HomeMy WebLinkAbout9C - WD & WMO Permitting Agreements
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
MARCH 19, 2007
9C
ROSS BINTNER, WATER RESOURCES ENGINEER
AGENDA ITEM:
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING PERMITTING
AGREEMENTS WITH THE PRIOR LAKE SPRING LAKE WATERSHED
DISTRICT AND THE SCOTT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATION.
DISCUSSION:
Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is to approve permitting agreements with the
Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District (WD) and the Scott Watershed
Management Organization (WMO).
Historv
Rules and regulations governing water resources are determined at the
Watershed District level in the State of Minnesota. The City of Prior Lake falls
under two regulatory bodies, the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District
and Scott Watershed Management Organization. Under state law, the City
was required to create local policy, rule and regulation that follows the broader
goals of the WMO and WD. With the completion of its Local Surface Water
Management Plan (Plan) and later its Public Works Design Manual -
Hydrology Appendix (Rules) the City of Prior Lake adopted a Policy, Plan and
Rules that are equivalent to those of the WD and WMO.
Current Circumstances
Because the City is determined equivalent it is able to take over permitting
authority under State Statute. The agreements under consideration describe
the working relationship between each entity and the City and give the City the
authority to take over watershed permitting within its jurisdiction.
In consolidating permitting authority the City will be able to provide a more
customer friendly process by giving applicants a single point of contact. This
effort will occur with the continued partnership of the WD and City by keeping
both involved in the approval process.
ISSUES:
Prior Lake Sorina Lake Watershed District
The Memorandum of Agreement with the WD has already been approved and
signed by the WD Board. Highlights of the agreement include:
. Continued cooperation in development review on a staff level.
. Yearly meetings to discuss permits granted under the agreement.
. If an applicant requests variances from the City Rules a WD permit will
be required as well.
. If significant drainage alterations are proposed, a WD permit will still be
required.
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
Scott Watershed Manaoement Oroanization
The Memorandum of Understanding with the WMO has been reviewed by the
WMO Board and will be approved after the City has signed the agreement.
Highlights of the agreement include:
. Yearly meetings to discuss permits granted under the agreement.
. Review and monitoring of city process by the WMO to ensure
compliance.
· If an applicant requests a variances from City Rules the WMO will be
asked to comment and the City will consider all WMO comments.
Attached are the two agreements each preceded by a letter from the
organization and followed with exhibits referenced in the agreement.
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The implementation of the Plan and Rules is meant to be revenue neutral for
the City to implement; however, some additional staff time is expected in the
permitting authority transition. In the effort to provide a high level of customer
service, it is anticipated that additional meetings and correspondence with
developers and their engineers will be required.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve a resolution approving permitting agreements with the Prior Lake
Spring Lake Watershed District and the Scott Watershed Management
Organization.
2. Deny this item for a specific reason and provide staff with direction.
3. Table this item until some date in the future.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
ReViU
Frank Boyles,
Steve Albrecht, Public Works Director/City Eng.
4646 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 06-xx
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PERMITTING AGREEMENTS WITH THE PRIOR LAKE
SPRING LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT AND THE SCOTT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATION.
Motion By:
Second By:
WHEREAS, The City of Prior Lake has revised its Local Surface Water Management Plan and
Public Works Design Manual, Hydrology Appendix to be equivalent with the
Watershed District's and Watershed Management Organization Policy and Rules; and
WHEREAS, The City of Prior Lake will take over permitting authority for water resources within its
boundary from the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed and Scott Water Management
Organization; and
WHEREAS, The City of Prior Lake is committed to protecting its water resources through prudent
planning and implementation of best practices; and
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District and the Scott Watershed Management
Organization have approved the City's Plan and Rules and determined they are
equivalent; and
WHEREAS, The City of Prior Lake will be the permitting authority for water resources within its
boundary upon approval of the agreements.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to sign the agreements.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2007.
Haugen Haugen
Erickson Erickson
Hedberg Hedbera
LeMair LeMair
Millar Millar
YES
NO
Frank Boyles, City Manager
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
P.O. BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
(952)447-2131
Fax: (952) 447-5628
E-mail: hbg@oriorlakelaw.com
FEB 2 0 2006
JAMES D. BATES
DEAN G. GAVIN
ALLISON 1. GONT AREK
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
e-mail sender:dgg@priorlakelaw.com
February 16, 2007
Mr. Ross Bintner
City of Prior Lake - Water Resources Eng.
4646 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: MOA with City for permitting
Dear Mr. Bintner:
Please find enclosed for submission to the Prior Lake City Council the MOA for
permitting. This agreement has been approved and signed by the Watershed District.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
l
11-
Dean G. Gavin
encl:
cc: Jim Eggen (w/out encl:)
MEMORANDUM of AGREEMENT
Between the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District
and the City of Prior Lake
for Local Water Planning and Regulation
This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is made by and between the Prior Lake-Spring
Lake Watershed District ("PLSL WD"), and the City of Prior Lake ("City").
Recitals and Statement of Purpose
WHEREAS, in 1999, the PLSLWD revised its Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan ("Plan") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 1 03B.231. The Plan details
the existing physical environment, land use and development in the watershed and establishes a
plan to regulate water resource use and management to protect water resources, improve water
quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters I03B
and I03D; and
WHEREAS, the PLSLWD's Plan incorporates the Rules adopted by the PLSLWD to
protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals
of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D; and
WHEREAS, the City has developed a local water management plan pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes ~ 103B.235 that describes the existing and proposed physical environment
and land use within the City and sets forth an implementation plan for bringing local water
management into conformance with the PLSLWD's Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Hydrology Appendix to its Public Works Design
Manual; and
WHEREAS, review of the City's local water management plan and Public Works Design
Manual- Hydrology Appendix was conducted jointly by the PLSL WD and the Scott Watershed
Management Organization; and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2006, the PLSLWD Board conditionally approved the City's
local water management plan by adoption of PLSL WD Resolution No. 06-206, which resolution
is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to assume permitting responsibility in the areas within its
jurisdiction that are subject to the PLSL WD Plan requirements; and
WHEREAS, the local plan approval was conditioned upon the City's execution of this
MOA, and adoption of buffer requirements that are equivalent to the PLSLWD Rules
requirements; and
1
WHEREAS, the Prior Lake City Council adopted the proposed changes to the Prior Lake
Public Works Design Manual - Hydrology Appendix and caused these changes to take effect;
and
WHEREAS, the City adopted Resolution No. 06-183 on October 2, 2006, adopting
Section 6 of the Cities Public Works Design Manual-Hydrology Appendix. This section became
effective on January 1,2007. Section 6 is equivalent to PLSLWD's Rule J; and
WHEREAS, the PLSL WD and City desire to memorialize their respective roles for
implementing water resource protection and management within the City.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1.0 Recitals
The recitals above are incorporated into this MOA as if fully set forth herein.
2.0 Responsibilities of the City
2.1 The City will maintain and exercise all present and future authority it otherwise may
possess to issue permits for and regulate activities affecting water resources within the City.
2.2 The City will be responsible for permitting and enforcement of the PLSL WD Rules
within the City, so long as the City continues to implement official controls that are at least as
protective as the PLSL WD Rules.
2.3 The City will forward all concept plans and preliminary plat applications to the PLSL WD
staff for review and comment prior to preliminary plat approval. The City will give consideration
to the PLSLWD's comments.
2.4 The City will give notice of and allow participation of PLSL WD staff or Managers in any
staff-level project review convened by the City that calls into effect the PLSL WD Rules.
2.5 If an application requires review by the PLSL WD pursuant to the City Rules, as set forth
in the Hydrology Appendix, for those projects involving a drainage alteration and/or land-locked
basin modification, the PLSL WD may impose permitting and review fees on the applicant
pursuant to the PLSL WD Rules and fee schedule.
2.6 Upon receipt of a request for a variance from the City Rules, as set forth in the Hydrology
Appendix, the City will transmit a copy of the variance request and supporting documentation to
the PLSL WD for review. The City will not issue a variance for an activity that does not comply
with the City Rules until the PLSL WD has approved the variance and any conditions imposed
thereon. The PLSL WD will be allowed to require permitting and review fees from the applicant
pursuant to the PLSL WD Rules and fee schedule for review of an application requiring a
vanance.
2
2.7 Prior to the start of construction on any City project that calls into effect the PLSL WD
Rules, the City will submit the plans for the proposed project to PLSL WD for review and
approval.
2.8 The City will maintain a log of permits it grants pursuant to this MOA; will provide the
log to the PLSL WD annually; and, will meet at least annually (beginning in August, 2007) with
the PLSL WD to review the implementation of the City's local water management plan.
2.9 The City and PLSLWD will cooperate in reviews to determine the City's compliance with
its local water management plan and this MOA. The PLSL WD may request information from the
City regarding applications that are within the District and subject to equivalent City Rules as
described in the Public Works Design Manual- Hydrology Appendix. These reviews may be
conducted on a quarterly basis at the discretion of the PLSL WD.
2.10 If the PLSL WD adopts revised Rules that result in the need for modification of City
ordinances or requirements to maintain equivalency with the PLSL WD Rules, the City will adopt
the needed requirements within six months from the effective date of the revised PLSL WD
Rules. That deadline may be extended by an additional six months by the written consent of the
PLSL WD. If the City does not adopt said requirements the PLSL WD shall proceed pursuant to
paragraphs 3.2 and 3.5 herein.
3.0 Responsibilities of the PLSL WD
3.1 The PLSL WD will meet with the City at least annually (beginning in August, 2007) to
review the implementation of the City's local water management plan.
3.2 The PLSLWD retains the right to enforce any and all of its Rules in the event that the
City is unable or unwilling to carry out its obligations as set forth in paragraphs 2.1 through 2.10
of this MOA.
3.3 The PLSL WD retains all authority that it may possess pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Chapters 103B and 103D or any other provision of law, except as explicitly granted to the City
under this MOA, including but not limited to authority set forth in Minnesota Statute
~~ 103B.211, subd. 1 (a); 103D.335 and 103D.341.
3.4 The PLSL WD may periodically request and review specific permits and permit
applications for the purpose of assessing the adequacy of implementation of the local water
management plan and this MOA by the City.
3.5 If the PLSL WD Board of Managers finds that the City is no longer implementing official
controls that are as protective as the PLSL WD Rules, the PLSL WD will notify the City in
writing of its findings and the PLSLWD's intent to resume permitting and enforcement activity
within the City. Any such decision of the PLSLWD may be appealed pursuant to Rule N of the
PLSL WD's Rule or Minn. Stat. Sec. 103D et seq.
3
3.6 The PLSL WD will be available for technical and enforcement assistance with respect to
implementation of its Rules, at the request of the City.
4.0 General
4.1 The effective date of this MOA shall be the date on which it has been fully executed by
both parties.
4.2 This MOA may be amended only by a writing signed by both parties.
4.3 The City may terminate this MOA upon giving sixty (60) days written notification to the
PLSLWD, at which time the PLSLWD will reSlUTIe permitting and enforcement of the PLSLWD
Rules within the City.
4.4 This MOA shall terminate upon the adoption of a revised Water Resources Management
Plan by the PLSL WD pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 1 03B.231, unless the MOA is
extended by the written agreement of both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this MemorandlUTI of Agreement.
By
Mayor
By
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
By
City Manager
By
,2007
Date:
,'). / J:3
,
,2007
Date:
4
r;.h.27. 2
7
4: 1 n PM
P, \ !)' _:. k; -
~
)iO'i"
;I"~ L,3_k~ \N,3.t~ I"":h
1,1 ,j. 371)4
~
I. !..
Prior ~ Spring
Lake c::J Lake
--- - ----
- - -
\V., T [ I: S lif. DOl S T R I Ci
Resolution 06-206
A Resolution of Conditional Approval of the City of Prior Lake Local Surface Water
Management Plan, Public Works Design Manual and Official Controls
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District (PLSL WD) is established and
authorized under Minnesota Statute 103D; and
WHEREAS, the PLSL WD has an approved Water Resources Management Plan under
Minnesota Statutes Section 1 03B.231 that was adopted by the PLSL WD on February 9, 1999,
and most recently revised on May 9, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the District has in effect certain Rules and regulations adopted pursuant to the
Minnesota Watershed Law, Minn. Stat. Chapter 1030 et seq., 3S amended; and
\VHEREAS, the City of Prior Lake has developed a Local Surface Watcr Management Plan
under Minncsota Statute ~ 103B.235 and a Public Works Design Manual that describes the
existing and proposed physical environment and land use within the City and sets forth an
implementation plan for bringing local water management into confonnance with the PLSL WD
Water Resources Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's local water plan was submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review
and comment and comments received from the Metropolitan Council have been reviewed and
considered by the PLSL \VD: and
\VHEREAS, the PLSL WD staffrevie\ved the City's draft Local Water Plan and Public Works
Design Manual and submitted staff comments to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has revised the draft Local Water Plan, and responded to PLSL WD st.3f-[
comments and demonstrated equivalency with PLSL \VD Rules. Specific items that are different
than PLSL WD Rules but were considered equivalent include lunoff volume reduction credits
and peak runoff controls; and
WHEREAS, the PLSL WD has in discussion with City staff found that the Wetland Plan and
Slomnvater Infrastructure components orthe City's Local Water Plan are preliminary and
conceptu..1.1, requiring furlher field verification and study: and
WHEREAS, PLSL WD Board approval of a Local Water Plan requires a tinding that the onicial
controls of the local government arc at least as protective of water resources as the PLSL WD
Rules.
,
Res. 06-rr06
August 700fi
F~h. 27,
20n7
4: 1 () Plvl
P " I ,; I'
~3.k.; -
(~r' "
J ,I I 'n.:
L3 K ~ 'w .3. T ~ r '3 h
I\!-J, 37!)4
<
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Managers of the Prior Lake-Spring
Lake Watershed District, that:
1. The PLSL WO Board finds that the proposed changes to the City of Prior Lake Local
Surface Water Management Plan and Public Works Design Manual, are at least 3.S
protective of water resources as the PLSL WD Water Resources Management Plan and
Rules; and
2. The PLSLWD Board hereby approves the City's local Surface Water Management Plan
and Public Works Design Manual dated August l, 2006 conditioned upon the following:
a. City adoption of buffer requirements that arc equivalent to the P LSL \V D
requirements,
b. Acceptance and execution of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City
of Prior Lake and the PLSL WD. and
c. The PLSLWD Board's understanding that approval ofthe Prior Lake LSWMP does
not include blanket approval of the stormwater outlet/pipe system and wetland
classification system included in the LSWh,JP; these items will be considered on an
individual basis as development and re-development projects are proposed and
evaluated.
Adopted this 8th day of' AugusL, 2006, upon motion by f.JI/.;.!..tltf!1 I-fAUBrS.<(.:and second by
Lfl.fl-A- '/ D, IY/tl bLL E-12 by the follo\ving vote:
,
Craig Guntarek
~<U
William Schmokel
.f"
I ,;!!?
Roger Wahl ~ N 1
/ ~,.,
d/;/
/' __-.A
/v-- ,/
~U_U
William Seh lOkcL Pre~~t 7-
William Kallberg
Larry Mueller
-Y:/.J/
)(~
/
Attest to:
I, Craig Gontarek, Secretary ofthc Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District, do hereby
certify that the above Resolution 06-206 was duly passed by the Board of ~/lanagers at a duly
called meeting on the 8th day of August, 2006.
~, v
Craig GC_l Clrek, Secretary
Res. 06-206
August 2006
_ . r#r/J"1JfAJBn1e~~ a
~ ~
IJ ~.
, ~
~ W
iCo"
Scoff ?{)aferJhel'ManfAJemenf O'Janizalion
2.00 'Fourth llvenue West
Shak.ofee, "MN 55379-f22.0
952.-496-8054 'Fax 952.-496-8840
www.co.Jcott.mn. UJ
~
January 30,2007
JAN 3.'. 2006
Ross Bintner, P.E.
City of Prior Lake
4646 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mr. Bintner:
Enclosed with this letter are two copies of the final Memorandum of Understanding between the
Scott WMO and the City of Prior Lake for local water planning and regulation. Please have the
appropriate parties sign both copies and return to me at the address listed above.
The purpose of the two copies is, after all signatures have been completed, both the City and the
WMO will have an original copy for their records. Staff will forward one original copy after the
WMO Board and its attorney have signed the agreement.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 952-496-8887.
Respectfull y,
( l{{,[r Y:r71 (7 /90 t>rvl ~
Melissa A. Bokman
Sf. Water Resources Planner
Enc
Cc: Paul Nelson, WMO Administrator
Michael Sobota, Community Development Director
Susan McNellis, Scott County Attorney
MEMORANDUM of UNDERSTANDING
Between the Scott Watershed Management Organization
and the City of Prior Lake
for Local Water Planning and Regulation
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made by and between the Scott
Watershed Management Organization, a watershed organization with purposes and powers as set
forth in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B ("Scott WMO"), and the City of Prior Lake, a body
corporate and politic and a statutory city in the State of Minnesota ("City").
Recitals and Statement of Purpose
WHEREAS in 2004, the Scott WMO adopted its Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan under Minnesota Statutes ~ 1 03B.231, which details the existing physical
environment, land use and development in the watershed and establishes a plan to regulate water
resource use and management to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent
flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B;
WHEREAS the Scott WMO adopted Rules on May 10,2005 to incorporate the Rules to
protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals
of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B;
WHEREAS the City has developed a local water management plan under Minnesota
Statutes ~ 103B.235 that describes the existing and proposed physical environment and land use
within the City and sets forth an implementation plan for bringing local water management into
conformance with the Scott WMO's Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan;
WHEREAS on August 1,2006, the Scott WMO Board conditionally approved the City's
local water management plan by adoption of Scott WMO Resolution No. 2006-004, which
resolution is attached and incorporated herein;
WHEREAS the City will assume sole permitting responsibility in the areas within the
City covered under the Scott WMO Rules;
WHEREAS Scott WMO approval of a local plan requires a finding that the official
controls of the local government are at least as protective of water resources as the Scott WMO
Rules;
WHEREAS the Scott WMO has reviewed the City of Prior Lake Public Works Design
Manual - Hydrology Appendix, and City responses to comments by the Scott WMO as
articulated in a Memoranda dated March 30tl1, April 14th, and June 9th, 2006 from Ross Bintner,
the Scott WMO Board finds that the City Public Works Design Manual is at least as protective as
the Scott WMO Rules;
1
WHEREAS the review of the City's Local Water Plan and Public Works Design Manual-
Hydrology Appendix was coordinated with the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District.
WHEREAS the City has revised the draft Local Water Plan and Public Works Design
Manual-Hydrology Appendix, and responded to staff comments and demonstrated equivalency
with Scott WMO Rules, however; specific items are different than Scott WMO Rules but are
considered equivalents, they include: runoff volume reduction credits, peak runoff controls, and
temporary sediment basin requirements as documented in Scott WMO Memorandum from
Melissa Bokman to the Watershed Planning Commission dated June 23, 2006 which is attached
and incorporated herein;
WHEREAS the Scott WMO has found that the Wetland Plan and Stormwater
Infrastructure components of the City's Local Water Plan are preliminary and conceptual,
requiring further field verification and study;
WHEREAS local plan approval is given conditionally on the City's execution of this
MOD and adoption and implementation of the proposed ordinance revisions.
WHEREAS The Prior Lake City Council has adopted the Prior Lake Public Works
Design Manual- Hydrology Appendix and caused the changes to take effect by October 8,2006,
WHEREAS the Scott WMO and City desire to memorialize their respective roles in
implementing water resource protection and management within the City;
NOW THEREFORE it is mutually agreed by and between the parties that they enter into
this MOD in order to document the understanding of the parties as to the roles and
responsibilities of each party.
1.0 Recitals
1.1 The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein.
2.0 Responsibilities of the City
2.1 The City may exercise all present and future authority it otherwise may possess to issue
permits for and regulate activities affecting water resources within the City.
2.2 The City shall be solely responsible for permitting for the purpose of the Scott WMO
Rules within the City except where such activities are also regulated by other State and Federal
Agencies.
2.3 The City will maintain a log of permits it grants pursuant to this MOD, will provide the
log to the Scott WMO annually and will meet at least annually (beginning August, 2007) with
the Scott WMO to review the implementation of the City's local water management plan.
2
~.n_
2.4 The City will cooperate on periodic reviews and with requests for information by the
Scott WMO.
3.0 Responsibilities of the Scott WMO
3.1 The Scott WMO will meet with the City at least annually (beginning August, 2007) to
review the implementation of the City's local water management plan.
3.2 The Scott WMO retains the right to enforce any and all of its rules in the event that the
City is unable or unwilling to carry out its obligations listed in Section 2.0 of this MOD.
3.3 The Scott WMO retains all authority that it may possess under Minnesota Statutes
Chapters 103B and 103D or any other provision of law, except as explicitly reposed in the City
under this MOD, including but not limited to authority set forth in Minnesota Statute
~~ 103B.211, subd. l(a); 103D.335 and 103D.341.
3.4 The Scott WMO may periodically request and review specific permits and permit
applications for the purpose of assessing the adequacy of implementation.
3.5 The Scott WMO will be available for technical and enforcement assistance with respect
to implementation of the Rules at the request of the City.
3.0 Review process
3.1 On receipt of a request for a variance from its stormwater rules, the City promptly will
transmit a copy of the variance request including Findings of Fact and supporting documentation
to the Scott WMO for review.
3.2 The Scott WMO has 15 days from the receipt of the variance to provide comment on the
variance in writing.
3.3 The City shall consider comments from Scott WMO on variances to City stormwater
rules in its approval process.
4.0 General
4.1 The effective date of this MOD is the date on which it has been fully executed by both
parties.
4.2 This MOD may be amended only by a writing signed by both parties.
4.3 The City may terminate this MOD on sixty (60) days written notification, at which time
the Scott WMO will commence application and enforcement of the Scott WMO Rules within the
City.
3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of
Understanding.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
SCOTT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATION
By
Mayor
By
Chair, Scott WMO Board
By
City Administrator
Date:
,2006
Date:
,2006
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
EXECUTION
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
EXECUTION
By
Its Attorney
By
Its Attorney
4
SCOTT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION BOARD
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Date: Auaust 1, 2006
Resolution No.: WMO 2006-004
Motion by Commissioner: Marschall
Seconded by Commissioner: Voael
RESOLUTION NO. WMO 2006-004; CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE LOCAL
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN MANUAL AND OFFICIAL
CONTROLS
WHEREAS in 2004, the Scott Watershed Management Organization (Scott WMO) adopted a
Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan under Minnesota Statute S 103B.231, which details the
existing physical environment, land use and development in the watershed and establishes a plan to regulate
water resource use and management to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and
otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statute Chapter 103B;
WHEREAS the Scott WMO Board adopted Rules May 10, 2005 to protect water resources, improve water
quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statute Chapters 103B;
WHEREAS the City of Prior Lake has developed a Local Surface Water Management Plan under
Minnesota Statute S 103B.235 and a Public Works Design Manual-Hydrology Appendix that describes the
existing and proposed physical environment and land use within the City and sets forth an implementation plan
for bringing local water management into conformance with the Scott WMO Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan;
WHEREAS the City's local water plan was submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment
and comments received from the Metropolitan Council have been reviewed and considered by the Scott WMO;
WHEREAS the Scott WMO staff reviewed the City's draft Local Water Plan and Public Works Design
Manual-Hydrology Appendix and submitted staff comments to the City;
WHEREAS the review of the City's Local Water Plan and Public Works Design Manual-Hydrology
Appendix was coordinated with the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District;
WHEREAS the City has revised the draft Local Water Plan and Public Works Design Manual-Hydrology
Appendix, and responded to Scott WMO staff comments and demonstrated equivalency with Scott WMO
Rules. Specific items that are different than Scott WMO Rules, but are considered equivalents, include: runoff
volume reduction credits, peak runoff controls, and requirements for temporary sediment basins as
documented in Scott WMO Memorandum from Melissa Bokman to the Watershed Planning Commission dated
June 23, 2006 ;
WHEREAS the Scott WMO has, in discussion with City staff, found that the Wetland Plan and Stormwater
Infrastructure components of the City's Local Water Plan are preliminary and conceptual, requiring further field
verification and study;
WHEREAS Scott WMO Board approval of a Local Water Plan requires a finding that the official controls of
the local government are at least as protective of water resources as the Scott WMO Rules;
SCOTT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION BOARD
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Date: August 1, 2006
Resolution No.: WMO 2006-004
Motion by Commissioner: Marschall
Seconded by Commissioner: Vogel
WHEREAS the Scott WMO Watershed Planning Commission on July 24, 2006 recommended conditional
approval of the City of Prior Lake Local Surface Water Management Plan and Public Works Design Manual-
Hydrology Appendix;
NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Scott WMO Board finds that the proposed changes to
the City of Prior Lake Local Surface Water Management Plan and Public Works Design Manual-Hydrology
Appendix, are at least as protective of water resources as the Scott WMO Rule; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Scott WMO Board hereby approves the City's local Surface Water
Management Plan and Public Works Design Manual-Hydrology Appendix dated August 1, 2006, conditioned
upon 1) the acceptance and execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Scott WMO; 2)
adoption and implementation of the proposed city standards in the Public Works Design Manual-Hydrology
Appendix by August 9, 2006 with the understanding that this approval does not include the stormwater pipe
network modeled and shown in the Plan, and that the Wetland Plan classifications are preliminary requiring
further field investigation and discussion with property owners before implementation. It is the WMO's
understanding that the pipe network displayed in the Plan does not reflect a proposed trunk stormwater system
design, and that design will be determined based on more detailed assessments, retaining and maximizing
existing storage of runoff, and land locked basin considerations; and 3) adoption and implementation of the
proposed wetland management ordinance changes by October 8, 2006.
COMMISSIONERS VOTE
Wagner ~Yes rNo r Absent r Abstain
Vogel ~ Yes rNo r Absent r Abstain
Hennen ~Yes rNo r Absent r Abstain
Marschall PYes rNo r . Absent r Abstain
Ulrich PYes rNo r Absent r Abstain
State ~f Minnesota)
County of Scott )
I. Paul Nelson, duly appointed qualified and Administrator for the Scott WMO, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have
compared the foregoing copy of a resolution with the original minutes of the proceedings of the Scott WMO Board, Scott County.
Mh1nesota, at their session held on the 1st day of August, 2006 now on file in my office, and have found the same to be a true and
correct copy thereof.
Witness my hand and oIIIcialseal at Shakopae, Min~~_t~ ~Usl, 2006. \ / ,
....f~~'^, ,A "t2..k vt..--_.. WMO Administrator
Administrator's Designee
Memorandum
To:
Dawn Gibas, Scott WMO
Cc:
Shannon Lotthammer, Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District
From:
Ross T Bintner, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer, City of Prior Lake
Subject:
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE - WMO/WD EQUIVALENCY PROCESS
Date:
March 30, 2006
On March 3, I received a review letter from WMO staffregarding the City of Prior Lake
Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP). On March 20, a meeting was held
with WMO staff and their consultant. This memo addresses the comments received in
writing, and those received during discussion at the meeting. I will attempt to summarize
the major concerns of the WMO and respond and propose methods of accommodating
these concerns within the framework and by the deadline set forth by the WMO.
Concern 1: A concern of the WMO is that recommendations and implementation
strategies in the LSWMP lack specificity and do not meet the requirements spelled out in
the WMO Plan.
Response 1: I agree with this concern. The Scott WMO plan requires a L WP that is
envisioned as an all encompassing plan that spells out ordinance changes, sets concrete
policies, and is an enforceable document. Simply put, the LSWMP is not the document
envisioned by the WMO plan. Instead, the City of Prior Lake intends to include
watershed policy into a variety of documents, and enforce these polices through rules
included in City of Prior Lake Public Works Design Manual (PWDM).
Additional information was provided to WMO staff at our March 20 meeting including
copies of City Code. City Code already incorporates the PWDM by reference. The
PWDM is a compilation of engineering design standards for the City of Prior Lake. A
revision of this document is underway, and as part, a hydrology appendix is being
proposed. The hydrology appendix will include many rules equivalent to WMO rules.
The LSWMP is not a stand alone document with controls; the implementation program in
the LSWMP details a few ordinance revisions that are required, and by reference
incorporates the PWDM into the plan, making the PWDM the "teeth" to the plan. This
strategy of incorporating official controls outside of the plan is in accordance with Subd.1
of, 103B.235, but is not consistent with the WMO plan. Because this plan was produced
prior to adoption of Scott WMO rules, it does not include implementation strategies for
watershed management, but leaves that up to a revision of the PWDM.
G:\Water Resources\LSWMP\2006 LSWMP\060330 WMO EQUIVALENCY MEMO.doc
The PWDM hydrology appendix was reviewed prior to the March 20 meeting; however,
written comments on the document were not part of the March 3 review letter. A revised
copy of the PWDM hydrology appendix will be submitted as well as suite of ordinance
revisions proposed as part of this equivalency process.
Concern 2: The WMO is concerned that developing areas tributary to rural stormwater
infrastructure be coordinated with the WMO so that downstream infrastructure can be
assessed and put in place.
Response 2: This is a real concern; coordination is required between the WMO and Prior
Lake on this issue. The rules we propose go above and beyond those required by the
WMO on issues such as rate and volume control, which are most responsible for
downstream erosion.
Chapter five of the Prior Lake LSWMP describes the drainage system on a subwatershed
basis. Much land area flowing to the WMO is not yet developed, but could develop in
the near future. The City of Prior Lake PWDM includes a proposed schedule for rate and
volume control that goes beyond the minimums required through WMO rule. While
overall volumes will increase even with the volume management requirement, rates will
be cut significantly. A series of example hydrologic models will be submitted to
demonstrate rate and volume control over a variety of soil type. Through these general
models, downstream impacts can begin to be assessed. Figure 2 and 3 in chapter 2 show
comprehensive zoning and the annexation times of different portions of Spring Lake
Township. Using this plan information and coordinating probable development timelines
with the City the WMO should be able to assess the needs for the downstream rural
infrastructure. This effort will require coordination between governing units county-wide
and the City of Prior Lake is eager to begin this conversation. It is possible that a
framework for this coordination could be built into the MOU for the City.
Concern 3: The WMO requires a wetland buffers equivalent to the Rule.
Response 3: The City of Prior Lake proposes a buffer standard with minor differences
from WMO rule. In each case, vegetative diversity is measured using the MnRAM 3.0.
A comparison is presented below. Standards are presented, and their deviation from
WMO rule is in parentheses.
Buffer Unique High Moderate Low
Reauirement
Average Buffer 60( -5) 30(-20) 30(-5) 30(+5)
Width
Minimum Buffer 30( +5) 20(-5) 20(-5) 20(-5)
Width
Minimum No- 30( +5) 20( -5) 15(-10) 10(-15)
Grade Zone
G:\Water Resources\LSWMP\2006 LSWMP\060330 WMO EQUIVALENCY MEMO.doc
Minimum buffer widths are reduced by five feet for the three lowest classifications, but
increased by five feet for the highest classification. Average buffer widths are decreased
in the three highest quality wetlands, but increased in the lowest case. A minimum no-
grade zone is decreased in each of the three lower cases, but increased on the highest
quality wetlands.
Overall, buffer requirements are less than the WMO rule in distance, however the City of
Prior Lake rule has additional requirements to help protect the water quality and stability
of wetlands. Among these mitigating efforts are: the requirement of a micropooll forbay
on outlets to wetlands, native buffer vegetation and a 2 year maintenance agreement,
increased structure setbacks, and buffer monumentation to prevent encroachment.
Although less in distance, we believe the buffers resulting from this rule will be of higher
quality, and overall erosion impacts to wetlands will be less.
EQuivalencv Process
Additional items were provided to the WMO at and before the March 20 meeting that
have not been reviewed by the WMO, they are: a proposed schedule of work to gain
WMO approval by the required deadline, City Code, LSWMP Figures 4-6, full version of
the Public Works Design Manual, Scott WMO LWP Benchmark Matrix, Prior Lake
Natural Resources Inventory and Land Cover Mapping.
On the following page, you will find a revised schedule intended to meet the deadline
specified by the WMO. Please review the proposed schedule to determine if it is feasible
for the WMO. On April 14 I plan to submit additional items including; a revised PWDM,
and a sample watershed calculations to provide a basis for infiltration and rate
comparisons. A package of proposed ordinance revisions would follow at a later date.
G:\ Water Resources\LSWMP\2006 LSWMP\060330 WMO EQUIVALENCY MEMO.doc
WMO Rules Revision schedule.
March 2006
City: Respond to WMO/WD comments.
April 2006
WMO: Provide guidance on major structural issues detailed in March 30 memo.
City: April 14th Revise drafts of LSWMP/PWDM/Ordinance revisions and technical
examples and resubmit to WMO.
City: April 1 ih Prepare advertisement for May wavelength with info & invitation for
comment.
WMO: April 21 st Provide review comments to revised documents.
City: Decision to move forward must be made by April 25th 1 0:00am deadline to submit
notice for June 6th public hearing to newspaper.
City: April 28th Advertise new rules and comment period on website, provide plan for
download.
May 2006
WMO: Tentative rules and LSWMP to go to WMO advisory board.
City: May 1 -May 30th Public comment period.
City: May 26th Agenda report for meeting on 15th due for June 6th meeting.
June 2006
City: June 6th 7:00pm Public Hearing for LSWMP and Rule revision.
City: June ih Begin implementation of new rule w/o MOA.
WMO: Final rules and LSWMP to go to WMO advisory board.
City: June 10th 120 day deadline for WMO board approval.
City & WMO: Begin work on MOU/MOA.
July 2006
City: Complete work on MOA with WMO.
City: Gain council approval of MOA.
August 2006
City: August 9th 180 day deadline for implementation of WMO rules.
G:\Water Resources\LSWMP\2006 LSWMP\060330 WMO EQUIVALENCY MEMO.doc
Memorandum
To:
Dawn Gibas, Scott WMO
Shannon Lotthammer, Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District
From:
Ross T Bintner, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer, City of Prior Lake
Subject:
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE - WMO/WD EQUIVALENCY PROCESS
Date:
April 14, 2006
As described in a March 30 memorandum, revisions have been made the City of Prior Lake Public
Works Design Manual hydrology appendix (PWDM) in response to comments made by the Scott
Watershed Management Organization (WMO) and Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District
(WD). In addition, changes were made in the policy statements of the Local Surface Water
Management Plan (LSWMP). The following are excerpts from comments letters from both the
WMO and WD followed by a response in bold. WD comments were generally more extensive
therefore they are addressed first.
Please feel free to contact me as issues come up during the review process.
PLSLWD COMMENTS FOLLOW:
<Excerpt from March 27 review letter by Shannon Lotthammer with City response in bold>
Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Prior Lake's draft Local Surface Water
Management Plan (LSWMP) and Public Works Design Manual Hydrology Appendix (PWDM). As
you know, the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District (PLSL WD or District) is very interested
in helping the City achieve equivalency with our Water Resources Management Plan and Rules, and
we appreciate the City's efforts to move toward this goal.
The PLSL WD would like to commend the City for its commitment to protecting water resources.
This commitment is evident in the revised 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the draft LSWMP and
PWDM. The PLSLWD does feel that some elements of the draft LSWMP and PWDM could be
enhanced to further strengthen the City's water management efforts. The following comments are
offered to the City for consideration as the Plan and Manual are revised and finalized.
Overall Comments
. The PLSLWD very much appreciates the City's commitment to work with the District to
achieve its retention storage goals. However, the LSWMP appears to rely primarily on this
additional storage to address runoff volume increases associated with development. The District
encourages the City to explicitly include volume control requirements as a component of its
LSWMP and storm water system. The more that volume control best management practices
(BMPs) are integrated into new and re-development, the less additional storage will be
necessary. Many of these BMPs also provide water quality treatment and can reduce the length,
size and expense of stormwater pipes and ponds. Revised Policy Statement 1.11. PWDM
includes a volume control requirement of all new development and redevelopment that
Response to WDIWMO comments
Page 1 of 15
meets the new impervious and impact area threshold. (see PWDM section 4, Volume
Control)
. The PLSL WD is very interested in working with the City to identify volume management
opportunities in developed and developing areas, in addition to retention storage basins.
Volume management plans for specific areas, such as downtown, could be incorporated into
future revisions of the LSWMP and the District's Water Resources Management Plan. We
agree. If areas exist within the annexation area that the district would like to target for
volume management, sooner is better.
. The overall storm sewer system design focuses primarily on a "pipe-based" approach that will
tend to increase system efficiency. However, the plan does not address the impacts of a more
efficient stormwater system on downstream flooding concerns, particularly Prior Lake water
levels. Increased drainage efficiency will result in more water reaching Prior Lake, even
without increased impervious area. The Plan would benefit from a discussion of the volume
implications of the proposed system design recommendations and options for mitigating the
volume increases, to try to avoid setting up an infrastructure system that works against our
overall goals of controlling runoff volume and improving water quality. This issue is a
deficiency of the current LSWMP, while an extensive model exists in the LSWMP it takes
the pipe/pond approach. By limiting peak rates to a fraction of existing conditions, the
PWDM attempts to put forth a method to not only match existing peak flow rates, but to
take into account the cascade effects of increased volume being discharged on a site by site
basis to the overall system. This blanket approach to stormwater management has flaws
and only through a comprehensive model in the hands of an experienced floodplain
manager can this issue be solved. The model has been forwarded on to the WD. Further
review of this issue is necessary and the City looks forward to working on this complex
question under the leadership of the District.
. The relationships between the LSWMP, PWDM and City ordinances are unclear. What
mechanisms are in place to ensure that the LSWMP and PWDM, and through them the
PLSL WD requirements, are enforced? As described in a recent memo, The PWDM is
referenced into ordinance in 1004.100.
Local Surface Water Management Plan Comments
Chapter 2: Land and Water Resource Inventory
. Page 2-4, first paragraph states that volume control is "not specifically required by the
LSWMP." Volume control needs to be a City requirement to achieve equivalency with the
PLSL WD Plan and Rules. The District recognizes that a volume control requirement is
included in the PWDM; it would be helpful to also include the requirement in the LSWMP to
avoid confusion. 2-4 Revised
. Page 2-5, second paragraph states that the "normal water level at which Prior Lake is controlled
is 902.5..." Prior Lake is not controlled at an elevation of 902.5 in the sense of maintaining a
constant lake level; 902.5 is the elevation at or above which water can generally be outletted.
According to DNR lake level records dating back to 1940, the lake level has varied from 893.48
feet to 905.68 feet, with a long-term average of901.97 feet. 2-5 Revised
. Page 2-5, fourth paragraph: Markley and Mystic lakes are in the Scott WMO, not the PLSLWD.
2-5 Revised
. Pages 2-7 to 2-8: While Upper Prior Lake does have a deep pocket of 43 feet, the average depth
is only 8 feet and approximately 93% of the lake is littoral area. This may be in error. We
should compare maps.
Response to WD/WMO comments Page 2 of 15
. Page 2-8: As with Upper Prior Lake, Spring Lake has a deep pocket but overall is a relatively
shallow lake.
. Page 2-8: While it is true that Pike Lake has a large tributary area due to the outlet channel,
Lower Prior Lake has much better quality than Pike Lake. An analysis completed for the Outlet
Channel EA W showed that Pike Lake tends to have higher water quality when the outlet is open
compared to when it is closed, presumably because the water from Lower Prior Lake dilutes the
high-nutrient levels in Pike Lake. Therefore, the statement that it will be difficult to protect the
lake from pollutants that accompany hydrologic loading, while generically true, is problematic
when applied to Pike Lake. The statement was modified to match this information.
. Pages 2-8 to 2-9: It may be useful to mention that the City, PLSL WD and other partners are
implementing a plan to restore and enhance the Prior Lake Outlet Channel. Done
. Page 2-10: The City's Upland Management Plan could be very useful in identifying areas to
protect for volume control, such as native forest or prairie remnants that provide significant
infiltration or volume abstraction. Agree. This plan is already being put to use to serve as
the basis for a revised Tree and Woodland protection ordinance.
Chapter 3: Goals and Policies
3.3.1 Water Quantity
. Policy 1.1: As noted above, the PLSL WD appreciates the City's willingness to take a co-
leadership role in increasing retention storage within the City. This storage is needed to
mitigate increased runoff volumes from new development. The PLSL WD' s goal of adding
1,500 to 3,000 acre-feet of watershed storage was based on assumptions that included a
relatively low development density of about 2 units/acre net density. Any development at a
higher density will result in greater runoff volumes - and additional storage needs - unless
aggressive steps are taken to minimize associated volume increases.
. Policy 1.8 notes that is may be necessary to set a landlocked basin outlet elevation lower to
prevent killing trees. The PLSL WD agrees that protecting trees is an important goal. However,
an alternative to lowering the outlet elevation could be to further reduce stormwater runoff to
reduce the bounce. The District suggests including this alternative to help ensure that
constructing an outlet is not the only solution considered where tree protection is an issue. The
PWDM now includes provisions for landlocked basins. See Section 5 Landlocked Basins and
referenced sections.
. Policy 1.11: The District suggests changing "infiltration" to "volume control" and including re-
development in the policy. The District also suggests encouraging the use of site design BMPs,
such as low-impact development approaches, to avoid generating additional runoff volume. The
use of LID concepts is encouraged through the volume control rule in the PWDM.
3.3.2 Water Quality
. Consider adding a policy statement that the City will participate with the PLSL WD in the
development ofTMDLs and will incorporate TMDL implementation requirements into future
LSWMP amendments. Policy 2.1 now reflects this.
. Policy 2.7: The District encourages the City to expand its consideration of potential water
quality retrofits beyond the downtown area. For example, rain gardens could be incorporated
into street reconstruction projects (on a voluntary basis) as a joint project between the City and
the PLSL WD. The City intends to undertake a downtown stormwater management study
in 2007 and implement the plan during the planned reconstruction of downtown in 2011
and beyond.
Response to WD/WMO comments
Page 3 of 15
· Policy 2.8: The PLSL WD commends the City for stressing the importance of on-site treatment,
which not only helps implement water quality goals but also is important for achieving volume
control objectives. The PLSL WD suggests repeating or referencing this policy in the "Water
Quantity" section to acknowledge the dual benefits of on-site treatment.
3.3.6 Groundwater Quality
· Consider including a policy to use information from the Scott County groundwater modeling
effort to identify and protect groundwater recharge areas within the City. Policy modified.
3.3.7 Wetlands
· The City wetland bank referenced in policies 7.3 and 7.5 is confusing. Is this separate from the
State wetland bank? Policy modified to provide clarity.
· The PLSLWD appreciates the City's support of the District policy encouraging that wetland
impacts be mitigated within the PLSL WD. The District suggests that this policy also be
referenced in the LSWMP. The PWDM reflects this policy now. See section 6, Wetlands.
3.3.8 Erosion and Sediment Control
· Consider referencing the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit in the policy statements.
Agree, Done.
3.3.10 Financial Management
· Policy 10.2: Consider modifying item 5 to broaden the scope beyond downtown, and consider
adding an item 6 for acquiring/creating volume storage in cooperation with the PLSL WD.
3.8 Watershed Goals and Strategies
· The text on page 3-19 indicates that severely reducing runoff rates from new development will
not have much effect on the Prior Lake volume problem. The PLSL WD disagrees with this
statement. If runoff volume remained unchanged from pre- to post-development, no additional
volume impacts would occur at the lake. However, the District recognizes that matching the
existing hydrograph (i.e. rate and volume) would be very challenging, and therefore the District
has identified several strategies to help manage lake volumes, including volume control for new
and re-development and providing additional retention storage. Agreed: this statement is
inconsistent with our knowledge of the hydrology of the lake and contradicts other parts of
the plan.
· Page 3-19: The PLSLWD shares the City's concern for balancing volume management and
wetland preservation. While the modification of existing wetlands is one tool for gaining
additional storage, the District recognizes that this is not always possible or desirable. The
District suggests modifying the last paragraph on the page to note that there are also a number of
opportunities to restore drained wetland basins within the watershed, which would improve
volume control, water quality and habitat without impacting existing wetlands. The last two
paragraphs were rewritten to reflect this policy.
Chapter 4: Wetland Management Plan
· Page 4-3: Section 4.5 and the PWDM indicate that a MnRAM assessment shall be provided to
the City with the development application. However, page 3-9 indicates that a MnRAM
analysis will not be required of an applicant until 2010. Please clarify. The PWDM wetland
section now clarifies this discrepancy.
Response to WD/WMO comments
Page 4 of 15
. Is it possible to incorporate restoration potential into the wetland ranking? It would be
beneficial to our water quality and volume control efforts to identify and protect wetlands with
high restoration potential.
. Page 4-10: The buffer strip widths in Table 4.4 are different than those identified on page 8 of
the PWDM. The PWDM buffer widths meet or exceed the PLSL WD requirements. Table 4.4
should be revised to match the PWDM. This table presents a recommendation of minimum
buffer standard. Through the PWDM, the City has decided to increase minimum and
average buffer widths beyond the recommendations presented here. By requiring 30'
average and 20' minimum buffer widths for the three lowers classifications of wetlands
there is uniformity with the current rule and between functional classes.
. Table 4.4 is also unclear regarding the vegetation required in a buffer strip. The footnotes
suggest that buffers for moderate- and low-quality wetlands could be vegetated with non-native
species. The PLSL WD is concerned that a developer could use this to argue that sodding a
buffer strip would meet the LSWMP requirements. The PWDM requires native vegetation for
all buffers.
. How will buffer strips be protected from encroachment? The PWDM references buffer signs,
but the PLSL WD also requires that buffer strips be memorialized by a conservation easement
that is conveyed to the District. More detail has been added to PWDM buffer monument
and easement section.
. Page 4-11: The PLSL WD also has funding available for wetland restoration and could be added
to the list of funding sources. Done.
Chapter 5: Svstem Assessment and Design
System Assessment
. Page 5-4: The PLSLWD agrees that the PLSLWD is a likely lead agency for TMDL
development in the watershed, and we look forward to working with the City on this effort. The
District suggests that the City add participating in TMDL development and implementation to
the "City of Prior Lake Actions" paragraph.
. Pages 5-8 to 5-9: It appears that Sections 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2 have not yet been finally edited.
For Section 5.2.2.1, consider noting that Cates Channel should be monitored for future erosion.
Cates channel has been identified.
. Page 5-12, second paragraph: The PLSLWD plans to modify the outlet box to enhance
efficiency, but does not plan to increase the overall capacity of the outlet (which would require
augmenting the Y2 mile-long pipe that extends from the outlet box to the Jeffers area, under
County Road 21).
. Page 5-12, fourth paragraph: The PLSLWD believes that volume control in new and re-
development (through regulation and incentives) is also an effective mitigation strategy, as is
reducing runoff volume by reducing or clustering development density. These concepts are
only referenced in this location of the plan, there are explained in more detail in chapters
2,3 and 5.
System Design
. The system design assumes that all landlocked basins will be provided with outlets. Without
further analysis to show if this can be accomplished while meeting the PLSL WD' s landlocked
basin rule, the PLSL WD is concerned that this approach may set up conflict between the City's
stormwater management system and the PLSLWD rule requirements. The District would like to
Response to WD/WMO comments
Page 5 of 15
avoid connecting landlocked basins whenever possible. The connection of all landlocked
basins models a worst case scenario and does not reflect policy.
· Page 5-17, first paragraph: The District strongly supports the use of open channels and swales as
alternatives to underground pipes. Open channels and swales help to achieve volume reduction
and provide water quality benefits by slowing down, infiltrating and filtering runoff.
· The Water Quality System Concepts discussion beginning on page 5-19 does a good job of
identifying sources and opportunities of controlling pollutants from development, including
capturing and treating runoff at the point of generation. It may also be helpful to indicate that
overall pollutant loading can also be reduced by incorporating water quality BMPs into re-
development projects whenever feasible.
· Page 5-26, second paragraph: The reference to pre-agricultural conditions is somewhat
confusing. Consider incorporating this goal into the Water Quantity policies beginning on page
3-4. Agree, this point did not serve to clarify the policy above and was removed.
· The discussions of the Jeffers Pond and Pike Lake drainage districts will need to be updated to
reflect the revised Joint Powers Agreement (JP A). It could be noted that the final revised JP A
will supersede the discharge rate requirements referenced in the LSWMP. The PWDM
contains the correct discharge requirement.
· Page 5-40. It is interesting to note that the potential retention volume identified by the City adds
up to only 13 to 27 percent of the District's retention volume goal. This reinforces the
importance of incorporating volume management into new and re-development and land-use
planning, to reduce the amount of retention volume that will be needed.
Chapter 6: Implementation Plan
The portions of the implementation plan dealing with stormwater utility charges and
acre charges were crafted under the assumption of a growth rate of 450+ units per year. Due
to this flawed growth rate, and changes in the County TIP that prevented utilities being
connected on the assumed schedule, the City has elected not to pursue some of the measures in
this implantation plan at this time. Much of this section encapsulates the maintenance and
operations activities of the City.
· Page 6-14: Is the City willing to consider sweeping the streets more often? Recent research
completed by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) found that street
sweeping is done less often in Minnesota than elsewhere in the U.S. and Canada, even
compared to other "snow & ice" states. The R WMWD report recommends sweeping as often as
bi-weekly, depending on land use and area type (see htto://www.rwmwd.org.click on "News
and Events," then "Publications" for the reports). Some policy in the LSWMP is already out
of date. Currently the street sweeping program is structured thus: (1) Late winter/early
spring early sweep within 2000' of lakes. (2) Early spring sweep of entire City. (3)
Monthly targeted neighborhoods. (4) Mid fall sweeping within 2000' of lakes. (5) Late fall
entire City. The city currently uses two brush type sweepers, one being replaced every
five years with the latest in brush technology.
When capacity dictates, a third sweeper will be added (2015 +?). The city is interested in
adding a regenerative air sweeper as a polish method, increasing the fine particle
collection. If the watershed district is willing to discuss cost sharing or equipment leasing,
or rental, this option could be accelerated.
· Is the cost of acquiring and constructing additional volume storage areas included in the system
costs and Capital Improvement Plan?
Response to WDIWMO comments
Page 6 of 15
-...
...,
. Pages 6-19 to 6-20: Rather than listing a few PLSL WD projects here, consider referencing
Section 5: Implementation Plan of the PLSLWD's Water Resources Management Plan, or
including this section as an appendix to the LSWMP. Due to the ever changing nature of
implementation plans, goals for individual implementation measures such as the
downtown redevelopment plan, wetland restoration areas, volume management areas, etc,
should be included in future amendments to the LSWMP, after appropriate discussion has
taken place.
. Page 6-20: Downtown Redevelopment - The PLSL WD is still very interested in working with
the City on an overall stormwater management plan for the downtown area.
. Page 6-21: The District encourages the City to include volume control BMPs and low-impact
development approaches as a City implementation priority.
Chapter 7: Summary and Recommendations
. Page 7-1, second paragraph. The text states that minimizing "economic loss and inconvenience
due to periodic flooding of streets and other low-lying areas" is the primary function of an urban
surface water system. The PLSL WD believes that flood avoidance is no longer the primary
function of urban surface water management. Water quality treatment and volume management
are equally as important. This paragraph was edited to better reflect the goal of water
quality while not equating it to the Public Safety aspect of flood management.
. Page 7-1, last paragraph: Reduction of stormwater volume is also an option for increasing the
efficiency of the public infrastructure investment.
. Pages 7-2 to 7-3: Consider adding the following recommendations:
o Promote the use of small-site/distributed BMPs to help achieve water quality and
volume control goals.
o Pursue partnerships with watershed management organizations and other agencies to
incorporate volume control BMPs into re-development projects, including City projects.
These recommendations have been added.
Public Works Design Manual Comments
. Page 4: Do the rate control standards result in post-project runoff rates that are equal to or less
than pre-project rates? Are there instances when runoff rates could increase from pre- to post-
development and still meet these rate control standards?
See attached rate comparison: In the case of type A soils, no outflow is modeled for 2 and 10
year storms, and a small amount is modeled for the IOO-year event. In the case of A type soils
the rate control schedule does not hold runoff to existing conditions.
For a technical basis of following discussion, see Minnesota Stormwater Manual Issue Paper
D, Section V, Channel protection Options 3 and 4.
The rate control standard attempts to form a balance between options 3 and 4 for a variety of
soil types. The rule is essentially Option 3, "over control" however it is a fixed rate based on
soil type, therefore for types C and D soils it functions much like "extended detention"
The extended detention method attempts to equate or lessen the probability of erosive bank-
full and over-bank events in downstream channels to those prior to development.
This rate control method is proposed as an interim measure until it can be replaced by a rate
control structure that is based on actual modeling data provided by the WD that takes into
account the complexity of floodplain management. (as explained in issue paper D VII opt. 2)
Response to WDIWMO comments
Page 7 of 15
. Page 5: The use of curve number credits seems like an easy-to-understand approach to volume
control. However, it is difficult to get a sense for how closely this agrees with the PLSL WD
volume control without conducting side-by-side plan reviews. Before the District can find the
City's approach to be equivalent to District rules, some "test case" comparisons will be
necessary .
Attached you will find a discussion of storm water credits with selected examples.
. Page 6, first paragraph: Off-site volume control should be permanently protected through a
conservation easement or outlot conveyed to the City or PLSL WD. If buffer areas are
proposed to be utilized for volume control credits, conservation easements will be required
to be dedicated to the WD.
. Page 6, second paragraph: Where is Stormwater Management Overlay District #2 located?
Over any landlocked basin.
. Page 6, second paragraph: Allowing construction of an outlet in lieu of restricted volume
control could provide an incentive for connecting landlocked basins. The District suggests
allowing an outlet only if the applicant can demonstrate that volume control BMPs have been
incorporated to the maximum extent possible and the City and PLSL WD landlocked basin
requirements have been met. Connection of landlocked basins can be a significant drainage
alteration, therefore it was proposed to work with the WMOIWD on a case by case basis.
In this comment letter you suggest making a rule equivalent. We believe overall
watershed and floodplain management should be under control of the WD or WMO.
. Consider defining "simple surface infiltration" as it is used on page 6.
. Page 7 - Landlocked Basins: The City should adopt a landlocked basin policy and rule
equivalent to the PLSL WD's rather than deferring to the PLSL WD. The rule has been
revised.
. Page 7 - Drainage Alterations: The City should adopt a drainage alteration policy and rule
equivalent to the PLSLWD's. The PLSLWD Drainage Alteration Rule (Rule I) has more
specific criteria for allowing a drainage alteration than is included in the PWDM. This rule has
been revised. Keep in mind, all requirements of PWDM still need to be met even when
references to those sections are not included in specific section (as is done in WD rule)
. It would be helpful to include a water quality treatment performance standard in the PWDM to
provide a basis for evaluating alternative treatment approaches proposed by applicants (i.e.
alternatives to NURP ponds). The PLSL WD performance standard is 60% total phosphorus
removal. Also, consider noting that the "treatment train" approach is encouraged by the City to
reduce pollutant loading and enhance volume reduction Agreed: this was lacking. A Water
Quality requirement was added to Section 4.
. Page 12: Consider requiring that tree plantings be permanently protected in outlots or
conservation easements, or incorporate a safety factor to account for future tree loss/removal.
Also, please provide documentation for the 850 sf area assumption. This seems large,
particularly if the trees are seedlings or bare root and will not reach their mature size for years.
A basis has been included in the PWDM.
. Page 12: Consider adding additional provisions to the impervious area disconnection credit to
avoid "reconnection" due to insufficient pervious area size, excessive slope or inadequate
vegetative cover.
<End of PLSLWD comments>
Response to WDIWMO comments
Page 8 of 15
SCOTT WMO COMMENTS FOLLOW:
<Excerpt from March 3 review letter by Melissa Bokman with City response in bold>
The comments reflect the changes and the combined comments from staff and Paul Nelson,
consultant HDR, Inc.
Local Water Plan Review
Overall the plan does a good job of articulating a regional approach to stormwater management and
follows the structure set forth in MN Rules Chapter 8410, but implementation mostly addresses how
to provide drainage while minimizing wetland impacts. Rules/ordinance revisions were not
submitted, (The PWDM that was submitted is intended to be a companion document to the
LSWMP. The PWDM is referenced into ordinance in 1004.100, which was provided to the
WMO) which is acceptable since the City has by statute 120 days to revise official controls from
the date of approval, but there was no schedule given in the plan for when or if the City intends to
revise ordinances to reflect WMO standards (Ordinance revisions will be submitted in addition
to the revised PWDM). There needs to be a link between the plan and the official controls (i.e.,
the plan needs to state that part of the management strategy is to have official controls). The Plan
states that it includes by reference the City's Public Works Design Manual, and thus this manual
needs to be reviewed, since by reference it would be considered part of Local Plan Approval. The
plan has regional modeling and improvements that implies that there is intent to use a regional
approach for system improvement, and discusses a site-by-site approach for water quality, and
wetland classification approach for water body use, but does not specify an approach or standards
for minimizing runoff from development sites using site design approaches, or managing growth,
etc. Finally, the plan ends with Chapter 7. Summary and Recommendations which has good
detail, but in the final version once City Council has approved, should not be cited as
"recommendations. "
The basic conclusion is that, while it is a very detailed and comprehensive plan, as currently drafted
the City of Prior Lake's plan would not meet equivalency with the Scott WMO Water Plan. It is
very close. The plan is missing a few elements and should meet with staff to resolve, and it seems
to be more of a drainage plan than a Surface Water Management Plan. It includes a lot of capital
improvements for stormwater piping, and maybe misses the WMO's intent of balancing this with
site design and growth management to protect critical areas and minimize the generation of runoff
in the first place. It is also uncertain if the piping/ponding proposed for various wetlands and basins
meets the WMO's Rule/Standard for outlets on landlocked basins. Proposed wetland buffers are
different than the WMO standards, we anticipated this and said we would evaluate other proposed
standards, but the plan still proposes minimum widths less than what an overview of literature
shows as the minimum (i.e., 25 feet). The plan classifies wetlands, but it is not known how much
public involvement has been used to set these classifications, and whether the property owners
concur. Also there is no discussion of pending nondegradation regulations through the MS4
program. There is uncertainty with respect to what these regulations will be, but the pending status
of these and their uncertainty needs to be presented.
Much effort was spent during the development of the Scott WMO Rules to define "Public
Improvement Projects" with respect to major transportation and infrastructure projects where
slightly different standards would apply. No such projects were identified in the LSWMP. This is
the place to identify such projects by referencing them specifically, or by inclusion/reference of
Response to WDIWMO comments Page 9 of 15
transportation plans or other City CIPs; and then referencing how frequently the plan would be
amended with respect to such projects (i.e., would crp submitted to WMO annually, or every other
year?). This would be spelled out in a MOA with the WMO. In general, the CIP is updated
yearly in the Spring.
Finally, the plan also needs to articulate more coordination prior to areas developing. The City has
an orderly annexation agreement with Spring Lake Township that appeared to be used for
scheduling the crp, this could also be used to schedule coordination with downstream entities. The
plan does say that future flows from some areas were coordinated/given to the City of Shakopee so
that Shakopee could complete planning for downstream areas, but there will also be County areas
that receive flows from developing City areas. For example, the Campbell Lake and Louisville
Swamp areas, where depending on the timing of development by both the Cities of Prior Lake and
Shakopee, new or increased flow volumes could end up discharging to the existing agricultural
system in the county. Coordination may be needed to insure the downstream infrastructure is in
place. The City agrees that coordination is essential, this issue was detailed in the March 30th
Memo.
There are a few elements listed in 8410 that are not included in the plan that the WMO would like
to see such as maps of high quality natural areas (Minnesota Biological Survey) and recreational
surface water features with public accesses labeled. These items were submitted to the WMO at
the March 220d Meeting.
Other specific questions that need to be addressed include:
1. P. 1-1 The statement is made that the LSWMP will carry the City through the end of20l4, then
the statement is made on page 6-21 the plan will extend through the year 2015, and then again on
page 6-22 the statement is made that the plan will remain effective through 2013. Which year is it?
Typically 10 years is assumed. A new plan would be created in 1015, and be approved in
2016, however earlier updates to the plan are expected.
2. Page 1-4. Second paragraph talks about how the LSWMP is primarily aimed at new
development. Are there problems that need to be addressed in the older areas? TMDLs might
affect older areas. Is there any intent through the ordinance to require bringing up to standards
redevelopment projects? This is mentioned for the downtown redevelopment, but is there a general
practice for redevelopement? Policies 2.6 and 2.7 address some of this where ponds are practical
and for the downtown. What about other technologies and areas outside the downtown. This
probably doesn't affect the WMO much since a large portion of the WMO areas in the City are
undeveloped. Policy statements cover both new and redeveloping areas. The PWDM includes
impervious area and disturbance criteria that determine if a use is regulated. Generally
WMO areas are currently undeveloped.
3. Page 2-4. Table 2.1. This table is basic representation of what happens with development of
different land uses, however, no details are presented about the assumptions made or inputs to this
analysis. The analysis also does not speak to the issue of how the hydraulic connectedness typically
created by urban development creates impacts and the scale of impacts. Thus, the WMO does not
concur with the actual numerical results presented. The WMO might concur, if presented with the
assumptions, that results represent an example of what could occur. These numbers represent
conclusions drawn by Bob Barth from actual stream gage results for a variety of land uses.
Please refer to the response provided to the WD comments explaining the basis for the Rate
and Volume Control requirements.
Response to WDIWMO comments
Page 10 of 15
4. Page 2-4 First paragraph. States that volume control, though not specifically required by the
LSWMP... What does this mean? The WMO articulated an approach that allows the cities to not
have requirements for volume control if they demonstrate in their LWP that they have the ability to
handle resulting issues with increased volumes. The City of Prior Lake's plan does a good job at
demonstrating this as follows:
a. It has identified and detailed an operations and maintenance program
b. It has identified a drainage system needs and capital improvements
c. It has identified drainage ways that may be problematic and needing observation with
respect to future erosion.
However, there is no definitive requirements for site design approaches, or managing growth,
and the proposed system relies on a system of hydraulic connectedness and an emphasis on
ponds. Will the city have any efforts related to site design, minimization of impervious
surfaces, etc in it's approach; or the use of some of the credits that the WMO developed? The
WMO plan was clear that these are desired attributes. Page 3-5 policies 1.11, 2.8, 6.1 and 6.3
articulate policies relative to volume control, but it conflicts with the statement on page 2-4, and
no implementation detail is given. Page 5-21 lists some site design practices that can be used,
and page 5-22 says other practices for high quality wetlands should be used, but is there a
commitment to promoting or using them? Definitive requirements are presented in the
PWDM that complete the stormwater management picture.
Also will the planned activities meet the WMO Rules for outlets from land locked basins?
Modeling was completed but it is hard to find out what before and after water levels are, and
before and after runoff volumes. Results presented in Appendix C tables are for proposed
conditions. Requirements for outlets to landlocked basins exceed the requirements of the
WMO in rate, volume, consideration of downstream impacts, water quality, drainage
alteration, and floodplain storage.
5. Page 3-4. Policy 1.5 incorporates the City's Public Works Design Manual by reference. This
manual needs to be reviewed. This manual was provided in original submittal and comments
received at our March 22 meeting were incorporated.
6. Page 3-5. Policy 1.8 Language regarding low floors in landlocked basins, the WMO
encourages the City to consider setting more strict language than that the city may require 2 feet
higher than the natural runoff. WMO suggests in its standards 3 feet above the surveyed basin
overflow, or 3 feet above the high water level as determined using the SHYM method or back-to-
back 100 year events. In the second paragraph should also consider the potential for downstream
impacts and the use of site design practices when deciding on outlet elevations in order to prevent
killing of trees. PWDM requirements meet this criterion.
7. P. 3-5 Define what the natural runoff elevation is.
8. P. 3-7 Policy 3.4 States to explore methods of eradicating or controlling Eurasion Watermilfoil.
Are there other invasive species that the City could partner with the State and the Watershed
District to help eliminate? The City currently is partnering with the WD on control of Curly
Leaf Pond Weed in a pilot study on Upper Prior.
Response to WDIWMO comments
Page 11 of 15
9. In the Goals & Policies section under Water Quantity, there is no mention of updating or
adopting a floodplain zoning regulations. Does the City have these? Yes. Copies were submitted
at our meeting.
10. The Scott WMO incorporates in its plan an education component to its wetland goal and
policies. It would be a good idea for the city to consider the same since the plan is written to use
wetlands whenever possible into its stormwater drainage system. Educational requirements
currently do not exist specifically for wetlands. Lakes, as well as Erosion and Sediment
control has been the focus of educational implantation at the City.
11. Page 3-9 Groundwater goal. Consider adding a policy regarding wellhead protection planning
and implementation. This is a requirement of state law and is part of both the LSWMP
implementation plan and the PWDM.
12. Page 3-9. Policy 8-1. Scott WMO standard is the temporary practices in the NPDES General
Permit for Construction. This section has been modified.
13. On page 3-14 states a summary of agency jurisdiction is presented in figures 4 and 5. Where
are these figures? They are not included in the plan. Apologies; this was a copying error. WMO
received copies during our meeting.
14. Page 3-19. First paragraph. There are also Markley Lake and Credit River areas of the WMO
in the City. Need to talk here or under 3.8 about the need to coordinate with the WMO regarding
these areas be make sure that because of timing, development in the city does not discharge to an
inadequate rural infrastructure. Changes made clarifying Markley Lake and Credit River. Issue
of coordination was mentioned in March 30th memo, yet needs further discussion.
15. Page 4-2 States the wetland designation can be found on the Wetland Inventory Maps, Map 8
and 9. Are these the two maps labeled "Prior Lake Wetland Inventory Work Map?" Ifso they are
not labeled properly they have the same name but different information on them and should be
relabeled. On the same page reference is given to the "Stormwater Drainage Map", what is this and
where is it? It was not included with the plan submittal or maybe it has a different name. Reference
is also give to the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) that non-inventoried
wetland boundaries were based on this system. The plan should include a map of the MLCCS
coverage of the city.
16. Chapter 4. In general this chapter needs a flow chart to show how the function and value
assessment was used in combination with susceptibility rating to classify and make management
decisions (Maybe this was Figure 6, which is missing). Copying error. WMO received copies
during our meeting.
17. Pages 4-3. First paragraph. Did not receive Appendix E. Copying error. WMO received
copies during our meeting.
18. Page 4-4 the "Overall Functional Ranking Flow Chart (Figure 6)" is missing and was not
included with the plan. It then references the ranking for wetlands is shown on the "Natural
Resource Inventory Map 9." What is this? A Map 9 was mentioned earlier as a Wetland Inventory
Map. On the same page reference is made that rankings are provided on the "Stormwater
Susceptibility Map." This map was not included in the plan, unless it has another name?
Response to WDIWMO comments
Page 12 of 15
19. Page 4-6. Table 4.2. Don't understand the need for this table. Later pieces on water quality
use NURP criteria. Also what is the technical basis for the phosphorus concentrations presented?
20. On page 4-7, Table 4.2 shows stormwater phosphorus pretreatment requirements for the four
wetland categories. Where did these numbers come from and what are you basing them on?
21. On page 4-8, Table 4.3 under the Hydroperiod Standard of outlet control elevation what map
are you referring to?
22. Pages 4-9. Table 4.4 has minimum and average buffer widths less than the WMO for most
cases, but also for many cases has widths less than what the City's research on the previous page
suggests as the minimum (i.e., 25 feet). This issue was presented in March 30 Memo.
23. Page 4-10, Table 4.4 minimum and average buffer widths are inconsistent with the Scott
WMO. On the previous page you reference a study in Seattle and the MPCA that show a minimum
buffer width of 25 feet, yet you set your buffer standards less than that. You either need to justify it
or change it be consistent with the Scott WMO standards.
24. Page 5-1 references in two places "Maps I through?" should be corrected and appropriate
numbers or titles filled in. Also revise on pages 5-23, 5-25, 5-28, etc. Carefully review plan to
make the corrections on multiple pages. Corrected.
25. Page 5-1 Fourth bullet point. Need to also consider what is the impact of changes in hydrology
from development on downstream rural infrastructure. Prior discussion covers this topic.
26. Page 5-8 states that Markley lake monitoring has been occurring for seven years. Who has the
data? PLSL WD or the City? This data is collected by the City through CAMP. The
Met Council retains the data.
27. Page 5-9 references Appendix E, where is this? It was not attached with submittal.
28. Page 5-12 towards the top under the PLSL WD five strategies lists "low home flood-proofing or
but out," should this be "buyout"? Corrected
29. Page 5-13, 2nd paragraph states that "Trunk facilities should be are analyzed and designed to
accommodate...." Is the City stating that they are analyzed or that they should be analyzed? Which
is it? There are analyzed in an overall model.
30. Page 5-20 paragraph beginning, "Of late a concern regarding..." might want to consider
revising so it makes sense. Revised
31. Page 5-23. Case 3 second bullet. Should also hold smaller storms to predevelopment rates.
32. Page 5-25. Campbell Lake. Not sure with the use of Campbell Lake for significant storage and
rate control. Our perception of Campbell Lake is that it is good wildlife habitat and has some good
qualities. Also need to coordinate timing of development and stormwater improvement not only
with Shakopee but also with the WMO and the County to insure downstream infrastructure.
33. Page 5-26 discusses using predevelopment rates for wetlands but also uses the terms
preagricultural and precultural in the same paragraph. The plan should define the different rate
controls it is stating and consider revising the paragraph to be more clear about it's intent. Revised.
Response to WDIWMO comments Page 13 of 15
34. Pages 5-28 through 5-38 there is information missing in the paragraphs of each of the drainage
districts listed, such as map number, acres, and cfs.
35. Page 5-28. Louisville Swamp. Need to coordinate timing of development and stormwater
improvements not only with Shakopee but also with WMO and the County to insure downstream
infrastructure.
36. Page 5-29. Markley Lake. Need to coordinate timing of development and stormwater
improvements not only with Shakopee but also with WMO and the County to insure downstream
infrastructure.
37. Page 5-30. Mystic Lake. Need to coordinate timing of development and stormwater
improvements not only with Shakopee but also with WMO and the County to insure downstream
infrastructure.
38. Page 5-31. Shakopee. Need to coordinate timing of development and stormwater
improvements not only with Shakopee but also with WMO and the County to insure downstream
infrastructure.
39. Page 5-31. Sioux Community. If portions of this are in the Scott WMO then there is a need to
coordinate timing of development and stormwater improvements not only with Shakopee but also
with WMO and the County to insure downstream infrastructure.
40. Page 5-34. Some type of summary of this Chapter would be helpful. There is a lot of
information and it is hard to tell if all the proposals for adding pipe to connect the low points,
wetlands and storage basins, results in higher water levels, or an increase or decrease in retention
storage, or not.
41. Page 6-1. First paragraph states the LSWMP describes. . . activities. . . the City might develop. . .
Please clarify. Revised
42. Page 6-4. Table 6.1 Capital Improvements Plan. Is anything other than storms ewer pipe
proposed?
43. Pages 6-9 through 6-14 describes the NPDES Municipal Program and is very helpful with
respect to getting an idea of what additional things the city is planning.
44. Page 6-19 6.8 Design Standards. The Public Works Design Manual is incorporated by
reference and thus needs to be reviewed. Agreed.
45. Page 6-19, 2nd paragraph states "At present the primary implantation priority for the Scott
County WMO is completion of their watershed rules." It should be "Scott WMO", and the Scott
WMO Rules are done and were adopted on May 10,2005, so this statement is incorrect. This error
has been corrected.
46. Page 6-21. There are implementation priorities for PLSL WD and the City, none presented for
the WMO. The WMO plan has watershed activities identified. Should include some in the city
plan, particularly:
Response to WD/WMO comments
Page 14 of 15
1"
~- -
Completion of Local Official (ordinances) equivalent to WMO standards. Need to identify what
changes you need to make to be equivalent, and how you will begin implementation of the plan
and the official controls by August 9, 2006.
Also big issue for Scott WMO is urban development upstream of rural infrastructure, as stated
previously need to provide more detail on how this will be coordinated with WMO.
Specifically, item 7 needs to be coordinated with WMO and the County as well as Shakopee.
These items have been added.
47. Page 6-21 Amendment Procedures. City itself will need to amend the plan at times, not just by
request. Also WMO will need to approve major amendments. Thus, need process for the City to
initiate amendments, and for WMO review and approval. Consider saying the following regarding
amendments: "To the extent and manner required by the Scott WMO all amendments to the
LSWMP shall be submitted to the WMO for review and approval in accordance with Mn Statute
103B.235 Subp 5. and in accordance with Mn Rules Chapter 8410.017, Subp.l1. Language
regarding cooperation has been added.
48. Page 6-22. It is anticipated that the Scott WMO will develop an MOU with WMOICity roles
identified after the Local Water PlanlOfficiallocal controls are approved, and it is expected that
some reporting to the WMO will be needed. It may include copying the annual report to the WMO.
The City understands this requirement.
49. Page 6-22 regarding the amendment procedures, is there a time limit the City gives itself to
react to a request for amendment?
50. Page 7-1. Summary and Recommendations. The final version of the plan should reflect what
the city is planning not recommendations. Covered in March 30 memo.
51. Page 7-1. List of themes. Missing revision and implementation of revised ordinances, and item
7 Grading Plan review process is not discussed in the plan.
52. Pages 7-2 and 7-3. Recommendations. Item 3 Standard review process, when will WMO get
to review revised local controls and process? Item 12. Did not find an ordinance outlined in the
plan.
53. Page 7-3, Item #12. states, "That the City adopt the ordinance outlined in the Implementation
Plan." What ordinance? Nothing is labeled as ordinance in that section, is the City referring to 6.4
Activites under the Operations & Maintenance of the NPDES permit?
<End of Scott WMO comments>
Response to WD/WMO comments
Page 15 of 15
Memorandum
To:
Dawn Gibas, Scott WMO
Cc:
Shannon Lotthammer, Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District
From:
Ross T Bintner, P .E.
Water Resources Engineer, City of Prior Lake
Subject:
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE - WMO/WD EQUIVALENCY PROCESS
Date:
June 9, 2006
This memorandum is meant to summarize revisions that have taken place based on comments
received from the Scott Watershed Management Organization on May 19,2006. The following is
an excerpt from comment letters from the WMO. Comments in response are in bold.
<Excerpt from May 23 review by Melissa Bokman and Paul Nelson with City response in bold>
I reviewed the revised L WP by looking back at the comments we previously submitted and
checking to see ifthere were any changes in the revised version or if it was addressed by a
comment from the city in their April 14, 2006 memo. In addition there are a couple of
places where we had additional thoughts/comments.
1. Executive Summary page viii, bullet 5: acknowledges that the modeling completed is
conceptual, but the Scott WMO may still want to clarify in the MOU that what it is
granting conceptual approval for is the planning and the process for system
improvements. It is the Scott WMOs understanding that the system modeled was done
for the purpose of estimating costs, and was not reflecting an approved design. Actual
design and selection of system improvement will be completed according to the
processes and standards laid out in the L WP and supporting ordinances and PWDM.
This understanding is correct we agree that this can further be clarified in the
MOU.
2. Executive Summary page xviii: has a partially deleted paragraph. Bullets are deleted but
the first sentence is not??? There was a note corresponded to this deletion, saying it
was replaced with a corrected version.
3. Nothing was changed in response to Scott WMO comment 10 about a wetland education
policy. We have found that a lot of wetland violation problems that result in
enforcement could have been avoided if the property owner knew about wetland
regulations. We strongly encourage the city to have some type of
education/information effort to inform the public about wetland regulations. No
changes are planned. We suggest that the Scott WMO participate in the Joint
Stormwater Education Plan and provide a leadership role in the coordination of
educational initiatives in the County.
4. Page 3-9 - There is a reference to the NPDES general permit as the standard for erosion
control. This is the same as Scott WMO except that Scott WMO requires temporary
sediment basins when drainage areas exceed 5 acres. Permit provision in the NPDES
construction site permit do not rule out putting temporary sediment basins for
areas less than 10 acres. The construction site SWPPPs are tailor made for on-
Response to WD/WMO comments Page 1 of 3
site conditions and when those conditions warrant, or they are required by
permit, sediment basins are installed.
5. Comments 19 and 20 on previous draft do not appear to have been addressed. This tables
was confusing and was changed as to not require, but recommend treatment
levels.
6. Comment 21 on previous draft was not addressed. Its confusing as to what map is being
referenced. This table has been changed to clarify its meaning.
7. Comments 22 and 23 on previous draft, we've discussed, but the City needs to make their
case in writing. (Paul's comment: Also it occurs to me that they could argue that they
are doing volume control, which will help water quality, when they have an option to
make the case that they have adequately addressed infrastructure needs.) The case for
our buffer standard has been made repeatedly.
8. Comments 31 and 32 on previous draft are not addressed. #31 The intent is that case 3
builds off of case 2. #32 A wetland is classified with a low susceptibility to
stormwater, but this does not mean that it will be utilized without proper
engineering judgment or the consent of adjacent property owners.
9. Comment 32 could be addressed by adding statement in section 5.4 System Design, or in
the MOU that the inventory and classification presented is preliminary and needs to be
field verified when developments are proposed. Clarification in the MOD is
welcome.
10. Comment 42 does not appear to be addressed. An overall CIP for the city was forwarded,
which does have Stormwater/water resources projects; but perhaps some of these
should be included in the L WP. Also the table of implementation activities should be
sufficient for the Scott WMO to use as a means of determining whether or not the city
is implementing. Implementation and financing is included in the LSWMP,
however specific initiatives and financial planning schedules will be kept in
separate City documents.
11. Section 6.8 Design Standards references the 2002 PWDM, should this be a more recent
document? This reference has been changed.
12. Page 6-21. Item 9 change "to plan for downstream impacts" to "to control downstream
impacts" This section has been changed to read "minimize"
CIP Comments
Lots of projects, perhaps some should be listed in the LWP. See response to 10 above.
PWDM Comments
1. Second paragraph. The second sentence is awkward. The city is not enforcing these rules
on behalf of the WD and WMO. It is the city's chosen means of implementing the
requirements of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act (MSI03B). This
paragraph has been changed to reflect this concern.
2. Page 3. Erosion and Sediment Control/SWPPP Standards: Good to reference the NPDES
General permit, but Scott WMO standard for temp sediment basins is drainage area of
5 acres or more. See response to 4 above.
3. Section 4 page 4, need supporting documentation to demonstrate the Rate Control
standards proposed are equivalent to the Scott WMO predevelopment standard.
Predevelopment standard does not apply to urban areas. Documentation has
been provided to show a comparison of rate events.
4. Section 4 page 4, still don't understand the "Alternative Rate Control for Wetlands
Utilized for Volume Management" This section has been further clarified.
Response to WDIWMO comments Page 2 of 3
5. Section 4 page 6, Low Floor/Low Opening - City has 2' above OHW, and WMO has 3'
which is consistent with DNR standards; City has 2' for HWL, WMO has 3' as
determined from an estimate using SHYM or 100 year back to back events. This has
been changed to reflect comment.
6. Section 5 Landlocked basins. Additional requirements for outlet: demonstrated need, and
assessment and mitigation of downstream impacts. Changes made.
7. Section 6 page 8 Procedure, last sentence of first paragraph add "but needs to be verified
by more detailed site assessments." Change not made.
8. Section 6 page 11 third paragraph: missing requirement for conservation easements. The
City does state that if the buffer is intended to be used for volume control credit, a
conservation easement will be required in addition to a drainage and utility easement.
It was not the WMOs intention for buffers to only be protected when used for volume
control. This statement is a grossly inaccurate. Buffers are protected under the
proposed rule in all cases through setbacks, monumentation, ordinance, and
drainage and utility easement. The requirement for a transfer of rights is a
sensitive legal issue and the City is unwilling to defend its potential legal impact.
The WMOs intent for buffer requirements was to ensure the protection of those buffers
from disturbance or encroachment indefinitely and create corridors connecting wetland
systems. A drainage and utility easement gives the holder certain rights which is less
protective for buffers, whereas a conservation easement puts a restriction on the owner
of the property for certain uses which is more protective. The City encoural!es the
transfer of rights through the granting of conservation easement through its
volume control credit, however will not take the step of requirinl! the transfer of
those rights. The WMO felt conservation easements should be put on all wetland
buffers because it is ultimately the better protection option, and meets the intent of the
future of the Watershed's goals for water resource management and protection.
<End of Scott WMO comments>
Response to WD/WMO comments
Page 3 of3
_ _~ ~"'Bn1el1tf a
kfY ~
~ ~.
'I ~
~ W
Scoff 1fJafershelManaJemenf O"janizalion
2.00 7=ourfn llvenue West
Shak.Ppee, 'MN 55379-f22.0
952.-496-8054 7=a;< 952.-496-8840
www.co.scott.mn.us
~
'"\~-
fScon
Memorandum
June 23, 2006
From:
Watershed Planning Commission
Melissa Bokman, Scott WMO ~.~ ft{!;)
To:
Subject:
City of Prior Lake - Local Surface Water Management Plan and Public Works
Design Manual Hydrology Appendix
Since January, WMO staff and their consultant, Paul Nelson, have been working with the City of
Prior Lake on the update of their local water plan and official controls. Staff and the Prior Lake
Spring Lake Watershed District (PLSLWD) have reviewed the city's Local Surface Water
Management Plan (LSWMP) and Public Works Design Manual- Hydrology Appendix
(PWDM), and met several times with city staff between the months of February and May to
discuss our concerns and comments. After several revisions, the LSWMP and PWDM are much
improved, however, there are a few items that staff feels are still not meeting equivalency to the
WMO Plan. Staff stated early on in the process that city's are welcome to recommend different
approaches in their plan than the WMO, as long as they can prove the process or method is just
as protective of water resources as the WMO Plan and Rules.
On June 9, 2006 the Scott WMO received the final draft of the LSWMP and PWDM along with
response memorandums addressed to Shannon Lotthammer, PLSL WD, and Dawn Gibas, Scott
WMO, those memorandums are attached for your reference.
On June 19,2006 staff met with Shannon Lotthammer, PLSLWD, Paul Nelson, HDR, and Susan
McNellis, WMO attorney, to discuss items in the city's LSWMP and PWDM that are not
equivalent to the Scott WMO Plan and Rules. The WMO must be consistent with its review of
local water plans, and after reviewing the final draft documents from the City of Prior Lake, has
unanimously come to a recommendation.
WMO staff would not recommend approval of the City of Prior Lake LSWMP and PWDM at
this time. The following two items are unresolved from staff comments, and staff does not feel
that the City has justified why the differences in the city LSWMP and PWDM are just as
protective of water resources within the watershed as the WMO Plan and Rules.
Items of concern not meeting equivalency with the WMO
1. The City will not require conservation easements or dedicated outlets for all
buffer strips. It does require a drainage and utility easement, which is not as
protective as a conservation easement. It does require a conservation easement if
the buffer is intended to be used for volume control, which was not the intent of
the WMO. The issue is the future protection of the buffer, and enforcement of the
standards if and when encroachments occur. WMO staff feels that without a
conservation easement, enforcement could be problematic.
2. There are projects listed in the implementation chapter in the Plan but no schedule
of when they will be done and who will do it. The City did send a Capital
Improvement Plan (attached) with water resource projects listed in it with a
schedule and cost estimate, but no reference in the Plan has been made to that
document so that the WMO will know the City will implement the Plan. There
also is a Table (Table 6-1) in the plan labeled "Capital Improvement Plan" that
contains a schedule and details for more than $10 million of Stormwater pipe and
pond improvements. Approval in this format would give the impression that the
WMO approves the CIP in the plan that does not reflect other objectives and
efforts planned by the City that were part of the basis for the WMO granting
approval. A compromise could be referencing and including in a table,
documents or programs with a schedule used by the City of their efforts included
in their overall Capital Improvements Plan and MS4 Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). An example of some language could be; "Much of
this section of Prior Lake's LSWMP focuses on the analysis that supports the
development of the area charge. There are also several City planning and
budgeting documents that outline surface water management activities undertaken
by the City. Those documents are identified in Table 1, and are incorporated by
reference into this Plan."
Table 1.
PlanIDocument Revision FrequencylNotes
Capital Improvement Program Annually
City Budget Documents Annually
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Every five years (minimum)
Joint Stormwater Education Plan for Scott Every five years
County
Downtown Stormwater Plan To be developed in 2007
There are also several areas where the City has proposed different standards than the WMO but
has made the case that their approach is equivalent to WMO staffs satisfaction, or is considered
equivalent with some clarification added to both the approval resolution (if and when such a
resolution is considered), and the MOD. These include their approach to volume control credits
(i.e., curve number reductions), peak runoff rate control, temporary sediment control basins,
wetland buffer widths, wetland classification, and stormwater infrastructure modeling. These are
briefly discussed below.
Items that need to be clarified and included in the Memorandum of Understanding
· Runoff Volume reduction credits. The City made the case in its plan that they
have a number of on-going efforts, mostly through their MS4 SWPPP, to address
infrastructure impacts of increased volumes. However, the city also incorporated
volume control standard of 1/2 -inch for all new impervious surfaces same as the
WMO standard, but the way they approach the idea of credits toward volume
control is different than the WMO approach. The WMO Rules stated that if cities
could show that they would address volume control issues through other efforts,
they did not have to use the volume control standard. WMO staff feel that the
City of Prior Lake has demonstrated a combination approach of public works
- -~ .---- ------,-
efforts and use of the standard. This probably meets or exceeds the intent of the
WMO Rule, and therefore WMO staff feel that the means of employing credits is
not an issue.
· Peak Runoff Control. The City proposes using a peak runoff amount per acre of
land rather than the WMO standard of no increase over the pre-development
condition. City staff provided documentation to WMO staff showing that the City
rate per acre is for most conditions more restrictive than the WMO standard.
· Temporary Sediment Basin. The WMO standard is that a temporary sediment
basin is required where the contributing drainage area exceeds 5 acres, and the
City proposes 10 acres as a mandatory requirement, and argues that their design
process will require whatever is appropriate for the site condition. WMO staff
feels that this is not equivalent, but it is also not a significant difference over
which approval should be withheld.
· Wetland Classification. The City incorporated a wetland classification and
management system in their plan. However, it appears that decisions on how to
manage them was done without consultation with the watershed organizations, the
DNR, or the property owners. When asked about this, the City's response was
that these decisions were preliminary and would be refined as projects are
proposed or work begins in the various subwatersheds. WMO staff, therefore,
feels that WMO approval, if and when considered, should clearly state that the
WMO is not approving the wetland classifications and management decisions in
the plan, and that it is the WMO's understanding that these classification system
and management decisions presented in the plan are preliminary, that field
verification would be completed, and the WMO and affected property owners
would be consulted, prior to implementation of the management strategies. Staff
feels this point should be included in the MOU.
· Buffer widths are less than the WMO minimum standards. The City's
requirement is in black with the WMO requirements in red. However, the City
has made the case that they are using other practices or methodologies and
therefore they feel that their approach is equivalent as follows:
1. Their minimum widths for lower quality wetlands are higher than the
WMO standard
2. They plan to use a micro-pool at discharges to wetlands, to provide
additional sediment removal and improve sediment removal
capabilities
3. They are incorporating the volume control standard, which has water
quality benefits
Buffer Unique High Moderate Low Stormwater
Requirement (Exceptional) (Hieh) (Medium) (Low) Ponds
A verage Buffer 60 30 30 30 0
Width (ft) 65 50 35 25
Minimum Buffer 30 20 20 20 0*
Width (ft) 25 25 25 25
Minimum No 30 20 15 10
Grade Zone (ft) 25 25 25 25
*Must have a building setback of 10 feet from delineated edge of wetland and elevated as necessary to meet provisions of
paragraph 3(1) of Rule D.
· Stormwater Infrastructure Modeling. The issue with respect to the Stormwater
infrastructure modeling completed by the City and included in their plan is similar
to the wetland classification issue. In initial review comments, WMO staff stated
that the City had a lot of detail in the plan with respect to modeling, but this large
amount of detail was difficult to review from the tables provided, particularly
whether or not the land locked basin policies and Rules are being met. The plan
showed a lot of new stormwater piping connecting wetlands and land locked
basins. The City's response was that the purpose of the modeling was to figure
out "worst case" infrastructure needs and costs so that an area charge could be
determined, and did not reflect design decisions. Design would be determined on
more detailed assessment in conjunction with land development proposals. Thus,
WMO staff recommends that language be included in both the approval
resolution, if or when that occurs, and in the MOD that: the WMO's approval of
the City's Plan does not include approval of the pipe collection network modeled
and shown in that plan; and that it is the WMO's understanding that the pipe
network displayed in the plan does not reflect a proposed trunk stormwater system
design, and that design will be determined based on more detailed assessments,
retaining and maximizing existing storage of runoff, and land locked basin
considerations.
Staff would like to continue to work with the City to bring them to equivalency with the WMO.
The following documents are included as attachments:
1. WMO review letter of draft plan and Rules (3/2/06)
2. Response memorandum from Ross Bintner, City of Prior Lake (3/30/06)
3. Response memorandum from Ross Bintner, City of Prior Lake (4/14/06)
4. Peak runoff rate control approaches - received 4/14/06
5. 2006 Capital Budget - City of Prior Lake received May 8, 2006
6. Comparison of Scott WMO Rule G and City of Prior Lake Wetland Rules
7. Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District review letter (5/19/06)
8. WMO unofficial comments sent on 5/23/06
9. Memorandum to Dawn Gibas, Scott WMO on City of Prior Lake equivalency process
6/9/06
10. Memorandum to Shannon Lotthammer, PLSL WD on City of Prior Lake equivalency
process 6/9/06