benton B, P, S
Greenfield 100,000 80,000(4) Crow River B, P, S
Hamburg 63,000 50,400(4) Ditch to Bevens Creek B, S
(to Minnesota)
Hampton 101,000 80,800 Ditch to Vermillion River B, S
Jordan 1,289,000 580,000 Sand Creek (to B, N, P, S
Minnesota)
Loretto 61,000 48,800(4) Slough to Spurzem B, P, S
Creek
Mayer (3) 435,000 320„000 Crow River B, IN, P, S
New Germany 52,000 41,600(4) Crow River B, S
Norwood- 908,000 517,000 Ditch to Bevens Creek B, S
Young (to Minnesota)
America
Rogers 1,602,000 1,103,000 Ditch to Crow River B, P, S
St. Francis 540,000 432,000(4) Ground Water B, N, P, S
Vermillion 54,000 43,200(4) Ditch to Vermillion River B, S
Watertown 1,200,000 800,000 Crow River B, N, S
Notes: 1. Flow as stated in NPDES Permits, except as described in note 4
2. Effluent Limits:
B = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
N =Ammonia Nitrogen
P = Phosphorus
S = Suspended Solids
3. Expansion proposed
4. Average flow estimated, based on maximum month flow times 0.8
33
Long-Term Wastewater Service Area
Concept Plan
The wastewater system plan includes a specific plan to serve the region's projected 2040
growth and a general plan to serve the region's growth far beyond 2040. The wastewater
system plan has a longer planning horizon than local comprehensive plans because sewers
have a long useful life.
The Council is updating the Twin Cities metro area Master Water Supply Plan to address the
sustainability of water supply in the region, and has identified areas where groundwater aquifers
may not have sufficient capacity to support long-term sewered development. The Regional
Wastewater System Plan's long-term wastewater service area (Appendix F) is premised on
successful development and implementation of sustainable water supply to support planned
sewered development. The Council defines the long-term wastewater service areas based on:
• The capacity of each treatment plant site,
• The potential developable surface area that could be served by the plant, in addition to
currently served areas, and
• Using appropriate wastewater generation rates based on location, proximity to transit
and major highways, and physical features of area.
The developable area excludes lakes, rivers, wetlands, steep slopes, major highways, and
parks. The area effectively available for future development is further reduced in areas where
there are other significant natural resources or locations requiring more areas devoted to
stormwater management, such as trout stream watersheds and/or tight soils (making infiltration
of stormwater more difficult).
For long-term wastewater service areas, communities shall address the staging of sewered
development through 2040 as well as protection of the remaining long-term service areas for
economical future sewered development in their local comprehensive plan updates, surface
water management plans, and water supply plans. The regional wastewater system will be
expanded as necessary to facilitate development in communities consistent with their approved
comprehensive sewer plans.
The long-term wastewater service area inciudes large "potentiai wastewater service areas" in
Dakota and Scott Counties. The objective of this designation is to ensure low enough
development density to enable future economical sewered development and preserve land for
continued agricultural uses. In Carver County, the Council and the County have a memorandum
of understanding whereby the County preserves low density in its agricultural area, consistent
with the region's potential need for additional area for sewered development.
Long-Term Service Area of Existing Treatment Plants
Blue Lake. Previously wastewater service to Loretto, northwest Medina, and southwest
Corcoran was planned through the Elm Creek Interceptor. The revised plan is to serve this area
from the Blue Lake Plant via Maple Plain and the downstream interceptor system.
Metropolitan. Three areas (northeast Andover, southeast Nowthen, and northeast Ramsey)
have previously been identified as study areas for potential future wastewater service. These
34
areas can be served by the regional wastewater system. However, redevelopment of areas in
closer proximity to transit and major highways within the Metropolitan Plant's service area has
lower cost and much higher potential for wastewater generation that will utilize the plant and
interceptor system's long-term capacity. Consequently, the above study areas have been
omitted from the long-term wastewater service area to reserve capacity for those areas that are
redeveloping.
Eastern Hugo, which has previously been identified as a study area for potential future
wastewater services, has also been omitted from the long-term wastewater service area.
Studies are under way to determine the relationships among groundwater withdrawal for
municipal water supply, groundwater recharge, and lake levels and then to develop a water
sustainability plan for the northeast part of the region.
St. Croix Valley. Previously, the wastewater system plan assumed a future plant expansion.
The current regulatory trends indicate the likelihood of much more stringent future discharge
permit limits. The additional facilities to meet these limits are likely to fully utilize the remaining
capacity at this plant site. Consequently, no plant expansion is planned. A modest service area
increase of approximately 1,000 acres should be adequate to utilize the remaining capacity.
Given their proximity to Hwys. 36 and 5 and to adjacent sewered development, portions of
Baytown and Grant are most viable potential long-term service area additions to the existing
service area.
Potential Future Wastewater Treatment Plants
To support long-term severed development of the region, five new wastewater treatment plants
are envisioned in the northwest, northeast, southeast, and southwest areas. These areas also
face water supply challenges due to the absence of the Prairie du Chien Jordan aquifer or
demand that may cause excessive aquifer drawdown. Consequently, new wastewater
treatment plants are proposed to be wastewater reclamation plants that produce treated water
that is suitable for non-potable uses, such as toilet flushing and irrigation, which will reduce the
water demand on the groundwater aquifers. In the northeast area, groundwater recharge with
treated wastewater also appears feasible.
Crow River. The Council and the City of Rogers have been working to locate a new wastewater
reclamation plant in western Rogers. This plant will eventually serve Rogers, eastern Corcoran,
and western Dayton, and provide long-term capacity relief for the Elm Creek Interceptor.
Carver County. The potential wastewater generation for the long-term service area of the Blue
Lake Plant could exceed the build-out capacity of the plant site sometime after 2040. One option
to address this possibility is a service area revision that diverts wastewater from western
communities to a new regional wastewater reclamation plant in Carver County. This new plant
should be located so that it could serve development along the corridor between Chaska and
Cologne.
Scott County. The Scott County 2030 comprehensive plan, prepared in coordination with the
regional wastewater system plan, designates portions of western Scott County for potential
long-term sewered development. This area will be served by a future regional wastewater
reclamation plant located in the Louisville Township area. This plant also could provide capacity
relief for the Blue Lake Plant.
35
Northeast Area. The long-term northeast wastewater service area has the potential to generate
wastewater flows that slightly exceed the capacity of the interceptors serving this area. Rather
than constructing an extensive capacity relief interceptor system, a potentially feasible
alternative is to construct a wastewater reclamation plant with groundwater recharge and
wastewater reuse.
Hastings. A new Hastings Plant is planned to replace the existing plant located near downtown.
The new plant will be expandable, with a long-term service area that includes portions of
Marshan, Nininger, and Vermillion townships. The plant site has been acquired.
Table 3 summarizes the planned capacity of the regional wastewater treatment plants.
Table 3. Planned Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity(million gallons per day)
Plant Current Current Flow Planned Planned
Capacity Capacity Capacity
2040 Long-Term
Blue Lake 32 27 40 50
Carver County - - - 10
Crow River - - 3 8
Eagles Point 10 4.4 10 20
East Bethel 0.4 new 1.2 2
Empire 24 10 24 50
Hastings 2.3 1.6 4 10
Metropolitan 251 180 251 280
New Germany - - 0.1 0.2
Seneca 34 24 34 40
St. Croix Valley 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5
Scott County - - - 25
Total 358 250 372 500
Service Population - 2,700,000 3,400,000 6,000,000
Capital Improvement Program
Wastewater Flow Projections
Sewered population and employment forecasts, and the associated average wastewater flow
projections, are shown in Tables 4 and 5 by wastewater treatment plant service area.
(Forecasts and projections by community are found in Appendices A-3 and A-4). Wastewater
flow projections are based on 60 gallons per day (gpd) per person and 15 gpd per employee
from new development, and gradual reduction of wastewater flow from existing development,
which reflects water conservation and reduction of inflow and infiltration.
36
Sanitary sewers are designed to handle daily and seasonal variations in generated wastewater
flow. The Appendix also presents wastewater flow variation factors, which increase as average
flow decreases. Appendix A-1 presents flow variation factors for sewer design. These factors
reflect that sanitary sewers (local and regional) have been designed for average residential,
commercial, and industrial flow of 100 gallons per capita per day. Currently actual average flow
is approximately 85 gallons per capita per day. To establish infiltration and inflow mitigation
goals, the design flow variation factors have been adjusted upward (divided by 0.85), which
reflects available capacity for infiltration and inflow. These factors are presented in Appendix A-
2.
Capital Improvement Plan
This section of the system plan presents a capital improvement plan for the 2016- 2040 period.
The three objectives of the capital improvement plan are:
Preserve the infrastructure investment through rehabilitation/replacement. Note:
Interceptor rehabilitation also reduces inflow and infiltration which recovers system
capacity
• Strategically expand the system capacity through treatment plant and interceptor
expansions and interceptor extensions, and
• Improve the quality of service by reusing wastewater, increasing system reliability, and
conserving and generating energy
Table 4. Sewered Population and Employment Forecasts (thousands)
Wastewater Treatment Plant 2010 2040 2010 2040
Pop. Pop. Emp. Emp.
Blue take 269.18 420.69 162.04 245.62
Crow River (Rogers) 0.00 15.09 0.00 11.79
Eagles Point 68.05 114.13 12.71 26.11
East Bethel 0.00 11.45 0.00 1.28
Empire 133.33 210.61 35.71 59.36
Hastings 22.17 30.10 8.60 11.40
Metropolitan 1,778.36 2,227.87 1,054.38 1,391.07
New Germany 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.09
St. Croix Valley 26.14 32.70 17.64 24.30
Seneca 242.99 292.84 178.38 239.13
Total 2,540.23 3,356.87 1,469.50 2,010.14
37
Table 5. Treatment Plant Flow Projections (million gallons per day)
Wastewater Treatment 2010 2020 2030 2040
Plant
Blue Lake 27.60 29.88 33.00 35.50
Crow River(Rogers) 0.00 0.00 1.71 1.88
Eagles Point 4.94 5.70 6.83 7.46
East Bethel 0.00 0.36 0.55 0.71
Empire 9.98 11.02 12.59 14.08
Hastings 1.49 1.51 1.64 1.87
Metropolitan 171.09 178.43 183.99 187.72
New Germany 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.11
St. Croix Valley 3.01 3.14 3.24 3.23
Seneca 22.66 23.93 24.43 24.53
Total 240.78 254.00 268.02 277.04
Table 6 presents a general description of projected capital improvement needs for the
wastewater treatment plants and interceptor system. Capital cost estimates are presented using
an inflation factor of 3%. For comparison, Table 7 presents the estimated current replacement
value of the regional wastewater system.
Total projected capital cost for 2016 to 2040 is estimated at $5 billion. On an annual spending
basis, with adjustment for inflation, this equals the total level of spending from 1970 to 2015.
Projected capital investment by type of infrastructure is 64% interceptors and 36% treatment.
Investment by objective is approximately 80%for asset preservation, 10% for quality
improvement, and 10% for growth. These costs exclude costs associated with potential future
regulatory requirements, which are discussed later.
Capita! improvements for the regional wastewater system are primarily financed by Metropolitan
Council wastewater bonds and Minnesota Public Facilities Authority loans. Bonds and loans
are repaid using wastewater fees.
38
Table 6. Long-Term Capital Improvement Program ($millions)
Project Name Purpose 2016- 2021- 2031-
2020 2030 2040
Interceptor System
Anoka-Coon Rapids Improvements G, R 200
Bloomington Improvements G, R 5 30
Brooklyn Park LS Relocation R 100
Blue Lake System Rehabilitation R 70 70 100
North Area Rehabilitation R 70 60 100
Forcemain Rehabilitation R 40 100
Interceptor Rehabilitation R 10 60 100
Lift Station Rehabilitation R 10 100 150
Maple Plain LS/FM Rehabilitation R 20
Minneapolis Interceptor Rehabilitation R 20 100 100
Meter Improvements R 15 50 50
Minneapolis Interceptor 310/320 Diversion R 80
River Crossings Rehabilitation R 40 80
Seneca Int. System Rehabilitation R 50 20
Roseville Int. Rehabilitation R 40
St. Bonifacius LS/FM R 10
St. Paul Int. Rehabilitation R 100 100
Southeast Anoka County G 20
Waconia LS/FM R 10
Joint Interceptor Rehabilitation R 800
Sub-Total 450 1,130 1,500
2016- 2021- 2031-
Project Name Purpose 2020 2030 2040
Treatment Plants
Blue Lake
Expansion (to 40 mgd) G, Q 100
Rehabilitation (Solids) R 50
Rehabilitation(Liquids) 50
Crow River WWRF G, Q, R 100
39
TABLE 6. (CONTD.)
Eagles Point Rehabilitation R 30
East Bethel WWRF Expansion G 15
Empire
Effluent Forcemain G 20
Solids Processing G, R 10
Rehabilitation R 80
Hastings G, Q, R 10 50
Metropolitan
Rehabilitation R 70 130 300
Solids Processing G, Q 50 70
New Germany G, Q 5
Northeast Area WWRF G, Q 100
Seneca
Solids Processing R 20 40
Rehabilitation R 70 30
St. Croix Valley Rehabilitation R 10 10
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Q 500
Sub-Total 170 750 900
Total 620 1,880 2,500
Key
G=Growth
Q=Quality Improvement
R=Rehabilitation/Replacement
WWRF=Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Facilities
mgd=million gallons per day
40
Table 7. Estimated Replacement Value of Regional Wastewater System
Estimated
Replacement
Facility Quantity Value ($ Millions)
Pipelines 600 miles 3,000
Joint Interceptor 10 miles 400
Lift Stations 60 300
Meter Stations 200 100
Metropolitan Plant 1 1,200
Regional Plants 7 1,000
Total System 6,000
Environmental Sustainability
Sustainability of the regional wastewater system includes: (1) water sustainability; (2) energy
conservation and generation; (3) air emissions reduction; and (4) solid waste reuse and
reduction.
Water Sustainability. The Council has two interrelated objectives: (1) sustaining the region's
water resources to provide water supply and water quality that supports the region's economic
growth and quality of life; and (2) investing the region's financial and technical resources to
maximize benefits. Water supply, stormwater treatment and reuse, and wastewater treatment
and reuse should be part of an integrated system that is optimized to meet these regional
objectives.
Wastewater reuse has the potential to meet part of the region's water supply needs. Investing
strategically to further the region's nonpoint source pollution prevention and control program's
effectiveness also may have more benefits than investing to meet more stringent wastewater
discharge limits.
The Council's program for mitigating infiltration and inflow in public and private wastewater
collection systems also contributes to water sustainability by avoiding water quality risks, and
limiting the amount of clear water entering the system, which is then lost to the region when
treated and discharged to rivers. Reducing infiltration and inflow also recovers system capacity,
which improves efficiency.
Solid Waste. The wastewater system pian continues to support the use of wastewater
treatment biosolids for energy generation for in-plant uses. The Metropolitan Plant uses thermal
processing that reduces the biosolids to a small volume of inert ash, while recovering energy
that is converted to electricity and steam for in-plant uses. The beneficial use of ash for its value
as a phosphorus fertilizer is also being pursued. The Blue Lake and Empire plants use
41
anaerobic digestion to reduce biosolids volume prior to its agricultural use and to produce
biogas (methane)for in-plant uses.
Energy. In addition to generating energy from processing biosolids, energy conservation has
been, and continues to be, implemented through wastewater treatment process selection and
performance optimization, installation of higher efficiency equipment and lighting, and reducing
building energy use. Purchase of power from solar power generation facilities co-located at
major treatment plants is also being pursued. Additional technologies, such as fuel cells, will be
pursued as their capabilities and economics are proven.
Wastewater Reuse
Injecting highly treated wastewater into aquifers has potential to supplement groundwater and
surface water as sources of water. Year-round reuse of wastewater could include recharging
groundwater, industrial cooling, and use as nonpotable water. ("Potable" water is water suitable
for drinking.) Seasonal possibilities include irrigation of agricultural land, golf courses, parks,
and lawns. Each type of use has water quality requirements that may require additional
wastewater treatment before it is distributed and used.
Wastewater reuse challenges include:
Groundwater Recharge. Groundwater recharge with treated wastewater is typically
implemented in limited areas (sites). Few areas have high soil permeability allowing treated
wastewater to seep into the groundwater and depth to groundwater that is shallow enough for it
to disperse into the groundwater.
Industrial and Irrigation Uses. Water softeners that are used to remove hardness from
groundwater (which is the primary water source for communities outside the urban core)
introduce high salt content into water/wastewater. The salt content makes the water undesirable
for industrial uses (it corrodes cooling water systems) and irrigation uses (salt buildup can limit
plant productivity). Wastewater treatment with reverse osmosis to remove salts is very costly,
and requires a method —for example, evaporation, which is very expensive —to dispose of the
brine.
Metro area industries have generally been successful with their own water conservation and re-
use programs. There are very few high-volume industrial users of reused wastewater.
Wastewater uses for irrigation are highly dispersed and seasonal, and account for
approximately 20% to 30% of total water use.
Nonpotable Water. Potable water uses include drinking, bathing/showering, food preparation,
dish washing, and clothes washing. Toilet flushing is a significant nonpotable water use,
estimated at 20% of total water use. Implementing a nonpotable water use system would
require separate water distribution and plumbing systems. Inherent challenges are cost, the
typical development/financing process (and associated competition), regulatory requirements,
institutional arrangements, and public perception.
The Council will consider wastewater reuse as part of its regional planning for water supply. For
example, wastewater reuse for toilet flushing and irrigation could reduce groundwater demand
to serve growth.
42
Planning for wastewater reuse will also address key implementation challenges; including: (1)
cost and financing of a reclaimed water distribution system; (2) integration of another water
source into the municipal water systems across the region; (3) pricing protocol(s) that captures
as much value as reasonably possible; and (4) streamlining the regulatory permitting process to
move from a "one project, one customer, one permit" approach to a "systems" approach.
In summary, the Council's preliminary plan for wastewater reuse is to:
1. Increase wastewater reuse within Council wastewater treatment facilities -that is, lead
by example
2. Implement groundwater recharge and irrigation (for example, golf courses) in East
Bethel as a demonstration project for the region
3. Pursue wastewater reuse for industrial cooling water, where feasible
4. Collaborate with the University of Minnesota to demonstrate wastewater reuse at UMore
Park
5. Develop and implement a plan to address the key implementation challenges associated
with a nonpotable water system for toilet flushing and irrigation uses, and
6. Integrate nonpotable water systems into plans for future regional wastewater
reclamation facilities.
Regulatory Scenarios for Wastewater Treatment
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency establishes water quality standards for surface waters
(lakes and rivers) and discharge limits for wastewater treatment plants. Current discharge limits
for the Council's treatment plants include 1 mg/I for phosphorus and seasonal limits on
ammonia nitrogen and organics.
Water quality has improved due to the reduced pollutant discharges from wastewater treatment
plants. However, long-term water quality goals established by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency will require substantial reduction of pollution from urban stormwater, agricultural runoff,
and streambank erosion. Federal law focuses compliance and enforcement authority on point
sources of pollutant discharge - that is, wastewater treatment plants and urban stormwater
systems. As a result, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency may impose more stringent
discharge limits on the Council and its customer communities. This section discusses the
potential implications for the Council's wastewater treatment plants.
Phosphorus. The Council's wastewater treatment plants currently average approximately 0.5
mg/I phosphorus and 250 million gallons per day flow. The Council has evaluated two regulatory
scenarios. The first assumes that the Council's plants will have to meet a discharge limit of 0.3
mg/l phosphorus. This limit would require the plants to average approximately 0.2 mg/1
phosphorus to ensure they comply with the limit. The second scenario assumes a discharge
limit of 0.1 mg/I phosphorus, which is the limit of currently available wastewater treatment
technology.
The 0.3 mg/1 phosphorus limit has been discussed as part of the process of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to establish a limit on the Total Maximum Daily Load of
phosphorus into Lake Pepin on the Mississippi River. However, the 0.1 mg/I phosphorus limit
equals the phosphorus water quality standard for the Mississippi River being considered by the
43
MPCA. Because the Minnesota River, which flows into the Mississippi River, already contains
approximately 0.2 mg/I phosphorus, the Mississippi River will likely continue to fail to meet
standards unless the Minnesota River quality improves significantly. As a regulatory
consequence, wastewater treatment discharge could be required to meet the water quality
standard as a discharge limit.
Achieving compliance with a 0.3 mg/I phosphorus limit requires additional facilities for chemical
addition, pumping, filtration, and solids processing facilities. Estimated capital cost (current
prices) for the Council's wastewater treatment plants is $400 million. Estimated annual
operation and maintenance cost is an additional $15 million.
Achieving compliance with a 0.1 mg/I phosphorus limit requires investments for chemical
addition, tertiary clarifiers, pumping, membrane filtration, and solids processing facilities.
Estimated capital costs (current prices)for the Council's wastewater treatment plants are
approximately $2 billion. Estimated annual operation and maintenance costs are approximately
an additional $30 million.
Total annual operation and maintenance costs, plus annual debt service on the capital, are
estimated at approximately $45 million for 0.3 mg/I phosphorus limit and $180 million for 0.1
mg/I phosphorus limit. These potential costs would raise regional wastewater rates by 40% to
100%.
Nitrogen. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is considering a water quality standard for
nitrate nitrogen based on levels considered toxic for aquatic life. The Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency with assistance and guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
recently developed a nutrient reduction strategy for the Mississippi River watershed to protect
the Gulf of Mexico. Nitrate is a nutrient necessary for aquatic growth, but excessive amounts
can lead to problems such as algae blooms, decreased oxygen levels, and fish kills.
Currently, the Council's wastewater treatment plants meet seasonal effluent limits for ammonia
nitrogen, to meet a water quality standard for ammonia nitrogen based on toxicity for aquatic
life. The wastewater treatment plants use biological treatment to convert ammonia to nitrate
nitrogen, with average nitrate discharge of 15 to 20 mg/l.
If the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency adopts a nitrate nitrogen standard, the Mississippi
River will likely continue to fail to meet standards because the Minnesota River contributes most
of the nitrate nitrogen loading to the Mississippi River. As a regulatory consequence,
wastewater treatment plant discharges could be required to meet the water quality standard as
a discharge limit. Meeting this standard would require major capital improvements to remove
nitrate by a biological denitrification process. A small change in specific concentration limits of
nitrate nitrogen and total nitrogen would result in a correspondingly large change in costs.
Changes to the biological treatment process would also affect the performance of treatment
plants to remove phosphorus. Estimated capital costs are approximately $1.0 billion to meet a
10 mg/l total nitrogen limit and approximately $1.5 billion to meet a 5 mg/I total nitrogen limit.
Substantial Impacts and Substantial Departures from the Metropolitan
Wastewater System Plan
Thrive MSP 2040 and the regional system plans comprise the Council's Metropolitan
Development Guide, which is the region's plan to ensure orderly and economical development
44
and re-development of the region. Local comprehensive plans and plan amendments that have
substantial impacts on - or contain substantial departures from -the metropolitan wastewater
system plan affect how the Council constructs, operates, and maintains the regional wastewater
system and can result in system inefficiencies if the nonconforming plans are allowed to be
implemented. Substantial impact or departures may result either from over-utilization or under-
utilization. Over-utilization occurs when local development will use more regional capacity than
currently is available or planned. Under-utilization occurs when low-density development uses
less than currently available or planned regional capacity. Under-utilization is likely to require
additional infrastructure elsewhere in the region to accommodate household growth that would
be reasonably expected in the local governmental unit.
As permitted by Minnesota Statutes section 473.175, subdivision 1, the Council may require a
local governmental unit to modify any comprehensive plan or part thereof that is inconsistent
with the metropolitan system plan if the Council concludes that the local plan is more likely than
not to have either a substantial impact on, or to contain a substantial departure from, the
Council's adopted policy plans and capital budgets for metropolitan wastewater service.
Inconsistencies will provide the Council with grounds for requiring modifications to the local
comprehensive plan.
A substantial system impact occurs under various scenarios, including when:
• The regional wastewater system was not designed to provide wastewater service for the
proposed sewer service area; or
• The projected flow from the sewer service area is greater than planned; or
• The timing for the proposed growth is prior to implementation of a planned improvement
to, and greater than what can be accommodated by, the regional wastewater system; or
The peak wet-weather flows from the local government unit exceeds its designed
capacity within the regional wastewater system, and thus there is inadequate capacity to
accommodate the planned growth for the local government unit or tributary local
governmental units.
A substantial departure occurs when:
• A local governmental unit proposes forecasts for sewered development densities that
are lower than Council density standards that are the basis for regional infrastructure
planning purposes; or
When a local government unit proposes densities that exceed Council policy for
unsewered areas that are within the long-term regional wastewater service area, thus
precluding future economical sewered development.
45
Appendices
Appendix A — Wastewater
The actual inflow/infiltration goal will vary over time based on the average base flow for the
community, which also changes over time.
Table A-1: MCES Flow Variation Factors for Sewer Design
Average Flow Peak Hourly Average Flow Peak Hourly
(MGD) Flow Factor (MGD) Flow Factor
0.00 -0.11
0.12 - 0.18
0.19-0.23
0.24- 0.29 z -
0.30- 0.39
0.40- 0.49
0.50 -0.64
0.65-0.79
0.80 - 0.99
1.00 - 1.19 - - - ,
1.20- 1.49
1.50 - 1.89 `-
46
Table A-2. Wastewater Flow Variation Factors for Determining Infiltration/inflow
Mitigation Goals
Average Flow Peak Hourly Average Flow Peak Hourly
(MGD) Flow Factor (MGD) Flow Factor
<0.1
0.1-0.2
0.2-0.3 r)
0.3-0.4
0.4-0.5
.0
0.5-0.6
0.6-0.7
0,7-0.8
0.8-1.0
1.0-1.2
2.0-2.5
47
Table A-3. Community Forecasts of Sewered Population, Households, and Employment
Community Population Households Employment
2020 20:10 2040 2020 2030 2040 2020 2030 2040
Blue Lake WWTP
Carver 5,209 8,592 13,544 1,890 3,221 5,115 605 1,001 1,637
Chanhassen 24,630 29,617 36,198 9.381 11,438 13,998 13,983 15,305 17,398
Chaska 25,285 29.469 33,851 10,040 11,926 13,786 12,839 14,102 15,663
Corcoran (pt.) 47 46 60 18 18 24 15 10 12
Deephaven 3,790 3,865 3,900 1.370 1,390 1,400 820 820 820
Eden Prairie 69,129 78,610 83,108 27,746 31,699 33,372 59,097 67,935 69,771
Excelsior 2,330 2,390 2,600 1,170 1,190 1,300 2,200 2,200 2,200
Greenfield 134 134 134 57 57 57 0 0 0
Greenwood 780 800 810 300 300 300 200 340 350
Hopkins (pt.) 538 564 547 252 258 247 202 179 161
Independence 950 1,111 1,357 338 447 553 157 178 194
Laketown Twp 651 326 0 140 70 0 77 38 0
Long Lake 1,890 1,940 2,100 810 910 1,000 1,560 1,860 1,930
Loretto 660 670 670 290 300 300 370 370 370
Maple Plain 1,980 2,190 2,300 850 950 1,000 1,740 1,740 1,750
Medina (pt.) 197 272 470 75 107 191 75 138 263
48
Minnetonka 55,900 60,600 63,000 24,600 26,600 27,500 55,700 61,700 63,200
Minnetonka Beach 570 610 610 210 220 220 210 250 250
Minnetrista 3,181 5,235 6,920 1,178 2,014 2,682 266 352 350
Mound 9,600 9,900 10,500 4,220 4,510 4,800 1,550 1,840 1,900
Orono 4,648 6,713 7,393 1,771 2,794 3,092 913 1,331 1,428
Prior Lake 25,500 31,300 39,300 10,000 12,500 15,700 9,400 10,700 12,900
Shakopee 34,265 48,830 55,981 12,567 18,230 20,924 20,236 27,000 31,784
Shorewood 7,400 7,400 7,400 2,820 2,940 3,000 1,200 1,200 1,200
Spring Park 1,950 2,120 2,200 1,000 1,070 1,100 650 690 700
St. Bonifacius 2,210 2,200 2,200 880 890 900 480 500 500
Tonka Bay 1,490 1,500 1,500 630 670 680 440 540 570
Victoria 9,014 11,000 14,500 3,233 4,000 5,000 1,301 1,700 2,200
Waconia 12,900 16,700 22,100 4,970 6,700 8,900 7,200 8,300 10,200
Wayzata 4,270 4,670 4,900 2,070 2,210 2,300 5,300 5,800 5,900
Woodland 393 530 540 145 180 180 8 20 20
Totals 311,491 369,904 420,693 125,020 149,809 169,621 198,795 228,141 245,620
Crow River WWTP
Rogers (pt.) 0 12,443 15,085 0 4,707 5,686 0 9,716 11,794
49
Eagles Point WWRP
Cottage Grove 32,701 39,167 44,036 11,766 14,554 16,403 5,988 7,339 7,973
Lake Elmo (pt.) 3,497 8,198 12,281 1,338 3,248 4,810 1,145 1,900 2,240
Woodbury (pt.) 45,741 54,787 57,809 16,256 19,919 21,463 10,677 13,243 15,898
Totals 81,939 102,153 114,126 29,360 37,720 42,676 17,810 22,482 26,111
East Bethel WWTP
East Bethel 5,905 8,868 11,453 2,314 3,597 4,672 712 1,096 1,275
Empire WWTP
Apple Valley (pt.) 52,081 58,228 60,728 20,788 23,584 24,531 16,619 18,478 18,973
Elko New Market 5,800 8,000 12,200 1,910 2,820 4,500 530 650 840
Empire Twp. 668 1,406 2,048 243 529 777 61 96 111
Farmington 19,937 23,153 28,592 7,341 8,773 10,956 4,815 5,537 6,758
Lakeville (pt.) 54,305 65,235 75,512 19,469 23,988 27,924 16,328 18,782 21,614
Rosemount 20,717 26,651 31,531 7,539 10,047 12,156 5,901 8,633 11,058
Totals 153,509 182,672 210,610 57,290 69,740 80,844 44,254 52,176 59,355
Hastings WWTP
Hastings 23,100 25,900 30,100 9,600 11,000 12,900 9,200 10,000 11,400
50
Metropolitan WWTP
Andover 23,431 24,568 30,955 7,638 9,051 11,615 3,922 4,403 5,292
Anoka 19,096 19,590 20,096 7,900 8,595 8,898 13,707 14,352 14,600
Arden Hills 10,848 12,784 13,499 3,530 4,375 4,600 14,705 17,899 18,399
Birchwood Village 860 850 840 360 360 360 20 30 30
Blaine 66,311 73,341 83,587 23,966 28,135 32,124 24,399 25,671 27,320
Brooklyn Center 31,000 32,900 34,700 11,800 12,800 13,600 12,900 13,900 15,400
Brooklyn Park 83,757 91,487 95,500 30,577 33,893 35,496 32,262 38,951 41,999
Centerville 3,990 4,100 4,200 1,400 1,520 1,700 500 500 500
Champlin 23,900 24,200 25,500 8,800 9,400 10,000 4,860 5,500 5,600
Circle Pines 5,100 5,200 5,300 2,150 2,250 2,300 1,160 1,400 1,450
Columbia Heights 20,000 20,600 21,700 8,400 8,800 9,300 4,540 4,790 5,300
Columbus 591 866 1,213 238 361 512 566 645 758
Coon Rapids 65,308 70,200 72,500 26,300 28,300 29,300 30,700 34,700 35,700
Corcoran (pt.) 2,851 5,746 7,234 1,071 2,243 2,865 586 1,025 1,343
Crystal 22,800 23,100 23,300 9,500 9,800 10,000 4,640 4,970 5,500
Dayton (pt.) 5,255 7,872 9,133 1,993 3,208 3,887 1,177 1,703 2,449
Edina (pt.) 49,402 51,370 52,886 21,332 22,221 22,831 49,250 51,084 53,974
51
Falcon Heights 5,400 5,400 5,300 2,170 2,180 2,200 5,705 6,000 6,800
Forest Lake 15,759 18,571 22,332 6,545 7,872 9,531 6,271 7,031 8,117
Fridley 28,100 28,600 2.9,400 11,700 12,400 12,800 2.5,300 27,000 29,800
Gem Lake 500 560 588 210 237 249 560 630 640
Golden Valley 22,000 23,200 24,300 9,400 9,900 10,300 37,500 38,900 41,500
Hilltop 950 1030 1,100 480 520 550 320 350 360
Hopkins (pt.) 19,082 20,032 21,052 9,010 9,346 9,753 12,523 13,301 13,839
Hugo 9,490 19,157 26,980 3,846 8,037 11,268 1,911 2,822 3,428
Inver Grove Heights (pt.) 32,186 36,841 41,638 13,507 15,611 17,635 10,078 11,199 12,345
Lake Elmo (pt.) 438 615 911 172 253 376 204 166 162
Landfall 770 770 770 300 300 300 30 30 30
Lauderdale 2,450 2,430 2,400 1,160 1,180 1,200 690 830 1,000
Lexington 2,130 2,260 2,300 890 970 1,000 660 690 700
Lilydale 910 940 1,000 530 570 600 420 420 420
Lino Lakes 14,532 17,974 20,756 4,668 6,243 7,496 2,770 3,399 4,044
Little Canada 10,400 10,800 11,100 4,640 4,810 4,900 7,700 8,500 8,700
Mahtomedi 7,800 7,700 7,700 2,950 3,050 3,099 2,134 2,513 2,660
Maple Grove 60,986 76,000 84,800 22,904 29,400 32,999 35,521 43,100 49,500
52
Maplewood 41,200 44,800 47,900 16,700 18,400 19.700 32,000 33,700 36,600
Medicine Lake 400 400 400 170 170 170 60 100 100
Medina (pt.) 3,024 4,524 6,078 1,132 1,726 2,337 2,692 3,206 3,284
Mendota 270 290 320 110 120 130 280 300 300
Mendota Heights 12,100 13,000 13,400 4,820 5,200 5,300 12,600 14,200 14,400
Minneapolis* 424,700 449,500 466,400 184,200 195,600 202,700 324,000 334,500 356,000
Mounds View 12,400 12,500 13,100 5,100 5,200 5,500 6,900 7,200 8,200
New Brighton 23,000 24,600 26,000 9,800 10,600 11,200 11,200 12.100 13,500
New Hope 21,100 22,000 22,800 9,000 9,500 9,800 12,400 13,600 15,300
Newport 3,730 4,230 4,600 1,630 1,910 2,100 1,990 1,960 2,000
North Oaks 1,786 1,894 1,933 720 805 828 493 517 517
North St. Paul 12,200 12,500 13,100 5,100 5,400 5,700 3,120 3,330 3,610
Oakdale 28,800 30.400 31,000 11,900 12,700 13,000 12,500 14,500 15,000
Osseo 2,660 2,900 3,100 1,270 1,400 1,500 2,130 2,280 2,530
Plymouth 71,431 81,600 87,796 29,102 33,100 35,495 53,534 59,400 66,497
Ramsey 12,726 19,201 21,544 4,432 7,292 8,481 4,356 5,770 6,496
Richfield 37,300 38,800 39,900 16,200 17,000 17,500 17,500 17,700 18,400
Robbinsdale 14,600 14,800 15,300 6,300 6,600 6,800 7,300 7,400 7,600
53
Rogers (pt.) 0 984 1,870 0 405 777 0 229 397
Roseville 35,100 35,900 38,700 15,100 15,600 17,000 39,700 41,300 44,100
Shoreview 26,200 27,2.00 27,500 10,800 11,200 11,300 13,300 15,200 15,500
South St. Paul 21,300 22,000 22,500 9,000 9,400 9,600 8,600 9,600 11,000
Spring Lake Park 6,590 6,840 7,020 2,930 3,110 3,200 3,360 3,700 3,770
St. Anthony 9,050 9,950 10,600 4,280 4,570 5,000 3,640 3,810 4,140
St. Louis Park 50,100 52,700 54,500 23,700 24,800 25,500 44,500 46,200 49,100
St. Paul 308,600 324,100 334,700 125.000 132,800 137,600 190,900 201,900 218,000
St. Paul Park 5,600 6,500 7,900 2,250 2,700 3,300 1,830 2,070 2,520
Vadnais Heights 13,200 14,100 14,500 5,700 6,100 6,300 10,200 12,100 12,600
West St. Paul 21,700 22,900 23,900 9,600 10,100 10,500 8,900 9,600 10,600
White Bear Lake 24,350 26,040 28,180 10,520 11,350 12,300 11,950 11,980 12,000
White Bear Twp. 11,084 11,776 11,998 4,482 4,783 4,899 3,553 4,528 4,780
Willernie 500 490 480 230 230 230 200 200 200
Woodbury (pt.) 22,602 23,270 22,278 8,858 9,167 8,813 12,155 12,186 12,369
Totals 1,947,786 2,104,344 2,227,866 802,173 877,229 930,203 1,208,034 1,294,771 1,391,067
New Germany WWTP
New Germany 500 600 1400 200 250 600 60 70 90
54
Seneca WWTP
Apple Valley (pt.) 4,219 4,672 4,872 1,712 1,916 1,969 681 622 527
Bloomington 87,300 91,200 95,400 38,400 40,100 41,900 100,600 105,800 111,000
Burnsville 62,900 65,400 66,700 25,900 27,100 27,700 39,300 43,100 44,100
Eagan 70,800 76,100 79,000 28,200 30,400 31,500 62,600 68,600 70,200
Edina (pt.) 398 430 414 168 179 169 2,150 2,116 2,126
Inver Grove Heights (pt) 1,794 2,128 2,504 655 794 937 292 410 539
Lakeville (pt.) 4,952 5,300 5,747 1,720 1,848 1,972 1,094 1,112 1,135
Savage 33,900 36,700 38,200 11,600 13,400 14,300 8,123 9,184 9,499
Totals 266,262 281,929 292,838 108,354 115,736 120,448 214,840 230,944 239,125
St. Croix Valley WWTP
Bayport 3,900 4,185 4,400 1,069 1,200 1,300 4,370 4,940 5,100
Oak Park Heights 5,100 5,600 5,800 2,240 2,490 2,600 6,000 7,300 7,500
Stillwater 20,000 21,700 22,500 8,300 9,100 9,500 10,700 11,500 11,700
Totals 29,000 31,485 32,700 11,609 12,790 13,400 21,070 23,740 24,300
Regional Totals 2,820,746 3,120,550 3,357,206 1,146,430 1,282,671 1,381,176 1,715,637 1,873,210 2,010,222
55
Table A-4. Community Wastewater Flow Projections
Community 2010 Actual Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2040 Flow
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Andover 1.30 1.47 1.51 1.87
Anoka 1.70 1.82 1.81 1.79
Apple Valley 3.36 3.74 4.06 4.13
Arden Hills 0.89 0.98 1.12 1.15
Bayport 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.53
Birchwood 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05
Blaine 3.80 4.55 4.88 5.40
Bloomington 8.29 8.51 8.58 8.66
Brooklyn Center 2.70 2.70 2.75 2.80
Brooklyn Park 4.92 5.48 589 6.03
Burnsville 5.27 5.38 5.43 5.36
Carver 0.00 0.36 0.56 0.86
Centerville 0.26 027 027 0.27
Champlin 1.69 1.71 1.68 1.71
Chanhassen 2.08 2.30 2.56 2.92
56
Community 2010 Actual Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2040 Flow
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Chaska 2.51 2.73 2.93 3.14
Circle Pines 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
Columbia Heights 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.26
Columbus 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.10
Coon Rapids 5.30 5.48 5.68 5.67
Corcoran 0.00 0.18 0.36 0.46
Cottage Grove 2.03 2.11 2.45 2.69
Crystal 1.74 1.74 1.71 1.68
Dayton 0.05 0.27 0.43 0.52
Deephaven 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.38
Eagan 6.08 6.49 6.71 6.73
East Bethel 0.00 0.36 0.55 0.71
Eden Prairie 5.10 5.80 6.35 6.50
Edina 5.95 5.94 591 5.86
Elko New Market 0.00 0.33 0.45 0.70
Empire Township 0.13 0.08 0.13 0.16
57
Community 2010 Actual Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2040 Flow
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Excelsior 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.23
Falcon Heights 0.57 056 0.55 0.54
Farmington 1.43 1.45 1.61 1.91
Forest Lake 1.64 1.70 1.83 2.03
Fridley 4.70 4.67 4.59 4.54
Gem Lake 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05
Golden Valley 2.35 2.44 2.46 2.50
Greenfield 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Greenwood 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05
Hastings 1.49 1.51 1.64 1 87
Hilltop 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09
Hopkins 1.58 1.68 1.71 1.73
Hugo 0.83 0.96 1.52 1.98
Independence 0.03 0.06 007 0.09
Inver Grove Heights 2.09 2.40 2.66 2.92
Lake Elmo 0.02 0.26 0.57 0.83
58
Community 2010 Actual Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2040 Flow
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Laketown Township 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00
Lakeville 4.02 4.58 5.17 5.74
Landfall 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Lauderdale 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17
Lexington 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12
Lilydale 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09
Lino Lakes 0.99 1.10 1.29 1.44
Little Canada 1.15 1.19 1.19 1.18
Long Lake 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25
Loretto 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08
Mahtomedi 0.46 0.48 0.46 0.45
Maple Grove 5.23 5.30 616 6.63
Maple Plain 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29
Maplewood 3.51 3.66 3.80 3.92
Medicine Lake 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Medina 0.31 0.37 0.47 0.56
59
Community 2010 Actual Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2040 Flow
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Mendota 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03
Mendota Heights 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.37
Minneapolis 44.76 4658 46.89 46.88
Minnetonka 5.41 5.79 6.00 601
Minnetonka Beach 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05
Minnetrista 0.30 0.31 0.43 0.52
Mound 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96
Mounds View 1.08 1.07 1.05 1.07
New Brighton 1.74 1.81 1.86 1.92
New Germany 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.11
New Hope 1.90 1.90 1 92 1.94
Newport 0.23 0.25 0.27 029
North Oaks 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.13
North St. Paul 1.02 1.04 1 03 1.04
Oak Park Heights 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.62
Oakdale 2.60 2.66 271 2.68
60
Community 2010 Actual Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2040 Flow
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Orono 0.58 0.58 0.70 0.72
Osseo 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.22
Plymouth 6.76 6.82 7.32 7.59
Prior Lake 1.62 1.76 2.08 2.54
Ramsey 0.78 0.88 1.27 1.39
Richfield 3.07 3.13 3.13 3.11
Robbinsdale 1.03 1.05 1.03 1.03
Rogers 0.00 0.00 1.78 1.99
Rosemount 1.37 1.39 1.75 2.04
Roseville 3.37 3.43 3.40 3.51
Savage 2.00 2.53 2.65 2.69
Shakopee 3.55 3.62 4.49 4.88
Shoreview 2.37 2.39 2.41 2.36
Shorewood 0.95 0.93 0.90 0.88
South St. Paul 3.43 3.40 3.35 3.30
Spring Lake Park 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
61
Community 2010 Actual Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2040 Flow
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Spring Park 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25
St. Anthony 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.84
St, Bonifacius 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.23
St. Louis Park 4.88 5.09 5.12 5.13
St. Paul 22.87 23.82 24.23 24.42
St. Paul Park 0.37 0.38 0.43 0.51
Stillwater 1.98 204 2.09 2.09
Tonka Bay 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.22
Vadnais Heights 1.25 1.32 1.36 1.36
Victoria 0.61 0.74 085 1.05
Waconia 0.98 1.11 1 32 1.65
Wayzata 0.52 0.55 056 0.56
West St. Paul 2.05 2.14 2.16 2.17
White Bear Lake 2.52 2.48 251 2.56
White Bear Township 0.98 1.07 1.10 1.08
Willernie 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
62
Community 2010 Actual Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2040 Flow
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Woodbury 4.60 5.06 5.55 5.57
Woodland 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03
63
Appendix B — Surface Water Management
Appendix B-1: Nonpoint Source Pollutants
Stormwater Examples of Sources Related Impacts
Pollutant
I�I;.'i',f'ftl:e: �',i•;i:. i b'v:� ::-; iL!'ll'il:�i: r.',;ItU .-.iC,lc.;; t7IG\'J =}, iG'�Ji'E'.G Clcr;i�r. C�i'\::r
t
, ''ii Cr•1 \.1�'.� .':�tj C�; ,I�'�,.,C�'_ (:�,`•'-;c 1 ': :I1.'I`.
J. Cita _ i, C cai t1j _ :'i,r
.0 Z FIl i Si1-,O-,
;y
r i 'A 1dr rt`�I,jl I•z• Y
_�!.. 1"C-i:: v �•CI„C,.•i- . ��� ;. 'r i c; �_ _ 16: :S _i tl .'_7JC° ;t;F. 'C� (,ii.•e-
' ice•.,. _� .� ��. ., �s •J :'�; i 'I; ,
FE,SIiC.idC.S. PC:5s =L'S'iUC u i ,l ', i ,. f Tux:,, y of '..k-aiei colun-iri alit%
c•'ntheiic . C, r I 11 t••
r\ ;,c,.� !�C �.,Inr, in ad�st�c
(.her11Calc -r`PCie`: ?r)G 1!-mugn the foc.G %rh: +n,
,%r xest e: fish kill
Chlorides Road salfino =,r:C salt Ioxicity of water column and
stoleg sediment
I;aril ano Debris Litter washE-1 thrc..Qr sic!m Grain Degradation of the heauty of surface
net\I\'o,hs v,'aters. threat to wildlife
64
Appendix B-2: Priority Lakes List
The Council's roles in managing the sustainability of the region's lakes can be summarized by
the following points:
• Work to maintain and improve the quality and availability of the region's water resources
to support habitat and ecosystem health while providing for recreational opportunities, all
of which are critical elements of our region's quality of life.
• Collaborate and convene with state, regional, and local partners to protect, maintain, and
enhance natural resources protection and the protection of the quality and quantity of the
region's water resources and water supply.
Need for a Priority Lakes List
The Council performs a variety of specific roles in the management of the region's water
resources, in partnership with watershed management organizations, local units of government,
state and federal agencies, and other partners. Given that there 950 lakes in the Twin Cities
metro area, the Council developed a Priority Lakes List in 2003 to focus its limited resources
toward managing the sustainability of the region's lakes. These roles include:
• Plan and implement the MCES take-monitoring activities as conducted by MCES staff.
(Note that the MCES Citizen-Assisted Monitoring Program enrolls lakes that are outside
the priority lakes list, in addition to lakes that are on the list.)
• Perform lake assessments.
• Provide monitoring data and lake assessment information so local partners can make
effective management and planning decisions.
• Promote protection of priority lakes by promoting effective surface water management
by:
- Asking local units of government to adopt local land uses and planning strategies
to protect natural resources and minimize development impacts.
- Reviewing local comprehensive plans, watershed management plans, local
surface water management plans, environmental permits, water supply plans,
local stormwater ordinances, and other environmental documents to ensure that
local units of government are fulfilling their nonpoint-source reduction
requirements.
- Providing direction, guidance, and technical assistance on BMPs for stormwater
management and land use strategies.
• Strengthen protection of priority lakes by promoting wise use of water through a
sustainable balance of surface water and groundwater use, conservation, reuse, aquifer
recharge, and other practices.
• Work in conjunction with the IVIPCA to develop TMDLs that reduce the effects of
nonpoint-source pollution on the region's lakes.
• Assist in the environmental review process to determine which lakes need to have a
nutrient budget analysis completed if a lake is affected by a proposed project.
65
Priority Lakes List
The Priority Lakes List provides useful information for the management of the region's lakes and
their watersheds. The Priority Lake List:
• Indicates the criteria for categorizing a lake as a Council Priority Lake.
• Identifies basic lake characteristics that can influence the management of the lake and
its watershed. This type of information can be used to rapidly assess, on a large scale,
the appropriate management techniques and challenges for a lake and its watershed.
For example, it can be useful in reviewing watershed and surface water management
plans, or prioritizing limited funding for lake/watershed improvement projects.
The lakes that were on the Priority Lakes List for the 2030 Water Resources Management
Policy Plan are included in the updated priority lakes list for the 2040 Water Resources Policy
Plan, as well as 20 lakes that are new to the Priority Lakes List. For this Policy Plan, the
reference "Spring Lake / U.S. Lock and Dam #2 Pool" was changed to "Spring Lake" because
Spring Lake is just a portion of the much larger Pool #2.
Priority Lakes Criteria
The lakes on the Priority Lakes List were chosen if they met at least one of the following criteria:
• High regional recreational value which includes the requirement that the surface area of
the lake must be at least 100 acres
• Water supply lake
• Good water quality
• Special significance for wildlife habitat
High Regional Recreational Value. A lake is considered to have high regional recreational
value if:
• The lake has a public boat access.
• The lake has an adjacent park.
• The lake has a surface area of at least 100 acres.
Water Supply Lake. A lake is considered a water supply lake if it is listed as having a drinking-
water beneficial use as defined in Minnesota Rule 7050 and it is identified as a drinking water
source (principal or reserve) in a water management plan by a local unit of government.
Good `Fater QuaNty. A lake is considered to have good water quality if the annual summer
(May-September) trophic status indicators are relatively low, as follows:
• Mean water clarity (Secchi transparency)greater than or equal to 3 meters.
• Mean chlorophyll-a (trichromatic) concentration less than or equal to 10 ug/L.
• Mean total phosphorus concentration less than or equal to 23 ug/L.
Good water quality lakes are restricted to those with a surface area of 10 acres or larger.
Wildlife Significance. The Council's recently updated comprehensive development guide,
Thrive MSP 2040, discusses the importance of ecological resources, habitat, and a healthy
natural environment. There are several lakes in the Twin Cities metropolitan area that have
special significance for wildlife habitat, including some where wild rice grows. A lake is
considered to have special significance for wildlife habitat if it meets at least one of the following
conditions:
66
• Designated by the MnDNR as a Migratory Waterfowl Feeding and Resting Area
(MW FRA).
• Designated by the MnDNR as a Wildlife Lake.
• Has an estimated coverage of wild rice per the MnDNR's Wild Rice Distribution and
Abundance Inventory (2008).
Basic Lake Characteristics for Management Decisions
The basic lake characteristics are:
• Lake surface area
• Shallow lake status
• Impaired water
• Watershed area
• Watershed area to lake surface area ratio
Lake Surface Area. The lake surface area is the areal extent of the lake basin as given in the
MCES Lakes and Rivers GIS layer (2005).
Shallow Lakes. The Priority Lakes List uses the MnDNR definition of a shallow lake as one
having a maximum depth of 15 feet or less. Whereas both shallow lakes and deeper lakes can
benefit from improved watershed management, shallow lakes may require additional in-lake
management strategies to address those issues that have a more pronounced effect on shallow
lakes (for example, frequent internal cycling of nutrients, greater loading of nutrients,
disturbance by bottom dwelling animals, and maintaining healthy aquatic plant populations).
Impaired Water. The Priority Lakes List indicates whether a lake is listed as an impaired water
because of a negatively affected beneficial use according to the 2014 Inventory of Impaired
Waters of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). An impaired lake means it is not
meeting water quality standards and beneficial use(s), as designated in Minnesota Rule 7050.
Watershed Area. The watershed area of a priority lake is the total area of the lake basin itself
and any upgradient basins as delineated in MnDNR's GIS layer"DNR Watersheds - DNR Level
08 - All Catchments."
Watershed Area to Lake Surface Area Ratio. The ratio of the watershed area to lake surface
area provides an indication of the potential relative stress put on a lake by runoff from the lake's
watershed. The greater the ratio, the greater the stress applied to the lake from external
loadings of pollutants.
67
Priority Lakes List
Surface Good Impaired Watershed Watershed
Area Shallow Water Water Wildlife Beneficial Area Area to Lake
Lake Name DNR ID County acres Lake Recreation Supply QualitySi nificance Use acres Area ratio
Centerville 20006 Anoka 472.8 Y Reserve R 1,640 3.5
Coon 20042 Anoka 1532.8 Y
C (Hg) 6,297 4.1
Crooked 20084 Anoka 118.9 Y
C (Hg) 469 3.9
East Twin 20133 Anoka 96.8 Y Y C (Hg) 443 4.6
Fish 20065 Anoka 337.1 Yes Wildlife 1,619 4.8
George 20091 Anoka 491.5 Y C (Hg) 1,853 3.8
Ham 20053 Anoka 180.5 Y C (Hg) 853 4.7
Linwood 20026 Anoka 570.3 Y R 7,122 12.5
Little Coon 20032 Anoka 87.9 Yes Wild rice 2,990 34.0
Martin 20034 Anoka 249.4 Y R 24,620 98.7
Otter 20003 Anoka 294.6 Y Reserve C (Hg) 1,505 5.1
Peltier 20004 Anoka 573.4 Y R, C (Hg) 69,035 120.4
Pickerel 20130 Anoka 246.1 Yes Wild rice 616 2.5
Rice 20008 Anoka 370.2 Yes Y R 81,646 220.5
Round 20089 Anoka 263.5 Yes Y 1,573 6.0
Swan 20098 Anoka 41.2 Yes Wild rice 868 21.1
Ann 100012 Carver 116.3 Y C (Hg) 1,247 10.7
Auburn 100044 Carver 287.2 Y R 8,027 27.9
Brickyard O*A** 100225 Carver 13.9 Y 173 12.4
Courthouse 100005 Carver 12.0 Y 33 2.8
Eagle 100121 Carver 179.9 Yes Y R, C (Hg) 1,840 10.2
Hydes 100088 Carver 219.4 Y R, C (Hg) 3,280 14.9
Lotus 100006 Carver 242.2 Y R, C (Hg) 1,369 5.7
Maria 100058 Carver 168.8 Yes Y R 479 2.8
Minnewashta 100009 Carver 686.0 Y C (Hg) 3,116 4.5
68
Priority Lakes List
Surface Good Impaired Watershed Watershed
Area Shallow Water Water Wildlife Beneficial Area Area to Lake
Lake Name DNR ID County acres Lake Recreation Supply Quality Significance Use acres Area ratio
Parley 100042 Carver 255.9 Y R 12,857 50.2
Patterson 100086 Carver 234.3 Yes Y Wildlife 2,685 11.5
Piersons 100053 Carver 291.6 Y 1,178 4.0
Rice 100078 Carver 239.3 Yes Y 8,534 35.7
Riley 100002 Carver 295.4 Y R, C(Hg) 5,333 18.1
Steiger 100045 Carver 169.7 Y C (Hg) 819 4.8
Tiger 100108 Carver 385.6 Yes Y Waterfowl &Wildlife 4,497 11.7
Waconia 100059 Carver 3088.1 Y C (Hg) 10,751 3.5
Wasserman 100048 Carver 166.2 Y R, C (Hg) 2,878 17.3
Zumbra-Sunny 100041 Carver 225.4 Y C(Hg) 534 2.4
Byllesby 190006 Dakota 1368.5 Y R, C (Hg) 733,166 535.7
Chub 190020 Dakota 241.5 Yes Wild rice R 1,487 6.2
Crystal 190027 Dakota 287.1 Y R, C (Hg) 4,006 14.0
Kingsley 190030 Dakota 80.2 Yes Y 213 2.7
Lac Lavon 190446 Dakota 67.0 Y C (Hg) 371 5.5
MarCcrtt{nhmans) 190042 Dakota 34.1 Y 3,553 104.2
Marion 190026 Dakota 573.1 Y C (Hg) 5,081 8.9
Orchard 190031 Dakota 236.0 Y C (Hg) 2,348 9.9
190005- L(TSS), C
Spring Lake 01 Dakota 1839.0 Y (PCB, PFOS, 23,780,000 12,931
Hg)
Bryant 270067 Hennepin 176.1 Y R, C (Hg) 5,567 31.6
Bush 270047 Hennepin 189.0 Y Y C(Hg) 1,241 6.6
Calhoun 270031 Hennepin 414.8 Y C (PFOS, Hg) 6,851 16.5
Cedar 270039 Hennepin 168.4 Y C(Hg) 2,482 14.7
Christmas 270137 Hennepin 268.2 Y C (Hg) 741 2.8
69
Priority Lakes List
Surface Good Impaired Watershed Watershed
Area Shallow Water Water Wildlife Beneficial Area Area to Lake
Lake Name DNR ID County acres Lake Recreation Supply Quality Significance Use acres Area ratio
Dutch 270181 Hennepin 173.8 Y R 1,787 10.3
Eagle 27011011 Hennepin 294.2 Y R, C (Hg) 3,620 12.3
Fish 270118 Hennepin 234.8 Y R, C (Hg) 2,276 9.7
Harriet 270016 Hennepin 338.5 Y C (PFOS, Hg) 8,354 24.7
Independence 270176 Hennepin 834.1 Y R, C (Hg) 8,395 10.1
Lake of the Isles 270040 Hennepin 114.0 Y C (PFOS, Hg) 3,225 28.3
Little Long 270179 Hennepin 85.6 Y C (Hg) 269 3.1
Long 270160 Hennepin 297.9 Y R, C (Hg) 6,841 23.0
Medicine 270104 Hennepin 922.3 Y R, C (Hg) 11,603 12.6
Minnetonka 270133 Hennepin 14185.0 Y R, C (Hg) 78,770 5.6
Mitchell 270070 Hennepin 114.4 Y R 1,405 12.3
Nokomis 270019 Hennepin 200.4 Y R, C (PCB, Hg) 2,942 14.7
Nordmyr 271045 Hennepin 108.4 Yes Y
(Normandale) p 21,117 194.8
Pike 27011012 Hennepin 57.4 Y R, C(Hg) 984 17.1
Rebecca 270192 Hennepin 265.6 Y R, C(Hg) 1,539 5.8
Staring 270078 Hennepin 163.2 Y R, C (Hg) 15,323 93.9
Weaver 270117 Hennepin 149.2 Y C (Hg) 489 3.3
Whaletail 270184 Hennepin 518.1 Y R, C(Hg) 2,333 4.5
Bald Eagle 620002 Ramsey 1044.0 Y Reserve R, C (Hg) 19,573 18.7
Charley 620062 Ramsey 35.2 Principal 129+ Miss. R.
Deep 620018 Ramsey 71.6 Yes Principal 5,712 79.8
Gervais 620007 Ramsey235.0 Y
C (Hg) 16,622 70.7
Johanna 620078 Ramsey 210.6 Y C (PFOS, Hg) 3,645 17.3
Josephine 620057 Ramsey 114.1 Y C (Hg) 859 7.5
70
Priority Lakes List
Surface Good Impaired Watershed Watershed
Area Shallow Water Water Wildlife Beneficial Area Area to Lake
Lake Name DNR ID County acres Lake Recreation Supply Quality Significance Use acres Area ratio
Owasso 620056 Ramsey 371.2 Y C (Hg) 3,033 8.2
Phalen 620013 Ramsey 197.4 Y C (Hg) 21,186 107.3
Pleasant 620046 Ramsey 601.7 Principal R, C(Hg) 8,240+ Miss. R.
Snail 620073 Ramsey 148.0 Y C (Hg) 1,050 7.1
Sucker 620028 Ramsey 61.7 Principal C (Hg) 8,857+ Miss. R.
Turtle 620061 Ramsey 439.1 Y C (Hg) 778 1.8
Vadnais 620038 Ramsey 603.4 Principal R, C (Hg) 15,157
+ Miss. R.
Wilkinson 620043 Ramsey 91.0 Yes Principal R 5,033 55.3
Blue 700088 Scott 150.5 Yes Wild rice 30,451 202.3
Cedar 700091 Scott 793.6 Yes Y R, C (Hg) 2,447 3.1
Cleary 700022 Scott 146.4 Yes Y R, C (Hg) 5,624 38.4
Fish 700069 Scott 175.9 Y R, C (Hg) 699 4.0
Fisher _ 700087 Scott 274.3 Yes Wild rice 31,396 114.5
Lower Prior 700026 Scott 966.9 Y C (Hg) 18,904 19.6
O'Dowd 700095 Scott 317.9 Y R, C (Hg) 774 2.4
Pkesavit 700098 Scott 319.0 Yes Waterfowl 907 2.8
Rice 700025 Scott 145.6 Yes Wild rice 1,102 7.6
Spring 700054 Scott 593.0 Y R, C(Hg) 12,431 21.0
Thole/Schneider 700120 Scott 161.3 Yes Y R, C (Hg) 1,797 11.1
Upper Prior 700072 Scott 387.4 Y R, C (Hg) 16,039 41.4
Battle Creek 820091 Washington 105.9 Yes Y L (Cl), C(Hg) 4,264 40.3
Big Carnelian 820049 Washington 451.6 Y Y C (Hg) 14,794 32.8
Big Marine 820052 Washington 1889.6 Y C(Hg) 7,669 4.1
Bone 820054 Washington 222.6 Y R, C (Hg) 10,027 45.0
Ctear 820045 Washington 45.9 Y 2,500 54.5
71
Priority Lakes List
Surface Good Impaired Watershed Watershed
Area Shallow Water Water Wildlife Beneficial Area Area to Lake
Lake Name DNR ID County acres Lake Recreation Supply Quality Significance Use acres Area ratio
Clear 820163 Washington 429.2 Y C (Hg) 2,554 6.0
DeMontreville 820101 Washington 157.0 Y Y 4,294 27.4
Elmo 820106 Washington 294.3 Y Y C(PFOS, Hg) 14,573 49.5
Forest 820159 Washington 2282.9 Y C (PCB, Hg) 10,724 4.7
Jane 820104 Washington 152.7 Y Y 1,207 7.9
Lake St. Croix 820001 Washington 7800.0 Y R 4,961,920 636.1
Little Carnelian 820014 Washington 156.7 Y C (Hg) 16,233 103.6
Mays 820033 Washington 54.3 Y 2,393 44.1
Olson 820103 Washington 87.0 Yes Y 4,896 56.3
Oneka 820140 Washington 393.3 Yes Y 785 2.0
South Twin 820048 Washington 54.2 Y 1,244 23.0
Square 820046 Washington 201.9 Y Y C (Hg) 806 4.0
Sylvan 820080 Washington 107.3 Y 691 6.4
Terrapin 820031 Washington 149.0 Yes Y 2,241 15.0
West Boot 820044 Washington 64.4 Y 317 4.9
White Bear 820167 Washington 2416.7 Y C (Hg) 7,629 3.2
Beneficial Use abbreviations.R=Aquatic Recreation,L=Aquatic Life,C=Aquatic Consumption
Poll utant/Stressor abbreviations:Cl=Chloride;Hg=Mercury,PCB=Polychlorinated biphenyl;PFOS=Perfluorooctane sulfonate,TSS=Total suspended solids
Miss.R.=The lake receives water from the Mississippi River via artificial inter-basin transfer in addition to water received from the lake's watershed.
Green highlight=new priority lake. Orange highlight=Change from previous priority lakes list
72
Appendix C - System Plan Requirements
The Council looks for provisions in a community's comprehensive plan that provides for
wastewater service commensurate with the needs of expected future development. The
Council's requirements for the wastewater, surface water and water supply sections of a
comprehensive plan are listed below.
Appendix C-1: Wastewater System Plan Elements
Under state law, local governments are required to submit both a wastewater plan element to
their comprehensive plan as well as a comprehensive sewer plan describing service needs from
the Council. Before any local government unit in the metro area may proceed with a sewer
extension, the comprehensive sewer plan must be consistent with the Council's Wastewater
System Plan and be approved by the Council. The required information in comprehensive sewer
plan has been broader in scope than the information required for the comprehensive plan and
has provided more detailed engineering information. To simplify this process and allow the
Council to review and approve both documents simultaneously, the Council has combined the
required elements of both plans into the following criteria:
This section is divided into two parts:
f Requirements for communities that are served by the Council's regional system, also
known as the Metropolitan Disposal System.
• Requirements for all other communities (and/or parts of communities) in the region.
Requirements for Areas Served by the Regional System
Adopted community forecast of households and employment in 10-year increments to
2040, based on the Council's 2040 forecasts with any subsequent negotiated
modifications.
A map or maps showing the following information:
- The communities existing sanitary sewer system identifying lift stations, existing
connections points to the metropolitan disposal system, and the future connection
points for new growth if needed.
- Intercommunity connections and any proposed changes in government boundaries
based on orderly annexation agreements.
- The location of all private and public wastewater treatment plants.
- Each existing or future connection point to the metropolitan disposal system as a
local sewer service district.
• A table or tables that provide the following information:
- Capacity and design flows for existing trunk sewers and lift stations.
- Information on the number of existing and potential connections by local sewer
service district, and projected flow volume in 10-year increments through 2040 and
build-out. There is no preferred method for projecting interceptor flows. Communities
may use the method that is most appropriate, and indicate methodology and
assumptions used.
- Proposed time schedule for the construction of new trunk sewer systems that require
connections to the Metropolitan Disposal System.
73
- Accompanying information on the type and capacity of the treatment facilities,
whether municipally or privately owned, as well as copies of their appropriate
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or State Disposal System
(SDS) permit.
• City goals, policies and strategies for preventing and reducing excessive infiltration and
inflow (1/1) in local sewer system, including:
- Requirements and standards for minimizing inflow and infiltration and for the
disconnection of illegal sump pump and foundation drain connections to the sanitary
sewer system. To be included are copies of ordinances prohibiting the discharge of
foundation drains and/or roof leaders to the sanitary disposal system as well as
copies of ordinances requiring the disconnection of existing foundation drains, sump
pumps and roof leaders from the sanitary disposal system.
- Information on the extent, source and significance of existing 1/1 problems along with
an analysis of costs for remediation.
- Implementation plan including program strategy, priorities, scheduling, and financing
mechanisms for eliminating and preventing excessive 1/1 from entering the system.
Requirements for Areas Not Served by the Regional System
• Adopted community forecast of households and employees in 10-year increments to
2040 (based on Council's 2040 forecasts with any subsequent negotiated modifications).
• Description of community's management program for on-site sewage treatment to
comply with MPCA 7080, and a copy of the community's current on-site ordinance.
• Map showing the locations of existing public and private treatment systems, if any,
including package treatment plants and group on-site systems.
• Map identifying location of on-site sewage disposal systems. Location of known
nonconforming systems or systems with known problems should be identified.
Description of conditions under which private, community treatment systems (for
example, package treatment plants, community drainfields) would be allowed. Examples
of such conditions should include allowable land uses, installation requirements,
management requirements, and local government responsibilities.
• Capacity of and existing flows to public and private treatment systems.
Brief description of the community's sewer system plan (proposed to 2040), including the
following information:
- Projected flows in 2020, 2030, and 2040.
- Local objectives, policies and strategies for preventing and reducing excessive
infiltration and inflow, including sump pumps and drain tile in the local sewer
system.
- Proposed timing and financing of any expanded/new wastewater treatment
facilities.
- Copies of facility planning reports for the upgrading of the wastewater treatment
plants.
74
- Map showing the service areas through 2040, staging plan if available, and any
proposed changes in governmental boundaries affecting the community,
including any areas designated for orderly annexation.
Appendix C-2:Local Surface Water Management Plan Elements
Background
In 1995, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act was amended to require that each city and
township's comprehensive plan include a local water management plan. Local water
management plans need to be consistent with the requirements in Minn. Stat. 10313.235, the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act and with Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410. Local water
management plans are reviewed by the Council as part of the local comprehensive planning
process prior to their approval by the appropriate watershed organization(s) and adoption by
the city or township. Local water management plans are crucial in helping the region meet
the challenge of cost-effective protection and management of water quality and quantity.
Local Water Plan Requirements
Minnesota Rules Part 8410.0160 requires the local water management plans to address
specific elements. If a community does not have a currently approved local water
management plan as part of its 2018 comprehensive plan update, the comprehensive plan
will be found incomplete for review. If a community has a plan that does not meet the
requirements for local water management plans, the Council will likely find the plan to have
an impact on our system, thus requiring a plan modification.
In general, local water plans need to include a summary of the priorities and problems in the
community; structural, nonstructural and programmatic actions to take to address the
priorities and problems; and clearly identified funding mechanisms to fix the problems. The
following list is an expansion of the requirements under Ch. 8410 and Minnesota Statute
10313.235. The list is intended to clarify, through additional detail, what communities should
include in their local water management plans to ensure that their local water management
plan is consistent with the requirements for local water plans and the Council's 2040 Water
Resources Policy Plan,
1. An executive summary that summarizes the highlights of the local water plan.
2. A summary of the appropriate water resource management-related agreements that
have been entered into by the local community.
3. A description of the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. Data may
be incorporated by reference for other required elements of this section as allowed by
the WMO. The community should be aware that not all WMO plans will contain the level
of detail needed for the community and, in those instances, the community will need to
provide additional information. In addition, the following must be defined in the plan:
- Drainage areas
- Volumes, rates, and paths of stormwater runoff (runoff rates are recommended
for a 24-hour precipitation event with a return frequency of 1 or 2 years.
Communities with known flooding issues may want to require rate control for
storms with other return frequencies such as 10, 25 or 100-year events)
75
4. An assessment of existing or potential water resource-related problems. At a minimum,
the plan should include:
- A prioritized assessment of the problems related to water quality and quantity in
the community.
- A list of any impaired waters within their jurisdiction as shown on the current
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 303d Impaired Waters.
- If a Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy(WRAPS) or TMDL study has
been completed for the community, the community should include
implementation strategies, including funding mechanisms that will allow the
community to carry out the recommendations and requirements from the WRAPS
or TMDL specific to that community. More information on the MPCA's WRAPS
and TMDL programs can be found on the MPCA's web site at
www.pca.state.mn.us.
- Communities with designated trout streams should identify actions in their plan to
address the thermal pollution effects from development.
- Communities with special waters, such as outstanding resource value waters,
need to meet state requirements for development near these waters
5. A local implementation program/plan that includes prioritized nonstructural,
programmatic and structural solutions to priority problems identified as part of the
assessment completed for number 4, above. Local official controls must be enacted
within six months of the approval of the local water plan. The program/plan must:
- Include areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet
performance standards or official controls established in the WMO plan(s)
- Define water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance
standards or official controls. At a minimum, the plan should include:
• Information on the types of best management practices to be used to
improve stormwater quality and quantity. (A five-year establishment
period is recommended for native plantings and bioengineering
practices).
■ The maintenance schedule for the best management practices.
- Clearly define the responsibilities of the community from that of the WMO(s) for
carrying out the implementation components
- Describe official controls and any changes to official controls. At a minimum, the
plan should include:
• An erosion and sediment control ordinance consistent with NPDES
Construction Stormwater permit requirements and other applicable state
requirements
■ Identify ways to control runoff rates so that land-altering activities do not
increase peak stormwater flow from the site for a 24-hour precipitation
event with a return frequency of 1 or 2 years. Communities with known
flooding issues may want to require rate control for storms with other
return frequencies (10-year, 25-year or 100-year)
76
• Use of NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8 (Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the
United States)to calculate precipitation amounts and stormwater runoff
rates.
• Consider adoption of the MPCA Minimal Impact Design Standards
(MIDS) performance goals and flexible treatment options.
• For communities that do not adopt MIDS, the plan should use stormwater
practices that promote infiltration/filtration and decrease impervious
areas, such as with better site design and integrated stormwater
management, where practical.
- Include a table that briefly describes each component of the implementation
program and clearly details the schedule, estimated cost, and funding sources for
each component including annual budget totals
- Include a table for a capital improvement program that sets forth by year, details
of each contemplated capital improvement that includes the schedule, estimated
cost, and funding source
6. A section titled "Amendments to Plan" that establishes the process by which
amendments may be made.
Appendix C-3: Local Water Supply Plan Elements
For communities with public water supplies, prepare and implement local water supply plans
consistent with the Council's Master Water Supply Plan and source water (wellhead)
protection plans consistent with MN Rules part 4720.
Minimum requirements for consistency include the following:
1. Complete all information in the DNR and Council water supply plan template. For
communities without public water supply systems, just complete Part 4 — Items for
Metropolitan Area Communities
2. Include extended public water supply demand projections for 2020, 2030, 2040 and
ultimate (full build out)that are consistent with population forecasts in the community's
system statement
3. Acknowledge issues identified in the community's water supply profile in Appendix 2 of
the Master Water Supply Plan
4. Acknowledge alternative sources and potential partners to ensure identified potential
water quality and quantity issues are adequately addressed
5. Outline actions to address identified issues, including:
- Monitor water levels at municipal production wells (if community has a municipal
water supply)and dedicated observation wells
- Implement water conservation programs
- Plan for water supply sources using one of these approaches:
• Plan to use sources without identified issues to meet projected water demand
■ Demonstrate—through local monitoring and studies—that use of the proposed
water supply source will not result in the issue(s) identified in the community's
water supply profile
• Develop and implement a management plan, including milestones and partners,
that includes:
• Aquifer testing results or a plan to conduct an aquifer test
• Evaluation of geologic conditions
• Identification of areas where domestic wells could be impacted
• Schedule for measurement and analysis of water levels, pumping rates
77
Appendix D — Summary of Policies and Implementation Strategies
Water Resources Policy Plan Overall Goal and Policy
Thrive MSP 2040 Water Sustainability Direction:
The region's water resources are sustainable, supported by a regional strategy that balances
growth and protection to improve and maintain the quality and quantity of water in our lakes,
rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater.
The Council will work with state, local and regional partners to provide for sustainable water
resources through effective water supply, surface water, and wastewater planning and
management.
Water Sustainability Goal:
To protect, conserve and utilize the region's groundwater and surface water in ways
that protect public health, support economical growth and development, maintain
habitat and ecosystem health, and provide for recreational opportunities, which are
essential to our region's quality of life.
Working toward Sustainability using the Watershed Management Approach
Policy on Watershed Approach:
The Council will work with our partners to develop and implement a regional watershed-based
approach that addresses both watershed restoration (improving impaired waters) and protection
(maintaining water quality in unimpaired waters).
Implementation Strategies:
Work with the watershed management structure in the metro area on issues that
transcend watershed organization boundaries in order to prepare water management
plans that promote the protection and restoration of local and regional water resources
(lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater).
• Through the review process for comprehensive plans, local water plans, and watershed
management plans, make water resources management a critical part of land use
decisions, planning protocols and procedures to ensure these plans are making
progress toward achieving state and regional goals for protection and restoration of
water resources.
• Provide technical and financial assistance to local governments and other partners on
water issues and water management activities.
• Facilitate discussions on regional water issues that transcend community or watershed
organization boundaries.
• Provide technical information to watershed organizations on practices to use and
incorporate into their plans that protect water quality for our water supply sources
Working toward Sustainability of our Water Supplies
Policy on Sustainable Water Supplies:
79
The Council shall support and plan for the sustainable use of water sources that focuses on the
implications of increasing groundwater use including impacts to surface waters, wetlands, and
ecological areas while ensuring that supplies of potable water are sufficient for the region's
current population and projected growth.
Implementation Strategies:
• Collaborate with agency partners in developing and implementing Groundwater
Management Areas, wellhead protection plans, review of water appropriation permits,
and aquifer recharge projects.
• Work with subregional work groups to define how desired groundwater levels will be
established for those areas.
• Establish work groups for subregional areas and lead discussions to address water
supply limitations.
• Provide technical and financial assistance to local governments and other partners on
groundwater issues.
• Facilitate discussions on groundwater use issues that transcend community boundaries.
Planning for Regional Growth
Policy on Serving the Urban Area:
The Council will use the Water Resources Policy Plan to support and plan for sustainable water
resources that protect public health, provide recreational opportunities, maintain habitat and
ecosystem health and ensure that supplies of potable water are sufficient for the orderly and
economical development and redevelopment of the metro area long into the future. A
community's comprehensive plan is expected to accommodate the forecasts and to meet the
densities specified in the Council's Thrive MSP 2040 plan.
A community's comprehensive plan must include:
• A water supply plan that is consistent with the Twin Cities metro area Master Water
Supply Plan, the Department of Natural Resources plan requirements, and Council
policy
• A local surface water management plan that is consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter
8410 and Council policy and does not adversely impact the regional wastewater
system, and
• A comprehensive sewer plan that is consistent with the regional wastewater system
plan.
Inconsistencies between the local plans and the Council's plans may result in the Council's
finding that the community's plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on, or
contain a substantial departure from, the metropolitan system plan, thus requiring modifications
to the local comprehensive plan.
Implementation Strategies:
• Update the Twin Cities metro area Master Water Supply Plan, which provides the
framework for coordinated water supply planning.
80
• Review local water supply plans to ensure consistency with the Twin Cities metro area
Master Water Supply Plan.
• Provide technical assistance to local units of government in developing local water
supply plans and wellhead protection plans, and in reviewing water appropriation permits
and aquifer recharge projects.
• Review local surface water plans to ensure consistency with Council policy.
• Provide a level of wastewater service commensurate with the needs of the growing
metro area, and in an environmentally sound manner.
• Provide sufficient capacity in the wastewater system to meet the growth projections and
long-term service area needs identified in approved local comprehensive sewer plans.
• Stage wastewater system improvements, when feasible, to reduce the financial risks
associated with inherent uncertainty in growth forecasts.
• Potentially implement early land acquisition and work closely with communities to
preserve utility corridors when it is necessary to expand its facilities or locate new
facilities needed to implement the wastewater system plan.
• Efficiently use existing sewer investments in developing and redeveloping areas.
• Preserve unsewered areas inside the Long-Term Wastewater Service Area for future
development that can be sewered economically.
• Extend wastewater service to suburban communities if the service area contains at least
1,000 developable acres.
• Require that all communities currently served by the regional wastewater system remain
in the system.
• Acquire wastewater treatment plants from suburban communities outside the current
service area, based upon request through the comprehensive plan and comprehensive
sewer plan process, after soliciting customer input and conducting a public hearing on
the request.
Policy on Serving the Rural Area:
The Council will acquire wastewater treatment plants owned by Rural Centers, based upon
request through the comprehensive plan and comprehensive sewer plan processes, and based
upon criteria that ensure direct identifiable regional benefits, after soliciting customer input and
conducting a public hearing on the request.
Implementation Strategies:
• Accept the wastewater service request only when the following criteria are met:
- The community accepts the Council's growth forecasts, as well as preserves at
least 1,000 developed or developable acres for growth through the land use
planning authority of the county or adjacent township(s) or through an orderly
annexation agreement or similar mechanism to provide for staged, orderly growth
in the surrounding area.
- The community has adequate water supply.
81
- The community has adequate transportation access.
- The community lies within the long-term wastewater service area or other
regional benefits would result, such as economic development unique to the rural
area or preservation of high-value water resources.
- There are feasible and economical options for siting and permitting an expanded
wastewater treatment plant, or for extending interceptor service.
- The Council has sought customer input, has conducted appropriate financial
analysis, and has conducted a public hearing on the community's wastewater
service request.
• Require that, if the most economical and beneficial wastewater service option is to
construct a regional interceptor to serve the community, the Council will not acquire the
community's wastewater treatment plant, and the community will be responsible for
decommissioning its treatment plant.
• Not allow connections to the regional wastewater system outside the sewered rural
community. The Council may construct capacity to serve the long-term needs of the rural
and agricultural planning areas, but will not provide service until the Council, in
consultation with the appropriate community, designates the area as a developing
community and the community amends its comprehensive plan accordingly.
• Preserve areas outside the Long-Term Wastewater Service Area for agricultural and
rural uses, while protecting significant natural resources, supporting groundwater
recharge, and allowing limited unsewered development.
Policy on Private Wastewater Systems:
Communities that permit the construction and operation of subsurface sewage treatment
systems and other private wastewater treatment systems within their communities are
responsible for ensuring that these systems are installed, maintained, managed, and regulated
consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules. The Council will not provide financial
support to assist communities if these systems fail.
Implementation Strategies:
• The Council will use its review authority for local comprehensive plans to ensure that
communities fulfill their current and future obligations regarding subsurface sewage
treatment systems and other private wastewater systems.
• The Council will continue to support State rules for subsurface sewage treatment
systems and other private wastewater systems.
• The Council will allow a community to connect a failing subsurface sewage treatment
system or other private wastewater treatment system to the regional wastewater system
at the community's expense.
Water Conservation and Reuse
Policy on Water Conservation and Reuse:
82
The Council will work with our partners to identify emerging issues and challenges for the region
as we work together on solutions that include the use of water conservation, wastewater and
stormwater reuse, and low impact development practices in order to promote a more
sustainable region.
Implementation Strategies:
• Identify and pursue options to reuse treated wastewater to supplement groundwater and
surface water as sources of water to support regional growth, when economically
feasible.
• Promote water supply resiliency through the use of stormwater best management
practices that minimize aquifer impacts and maximize groundwater recharge, where
practical.
• Promote water conservation measures, including tool development and outreach.
• Encourage low impact development, land uses, and cooperative water use practices that
minimize impacts on aquifers.
• Investigate reusing treated wastewater, and when cost-effective, implement reuse.
• Provide research and guidance on best management practices to use for effective
surface water management.
• In partnership with others, research and promote the development of innovative best
management practices including low impact development technologies and agricultural
best practices.
• Install and monitor innovative nonpoint source pollution reduction practices at Council
facilities and support economically feasible projects that demonstrate new technologies
and their effectiveness.
Assessment of Regional Water Resources
Policy on Assessing and Protecting Regional Water Resources:
The Council will continue to assess the condition of the region's lakes, rivers, streams, and
aquifers to evaluate impacts on regional water resources and measure success in achieving
regional water goals.
Implementation Strategies:
• With our partners, monitor the quality of regional lakes and rivers and quality and flow of
regional streams.
• Continue to assess and fill gaps in lake, stream, river, and groundwater data.
• Assess and evaluate long-term water quality trends for the region's lakes, streams, and
rivers and identify key issues to be addressed.
• Maintain a regional database that contains water quality, quantity and other water
related information collected as part of the Council's monitoring program.
83
• Investigate the need to develop and/or recommend water monitoring and assessment
protocols, and other standard operating procedures for use by partners to move toward
consistent regional approaches.
• In partnership with others, complete technical studies to understand the region's long-
term water supply availability and demand and to identify water sources for a specific
community or subregional area.
• Evaluate the potential for enhancement of aquifer recharge, including identification of
high-potential areas for recharge.
• Assess the use, capacity, quality and vulnerability of the local and subregional water
supply systems and identify high-potential areas for recharge.
• Convene stakeholders and collaborate with partners to identify water quality
improvement implementation paths.
Investment
Investment Policy:
The Council will strive to maximize regional benefits from regional investments.
Implementation Strategies:
• Invest in nonpoint-source pollution control when the cost and long-term benefits are
favorable compared to further upgrading wastewater treatment.
• Consider pollutant trading or off-set opportunities with nonpoint-sources of pollution
when cost-effective and environmentally beneficial.
• Invest in wastewater reuse when justified by the benefits for supplementing groundwater
and surface water as sources of water to support regional growth, and by the benefits for
maintaining water quality.
• Potentially invest strategically to further the effectiveness of the region's nonpoint-source
pollution prevention and control program and to ensure efficient investment to achieve
regional water quality objectives.
• Support cost-effective investments in water supply infrastructure to promote sustainable
use and protect the region's water supplies by:
- Developing criteria to identify water supply projects with regional benefit.
- Promoting equitable cost-sharing structure (s)for regionally-beneficial water
supply development projects.
- Supporting cost-benefit analyses of alternative water supply options.
- Identifying funding mechanisms for regionally-beneficial water supply
development projects.
84
Wastewater Services
Wastewater Sustainability Policy:
The Council will provide efficient, high-quality, and environmentally sustainable regional
wastewater infrastructure and services.
The Council shall conduct its regional wastewater system operations in a sustainable manner as
is economically feasible. Sustainable operations relates not only to water resources but also to
increasing energy efficiency and using renewable energy sources, reducing air pollutant
emissions, and reducing, reusing, and recycling solid wastes.
Implementation Strategies:
• Implement and enforce Waste Discharge Rules for the regional wastewater system.
• Preserve regional wastewater system assets of the Council through effective
maintenance, condition and capacity assessment, and capital investment.
• Accept septage, biosolids, leachate, and other hauled liquid waste at designated sites,
provided that the waste can be efficiently and effectively processed.
• Reuse treated wastewater to meet water needs within Council wastewater treatment
facilities where economically feasible.
• Provide industries with incentives to pretreat wastewater to reduce its strength and thus
provide the most environmental and economical benefit for the region.
• Generate energy from biosolids processing, utilize energy efficient processes and
equipment, and reduce building energy use.
• Pursue other renewable energy sources, such as solar power generation, thermal
energy recovery, and new technologies - such as fuel cells - as they become proven
and economical.
• Stabilize and reduce the volume of biosolids through thermal processing or anaerobic
digestion, and utilize the remaining solids as fertilizer and soil conditioner.
• Improve sustainability of wastewater operations, when economically feasible.
Policy on Inflow and Infiltration:
The Council will not provide additional capacity within its interceptor system to serve excessive
inflow and infiltration.
The Council will establish inflow and infiltration goals for all communities discharging
wastewater to the regional wastewater system. Communities that have excessive inflow and
infiltration in their sanitary sewer systems will be required to eliminate the excessive inflow and
infiltration within a reasonable time period.
Implementation Strategies:
• Maintain and rehabilitate Council interceptors to minimize inflow and infiltration.
• Develop inflow and infiltration goals for all communities served by the regional
wastewater system.
85
• Require all communities served by the regional wastewater system to include its inflow
and infiltration mitigation program in its comprehensive sewer plan, including a program
to mitigate sources of inflow and infiltration from private property.
• Limit expansion of service within those communities where excessive inflow and
infiltration jeopardizes the Council's ability to convey wastewater without an overflow or
backup occurring, or limits the capacity in the system to the point where the Council can
no longer provide additional wastewater services. The Council will work with those
communities on a case-by-case basis, based on the applicable regulatory requirements.
• Potentially institute a wastewater rate demand charge for those communities that have
not met their inflow and infiltration goal(s), if the community has not been implementing
an effective inflow and infiltration reduction program as determined by the Council, or if
regulations and/or regulatory permits require Council action to ensure regulatory
compliance.
The wastewater demand charge will include the cost of wastewater storage facilities
and/or other improvements necessary to avoid overloading Council conveyance and
treatment facilities, and the appropriate charges for use of capacity beyond the allowable
amount of inflow and infiltration.
• Work with the State to attempt to (1) make funds available for inflow and infiltration
mitigation, and (2) promote statutes, rules, and regulations to encourage 1/1 mitigation.
• Develop a program to assist communities with reducing inflow and infiltration from
private property sources.
Wastewater System Finance Policy:
The Council will continue to implement regional wastewater service fees and charges based on
regional cost of services and rules adopted by the Council.
Implementation Strategies:
• Metropolitan wastewater charges will be allocated among local government units based on
volume of wastewater treated.
• Industrial wastewater strength charges will be based on actual or average discharge
strength above domestic wastewater strength.
• Load charges for septage, portable-toilet waste, holding-tank wastewater and out-of-region
wastes will be uniform for each type of load, and based on the volume of the load, the
average strength of the types of loads, and the costs of receiving facilities.
• Sewer availability charges (SAC)will be uniform within the urban area based on capacity
demand for classes of customers and the SAC Procedure Manual. Sewer availability
charges for a rural center will be based on the reserve capacity and debt service of facilities
specific to the rural center.
• Other fees recovering costs of specific services may be imposed, as approved by the
Council.
• Cost-sharing between the Council and a local governmental unit may be used when
construction of regional wastewater facilities provides additional local benefits for an
incremental increase in costs.
86
• Facilities that are no longer a necessary part of the regional wastewater system will be
conveyed to the benefiting local governmental unit, or will be abandoned or sold, pursuant to
related statutes.
• Seek customer input prior to, and give at least three months notice of, any material changes
in the design of charges.
• Continue efforts to work to simplify and improve SAC and to communicate to customers.
87
Appendix E— Definitions
Agricultural Area: Communities that encompass areas with prime agricultural soils that are
planned and zoned for long-term agriculture. Maximum allowable density is 4 units/40 acres.
Aquifer: A saturated geologic formation that will yield a sufficient quantity of water to serve as a
private or public water supply.
Best management practices: A set of recommendations pertaining to the development and
maintenance of varied land uses, aimed at limiting the effects of development, such as soil
erosion and stormwater runoff, on the natural environment. See the Council's Urban Small Sites
Best Management Practices Manual for specific examples of Best Management Practices.
Conservation: The management of natural resources to prevent waste, destruction or
degradation.
Density: The number of dwelling units per net residential acre of land.
Design to average flow ratio: The design average flow is calculated as the product of the long-
term service area times 800 gallons per acre per day. This value represents an annual average
flow from a service area for long-term development.
Design peak average flow: The design peak to average ratio is the ratio of the peak hour flow
used for hydraulic design divided by the design average flow.
Design peak hour flow: The design peak hour flow is calculated as the product of the design
average flow times the LACES specified peak to average ratio.
Developable land: Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed
free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas.
Diversified Rural: Communities that are home to a variety of farm and nonfarm land uses
including very large-lot residential, clustered housing, hobby farms, and agricultural uses.
Located adjacent to the Emerging Edge Suburban communities, the Diversifies Rural
designation protects rural land for rural lifestyles today with the potential of becoming urbanized
after 2040. Maximum allowable density is 1-2.5 units for existing lots, and 1 unit/10 acres where
possible.
Emerging Suburban Edge: Cities, townships and portions of both that are in early stages of
transitioning into urbanized levels of development. In the majority of these communities, less
than 40% of the land has been developed. Parts of Emerging Suburban Edge communities are
in the MUSA and all have a minimum average net density of 3-5 units/acre.
Excessive I/I: a) 1/1 that results in the communities wet weather flows to be violation of the
Metropolitan Council's established 1/1 goals for the community. b) 1/1 that causes the peak hourly
flow to exceed the value determined by multiplying the average flow by the value of the peak to
average ratio used by MCES to design interceptors and pump stations.c) 1/1 that exceeds 25
gallons per day per capita on a maximum monthly basis.
88
Forecast: In Thrive MPS 2040, a calculation of growth in population, households and jobs
based on data about current conditions (for example, the 2010 Census) that is extrapolated into
the future.
Groundwater: The supply of freshwater under the surface in an aquifer or soil that forms a
natural reservoir. (Compare with surface water.)
Growth strategy: The Council's selection of an urban growth and development pattern for the
region and the measures to implement it.
Household: All the people who occupy a housing unit.
Imminent threat to public health or safety: Situations with the potential to immediately and
adversely impact or threaten public health and safety.
Infill: Development or redevelopment of land that has been bypassed, remained vacant, and/or
is underused as a result of the continuing urban-development process.
Infiltration:
1. The seepage of water from land surface down below the root zone. This water may move
horizontally through the soil toward nearby streams, wetlands, and lakes —becoming baseflow.
Or this water may move vertically down to recharge deeper regional aquifers.
2. The seepage of groundwater into sewer pipes through cracks or joints in the pipes.
Inflow: Inflow is typically flow from a single point, such as discharge from sump pumps and
foundation drains, or stormwater entering openings in the sewer access covers.
Infrastructure: Fixed facilities, such as sewer lines and roadways; permanent structures.
Integration: The incorporation of all planning aspects (for example, land use, transportation,
housing, water resources, and natural resources) into decisions about development.
Investments, regional investments: Investments made by the Metropolitan Council into
regional infrastructure.
Land planning act : (See Metropolitan Land Planning Act.)
Land supply: Available amount of developable land.
Local comprehensive plan: Plans for local land use and infrastructure. Counties, cities and
townships are required to have their local comprehensive plans reviewed by the Metropolitan
Council to ensure that they are consistent with metropolitan system plans. (Compare with
comprehensive plan.)
Local government: Municipal units of government, such as counties, cities and townships.
MDS: Metropolitan Disposal System
89
Measured wet weather peak to average ratio: The observed peak-hour flow during wet
weather divided by the target annual flow.
Metropolitan Development Guide: The collection of regional plans that includes Thrive MSP
2040 and the policy plans for the regional systems: transportation, wastewater and water
quality, regional parks and open space.
Metropolitan Land Planning Act : Minnesota Statute 473 directing the Council to adopt long-
range, comprehensive policy plans for transportation, airports, wastewater services, and parks
and open space, and authorizing the Council to review the comprehensive plans of local
governments.
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA): The area, in which the Metropolitan Council
ensures that regional services and facilities under its jurisdiction are provided.
Multifamily housing: Residential structure with two or more separate dwelling units.
Nonurban land uses: Residential, commercial or industrial land uses that are not found in the
urban area, and where urban services are unavailable. (Compare with urban land uses.)
Observed peak-hour flow: The observed peak- hour flow is the highest flow rate over one hour
duration during a 24-hour period that has been measured and reported.
Observed peak-to-average ratio: The observed peak to average ratio is the observed peak
hour flow divided by the annual average flow.
On-site septic system: System for disposing and treating human and domestic waste at or
near the location where the waste is generated, such as a septic tank and soil absorption
system or other system, allowed by state and city when access to the municipal sewer system is
not required of feasible.
Open Space: Public and private land that is generally natural in character. It may support
agricultural production, or provide outdoor recreational opportunities, or protect cultural and
natural resources. It contains relatively few buildings or other human-made structures.
Depending on the location and surrounding land use, open space can range in size from a small
city plaza or neighborhood park of several hundred square feet, corridors linking neighborhoods
of several acres to pasture, croplands or natural areas and parks covering thousands of acres.
Ordinance: A law or regulation adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county.
Policy Area: An area distinguished by its land use patterns, community needs and other
factors, with its own set of specified policies and implementation strategies.
Recharge:
1. Process by which water from rainfall, snowmelt or other sources seeps through the soil into
the saturated zone.
2. The portion of infiltration that moves from the unsaturated sediment below the root zone into
the underlying aquifers (saturated zone).
90
Recharge Area: An area where surface water from rainfall, snowmelt or other sources seeps
through the soil into the saturated zone.
Redevelopment: Any proposed expansion, addition, or major fagade change of an existing
building, structure, or parking facility.
Regional Infrastructure: Infrastructure pertaining to any of the Council's systems: wastewater,
transportation, and parks and open space (See also regional systems.)
Regional Systems: Systems for which the Metropolitan Council is the responsible planning and
operating authority. They include wastewater services, transportation, parks and open space,
and airports. (See also regional infrastructure.)
Reinvestment: Investment intended to improve upon, remodel or replace existing infrastructure
that has become out-dated and obsolete.
Runoff: Rainfall or snowmelt that has not evaporated or infiltrated into the soil, but flows over
the ground surface.
Rural Centers: Local commercial, employment, and residential activity centers serving rural
areas in the region. These small towns are surrounded by agricultural lands and serve as
centers of commerce to those surrounding farm lands. The density is 3-5 units/acre.
Rural Residential Area: Communities that have residential patterns characterized by large lots
and do not have plans to provide urban infrastructure. Maximum allowable density is 4 units/40
acres.
S-eptage: Solids and liquids removed during periodic maintenance of an individual sewage
treatment system, or solids and liquids that are removed from toilet waste treatment devices
such or a holding tank.
Septic system: (See on-site septic treatment system.)
Sewershed: The area that actually or could potentially contribute wastewater to a single point in
the MCES interceptor system.
Stormwater: Surplus surface water generated by rainfall that does not seep into the earth but
flows overland to flowing or fixed bodies of water. (See also runoff.)
Suburban area: Communities that saw their primary era of development during the 1980s and
early 1990s. Suburban communities also include places that were once resort destinations
along Lake Minnetonka and White Bear Lake and along the St. Croix River. Suburban
communities are in the MUSA and have a minimum average net density of 5 units/acre.
Suburban Edge: Communities that have experienced significant residential growth beginning in
the 1990s and continuing to the 2010s. At least 40% of the land in these communities is
developed, but significant amounts of land remain for future development. Suburban Edge
communities are in the MUSA and have a minimum average net density of 3-5 units/acre.
Surcharging: To fill beyond the capacity of the pipe; overflow.
91
Surface Water: Water on the earth's surface exposed to the atmosphere, such as rivers, lakes
and creeks. (Compare with groundwater.)
Sustainable Development: Development that maintains or enhances economic opportunity
and community well-being while protecting and restoring the natural environment upon which
people and economies depend. Sustainable development meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
System Plans: Long-range comprehensive policy plans for transportation, airports, wastewater
services, and parks and open space.
System Statements: Statements sent to communities that include system plan information
used to guide the preparation of the comprehensive plan.
Urban area: Communities that are adjacent to the Urban Center communities and have seen
considerable development and growth along highways. Urban areas are in the MUSA and have
a minimum average net density of 10 units/acre.
Urban Center: Communities that include the largest, most centrally located and most
economically diverse cities of the region. Urban centers are in the metropolitan urban service
area (MUSA) and have a minimum average net density of 20 units/acre.
Wastewater: Water carrying waste from domestic, commercial, or industrial facilities together
with other waters that may inadvertently enter the sewer system through infiltration and inflow.
Wastewater treatment plant: A facility designed for the collection, removal, treatment, and
disposal of wastewater generated within a service area.
Wet-weather peak ratio: Average of three highest peak days divided by the average daily flow.
92
Appendix F— Map of Regional Wastewater System Long-Term Service
Areas
----------........ .........
Regional Wastewater System
Long Term Service Areas
................... ----------;�-
a A
YX
Mdt
IM
.... ....... ------ ............. ------------ -
I-OA-1
..........
93
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held its regular
meeting on March 3, 2015 at 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Darrin Mosher
Commissioner Russ Koski O
Commissioner Mark Haiden D O
Commissioner Matthew Montain 0
ABSENT: Commissioner Thomas Wood
Commissioner James Flint
Commissioner Nick Twohy
STAFF: City Administrator Mike Ericson
Public Works Director Paul Palzer
Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal David Bruder
OTHERS PRESENT: Council Member D. Love
I. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairperson
Mosher.
1. Roll Call
II. APPEARANCES —None
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Request for Conditional Use Permit—6845—20`x' Avenue South.
The applicant Mr. Brian Hanson, was present. Building owner Mr. Richard Pearson was
not present but provided a letter of support for Mr. Hanson's use of the building in the
requested manner. The meeting was opened for public comment, no one was present to
speak with regard to the request.
Mr. Hanson stated that he has been operating his business out of the building for several
months when it was brought to his attention that he would need to apply for a Conditional
Use Permit. Mr. Hanson stated that he had originally contacted the City prior to signing a
lease for the suite ascertaining whether the use was allowable. Mr. Hanson stated that he
was told that he could operate there and signed a lease. Mr. Hanson stated that it is
believed that this error was made in part due to a similar recreational business being
operated in the building. Staff explained to Mr. Hanson that the building was previously
rezoned from BI (Commercial) to I1 (Industrial) in early 2006 and during that time the
existing business was grandfathered in for its use due to the previous zoning.
Page 1 of 4
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 3,2015
Motion was made by Commissioner Koski, seconded by Commissioner Montain to
close the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried.
IV. OLD BUSINESS—None
V. NEW BUSINESS
1) Draft Report and Recommendation for approval of Conditional Use Permit—
6845—201h Avenue South, Ste. #160, Ultimate Martial Arts Studio.
The Commission discussed the proposed permit and the draft document. Assistant Fire
Chief Bruder stated that with the anticipated remodeling, additional sprinkler heads would
need to be installed along with applicable permits. Building Official Palzer also concurred
that with the tenant's build out, applicable permits would need to be obtained along with
following all codes regarding the use of the building and its current zoning.
Mr. Hanson stated that he intended on remodeling the interior of the suite and would
follow all applicable codes. He stated that his business and the neighboring business was a
good fit. He said he should be allowed to continue his operation and is willing to comply
with any requirements placed on him by the commission and Council.
Subsequent to discussion regarding fire lane stripping and the necessity of a pre-inspection
by the Fire Marshal, the permit was modified with these inclusions.
Motion by Commissioner Koski, seconded by Commissioner Mosher to adopt the findings
and recommendation in favor of the proposed conditional use with the recommended
modifications. All in favor. Motion carried.
2) Call for a Public Hearing, Conditional Use Permit—6995 - 20th Avenue South—
(Mechanical Air Systems, Inc.)
Owner-operator Mr. Tim McNamara was present to introduce himself, his company and
address any and all concerns that the commission may have. Mechanical Air Systems, Inc.
is an HVAC (Heating/Cooling) business which employs fourteen (14) individuals. Mr.
McNamara explained that the current owners of the property (Mr. & Mrs. Will Lessard)
have submitted a plat for subdivision of the property and it has been approved by both the
Planning & Zoning Commission and Council along with additional requirements. Mr.
McNamara stated that he would be operating his business mostly off-site or within the
confines of the building, hours of operation would be Monday-Friday from 7:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. The business operates with five (5) trucks, four (4) trailers and various
equipment which would be stored outside, however there would be occasional equipment
that would be housed on the site and outdoors prior to it being recycled for scrap. Mr.
McNamara stated that he and his employees would make every effort not to stack
equipment higher than the fence and truly desired to maintain a clean appearance of his
company.
Page 2 of 4
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 3,2015
Discussion ensued regarding the current zoning of the property being B-1 (Commercial)
and the proposed use being similar to what is outlined in the City Code but not specifically
stated as allowable.
Motion by Commissioner Koski, seconded by Commissioner Haiden to schedule a public
hearing for consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit — 6995 — 20th Avenue_
South— (Mechanical Air Systems, Inc.). All in favor. Motion carried.
3) Offer to Purchase 1737 Main Street, Ms. Darlene Farley—Needs Rezoning from it
Existing Zoning of M-2 along with Add'I. Properties/Comp. Plan
Amendment/Downtown Redevelopment Plan Consideration
Administrator Ericson stated that the City Council received a purchase agreement from
Ms. Farley to purchase Lots 2, 9, 10, 11, Block 3, Centerville for residential purposes.
Administrator Ericson stated that the property is currently zoned M-1, Mixed Use and does
not allow for residential uses except as part of a planned unit development. Ms. Farley
was not presenting an application for a Planned Unit Development nor desired to.
Administrator Ericson also stated that the property has been utilized in the past as a
commercial business but been vacant for the past two years. Mr. Lou Suski, Gaughan
Companies, was out of town and unable to present the purchase agreement. Ms. Farley
was not present at the meeting.
The Commission had extensive discussion regarding the possibility of rezoning just the
parcels that Ms. Farley desired to purchase, possible spot zoning, potential for rezoning the
entire block and the ramifications that either zoning modifications would have on the
comprehensive plan or the City's Master Plan and Development Guidelines for Downtown
Centerville.
Motion by Commissioner Montain, seconded by Commissioner Haiden to not recommend to
Council the rezoning of the above stated property for the above stated reasons. All in favor.
Motion carried
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Commissioners that were available to attend the Joint Work Session that Council held on
February 25, 2015 were pleased with Council's goals for the upcoming year and
Commissioner Montain requested that several items be included in the goals such as,
accountability of staff while unsupervised, snowplowing policy/procedures and cost
efficiency.
Several members of the Commission stated that they desired to work on more projects, felt
that they should meet more regularly to discuss items even if they do not have scheduled
public hearings and that they are an asset to the community and development.
VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. December 2, 2014 Planning& Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 4
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 3,2015
Motion by Commissioner Montain, seconded by Commissioner Koski to approve minutes
from the December 2, 2014, meeting as presented. All in favor. Motion carried
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Koski, seconded by Commissioner Montain to adjourn the
meeting at 8:05 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried.
Transcribed by:
Mike Ericson, Acting Secretary
Page 4 of 4