HomeMy WebLinkAbout8C - Data Collection & Assessment Plan
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
BC
GREG ILKKA, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY
ENGINEER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98-XX
SUPPORTING THE SOUTHWEST METRO
GROUNDWATER WORK GROUP'S EFFORTS IN
SEEKING LEGISLATIVE FINANCING FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DATA COLLECTION AND
ASSESSMENT PLAN.
DATE:
JANUARY 5, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this Agenda item is to consider approval of a
resolution in support of the Southwest Metro Groundwater
Work Group's efforts to pursue funding from the Minnesota
Legislature for the Work Group's Data Collection and
Assessment Plan.
BACKGROUND:
In the spring of 1997 the Metropolitan Council established
the Southwest Metro Groundwater Work Group (SMGWG) in
response to the alleged negative impacts that the withdrawal
of groundwater in the region has on sensitive environmental
features such as the Savage Fen, Eagle Creek, and Boiling
Springs. The Work Group includes representatives from the
cities of Burnsville, Lakeville, Prior Lake, Savage, and
Shakopee, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community,
Scott and Dakota Counties, the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MnDNR), the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), the Minnesota Department of
Health (MDH), the United States Geological Survey (USGS),
and the Metropolitan Council.
DISCUSSION:
Currently most municipalities in the region, including Prior
Lake, draw the majority of their water supply from an
underground aquifer known as the Prairie du Chien-Jordan
aquifer. The MnDNR has circumstantial evidence that leads
them to believe these groundwater withdrawals from the
Jordan aquifer are having a negative impact on sensitive
162G~a~eI:@reek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
environmental features in the region such as the Savage
Fen, Eagle Creek, and Boiling Springs.
Based on the available data the MnDNR's management
team has determined there is a present need for restrictions
on withdrawal of water from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan
aquifer. Their present position is to not issue any new
permits for additional municipal wells in this aquifer in the
region.
As a result of the MnDNR's position the Metropolitan Council
formed the SMGWG to bring all the potentially affected
parties together to develop a strategy to ensure the long
term availability of water supply to support forecasted growth
while protecting sensitive environmental features and natural
resources. The City of Prior Lake is an affected party
because we need additional high capacity wells to meet the
peak demands of our growing community.
Through many meetings during the last nine months,
members of the Work Group have agreed that the data
currently available is inadequate to make decisions
regarding the use of the resource, and additional data is
required for assessment and preparation of a management
plan for the future. Through sub-group efforts a detailed
long term Data Collection and Assessment Plan has been
prepared and agreed to in principle by all parties. A copy of
the plan is included with this report.
As outlined in the plan and summarized in the Executive
Summary, primary responsibility for maintenance of the
various parts of the plan exists with the three state agencies
participating in both the SMGWG and the regulatory
process. The MnDNR Waters Division, The MDH Source
Water Protection Program, and the MPCA's Metro
Groundwater Model Project all maintain programs that will
benefit from the information generated from the SMGWG
effort. Most of the costs, including staff time and money,
associated with the data collection and assessment plan will
be borne by these regulatory agencies. The communities
involved will bear costs as part of their supply system
expansions such as water level measurements associated
with new wells and wellhead protection program
requirements.
SMGWGRES.DOC
ISSUES:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDA TION:
ACTION REQUIRED:
SMGWGRES.DOC
Some of the most expensive work items are proposed to be
undertaken by the USGS at 50% USGS funding and 50%
State funding. The 50% State share is proposed for State
Legislature funding. The Metropolitan Council will take the
lead on this effort but require local and agency support to
succeed. Each community has been asked to consider
adopting a resolution supporting the SMGWG Data Plan and
Funding Effort prior to the Legislature convening in January
1998.
Part of the approving resolution commits the City to
continued staff participation in the SMGWG. Staff does not
feel this is an onerous requirement. It has been a very
educational and productive use of time. The group has
been meeting about once a month during the summer, with
the City Engineer and/or the Water Resources Coordinator
attending. The meetings generally last 2-3 hours. Once the
plan is implemented these meetings will probably be on a
less frequent basis as the data collection process will be
slow. Through participation in the group discussions we
have been able to generate some empathy for the local
government perspective at the state agency level. The
MnDNR has already indicated they will require our continued
participation in the SMGWG as a condition of any new well
permit. Non-participation would be detrimental to the City.
Staff highly recommends continued participation in the
SMGWG and support of its efforts to obtain State funding for
implementation of the data collection and assessment plan.
The alternatives are as follows:
1. Approve Resolution 98-XX
2. Deny this Agenda item for a specific reason.
3. Table this Agenda item for a specific reason.
Alternative NO.1.
RESOLUTION 9a-XX
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE SOUTHWEST METRO GROUNDWATER
WORK GROUP'S EFFORTS IN SEEKING LEGISLATIVE FINANCING FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DATA COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT PLAN.
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has legislative
authority to protect water resources in the State of Minnesota,
and
WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources, based on available data,
has determined that there is a present need for restrictions on
withdrawal of water from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in
northeastern Scott County in order to protect certain natural
resource features, and
WHEREAS, appropriation of water from the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer is
restricted by State Statute, and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Metro Groundwater Work Group, including the
Cities of Burnsville, Lakeville, Prior Lake, Savage, and
Shakopee, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community,
Scott and Dakota Counties, The Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources , the Minnesota Department of Health, the
United States Geological Survey, and the Metropolitan Council
have convened to develop a strategy to ensure the long term
availability of water supply to support forecasted growth while
protecting natural resources, and
WHEREAS, participants in ttle Southwest Metro Groundwater Work Group
agree that existing groundwater modeling and data collection
efforts done in northeastern Scott County should be expanded
and improved upon in accordance with the data collection and
assessment plan, prepared by the Southwest Metro
Groundwater Work Group, to position members of the Group to
manage the groundwater resources of the area in a sustainable
way.
SMGWGRES.DOC
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
the City of Prior Lake supports the data collection and assessment plan effort by
offering continued staff participation in the Southwest Metro Groundwater Work Group
and joining with other Southwest Metro Groundwater Work Group participants in
seeking legislative finanacing for implementation of the plan.
Passed and adopted this 5th day of January, 1998.
YES
NO
I Mader
I Ked rowski
I Petersen
I Schenck
I Vacant
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Vacant
{Seal}
City Manager
City of Prior Lake
SMGWGRES.DOC
DRAFT' - ~OlJ 111. WEST METRO GROUNDW ~ WORK GROUP
DAI.A (;(lLLEL. J. .ON AND ASSESSMENT PLAN - OUTLINE
Executive Summary
Introduction
I. Surface Water Data
A. Stream. Flow Measlu ...~ent
1. Low flow/baseflow survey of tributary streams
2. Metro. Council Watershed Outlet Monitoring Profrc:u.u (WOMP)
3. Study of Prior Lake outlet flow from outlet to Minn. River
B. Water Level Recording
1. Watershed management organization (WMO) and community surface water
level measurement
C. Surface Water Management Evaluation
1. Evaluation of impacts of surface water management plans of cities and
WMOs on the study area
ll. Geologic Data
A. Prairie du Chien-Jordan Characterization
1. Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) evaluation of existing data
B. Geologic Mapping
1. MGS evaluation of the study area geology as part of USGS mapping contract
C. Seepage Character in Study Area
1. Incorporate results of Greg Brick seepage study
m. Groundwater Data
A. Water Level Recording
1. Enhance DNR obwell program in study area
2. Collect available groundwater level readings
3. Synoptic groundwater survey
B. Pumping Tests
1. Controlled municipal well studies
2. SMSC pumping tests on its community wells
C. Wellhead Protection
1. Collection of data associated with :MDH program
D. Environmental Assessments
1. CAMAS quarry expansion
E. Special Studies
1. Stable isotope/chemical character evaluation
2. Water budget and regional groundwater recharge
IV. Groundwater Model Development
A. Development of a Groundwater Model(s)
1. Continue development of regional-scale metro groundwater model
2. Development of conceptual wellhead protection groundwater flow model
3. Construct groundwater model for Scott and Dakota Counties .
DRAFT - SOl, I. n WEST METRO ~Ou:m>W 4ud< WORK GROT~
DAIA COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT PLAN
December 9. 1997 - Ohem
EXEClJ 11 VE SUMMARY
The Southwest Metro Groundwater Work Group (SMGWG) was convened in April 1997 to
begin discussions of the provision of groundwater and the protection of sensitive environmental
features. One of the goals of the SMGWG is to make decisions based on the best data possible.
As a part of this effort, a data collection and assessment plan was developed by the technical
subgroup members. It is presented as a recommendation for the full SMGWG to consider. The
graphic on the following page summarizes the thoughts behind the plan.
At its October 14, 1997 meeting, the SMGWG identified three priority surface water bodies:
Savage Fen Wetland Complex, Boiling SpringslEagle Creek and Dean's Lake. The SMGWG
also identified three questions that provide the framework for the data collection and assessment
plan:
· What can the cities do with their existing and future wells? Where will future wells be
placed?
· How is growth and increased withdrawal of groundwater affecting environmental features?
· How much will the monitoring and modeling program cost?
In order to better answer these questions, the SMGWG subgroup evaluated existing and
proposed data, and from this effort identified seven main study areas to focus on: surface water
data; geologic data; groundwater data; groundwater model development; strategy for obtaining
long-term data; related efforts; and long-term water use projections. Data outputs from the main
study areas will be used for the following purposes: inputting data into a regional groundwater
model; t".,...t"aring wellhead protection plans; developing a better understanding of the
interrelationship between groundwater and surface water, increasing knowledge of the rate of
recharge and storage of bedrock aquifers; characterizing of geology; tracking changes in water
levels; estimating future water needs for study area, quantifying volume of groundwater
available; and studying water resource alternatives.
Primary responsibility for maintenance of the various parts of the plan exists with the three state
agencies participating in both the SMGWG and the regulatory arena. The MPCA's Metro
Groundwater Model Project, the MDH Source Water Protection Program, and DNR Waters all
maintain programs that could house information generated ;ivl.Ll the SMGWG effort. However,
all of the SMGWG participants will share responsibility and oversight with the plan effort
Most of the costs associated with the data collection and assessment plan, staff time and
monetary, will be borne by the afv.......entioned regulatory agencies and the communities as part
of supply system expansion. The plan would be put into effect in Spring 1998, and a summary
report available by December 2000. The subgroup recommends that the fmdings from the study
serve as the basis for a long-term subregional water resources/water supply strategy that could be
developed after the data collection effort.
.LL .. u'(.oD1A.. .I..I.oN
The Southwest Metro Groundwater Work Group (SMGWG) was convened in April 1997 to
begin discussions on the provision of groundwater and the protection of sensitive environmental
features. One of the goals of the SMGWG is to make decisions based on the best data possible.
As part of this effort, the following plan was developed by a sub-group of technical work &V~P
members. It is presented as a recommendation for the full SMGWG to consider.
Primary responsibility for maintenance of the various parts of the plan exists with the three state
agencies participating in both the SMGWG and the regulatory arena. The MPCA's Metro
Groundwater Model Project, the MDH Source Water Protection Program, and the ONR Division
of Waters all maintain programs that could house information generated from the SMGWG
effort.
In the following descriptions, short-term recommendations are noted by [ST], and long-term by
[LT].
L SURFACE WAl.l!.KDATA
Task IA: Str~low Meast.'''Ulent
!AI. Low Flow/Baseflow Survey of Tributary Streams
Why Needed: To dOcument at a single noim in tUM the amount of groundwater discharging to
surface water streams ill the ~tudy area; needed input variable to groundwater model(s)
Work Items: Conduct a survey of base flows on streams crossing the study area (Sand Creek,
Credit River, Eagle Creek, Savage Fen Outlet, Prior Lake Outlet, Shakopee Basin Outlet) during
a low flow period before groundwater data collection and modeling begin; collect flow on
Minnesota River as it traverses the study area at same time as tributary survey; possibly repeat
surveys, as needed, during other times of the year; evaluate results and incorporate into model
development/analysis
Funding: 1997 data collection covered by staff contributions of U.S. Geological Survey and
Me.~vpOlitan Council; future data collection efforts could add ONR and watershed management
organizations; data generated should go to DNR database
Schedule: Fall 1997 measurements completed [ST] ; [ST. L T] program will look at the need for
additional data collection at other times' of the year. including the ~!,~f 1998 if identified as
part of need~srroundwater model data (~ee also item IV A2)
IA2. Metropolitan Council Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program
Why Needed: To continue documenting outflow volumes and Qualitv (~olids. nutrients. O~ien
demand. some to~ of tributary streams flowing across the study area; collect needed input
variable~ to groundwater model(s)
3
Funding: Existing data collection covered under existing Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed
District and SMSC programs; new efforts covered under WMO and city stormwatermanagement
program funds; Metropolitan Council, DNR and MPCA each have lake data collection programs
that could be used
Schedule: Continuous weekly samples [L 11
Ia.sk]c: Sm:face Water Mana~ement EvaluatlQn
I~1. Evaluation of Impacts of Surface Water Management Plans of Cities and WMOs on the .
Study Area
Why Needed: To assess the impact that local surface water management activities have on the
groundwater/surface water behavior in the study area; evaluate implications of water movement,
drainage and storage (detention, infiltration)
Work. Items: Evaluate how the various surface water management plans required of the WMOs
(Sand Creek. Shakopee Basin T,nWf:T" Minnesota River. Credit River. Black Doe and Prior Lake-
Sprin~ Lake) and cities (each of the five cities on the SMGWG, in the study area will impact
drainage into and through surface water bodies of interest, and how this flow of surface water
affects groundwater quantity and quality, and.what actions the cities and WMOs might take to
protect groundwater; tie-ins to bluftland recharge evaluation (item TIIE2) and Savage Fen
Management Plan (DNR)
Funding: Part of $36,000 consultant study (estimate $4,OOO/week for two month/9 week study)
}o'....yesed under Legislative program. or participation by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil
Resources (J3WSR)
Schedule: 1998 [ST]
ll. GEOLOGIC DATA
Task IIA: Prairie du Chien-Jordan (pDCJ) Character\zatiQn
HAl. Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) Evaluation of Existing Data
Why Needed: Background assessment of available data to see if any characterization facts can be
ascertained
Work. Items: Evaluate existing data on the PDCJ, such as available in the County Geologic
Atlases and specific aquifer pumping studies, to determine 1) the potential yield of the Jordan
Aquifer, and 2) whether flow characteristics of the combined PDCJ bedrock units act as a single
or a joint aquifer unit~e evaluation will include a look at the importance oft~ed he~
valley traversini the studv are~
5
li~~
.,
m. GROUNDWATER DATA
Task mA.~ Watdevel Recording
IDA!. Enhance DNR ObwelI Program in Study Area
Why Needed: To determine the long-term impacts of groundwater withdrawals caused by CU"";'llt
and future pumping
Work Items: Evaluate the data available from existing obwells and the need for new wells to
obtain data where it is not available; propose locations and geologic units (most likely the PDCJ
and MTSH) for new wells; drill new wells; ask cities to look for potential wells that could be
used by the DNR program (could also benefit cities' wellhead protection program); DNR
tentatively plans to install two new wells (one PDC and one 1) up-gradient of the Savage Fen
(pEL~ 1 ~ > ac; sOQIl ac; tl1e !,ro~ed CSAR 27 ali~ment is detellnin~~:l,): Savaie has noted the
possibility of usin~ monitorini wells it installed next to the fen as part of its dewaterini stucly
Funding: Existing DNR Obwell Program funds if no new locations needed, to possibility of
$10,000 per new well to fill data gaps; exact amount of funds needed will not be known until
after adequacy study complete; funds must be allotted on an annual competitive basis through
the DNR budgeting process
Schedule: Adequacy study of existing obwells 1998 [ST]; addition of new priority wells 1999-
2000 [ST] and lessor priority wells thereafter until fill need [L T]
IllA2. Collect Available Groundwater Level Readings
Why Needed: To assemble existing, currently collected and historic water level information for
input into development of groundwater model(s) and to define the localized pumping influence
of municipal wellfields
Work Items: Identify sources of groundwater level readings and compile collected data; known
sources include municipal water suppliers, MCES facilities at Blue Lake and Seneca, industrial
users (jncludini CAMAS .and Kramer quany start-up and recovery monitorin~), MPCA pump-
out and groundwater remediation program, SMSC community wells, DNR Savage Fen
monitoring wells; part of development ofMOH's conceptual groundwater model (see also item
IV A2)
Funding: Covered by new hire ofMOR who will be devoted to groundwater projects
Schedule: 1998 [ST] and continuous input to:MDH database [LT]
llIA3. Synoptic Groundwater Survey
Why Needed: To collect simultaneous groundwater level data that reflects relationship among
various groundwater units and time trends for. transient modeling
7
Task me: Wellhead Protectioll
mCt. Collection of Data Associated with MDH Program
Why Needed: To obtain specific knowledge of the groundwater situation throughout the study
area and incorporate it into community wellhead protection efforts and to incorporate the
delineation of wellhead protection areas and assessment of vulnerability of public supply wells
Work Items: Every community water supplier and some other types of non-community systems
will be required to }i....t-are a wellhead protection program under the MDH rules; Shakopee and
Bumsville are currently in the program as voluntary communities; Prior Lake (#8 on the priority
list), Savage and Lakeville will soon be top priority. communities when new wells are installed;
data collected as part of the WHP effort can be input to the database for the study area. and could
include such things as groundwater level data, location of potentially contaminating sites, and
groundwater travel times
Funding: Funds for the Wellhead Protection Program come from both MDH and local sources
Schedule: Yet to be determined for non-volunteer communities, but up to several years after
official MDH notification [L T]; [ST] for volunteer communities
Task HID: Environmental Assessments
llll1t. CAMAS Quarry Expansion
Why Needed: Some potential for impact (both positive and negative) exists from the proposed
expansion
Work Items: CAMAS' assessment of the environmental impacts of expanding its quarrying
operation to the west; assessment of groundwater impacts on MCES' Blue Lake Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Funding: Costs of assessment incurred by CAMAS as part of expansion permitting and by
MCES as cost of operating wastewater treatment plant
Schedule: Shakopee has required an EIS on project; exact schedule to be determined, but
CAMAS' need is within few years; immediate impact assessment [ST] with quarrying operation
to west [L T]
Task IIIE: Special Studies
.1.U.J!,t. Stable Isotope! Chemical Character Evaluation
Why Needed: To detennine extent to which "new" surface water has mixed with groundwater,
thus indirectly quantifying recharge, and to observe chemical mixing within longitudinal
groundwater flow; also this information supports vulnerability assessments of wellhead
t-....~...ction areas and the resulting scope of contamination source management strategies and
supports assumptions on groundwater movement
9
database development with items IV A2 and IV A3 that folloW; collect Pfannkuch product
associated with County Atlas; updates, maintenance and enhancements to the metro model are
very expensive because of the expertise and time required to work with the model code
Funding: Cu.u..utly (through June 1999) funded under an LCMR grant; future efforts will need
source of reliable funds identified, perhaps through legislation or agency budget; anticipated cost
app.uJJmately $100,000-300,000 per year for upkeep and operation, depending upon the level of
support desired
Schedule: Development through June 1999 [S1']; upkeep and operations [L1']
IV A2. Development of Conceptual Wellhead Protection Groundwater Flow Model
Why Needed: To identify specific terms of development ofMDH groundwater model described
in item IV A3
Work Items: Gather knowledgeable technical reviewers to frame the geologic (primarily PDCJ)
and hydrologic parameters around which a groundwater model for Scott and Dakota Counties
can be built; conduct effort under auspices of the MDH's Wellhead Protection Program;
assemble all reasonably available existing data as input to the conceptual model development;
t'....t'are Request For Proposals (RFP) for modelers to construct groundwater model within
adopted parameters; build on information gathered thus far as part of item IV A 1 above;
incorporate elements that assure model can be updated regularly by private and/or public users,
and be incorporated into the MPCA metro model
Funding: Covered under MDH's Wellhead Protection Program
Schedule: December 1997 - April 1998 [S1']
IV A3. Construct Groundwater Model for Scott and Dakota Counties
Why Needed: MDH needs updated groundwater model of this critical area as basis for wellhead
protection efforts
Work Items: Construct groundwater model consistent with the MDH's conceptual groundwater
model developed under item IV A2 above; buila on information gathered thus far as part of item
IVAI (metro groundwater model) above a,pd unpate nreviously ~l...yared models with the latest
information ava~ and input findings back into metro model to enhance it
Funding: Covered under MDH's Wellhead Protection Program
,
Schedule: 1998-99 [S1']
11
Funding: Cost de~....uined by identified scope (that is, could cover larger area), but likely cost of
detailed technical study al'l...v..Jmately $50,000; source of funds could be Legislature,
communities and/or agencies
Schedule: 1999
VI. RELAu...JJ EFFORTS
Task VIA: Incoq>orate Findinis from Re~.ctiv~to Deliberations. and Con~
Findinis in Return
VIAl. Identify and Assemble Related Available Data, and Contribute Data in Return
Why Needed: To establish lines of communication with similar and related efforts
Work Items: Conduct search of related information that could be used to assist in deliberations
of the SMGWG; participate in activities of related efforts, including Savage Fen Management
Plan; incorporate data from sources such as the Metropolitan Council (demographic data), the
DNR State Climatologist, the Minnesota Geological Survey, the MPCA Spills Unit, the MDH
Public Water Supply database and Dump Monitoring Program
Funding: Conducted under existing data gathe:mg efforts
Schedule: 1998-2000 [ST]
Task VIE: Assess Effectiveness of Demand Manaiement (Water Com;ervati2n)
VIBl. Conduct Assessment of Demand Mana~ement
Why Needed: To determine the effect that the citie~' adopted demand manaiement techniques
have had on holdini down overall water demand and peak use
Work Items: Update demand manaiement infomation ado.pted hv each city as part of their water
sqpply plans: normalize and evalwlte u!;e cI.iml to see if the practices a~ have had desired
effect: compare efforts of studv area cities compared to those commonly used in the reiion
Fundin~: Conducted under existing data evaluation efforts of the Metropolitan Council and the
mm.
Schedule: 1998 rSll
vn. PREPARE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 1.t1.t. FtJ 1 uKE
Why Needed: As a result of the previous data gathering and assessment activities, there will be a
need to evaluate where the study area communities are heading in the future and how they will
manage their water
13
FUNDING TOTALS FOR DATA COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT
I) On-ioin~ Efforts - CQSs Not Ouautifml
- LMR WD and PLSL WD basic hydrologic data collection
- SMSC basic hydrologic and supply well data collection
- USGS, MC, ONR, MPCA and MGS basic hydrologic data collection
- Community water level measurement associated with well installation
- Community wellhead protection program development under SOW A mandate
- CAMAS environmental assessment of quarry expansion
- SMGWG evaluation of need for alternative supplies and future delib......,.L:ons
2) On-~oin~ Efforts - Costs Quantified
- MC $45,000 per year for watershed outlet monitoring
- r-..fPCA maintenance of metro grouncb,vater model $100,000-300,000 per year after
current LCMR funding complete in 1999
- ONR placement of new obwell at $10,000 per well (number as yet undefined)
3) MDH Sonrce Watrlrotection..E.unded Co~ Associated with Study Area
- $50,000 MGS study ofPDCJ .
- $10,000 to collect available groundwater level data
- $22,000 for data entry and analysis associated with synoptic groundwater level survey
- $15,000 for development of "conceptual" groundwater model
- $100,000 for development of groundwater model
- Total MDH costs = $197,000
4) Le~islative Grant Request
- $36,000 consultant evaluation ofWMO and community surface water management
plans
- $80,000 USGS study of stable isotopes and chemical character (possible 50% cost-
share)
- $100,000 USGS study of water budget and regional groundwater recharge (possible
50% cost-share)
- $130,000 USGS study of the use and role of deep aquifers (possible 50% cost-share)
- $50,000 consultant study of water supply alternatives (if determined to be needed after
SMGWG evaluation)
- $30,000 MC preparation of management plan
- Range of cost options (examples only, there are others):
Option I - with 50% USGS cost-share = $271,000
Qmlon 2 - without 50% USGS cost-share = $426,000
IS
* DNR = Mn. Dept. ofNatura1 Resources
LMRWD = Lower Minnesota River Watershed District
MC = M....:...."'l'olitan Council
MDH = Mn. Dept. of Health
MDH (SWP) = MDH's Source Water Protection program
MGS = Mn. Geological Survey
MPCA = Mn. Pollution C",u~vl Agency
PLSL WD = Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District
SMGWG = Southwest Metro Groundwater Work Group
SMSC = Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
USGS = U.S. Geological Survey
WMO = watershed management ""oc:dlization
( .s \./ 1'1) -= 5 C>~ or t.(..... j,.\JC(. ot-e." . Pro +e.. ~~'o--.....
** Cost assumptions:
!AI - 10 person days at $200 per person day
IA2 - $15,000 per station per year for three stations
ICl - $4,000 per week for nine week study
IIIA2 - 0.17 .1' It at MDH ($30,000 annual saliry *2 indirect)
llIA3 - 50 person days at $200 per Person day, plus 0.2 FTE for MDH data entry and evaluation
at $12,000 ($30,000 annual salary *2 indirect)
IVAI - MPCA estimate of range required to input new data, add enhancements and maintain
model
IV A2 - 0.25 .t' It:. at MDH ($30,000 annual salary * 2 indirect)
VA 1 - Estimated cost of joint USGS/DNR study under cooperative program
VII - Estimated cost of developing management plan at end of data collection and analysis
phase; staff provided by MC at 0.:>.1' it ($30,000 annual salary *2 indirect)
17