The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-01-02 PACKET 08.D.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION, COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # � DATE 01/02/08 d , PREPARED BY: Engineerinq Jennifer Levitt ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR ��.��:��:��,��.�� COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST: Accept the findings of the City of Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review, adopt the record decision for this matter, and direct staff to submit the required nondegradation review documents, including the proposed SWPPP modifications, to the MPCA in compliance with requirements of the MS4 permit by the February 1, 2008 deadline. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: � the It is recommended that the City Council accept the findings of the City of Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review, adopt the record of decision for this matter, and direct staff to submit the required nondegradation review documents, inciuding the proposed SWPPP modifications, to the MPCA in compliance with the requirements of the MS4 permit by the February 1, 2008 deadline. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: � MEMO/LETTER: Jennifer Levitt December 26, 2007. � RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: Record of Decision on the City of Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review. ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: .._, '� / � � ...�:.-� �e._L�1��'�" :�� '�City Administrator > 2 - G�'> - ry ° � Date ��,��,.��<�� COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER �� CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator From: Jennifer M. Levitt, P.E., City Engineer Date: December 26, 2007 Re: Record of Decision on the City of Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review Backaround/Discussion Minnesota nondegradation rules for all waters specify conditions for discharges to surface waters that have occurred since 1988. They support state policy to protect waters from significant degradation and to maintain uses, habitats, and water quality in these waters. These state policies were put in place in order to comply with the 'antidegradation' part of the Federal Clean Water Act passed in 1972. In 2003, the MPCA was sued by the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy over the State's alleged noncompliance with the antidegradation rules. As part of the court action, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled specifically that the permit issued by the MPCA to conditionally authorize stormwater discharge from an MS4 system under the NPDES program had to address nondegradation requirements in the rules. To comply with the court action, 30 municipalities were selected to do a`Nondegradation Review'. Cottage Grove is one of the 30 permitted MS4s that need to complete a Nondegradation Review. The City Council on October 3, 2007 authorized the distribution of the Nondegradation Review for public review and comment following a presentation on the report. The comment period has expired and the next step is to submit the Record of Decision on the City of Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review to the MPCA, along with the proposed SWPPP modifications to the City's MS4 permit before February 1, 2008. Recommendation It is recommended that the Council accept the findings of the City of Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review, adopt the record of decision for this matter, and direct staff to submit the required nondegradation review documents, inciuding the proposed SWPPP modifications, to the MPCA in compliance with the requirements of the MS4 permit by the February 1, 2008, deadline. RESOLl7T10N NO. 08- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS OF THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE NONDEGRADATiON REVIEW, ADOPTING THE RECORD OF DECISION FOR THIS MATTER, AND DIRECTfNG STAFF °TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED NONDEGRADATION REVIEW DOCUMENTS, WCLUDING THE PROPOSED SWPPP MODIFICATIONS, TO THE MPCA IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MS4 PERMIT BY THE FEBRUARY 1, 2008, DEAD�INE. WHEREAS, the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requires the City of Cottage Grove to complete a Nondegradation Review for all waters; and WHEREAS, the Nondegradation Review consists of a Loading Assessment addressing total phosphorus, total suspended solids, and storm water runoff volume based on land uses in 1988, 2005, and 2020; and WHEREAS, the findings of the Loading Assessment must be used to prepare a Nondegradation Report, including any modifications to the City's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); and WHEREAS, based on the findings of the City of Cottage Grove's Nondegradation Review, the City is requesting a determination from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that the City's storm water management program with the addition of the proposed SWPPP modifications is adequate to meet the state's nondegradation requirements; and WHEREAS, a thirty-day public comment period was held and responses to comments received during that tirne were compiled in a Record of Decision; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cottage Grove City Council hereby accepts the findings of the City of Cottage Grove's Nondegradatron Review, adopts the Record of Decision for this matter, and directs staff to submit the required Nondegradation Review documents, including the proposed SWPPP modifications, to the MPCA in compliance with the requirements of the MS4 permit by the February 1, 2008, deadiine. Passed this 2" day of January, 2008. Sandra Shiely, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk Record of Decision On the Crty of Cottage Grove Nondegradation Revrew 1. Project Description In 2006, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) revised the Municipai Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit program to require 30 municipalities from across the state, whose stormwater discharges are authorized by the MS4 permit, to complete additional work called a"Nondegradation Review" for ali waters (MN R. 7050.0185). The intent of the Review was to enable the MPCA to determine whether the state's nondegradation ruies are being met as a function of the permit requirements. Cottage Grove is one of the 30 selected municipalities to which this Nondegradation Review requirement applies. Pursuant with the MS4 permit, the City's Nondegradation Review includes the foilowing parts; • Loading Assessment • Nondegradation Report • Proposed SWPPP Modifications • Public and local Water Authority Comments on the modifications to the City's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Pian (SWPPP), with a Record of Decision on the Comments • Application to Modify the Permit 2. Public Input Process 2.1. Public Review and Input Public notices and publicly available document copies were utilized to solicit comments on the City of Cottage G�ove Nondegradation Review. The City of Cottage Grove held a 30 day public comment period for the City ofCottage Grove Nondegradation Reviewthat commenced on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 and ended on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. Notification of the public comment period was provitled via a legal advertisement in the South Washington County Bulletin (the newspaper of record for the City of Cottage Grove; see Appendix A), via the City's website at www.cottaae- arove.oro/oublic works environment stormwatecshtml, antl via wmplete transmittals to the South Washington Watershed District (SWWD) and Lower St Croix Watershed Management Organization (LSCWMO) — see Appendix B. Copies of the public review draft of the City of Cottage Grove Nondeg�adation Reviewwere made available at the front desk of the City's Public Works Facility. As directed by the MPCA MS4 permit, the City provided the opportunity for the local water authorities withjurisdiction in Cottage Grove to review and comment on the proposed SWPPP modifications. Hard copies of the public review draft of the City of Cottage Grove City oT Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review Record of Pecision Nondegradation Reviewwere mailed to the SWWD and LSCWMO at the start of the comment periotl. 2.2. Comments Received The SWWD provided the City with written review comments on the CityofCottage 6rove Nondeg�adation Reviewdated November 20, 2007. A letter from the LSCWMO (dated November 21 ", 2007) was received by the City stating that the LSCWMO reviewetl the City of Cottage 6rove Nondeg�adation Reviewand requesting that the City present the Nondegradation Reviewat an upcoming LSCWMO board meeting. Copies of the letters receivetl from the SWWD and LSCWMO are included in Appendix C. 2.3. Responses to Comments The City prepared a written response to the comments submitted by the SWWD. The written response is included in Appendix D. The meeting minutes from the City's presentation of the City ofCottage Grove Nondegradation Reviewat the LSCWMO board meeting on December 12`", 2007, is aiso providetl in this Appendix. 2.4. Document Revisions • Clarification regarding the term "directly tributary" found in Sections 3.3.1.1, 3.3.3.2, antl 3.3.12.1 of the Loading Assessment wili be provided to address the SWWD Comment #9. • Section 3.3.12.1 will be revised to remove reference to Ravine Park Lake being impaired for fish Habitat, to address the SWWD Comment #10. • The estimated percent increase in runoff voiume between the Present and 2020 conditions assuming no changes to the City's current stormwater management program will be added to Key Finding #5 in Section 2 of the Nondegradation Report. • Atlditionally, several minor revisions to the public review draft edition of the Nondegradation Review were made to the final document that wili be submitted to the MPCA. No substantive changes to the Nondegradation Review occurred as a resuit of these minor corrections. These minor revisions were identified through internal review of the document during the comment period antl feli into the following categories of corrections: o Grammatical errors o Formatting inconsistencies o Typographic errors o Clarifications City of Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review Record of Uecision 3. Cottage Grove City Council Action On INednesday lanuary 2"d, 20Q8, the Cottage Grove City Council atlopted a resolution at its regularly scheduled meeting to accept the results and recommendations of the City of Cottage Grove's Nondegratlation Review and submit the required elements to the MPCA to compiy with Appendix D of the General Permit. A copy of that resolution is includetl in Appendix E of this document. Appendices A C D E. South Washington County Bulletin Advertisement Transmittal Letters Comments Received City Response to Comments Received Cottage Grove City Council Resolution City of Cottage Grove \ondegrxdation Review Record of Decision Appendix A— South Washington County Bulletin Advertisement City of Cottage Grovz Nondegradation Review Record of Decision BCJLLETIN 1VEWSPAPI!;RS t ° ANT3 TN Jt)ICE STATE OF MIN�iESOTA ) }ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) �PC�' C7F �OT'd't1CxE GI. . �d . k2EVII+;i�' Po�sunne with the City af Cottagu Groee Ylunicipn! $epanate Storm &we'r S}stein MS4) L"renttal Pe�it. the City oF Cottage Grove tiav completcv), (�, �:on�K��dation [2eview, The City'y Nondegradation Review include,9 � nunlegj,�datamt analysis (Loircliny Assess�nfl and dncuments how tlte C(�y inte�Ms to addre.ss nondegr�datlon iules (NondeS�yiion 2epoK an<C Propoa�{ SWPPp N[�jg�y�1O113}, ae outtined i� the M94 C�n¢�y PenniL 7'hc pu�lic is innted lo rerieW and co�nmenL on ihis dpcmnCnt beginning We�esday, OcroUcr (Rh, ZIXp Writfen re.viem commenLS mpst he s4&�nilYCd � by •} p m, on Friday. piovomUer 21st. 2Up7, Io City L;ngineee Jennifer Levrtt nt the foI- dowing address Ciry of Cotfaga Grove PuBlic ROika Attrc Tennifer I,cvitt 8635 R�c�at Yoint Da¢glas $o�d Sovth ' Cntue�e Croye,llN 55676-7318 On WednPaday, Octobcr 17th, ?Otr7, u wpy 6f thc Crty oP Com�ge Gtove Nondeyradapon Review tvil( be posted op Ihe City of Co((yg� Grave a�z6 site: www.cpttug�grp�.�,qK, A hard copy of lhe doruuten( i�� y� available at thc fmnt desk uf tfie Ciry oPCut4age Crove Yuhiic Wfl�k F'aciYily, . IP�tilrshublan Uie Scu4i W�h{n��pa County . RutlePlxrtua `SNedncsdaY. Oaober 67, 206T -- and,Wec}yr;s,tr9uy, Octnber'?tt, 2(1(Y7,) _ Diane Beedy &eing duly swoni, on oafl� saqs that ha/she is the publisher or authonzad ageat uid emplayee of the publisher of the newspap�r known as Tha South P/ashington County Bulletm and/or Tha 4Voodbury Bulletin, and has fidl k��owledge of che facks which are stuted below: (A) The newspaper has compiied wich ail of che requiraments constimiiag qualifioation as a legal newspaper, as providcd by Mianesota Statuie 33I.02, 331.06, aad other applieaUte laws as amended. (B) TheprinCed '1 D) ' . -: r^ ' Ld�I'yf:�5' �.9��' �fl��3�+:�a�l,Y)�3`�`Id� �E�T�':`N'V ��. �"�`�."� ��' ��`�'7't$Ci�+' C�ROV� li/($AVIQ'SPAI. JEP(11d1�'1"�C' S'�'Q$14�I .�i�4V$�,A2 :i S'4`5��:11� which is at[ached was cat from the colmm�s of said newspaper, and was printed and pubtished once a week, for 2 week(s); it was first published on Wednesday. 17ih day oC October, 20d7 and was thereafter printed and publ�shed on everv Wednesdny to and including Wednesday. the ?4th day uf October, 2007. BY: /�J(IL�YV(,� �,f,.f GG`i ... TITL,�,: ,�i77'ItORTZED AGANT (J Subscribed and sworn to before nie on this 24th day of 6ctober, 2007. p /" — � �;.wimrr�.v>wawam�w�vx«s�rvw. va �--- �-- � � G3Eht1 �1 �iAY NotaryPnblic, Washine�"County, �4 raurnrr�NUa�3��Mi�vr+eau�n My Commissiun Fxpires �� • • • • . � ;�Y �, :�°��:",�;'Q"s 2010 .mewro`e ' •, aawewe., Reference Order # 20443509 �+��J: � ��.�D�1 First HvSextSon: �3inches, S Add'1 Tnsertions 3+�P,.7:)–Z.Y �g+� f @ '� �d3.70/in, A $ �Z��O � $10:70/ine = � 42.8U Tota1 = $ $5�60 ��3cr:,9it.c& Y�::/°ji;�� 1 � : �.'' Appendix B — Transmittal Letters City of Cottage Grove Nondegradation Revie�v Record of Uecision 2335 Highway 36 W St Paul, MN 55113 tel 65L636-4600 Pax 657-636-1371 www bonestroo com October 11, 2007 Lower St Croix Watershed Management Organization Attn: Jennifer Olson, Administrator 651 Haie Avenue Oaktlale, MN 55128 Re: Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review City of Cottage Grove Bonestroo File No.: 48-07-261 Dear lennifer, s e ' 11 On behalf of the City of Cottage Grove, please find a copy of the Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review. Pursuant with the City of Cottage Grove Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permii, the City of Cottage Grove has completed its Nondegratlation Review. The City's Nondegradation Review inciudes a nondegradation analysis (Loading Assessment) and tlocuments how the City intends to address nondegradation rules (Nondegradation Report and Proposed SWPPP Modifications), as outlined in the MS4 General Permit. Consistent with the MS4 General Permit, the City's completed Nondegradation Review is presented to the lower St Croix Watershed Management Organization (LS�WMO) for review and comment as part of the public review period beginning Wednesday, October 17' 2007. Please provide written review comments to Jennifer Levitt, by 4 p.m. on Friday, November Z7", 2007, at the following address: City of Cottage Grove Public Works Facility Atm: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer 8635 West Point Douglas Road South Cottage Grove, MN 55016-3318 The City woultl be available to present the findings of the Nontlegradation Review to the LSCWMO Board at the upcoming November Board Meeting. Please contact me Jennifer Leviit (651-458-2890) if you are interested in a City presentation of the Nondegradation Review. if you have any questions regartling this submittai, please contact me at 651-604-4801. Sincerely, Brad Schleeter, PE Bonestroo, Inc Cc: Jennifer Levitt, Cottage Grove City Engineer 2335 liighway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax651-636-7317 www bonestroo <om October 11, 2007 South Washington Watershed District Attn: Matt Moore, Administrator 2301 Tower Drive Woodbury, MN 55125 Re: Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review City of Cottage Grove Bonestroo Fiie No.: 48-07-261 Dear Matt, _ �' w � ` On behalf of the City of Cottage Grove, please find a copy of the Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review. Pursuant with the City of Cottage Grove Municipai Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit, the City of Cottage Grove has completetl its Nondegratlation Review. The City's Nondegradation Review indudes a nondegradation analysis (Loading Assessment) and documents how the City intends to address nondegradation rules (Nondegradation Report and Proposed SWPPP Modifications), as outlined in the MS4 Generai Permit. Consistent with the MS4 General Permit, the City's completed Nondegradation Review is presented to the South Washington Watershed District (SWWD) for review and comment as part of the public review period beginning Wednestlay, October 17' 2007. Please provide written review comments to lennifer Levitt, by � p.m. on Friday, November 27", 2007, at the following adtlress: City of Cottage Grove Public Works Facility Attn: Jennifer Levitt, Ciry Engineer 8635 West Point Dougias Road South Cottage Grove, MN 55016-3318 The City would be available to present the findings of the Nondegradation Review to the SWWD Boartl at the upcoming November Board Meeting. Please contact me Jennifer Levitt (651-458-Z890) if you are interested in a City presentation of the Nondegradation Review. If you have any questions regarding this submittai, please contact me at 651-604-4807. Sincerely, Brad Schleeter, PE Bonestroo, Inc Cc: Jennifer Levitt, Cottage Grove City Engineer 2335 Highway 36 W St Paul, MN 55113 Tei657�636-4600 Fax 651-636-t3ll www.banesreoo.com November 1, 2007 Minnesota Poilution Contro! Agency Attn: Scott Fox S20 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Re: Cottage Grove Nondegradation Rpview Ciry af Cattage Grove Bonestroo File No.: 48-07-261 Dear Scatt, . `. : 1 "� �.: . �. �:! 1 This letter is sent to inform you that pursuant with the tiry of Cottage Grove Muniripal Separate Storm Sewer System {MS4) General Permit, the Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review is currendy out for public review and comment. The City opened the public review comment period on Wednesday, October t lth, 2007, and will close the review and comment period on Friday, November 27 st, 2007. Consistent with the MS4 General Permit, the City is noticing the Nandegradatian Review as follows: . The Ciry is running a public natice in the South Washington taunty eulletin that indudes a link to the City's website informing the public as to where a copy af the Nondegradation Review can be viewed. . The Ciry is posting an electronic version of the Nondegradation Review on the Ciry website: httn:l/www.cottaae-arove,ora/nublic works environment stormwatershtml • The tity is making a hard mpy of the Nondegradation Review available at the front desk of the City Public Warks Faciliry, • A hard capy of the Nondegradation Review was sent to both the South Washinqton Watershed Oistrict and the Lower St Goix Watershed Management Organization, the iwo watershed management organizations with jurisdidion within the Ciry, The City will compile ail submittal notices and review comments on the Nondegradation Review in an official Rewrd af Decision that will 6e included within the Publicandlota/Yt�aterAutho�ityCommentstab in the Nondegradation Review, prior to submittal to the NiPCA by February 1, 2008. Sinterely, �� Brad S� PE Bonesiroo, inc Cc: Jennifer Levitt, Cottage Grove Ciry Engineer Appendix C — Comments Received Ciry of Cottage Grove Nondegradation Revielv Record of Decision November 20, 2007 Ms. Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer City of Cottage Grove 8635 West Point Douglas Road Cottage Grove, MN 55016-3318 RE: City of Cottage Grove Non-degradation Plan. Dear Ms. Levitt: The South Washington Watershed District (SW WD) has reviewed the City of Cottage Grove Non-degradation Plan. The review of the plan was completed by Hottston Engineering Ina Attached am the comments prepared by Houston Engineering, Inc. on Ule loading assessmeut prepared by Bonestroo for the City of Cottage Grove. Comments regarding the non-degradation plan are intended to provide the basis for local cooperation. The SW WD would like to thank you for the opportunity to revicw the plan. While ihe preparation of the plan is complicated, it demonstrates the important role Cities have in managing water resources. Maintaining and improving water quality will require involvement of all local government units. If you have any questions or need additional i��formation, please call me at 651.7 (4.3729 or mmoore(n�,ci.woodburv.mn.us. Sincerely, South Washington Watershed District ..r-' Matt Moore Administrator c: SWWD Board ofManagers �\fp3�mmome5\swwd\CGp�ojects\NomDeg�Fina4Cottaye Gmce Nondegradanon l'ommevts-Nov201etter doc 8301 Valley Creek Road � Woodbury, MN 55125 • 651-714-3729 • Fax 651-714-3721 �E�l� k , °�i l. Date: November 19, 2007 To: MattMoore, SWWD Executive Summary Houston Engineering, Inc. 6901 E. Fish Lake Rd. Ste. 140 Ph. (763) 493-4522 Maple Grove, MN 55369-5455 Fax (763) 493-5572 From: Wesley Saunders-Pearce Subject: Revicw of Cottage Grove Nondegradation Work Products Tlie purpose of this Memorandum is to summarize our review of the City of Cottage Grove's nondegradation wark products. Overall the work product is thorough, well-documented, defensible, and should meet the requirements as set forih by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The S W WD prefers local coordination of water management based on shamd expectations for resource quality. not through a generalized State mandate that adopts a calendar date as the "yardstick" to measure resource protection. The City of Cottage Urove is not responsible for this issue yet can share a role in achieving resolution. 2. Overview of Nondegradation Review 2.1 Purnose and Obiectives The purpose of this Memorandum is to summarize our review of the City of Cottage Grove's ("City") nondegradation work products, including the Loading Assessment Report (LAR), Nondegradation Report, and associated work products submitted. The South Washington Watershed District (SW WD) has previously reviewed the nondegradation work product submitted by the City of Woodbuiy (June 8, 2007). 'I'his Memorandum integrates Uie previous review in order to construct a compreheusive assessment of the implications for nondegradation efforts �vithin tlie watershed. The Minne�ta Pollution Control Agency (N[PCA) dces not require that nondegradation work products confo�m or comply with otlier local plans. No explicit guidelines have been established by the MPCA to help cities understand how to iutegrate State permit require�nents with local water plans. This Memorandum seeks to establish a closer coordination of water quality planning efforts at the local level, not currently provided or required by the State. In that context, key objectives for this review were to: 1. Assess and evaluate consistency of Cottage Grove nondegradation work products in addressing and meeting standards proposed by SW WD (approved Watershed Management Plan); 2. Identify potential concerns or issues regarding achieving consistency in watershed modeling and assessment approaches; and, 3. Highlight issues or opportunities far the SW W D in moving forward in concert with member cities for effective watershed management. • Page 1 of 5 MEMO 22 Lessons Leamed Several lessons were learned as an outcome of the nondegradation review and comment process with the City of Woodbury. These lessons help refine the nondegradation review and comment process for the Ciry of Coitage Cirove. � Although the SW WI) intends to establish a consistent modeling and assessment approach for stonnwater, the nondegradation review process is not a suitable forum to seek resolution of this issue. There is no requirement that cities coinply with comments provided, so issues of technical nature are moot poinis of discussion. Thus, it will be critical to understand if and how the Cities intend to implement the modeling parameters to evaluate projects, and resolve these issues tl�rough the SW WD draft Standards Manual. ° Numeric outcomes oI'the nundegradation work products are valid only within the conte�ct oY the pennit requirements. The outcomes are intended to provide an illustration to the MPCA of the relative change of stormwater discharges within a city boundary. Watershed- scale plarn�ing efforts are inhemutly not comparable. • There is no guidance on how to frame comments and input.l'he MPCA states that "in the nondegradation plan we would expect the MS4 and the watershed district would work together to provide arguments to the MPCA regarding what additional measures are reasonable for a given community."� Further, "the intention is that these groups will work together to create a Nondegradation Report that is acceptable to the pub(ic and other afYected parties. Ultimate approval can oiily be granted by the MPCA, but this process will go a long way toward resolution ofpotential conflicts: " Therefore, the lesson learned is tliatthe SWWD should focus comments where it will have greatest benefit, which is to seek clarity and improve integration and coordination at the local scale. 3. C�eneral Comments Overall the City nondegradation work product is thorough, well-documented, defensible, and should ineet the requirements as set forth by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. I Iowever, there are certain elements at a broad level which merit comment. 3.1 Tnteeration and Imnlementation Issues The City nondegradation work plan generally illustrates that pollutant loads for nutrients and solids are mitigated to 1988 levels using stormwater management practices currently prescribed by the City. The technical approach utilized by the City was highly similar to tlie work product prepared by the City of Woodbury. However, several differences in key assumptions were apparent between the work products including annual runoff coefficients and rainfall inputs. These differences are neither correct or incorrect, nor better or worse, but illustrate the ultimate need for consistency ui model parameters for local planning within the watershed. ' MPCA Draft Guidance Material, page 85. z ibid, page 93. • Page 2 of 5 rii . _ p+'��y�' MEnno ■ Comment # 1: Does the City envision utilizing and implementing the modeling performed for the Nondegradation Report beyond the required submittal to the MPCA, and if so, how? For instance, does the City intend to evaluate the impacts of new deve(opments based on assumptions within the Report? The City's Local Stu�face Water Management Plan (LS WMP) cannot solely rely on the outcomes oPthe nondegradation report to address the City's responsibility in watershed-scale water quality issues such as Total MaYnnwn Daily Load (TMDL) studies or S W WD standards for recciving waters. Because of llie fundamental difference in resource management approach, the numeric endpoiuts for controlling nutrient and runoff volume loads are different between the LAR vid the S W WD standards. The LSWMP must also appropriately reference and incorporate resource-based goals, and ensure projects are designed according tu those goals. � Comment #2: Does the City recognize and acknow(edge the need and value for a standardized approach across member cities for modeling witY�in the watershed, so that goals and implementation efforts for resouroe protectiou can be cooperative a�id consistent? 3.2 Volumc Control Tmnlementation T'he City nondegradation work product discusses numerous uistances where stormwater runoff infillration is considered inappropriate given certain criteria and guidance. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) document'`Evaluating Proposed Storm Water Infiltration Projects ui Vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas" was referenced and included in tlie City wark product. ■ Commcnt #3: To facilitate closer coordination of state efforts at the local leveL the S W WD WMP also refers to iV1DH guidance regarding inf'iltration practices. However, other nonstrucriiral volume control practices are available for use beyond infiltration, and the SW WD provides tools to assist incorporating such practices into project sites. The City incorporates verbiage which illustrates intent -but not an absolute commitment—to comply with volume control benchmarks set by the MPCA. Specifically, in Section 3:L? ufthe Nondegradation Repori, it states "In order to address the City's nondegradation noncompliance with stormwater runoff volume, the City will strive to achicve nondegradation standards for new development not located witlun a DWSMA to the maximum estent practicable." � Comment #k}: The City should clarify 'vi their response how they envision use of their nondegradation position on volume control to the NIPCA. Will the position be integrated into the LSWMP? It is difficult to understand esactly to what the City is committing and seems to imply that volume control will not be pursued within any D W SMA. W hile the conservative nature of the position is understandable in the context of nondegradarion, it is important that the City LS WMP clearly incorporate the standards within the S W WI� Watcrshed Management Plan ( WMP). If left unresolvcd, there will likelv be substantial difficultv in the SW WD annrovine the Citv's I.ocal Surface Water Manaee�nent Plan. W hat does the City anticipate as a solution to achieving resolution? � � � ,,, �, � —_�.._.__. • Page 3 of 5 N1EM0 The City does noi intend to pursue volume control in areas discharging to the Mississippi River, as referenced in Section 3.2.6 and Section 3.d of the Nondegradation Report. � Comment #5: How will the City reconcile SW WD WMP volume control requirements for new development in areas dischatging to the Mississippi River with their stated position, which takes exception to volume control for discharges to the Mississippi River. 33 Receivine Watcr / Evaluation Points Several evaluation points in the City nondegradation plan have ovedap with the SW WD WMP and draft Standards Manuai. These points include Ulendenning Pond, Ravinc Park Lake, and the Mississippi River. Projects in these watersheds will still be held to more stringeut requirements set by the WMP. ' Comment #6: The City should briefly clariCy in their response how they intend the LS WMP to address conformance widi the allowable nutrient loads set forth within the SW WD WMP. � Comment #7: 'T'he City should be advised that die draft Standards Manual includes an allowable load for discharges to the Mississippi River. Ultimately the S W WD intends that the drafi Standards Manual content will be integrated into a Rule Update. a. 4.1 Technical Comments Runoff Coefficient Adiushnent Ratio Model parameters for the City nondegradation analysis account for differences in annual runoff volume due to soil type. This is generally consistent with the intent of the S W WD WN� and is a commendable step in the modeling process. [t is evident there was no previous methodology to utilize for deteimining an adjusUnent ratio for �unoffvolume between soil types. TAe City utilized a model (P-8) estenial to the PondNet model to objectively determine an adjustment ratio. • Comment #8: The SW WD generally discourages the use of two (or more) disparate models to assist in hydrology computations and assessments. However, the approach taken is undcrstandable and the overall intent and provides value in characterizing variabiliry across the landscape. �3.2 Drainaee Area and Dischartes to Mississinpi River The City observcs that 2Q757 acres are directly hibutary to the Mississippi River via multiple discharge points, and increases by 416 acres in 2020 conditions. • Comment #9: Ihe City should clarify what is ineant by directly tributary. The statement seems to imply that there is vo stormwater runofftreahnent or urtermediate receiving water for this drainage area to the Mississippi River. More unportantly, this creates confusion with the posirion taken by the City regarding direct discharges to a 4 order stieam or river, which is perceived as an exception to nondegradation volwne control requirements. A proper articulation of this term is essential to understand the scope ofthe desired exception. • Page 4 of 5 'r t, � , � --.�.._ __-._ i MEMo For instancc, page 54 of the LAR notes "discharge from the Ravine Park Lake is directly tributary to the Mississippi River." �3.3 Dischar�e to Ravine Park Lake in Section 3.3.12.) ofthe LAR the City observes Ravine Park Lake is listed as impaired for excess nuh•ients and fish habitat. ° Comment #10: The lake is impaired only for excess nutrients. However, the ravine system tributary to the lake is nnpaired for aquatic life based on fish bioassessment. The City can refer to Map 8.7 of the S W WD WMP to see a representation of impaired waters, theu• stressurs, and their affected uses. 4.4 Summarv of Kev Findin�s from the Loadin� Assessment Key finding #5 swnmarizes increases in modeled runoffvolume for the Project Area, noting roughly a 10% increase behveen the Baseline and Current conditions. • Comment # I 1: For compieteness, the City should provide a nwneric estimation of the inerease in modeled runoff volume for the Project Area between the Present and 2020 conditions. • Page 5 of 5 � � s ' , , , , , , ' � - NOV-26-2007 MON 12;21 PM cottage grove pubiie wks FAX N0, 651 458 6�80 P, 02/02 IOW�:�Cll� iNAT�RSi �ER MANAGEM�PJT ORGANI2ATION GS7 Hale Avenue Norch Oakdale, MN SSl2a Novernber 21 20Q7 City of Cottag� �rove Public Worka FACility Arin: 7enni�er L�vitt, City Lngineer 8b35 West Point I)ouglas Road Sr�uth Cottage Grove, MI�I 55016�3318 Re; Cotla�e Grove :�londegradation Review 7e1: 651 a70•8448 Fax:651-770-a552 7ennifer Wa have recently Completed a cursory review oF the CiCy's Nonde�radation Review ��ocmnent an behal�' of the Lowar St. Croix Waler Management Or�anizalion, In general we agree with the technical approach used to assess watershed loading, VJhile we dic{ not review Ylie analysis in �ret�C detail, we were pleased Yo see that a Icind use hased EiMC methadolosy was used. This is a similar appxpach to that whiclt we used in assessing (oads to Q'Conner's I�alca. It is an excellent Cit far the level of data �vailable for the area. In reviewin� the speeific infatmation d�velopad fox the twa subwatersheds within tkie Lawer St. Croix WN10 we note that the assumpCion has been rnade that theTe wilt be ^+TO deve iapm�nt within the po�Cion of Cottage �'izove which drains to O'Canner's Creek. While we leel ihat khere lilcely wit] ba some devclopment in 41iis area between now and 2020, it will likely b+. minor and the WMO's Rules will sufi�ciently address any potential impacts. We were pleased to sea that the WM4's volnme enntrol rules were mentioned and want to commend the Cit�y for sttating that you intend ta estabtish palicies aimed at runoi'� volume mitigation and desir8 to have n uniform infiltratinn standard City-wide. 'Thank you for the opportunity to review and commenl on this report. We Ic�ok fori�vard to ltaving a representative from the City present the xeport at the upcoming LSCWM� board meeting. Sineerely, t^'' � `�'� Patrick d Conrad � Emmans & 171ivier Rasources c.c. LSCWMO Board of Managers Tracey Pritze r � � 4a� ''„ I �; I�1�� Kathy H4gg+ns, Jim I<e{ler, Tim Power, Alternace Vice CMatr Chair L�enmark �enmerk Afton T„wnchin 7awnship Appendix D— City Response to Comments Received City of Cottage Grove Nondegradation Review Record of Decision Appendix E- Cottage Grove City Council Resolution City of Cottage Grove Nnndegradation Review Aecord of Dacision City of �.O�fcP. �2 �COV@ � Minnesota Department of Public Wor!<s 9C35 Wes: �o��rt �n�qlas kcad bn,a�h /'�cflape Grouc�, b7mnesn[� 5501E-3 ;ifl www.cottaqe-grnve orG December 12, 2007 South Washington Watershed District Attn: Matt fUoore, Administrator 5301 Valley Creeh Road Woodbury, IV1I� 55125 RE: lVon-Degradation Review Comment Response Dear Mr. Moore: ti5'-;5&2£lOb FsH E` TpC� aF1.458-28&0 7he South Washington Watershed District (SUVWD) provided comments on the City's draft Non-degradafion Review in a memo from Houston Engineering. dated November �9, 2007. The foilowing is the City of Cottage Grove's response to the comments provided by the SWVi/D. The numbered comment provid2d by the SVWVD is listed iirst m ifalics, foliowed by the City's response. Comment �1: Does the City envisron utili�ing and implementing the modeling periormed for the Non-degradation Report beyond the requirad submittai to the MPCA, and if so, hotn�? For instance, does the City rntend to evaluate the impacts oi new d2velopments based on assumptions within the Repoi? The City's Locai Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) cannof solely rely on the outcomes of the non-degradation report to address the City's responsfbrlity in Vdatershed-scale water quality issues such as Toia( Maximum Darly Load (TMDL) studies or SINWD standards for receiving waters Because of the fundamental difference in resource management approach, the numeric endpoints far controlling nutrient and runotf volume /oads are ditferent between the LAR and the SVVWD standards. The LSW(�fP must also appropriately reference and u�corporate resource-based goals, and ensure projects are designed according to those goa(s. Th c�ty �'s Loading Assessment presents the mod2led pollutant loads aY various locations wifhin Cottage Grove at three time periods as specified in the 2006 MS4 General Permit. The modeling resul'ts are presented on a broad City-wide scale for the purposes of a comparative analysis between three time periods. It is noi the intent of the Non-degradation Review to be site specific, but rather analyze poilutant Ioads within Cottage Grove on a broad scale. The mocJel developed for the Loading Assessment provides the City with a valuable water quality modeling tool for both small and large modeling applications however the City acknowledges that certain modeling assumptions identified within the Loading Assessment may not be appropriate for smali site scale anaiyses and would need to be modified for such an appiication. Addressing the City's responsibility in watershed-scala wat2r o,uality issues sucn as TMDL studies or Sl/VWD standards for receiving waters is outside of the scope of the Non-degradation R�view and wi6 oe addresseci either in the City's Locaf SurFace Water �ouAL pPPGP.TUNITY EI.4PL0'; =R CNanagement Plan (LSWMP) or in response ta a specific TI�DL Implamentation Plan. The City's LSWMP will appropriately reference and mcorporate ihe resource-based goais identified by the SWWD_ Comment #�' Does the City recognrze and ackno�ndedge the need and value for a standardized approach across member cities for modelrnq within the �vatershed, so that ,qoals and rmplementation efforts for resource protect�on can be cooperative and consisient? The City recognizes that there may be a benefit to a stand�rdized approach �or modeling within the watershed to protect valuable resources thai are impacted by multiple municipalities, but as stated in the SW1ND comment memo, "the non-degradation review process is not a suitable forum to seek resolution of [the issue of a consistent modeling and essessment apqroach]". Comment #3. To facilitate closer coordinafion of state efforts at the local level, the S�t�IND WMP also refers to MDH guidance regarding inirltration practices. Nowever, oth�r nonstructural volume control practices are avarlable for use beyond infiltration, and the SWWD provides tools to assist incorporating such practices rnto project sites. The SWWC Watershed Management Plan does include a reference to the iUinnesota Department of Health (tv1DH) guidance for the use of infiitration practices within Vulnerable Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMA), but mekes no reference to how the MDH guldance affects the SWWD volume control standard. The City acknowledges that there are other nonstructural volume controi practices that address volume control to some degree. however. in c�rtafn areas where infiltraiion is not appropriate per MDH guidelines, it is unclear hom� the SWWD voiume control requirement can be fully me± using other nonstructural volume controi �ractices without either piacing an unfair financial burden on the daveloper or forcing a charge to the City's land use designation. Comment #4: The City shou(d clanfy in their response how they envrsion use of tneir non-degradation position on volume control to the MPCA. Wi!( the position be rntegrated i�ito the LSIN�P� It is cfrtficult to understar�d exactly to what the City is committing and seems to imply that volume control will not be pursued within any DVI/Sf�A. While the conservative natu�e oi the position is undersrandable in the context of non-degradation, ii is important that the City LSWMP clearly incorporate the standards within tha SWW�J Watershed Management Plan (WMP) If left unresolved, there will likely be substantial difficidty rr� the SI�M/D approving the City's Local Sur`ace Wafer fulanagement Plan. What does the Cify anticipate as a solution to achieving resolution? The City is committed to providmg a safe drinking water supply fo ihe residents of Cottage Grove and will iollow the guidance inciuded m the City's Welineao Protection Plan, as well as the guidance provided by the MDH regarding the use of infiltra'tion withir. Vulnerable DVVSfVAs. The City's "position" regarding iniiltration and tha protection of the City's drinlang water supplies will be reflected in the City's new volume control standard as presented in ihe Ci±y's Local Surface Water I�anagement Plan (LSWMP) Ragarding achieving resolution between the City's new volume control standard and the SWWD volume control standard, for areas where infiitration is feasible, the Citys standard wiil be consisten` with 'the SWWD s`andard. In ar�as wher� i �filtration is not feasible due to the City's "position" of not iniiltrating within Vulnerable DWSIVIAs per fv1DH guidance to protect ihe City's muniapal driniung Urater supply, ihe Ciiy believes that the SWWD �mouid be unjustified m requinng the City tc go against the guidance in its own We!Ihead Pre+.ec[ion Plan and the iviDH to receive approval of the LSWI�iP from the SWiND. Comment #5: Now wNI the City reconcile SVVVVD VI/(t�P volume contro( requrrements for new developmer�t in areas dischargmy to tlie Mi�sissrppi River w�ith the�r stated position. whir,h lakes exceptron to volume contro! for discharpes to the Miss�ssipp� River. Within the non-degradation context, the regulatory mterest in volume control is driven by channel protection and receiving waterbody degradation concerns. -he City is stating that in areas where stormwater discharges to neither a small channel section (3` order or lower) nor a receiving waterbody affected by runoff volume increases, that the intent of provicling volume control would be negUted and therefore not be appropriate. That said, this partic+.alar policy and it's consistency with the SIA/WD volume control reauirament vvill be addressed in thc LSWfJIP process. it should be no'ted that there are very few arezs within the City where storn�water wilf not discharge to a smail channei section (3" order or lower) or a receiving waterbody affected by runoff uolume increases. Areas where this argument could apply indude Grey Cloud island and portions of the South and Southwest Disfricts where storm sewer wili discharge directiy to the Mississippi P.iver. Additional ianguage iNill be added in Section 32.6 to clarify'.he intent and the scope of where this particular argument could be appiied Comm�nt #6: The City should bnefly clarify ir, the�r response how they intend the LSWMP ta address conformance with t,he allowable nutrienf loads set forth tvithin the SUI�tND Wfu1P. Addressing the allowable nutrieni loads set forth in the SWWD WMP is outside of the scope of the Non-degradation Review and will be addressed in the City's Local Suiface Water Management Plan (LSWMP). The City's LSWMP will appropriateiy reference and incorporate the resource-based goals ideniified by the SWWD. Commenf #7: The City shoul�' be advised fhaf the draft Standards Manua! ir�cludes an ellowable load ior clischarges to the /�iississrppi River. Ult/mately the Sl/I/WD intends that the draft Standards Manual conteni v✓ill be integraied into a Rule Update. ihe allowable Total Phosphorus load for discharges to the fNississippi r^.iver wili ba discussed in the City's LSWMP. Contment #8: The S�Nt/D generall,y discoirrages the use of two (or morel d;"sparate modeis to assist in li��dro�ogy computatior,s and assessments. Hovvever. tlie approach raken is understandable and the overaU intent provides value m charac'reri�ing variabiliry across the landscape. Noted CommerTf #9 The Cit�� should darify what is meant by direct(y tributar}�. The statement seems to imply that there �s no stonnwater runoff treatment or intermediate recerving water for thrs drarnaye area fo the Nrssissippi R�ver More m�portantly, th�s creates confusron wrth tl�e pcsi'tren fatret� l�y the City regardin,y direcl discharges to a�th order strearn or river; which is perceived as an exception to non-degradafion volume control requirements A proper articulatior� oi this tenn is essential to understand the scope of the desrred exception F-or rnstance, page 54 of the LAR notes "discP�arge from the Ravrne Park Lake is drrectly tributary to the Mi::sissippr Rn�er ". The term "directly tributary" (appearing in Sections 3 3.1 1 3 3.3?, and 3.3.12.1 of the Loading Assessment) is used to describe the tributary areas to various evaluaiion points that discharge to the fJ�ississippi River within Cottage Grove's muniapal bounda�y. The City did not intend to make any determination regarding the presence of stormwater runoff treatment or intermediate receiving waters by the use of "directly tributary" As indicated in response to Comment #5 regarding fhe scope of the City's volume control exception for discharges to 4"' Order or higher systems, there are only a few areas where this argument would be considered applicable. The City understands that the term "directly tributary" is confusing and will darify the Laading Assessmert as necessary. Comrnent #10: The lake is impaired only for excess nutrie�rts. Nom�ever, the ravrne system tnbutary fo tl�e lake is impaired for aquatic life based a� fish bioassessment. The City can refer fo Map B.7 of tt�e SV1M/D WMP to s2e a representation of impaired wa�ers, t/�eir stressors, and thelr atfecfed uses. Section 3.3.12.1 will be revised to remove referance ic P.avin2 Park Lake being impair2d for Fish Habi,at. Comment #11: Fo� completeness, the City shotdcJ provide a numeric esiimation oi the increase in modeled runotf volume for the Pro�ect Area between the Present and 2020 conditions. The estimated percent increase in runofF volume betw=en the Present and ?O20 conditions, assuming no changes to the City's currenr siormwater management program, will be added to Key Finding #5 in Sec'tion 2 0� the Non-degradation Report. ThanF; you `or your review and comm�nts on the City of Cottage Grove's �on- ciegradation Repo;t. Please feel free to contaci me ai 651-455-2890 if you have any questions or concerns regar�ing the responses provided ThanEc you, � __ _,:_� ,_' _ Jennlfer Levitt. P.E City Engineer C: Ryan Scnroeder, Howard Blin. Les Burshten — City of Cottaga Grove Brad Schleeter - Eonestroo