HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-13 PACKET 05.2.Washington
� COUnty
October 8, 2013
RE: Washington County Groundwater Plan 60 day review draft
Dear Plan Reviewer:
Board of Commissioners
Fran Miron, District 7
Ted Bearth, District 2
Gary Kriesel, DisTrict 3
Autumn Lehrke, District 4
Lisa Weik, District 5
Washington County has prepared the attached draft Washington County Groundwater Plan 2014-2024. The
proposed draft is in response to the current county groundwater plan expiring at the end of 2013. The draft plan
has been prepared in accordance with Minnesota Statute 103B.255. This draft plan is being submitted for the
required 60-day review period.
Please submit comments by November 29, 2013 to:
Jessica L. Collin-Pilarski
Washington County Department of Public Health and Environment
14949 62 Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082
Or email to:
jessica.collin-nilarski@co washingtom m� us
If you have any questions, please contact Jessica Collin-Pilarski at 651-430-6703 or at the above
referenced email.
Sincerely,
' /�A-�' G% V ��'��
Lisa We�k, Chair
Washington County Board of Commissioners
Government Center • 1494g 62nd Street Norih • P. O. Box 6• Stillwater, MN 55082-0006
Telephone:651-430-6001 • Fax:651-430-6017•TTY:651-430-6246
www.co.washington.mn. us
Washington County is an equal opportuniry organizatlon and employer
W A S H I N G T O N C O U N T Y
GROUNDWATER
PLAN
D R A F T
�
' �
y
� � g ,
� 5 �
� ' o' �T
�s�. .J _
w
I��� �—
i = "
� ' 7.-flQ<�'.
i ti
r� r
;� ��, � r� � �
- + '�4 - � �'L.. . . ' - ', � �,a :: . °' r
I���
y � . S .� ��iL��� � _ . ��J Y
7 ` r �
- - �t ' ' ���
� w�
5� ` � "
A � ti . ..
��' i
'- rt
/' p ' .
'7 ��'. . .� :#
,
�.-• . . ie ,. �'�* ++� ,. 'y" ' w- �, �.. � ;s
�� .,"��+'��, TAs��.+.
ri
` i. .
n
; �a �, ti. � . i , .
� ^� �� � � � �
`#
k 1
�'� !_{ "i' �i �.�. L ,���. � +.
A�F= -
r Y .. . .. L•i� +.
L
� - — _ � _ irr� Y— �_
�" �i r
�, �
Acknowledgements
2013 Washington County Board of Commissioners
Washington County, Minnesota
District 1 - Fran Miron
District 2 -Ted Bearth
District 3 - Gary Kriesel
District4-Autumn Lehrke,Vice Chair
District 5- Lisa Weik, Chair
Washington
•� C011rity
Design:
Lure Design
Photography:
Adam Frederick, Chris LeClair, Gary Bruns, Girard Goder, Karen Kill, Kathleen Nyquist, MN Department
of Health, MN Pollution Control Agency, Pete Ganzel, StarTribune, Stephanie Souter
Written by:
Washington County Department of Public Health & Environment with input from the Groundwater
Advisory andTechnical Advisory Committees and the Washington County Board of Commissioners
Staff to contact:
Jessica L. Collin-Pilarski
Senior Planner
651-430-6703
jessica.co II in-pila rski@co.washi ngton.m n.us
Washington County
Department of Public Health & Environment
14949 62nd St N
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Stephanie Grayzeck5outer
Associate Planner
651-430-6701
stepha nie.souter@co.washi ngton.m n.us
Washington County
Department of Public Health & Environment
14949 62nd St N
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Committee Members
KevTo Acronvms
Glossary of Terms
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Governance
1.2 Plan Implementation
13 Groundwater Issues & Plan Structure
2.0 Groundwater Resource Overview
3.0 Groundwater Supply
4.0 Groundwater and Surface Water Interaction
5.0 Source Water and Wellhead Protection
6.0 Existing Contaminants: VOCs and PFCs
7.0 Nutrients, Pesticides & Road Salt
8.0 Emerging Contaminants
9.0 Septic Systems
10.0 Land Spreading for Beneficial Use
11.0 Hazardous Waste
12.0 Mining
13.0 Landfills
14.0 ListofFigures
15.0 Aooendices
p. 01
p. 02
p. 07
p. 10
p.15
p. 33
p. 39
p. 45
p. 49
p. 55
p. 61
p. 63
p. 67
p. 69
p. 73
p. 75
p. 79
p.111
Committee Member Representation
Autumn Lehrke Commissioner Liaison District 4
Bob Fossum Citizen Member
Brian Bachmeier (began January 1, 2013) Municipal Government
Brian Johnson (ended December 31, 2012) Watershed District
Brian Zeller Water Management Organization
DaleSetterholm(beganJanuary1,2013) Hydrogeology
Daniel Belka Citizen Member
David Hume (ended December 31, 2012) I Hydroge
David Korte
Citizen Member
Elden Lamprecht (began February 19, 2013) I Agriculture
Jennifer Levitt (ended December 31, 2012) I Municipal Government
Mark Frazer
Patricia Snyder
Richard Thron
RickVanzwol
Robert Bankers
Steve Duff
Steve Kernik
�
Committee Member
Amanda Strommer
Amy Carolan
Brian Davis
Citizen Member
Municipal Government
Well Drilling
Watershed District
Construction Representative
Municipal Government
Municipal Government
•'
Representation
Washington County Public Health & tnvironment
Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization
Metropolitan Council
Doug Thomas
Jay Riggs
Jessica Collin-Pilarski
Jim Shaver
John Freitag
Kim Kaiser
Kris Keller
Lowell Johnson
Mary Peterson
Matt Moore
Molly Shodeen
Paul Putzier
Stephanie Souter
Stu Grubb
�
Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District
Washington Conservation District
Washington County Public Health & Environment
Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Washington County Public Health & Environment
Washington County Public Health & Environment
Board of Water & Soil Resources
South Washington Watershed District
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Natural Resources
Washington County Public Health & Environment
Grubb Environmental Services
� � . . � � i
BMP
BWSR
CRP
DNR
EAW
EIS
EOP
GIS
GPS
G WAC
HHW
IBP
SSTS
LG U
M DA
MDH
MGS
MPCA
MSW
MUSA
NRCS
NPEAP
PFC
PHE
PWS
RCRA
SCWRS
SSTS
STATE
SWCD
TAC
TMDL
USDA
UofM
VOC
WCA
WCD
WMO
Best Management Practice
t3oard ot Water & Sofl Kesources
Conservation Reserve Program
Minnesota Department ot Natural Resources
tnvfronmental Hssessment Worksheet
Environmental Impact Statement
Emergency Operations Plan
C,eographic Intormation Systems
Global Positioning System
Groundwater Advisory Committee
Household Hazardous Waste
Industrial By-Product
Subsurtace Sewage Ireatment System
Local Government Unit
Minnesota Department ot Agriculture
Nlfnnesota lJepartment ot Health
Minnesota Geological Survey
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Mixed Municipal Solid Waste
Metropolitan Urban Service Area
Natural Kesource Conservatfon Servfce
Non-Point Engineering Assistance Program
Perfluorochemicals
Washfngton County lJepartment ot Publfc Health & tnvfronment
Public Water Suppliers
Resource Conservation & Recovery Act
St. Croix Watershed Research Station
Subsurface Sewage Treatment System
State Government (unspecified)
Soil & Water Conservation District
Technical Advisory Committee
lotal Nlaxfmum lJafly Load
United States Department of Agriculture
University of Minnesota
Volatile Organic Compounds
Wetland Conservation Act
Washington Conservation District
Watershed Management Organization
This glossary provides definitions that are applicable to the region. Some definitions were
modified fo besf fif uniaue local condifions.
ifer: Rock or sediment in a formation,
that contains sufficient saturated
group of formations, or part of a formation
le material to vield economical auantities of
water to wells and
confined: A formation in which the aroundwater is isolated from the
atmosphere at the point of discharge by impermeable geologic formations. Confined
groundwater is generally subject to pressure greater than atmosphere.
Aquifer, unconfined: An aquifer whose upper boundary consists of relatively porous
natural material which transmits water readilv and does not confine water. The water
level in the aquifer is the water table and is exposed to the atmosphere through
openings in the overlying materials.
Aquitard (or confining layer): A geologic formation of low permeability that greatly
inhibits the movement of
Base flow: Sustained low flow of a stream which is often due to
the stream channel.
inflow to
Bedrock: A general term for the rock, usually solid, that underlies soil or other
unconsolidated material.
BedrockAquifer: An aquifer composed of bedrockformations
Bedrock Valley: A valley cut i nto bedrock by water and later filled with unconsolidated
materials such as sand and aravel.
Collector system: A sewage treatment system which collects sewage from two or more
residents or other establishments, consisting of collector lines, pumps, sewage tanks,
and soil treatment unit.
Cone of depression (or drawdown): A depression in the groundwater table or
potentiometric surface that has the shape of an inverted cone and develops around a
well from which water is beina withdrawn. It defines the area of influence of a well.
Contamination plume: The region of dispersal of groundwater contaminants in an
aquifer.
Contour map: A map displaying lines that connect points of equal value and
rate ooints of hiaher value from ooints of lower value. Often used to show land or
level surfaces.
County Environmental Charge: A waste management service charge for solid waste
management programs to protect groundwater, such as household hazardous waste,
recycling, resource recovery, and groundwater programs, which is collected by haulers
as a percentaae of the aarbaae bill.
Dolostone: A carbonate rock (e.g. limestone) made up predominately of the mineral
calcium maanesium carbonate.
Geomorphic regions: Land areas divided into regions by common geologic and
topographic features.
Geomorphology: The study of the nature and origin of the processes that create the
physical landscape and the landforms that result from these processes. The processes
include the effects of tectonic forces, weatherinq, runninq water, waves, qlacial ice, and
wind, resulting in erosion, transportation, deposition of rocks, etc.
Glacial till: Glacial deposits composed of mostly unsorted sand, silt, clay, and boulders
deposited directly by the glacial ice.
Groundwater: Water located in inter-connected oores found beneath the water table.
Groundwater discharge: The process of groundwater leaving an aquifer.
Groundwater discharge area: The point or region where groundwater leaves an
aquifer. Groundwater discharqe areas include the land surface, streams, lakes, wetlands,
springs, and seeps. Groundwater also discharges to wells.
Groundwater recharge: The process whereby surface water infiltrates into
groundwater. Also used in this groundwater plan to describe the transfer of
groundwater from any one aquifer into another aquifer.
Groundwater recharge area: The region or area in which groundwater recharge
occurs.
Hydrogeology: The science of water use, quality, occurrence, movement, and transport
beneath the earth's surface.
Hydrologic cycle: Movement of water in and on the earth and atmosphere. Numerous
processes such as precipitation, evaporation, condensation, and runoff comprise the
hydrologic cycle.
Hydrostratigraphic unit: A formation, part of a formation, or group of formations in
which there are similar hydrologic characteristics allowing for groupings into aquifers or
confining layers.
Ice contact deposits: Sediment deposited beneath or adjacent to the glacier margin.
Ice contact deposits are typically rich in sand and gravel.
Icewalled lake deposits and glacial lake deposits: Sand and silt deposits which were
formed in bottoms of lakes within or at the margin of a glacier.
Impaired water: A water body that fails to meet the necessary water quality standards
that are set, by the state, to ensure the water fulfills its designated use such as fishable,
swimmable, or drinkable.
Impervious surfaces: Land cover that is composed of materials that inhibit the
infiltration of surface water into the ground. Common impervious surfaces include:
roads, driveways, parking lots, buildings and compacted soils.
Industrial solid waste: is defined in Minn. R. 7035.0300 asfollows: Subpart 45.
Industrial solid waste. °Industrial solid waste"means all solid waste generated from an
industrial or manufacturing process and solid waste generated from nonmanufacturing
activities such as service and commercial establishments. Industrial solid waste does not
include office materials, restaurant and food preparation waste, discarded machinery,
demolition debris, municipal solid waste combustor ash, or household refuse.
Infiltration: The movement of water from the soil surface downward into the soil
profile.
Karst: A topography developed largely by groundwater erosion and bedrock
dissolution characterized by numerous caves, sprinqs, sinkholes, solution valleys, and
disappearing streams. Karst features create conditions of rapid groundwater infiltration
and flow.
Limestone: A sedimentary rock composed mostly of the carbonate mineral calcium
carbonate.
Mixed Municipal Solid Waste: is defined in Minnesota Statues Section 115A.03 as
follows: Subdivision 21. Mixed municipal solid waste.
(a) °Mixed municipal solid waste" means garbage, refuse, and other solid waste
from residential, commercial, industrial, and community activities that the generator of
the waste aggregates for collection, exept as provided in paragraph (b).
(b) Mixed municipal solid waste does not include auto hulks, street sweepings,
ash, construction debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural wastes, tires,
lead acid batteries, motor and vehicle fluids and filters, and other materials collected,
processed, and disposed of as separate waste streams.
Nitrate: An organic chemical compound composed of one nitrogen and three oxygen
molecules (NO3). Sources of nitrate include fertilizers, pesticides, animal and human
waste. Nitrate easily dissolves in water and readily moves through soil and into regional
aquifers.
Non-point source pollution: Pollution originating from diffuse areas (land surface or
atmosphere) having no defined source. Examples include field agricultural chemicals
and urban runoff oollutants.
Outwash deposits: Sediment deposited by the glacier meltwater away from the glacier
margin. Outwash is usually composed of sand, sand and gravel, or fine sand and silt.
Outwash plain: A region of relatively flat to undulating topography covered by glacial
outwash.
Paleozoic era: An era of geologic time lasting from 570 to 245 million years ago.
Perched (Lake or Wetland): A surface water body that is underlain by a fine grained
unit or aauitard that restricts the downward movement of surface water.
Perched lakes and wetlands are less connected to
Point source pollution: Pollution originating from a single identifiable source.
Examples include waste disposal sites, leaking storage tanks, chemical spills, ruptured
pipelines, and subsurface sewage treatment systems.
The ratio of the volume of void spaces in a rock or sediment to the total
volume of the rock or sediment.
Primary porosity: This is a term typically applied to bedrock and refers to porosity of
the rock matrix created as part of the original depositional structure of the geologic
materials. It can be hiqh or low. Also used to describe matrix porositv of cohesive
materials such as qlacial tills.
Quaternary period: Geologic time beginning about 1.5 million years ago to present.
River terrace: A mostly level to gently rolling landform that developed along the
region's major river valleys by vastly larger glacial melt-water rivers. River terraces
contain abundant sand and
Sandstone: A sedimentary rock composed of abundant rounded or angular fragments
of sand set in a fine-arained cemented matrix of silt or
Secondary porosity: Similar to primary porosity this term also is typically applied
to bedrock or other cohesive material. It refers to porositv created bv fractu
movement or solution well after the original deposition of geologic material. The term
is combined with primary porosity to describe the overall porosity of the rock. In glacial
tills some examples of secondary porosity are fractures, macropores due to plant roots,
etc.
Sedimentary rock: Any rock composed of sediment. The sediment may be particles
of various sizes such as qravel or sand, the remains of animals or plants as in coal and
some limestone's, or chemicals in solution that are extracted by organic or inorganic
processes. Sandstone, shale, siltstone, and limestone are common sedimentary rocks.
Shale: A fine-grained sedimentary rock, formed by the consolidation of clay, silt, or
mud.
Siltstone: A sedimentary rock composed primarily of silt-size materials.
Special Well and Boring Construction Areas (SWBCA): An area designated by the
Minnesota Department of Health where groundwater contamination is known to exist.
In these areas well construction, repair, and sealing practices are more stringent than
the minimum requirements specified by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725 (Well Code) in
order to prevent human health exposure to harmful contaminants.
Stratigraphy: The study of rock strata distribution, deposition, and age.
Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS): A sewage treatment system
connected to a dwellinq or establishment, consistinq of sewaqe tanks and a soil
treatment area (usually a drainfield or
Superfund: The common name for the Federal program established by the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended in 1986. The Superfund Law authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to investigate and clean up sites nominated to the National Priorities List.
site: Sites on the National Priorities List that the Environmental Protection
Agency has the authority to investigate and clean up under the Superfund Law.
Surfacewater runoff: Precipitation, snow melt, or irrigation in excess of whatcan
infiltrate or be stored in small surface
Surficial Terrace deposits: Sand and gravel deposited by vastly large post-glacial rivers
that ran through the St. Croix and Mississippi River valleys. Terrace remnants within the
Mississippi River valley generally are underlain by finer grained sediment than those
within the St. Croix River val
Total Maximum Daily Load Study (TMDL): A study required by the MPCA for an
impaired water body that sets pollutant reduction goals needed to restore the waters to
their designated use such as fishable, swimmable, or drinkable.
Unsaturated zone (or zone of aeration): The part of the soil profile in which the voids
are not completely filled with water. The zone between the land surface and the water
table.
Water table: The point beneath the unsaturated zone where aauifer materials are ful
saturated and the water levels are directly responsive to changes in atmospheric pressure.
The water table level may also be reflected in lakes, streams and wetlands.
Water table aquifer: The uppermost unconfined aquifer in any given area. Water table
aquifers are commonly found in surface or glacial sediment but can be formed in bedrock
aquifers.
Groundwaier is perhaps Washingion County's (counry) mosivaluable namral resource.
High qualiry drinking waier, healffiy streams and lakes, fish habiiat �re planTS and
economic viialiry all depend on proieciing and conserving groundwaier resources. The
overall goal offfie Washingion Counry Groundwaier Plan (Plan) is io:
"Manage the quality and quantity of groundwater in Washington
County to protect health and ensure sufficient supplies of dean water to
support human uses and natural ecosystems."
There are many compeiing inieresTS forffie use ofcounty groundwaiec The iwo main
users, as defined in ffie Plan's goal, are humans and namral ecorystems. Human uses
� includedomesiic,commercial,indusirial,andirrigaiion. Namralecosysiemsinclude
streams, lakes, weilands, and fens.
Groundwaier provides 100 perceni offfie waiersupply in ffie county available for
GI"OUIIC�WBt2f humanuses. Recenidaiashowsffiaiincreasedgroundwaierpumpingforhumanuse
is having an impaci in ffie county.This includes a decline in waier levels ofcounty lakes,
pl"OVIde5100 �ressesoncountysireamsincludingirouisireams,andmoreinquiriesfromcounry
residenTS wondering why ffieir well isn i supplying enoug h waier.
p21"C21ltOfth2 Addiiionallyihecounryhasknowngroundwaiercontaminaiionfrom
PerFluorochemicals, Volaiile Organic Compounds, and niiraies.The presence offfiese
coniaminanTS decreasesihe amouniofclean drinking waieravailable.
water supply
The purpose of preparing, adopiing, and implemeniing a Plan isio provide a counry-
wide sirucmre forffie proieciion and conservaiion of groundwaier resources.The Plan
Illth2COUllty isacomprehensivedocumentthailaysouiffieiechnicalfiamework,issues,policies,
and siraiegies io address existing and fumre groundwaier relaied problems.
BVBI�Bb�2f01" gyMinnesotaSiamie103B255,countygovemmeniisresponsibleforwriiing,
coordinaiing, and adminisiering ffie Plan; however, no one eniity has ffie overall
hUI71BI1U525. auihorityioimplemeniallffienecessaryaciions.ThroughffiisplanningefforLffie
counry seeks support from ffie communiry in orderio proieci and conserve ffiis
valuable resource now and for fumre generaiions.
The Plan is meantto:
Concisely ouiline ffie physical namre of groundwaier resou rces, discuss ihe
issues ffiaiffireaien groundwaier, and provide direciion and straiegies on how
io proieci gro undwaier for fumre generaiions.
Provide coniez2 and organizaiion forstakeholders and residenTS io better
understand ihe complex waier gove ma nce sirucmre.
Serve as a fiameworkio develop annual work plans forihe counry and iTs
stake holders ffiai give specific implemeniaiion aciions io add ress ffie
groundwaier issues in ihis plan.
Complimeni and coordinaie wiffi oiherstaie, regional, counry, and local
planning effor[s.
• Guide collaboration on groundwater initiatives with state, regional, and local
partners more efficiently and effectively.
• Be a resource for stakeholders and residents regarding groundwater information
pertinent to the county.
1.1 GOVERNANCE
Water governance in Minnesota is complex, with state and local agencies responsible
for different aspects of surface and groundwater management. Both surface and
groundwater are managed and regulated by State agencies, watershed organizations,
and local governments. Historically, surface water management organizations and
agencies have not factored groundwater provisions into their plans, policies and rules.
While this is starting to change it will take a coordinated effort between State agencies,
the county, watershed organizations and local government to provide more effective
overall management of both surface water and groundwater. The county Plan is the
link to tie the governance of surface and groundwater together in an effort to focus
on researching the level of connection between surface water and groundwater,
identifying groundwater recharge and discharge zones, and developing policies and
rules to protect and holistically manage water resources.
In recentyears, several statewide efforts have engaged stakeholders around water
governance, calling for increased coordination of groundwater and surface water
management. These efforts will continue to evolve over the life of this Plan. They
include:
• The Clean Water Legacy Act of 2006, which established the Clean Water Fund and
the Clean Water Council.
• The . ���. , � � � . _ �. F :': .�', which has served as a
powerful incentive for state agencies to collaborate and improve the integration
of their programs.
• The University of Minnesota .� _ ����_ _ `. �';� ` , . �,�rw, which provides
recommendations for aligning water, land use and energy policies to ensure
water sustainability and providing cross-cutting governance.
• The :.. �� that is led by the Association of Minnesota
Counties, the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, and the Minnesota
Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The roundtable provides
consensus recommendations to members and state policy makers on how to
deliver water management in Minnesota.
Th e. __ .� . , _ . ,
completed in 2013, evaluates water related statutes, rules, and governing
structures to streamline, strengthen, and improve sustainable water
management.
The overall governance structure for water management in Washington County, along
with the responsibilities of each agency is on the following page. Key state agencies
include the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), Minnesota
Department of Health (MDH), and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
Minnesota Department of
Health
• Source Water Protection
• Enforces State Well Code
• Approves Wellhead Protection
Plans
• Well Sealing
• Special Well & Boring
Construction Areas
Drinking Water Standards
Emerging Contaminants
County Well Index with MC
Local Government Units
• Comprehensive Plans & Zoning
• Local Water Plans
• Wellhead Protection Plans
for Public Water Suppliers
• Water Supply Management
Plans
• Septic Systems
L'
Department of Natural Reso�
• Water Appropriation for Su
& Groundwater
• Observation Wells Network
• Conservation Plans
• Groundwater Managemerr
Plans
• Geologic Atlas with MGS
• Natural Resources Protectic
Conservation
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
• Groundwater Monitoring
Ambient & Contaminant
• Cleanup of Contaminated Soil
& Groundwater
• Surface Water Quality
Standards &TMDLs
• Wastewater & Surface Water
Discharge Permits
Board of Water and
Soil Resources
• Approves Groundwater
Plans
• Approves WMO Plans
• Works with SWCDs
• Administers LGU Assistance
Grants
Minnesota Department of
Agriculture
•Regulation of Pesticides &
Fertilizers
• Nitrate Clinics
• Agricultural Research
• Loan Assistance
Washington Conservation District
• Provides Technical Assistance
for Stormwater & Erosion Control
• Assist with Planning and
Implementing of Natural
Resource Management Plans
• Assist with Implementing the
Wetland Conservation Act
Jatural Resource Education
Metropolitan Council
• Approves Comprehensive &
Local Water Plans
• Metro Water Supply Plan
• Metro Model—Groundwater
•South Washington County
Water Supply Work Group
• Metro Waste Water Planning
(MUSA) & Treatment
Vlinnesota Geological5urvey
Investigates Geology
Provides Technical Assistance
Develops Geologic Databases
Geologic Atlas with DNR
County Well Index with MDH
,Natershed Management
Organizations
• Watershed Plans
•Resourcelnventories
• Rules & Permitting to Protect
Water Resources
• Hazardous and Solid Waste
• State Septic System Rules
From a regional perspective, the Metropolitan Council shares responsibility for water
management. At the local level, the county, Washington Conservation District (WCD),
Local Government Untis (LGUs) and watershed management organizations (WMOs) all
have various roles. Watershed district boundaries are represented in Figure 1.
Many of these agencies engage in planning efforts with regards to water management.
These plans are discussed below and throughout the Plan. The county Plan
complements these existing plans and fills a gap by identifying strategies that guide
communities specifically in groundwater management. In many cases, decision
making for groundwater management does not lie directly with the county. However,
the county can play a lead role in developing partnerships that will move strategies
forward.
Regional Growth, Land Use and the Urban Service Area
Under state law, the Metropolitan Council is charged with guiding regional
development in the twin cities area. The current°Regional Development Framework°
consists of a regional growth strategy into the year 2030. It consists of a compilation of
policy statements, goals, standards, programs, and maps prescribing orderly, economic,
public, and private development. Metropolitan Council is currently updating this
planning effort through Thrive MSP 2040, which will require updates for several of the
plans discussed below. See their website for more details...' '_ �,� '„ ..-,
The Metropolitan Council also plans for the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA).
Centralized sewer and water serves most of the area within the MUSA or the boundary
of an urban reserve area. Figure2 illustrates the location of the MUSA in the county
as of 2010, and projected extensions of the MUSA into 2030. Some cities are already
completely within the MUSA (Stillwater, Oakdale, Newport, Mahtomedi, Oak Park
Heights, and Bayport) while others are partially included in plans for additional
expansion (Forest Lake, Hugo, Lake Elmo, Cottage Grove, and Woodbury). If a
community wishes to expand the MUSA they make a request that is either approved
or denied by the Metropolitan Council. The availability of centralized sewers and the
future growth of the MUSA are major factors in determining housing density in the
county. Where the MUSA is extended, higher density development will follow. All of
the communities along the St. Croix River north of Stillwater and south of Bayport are
considered rural residential, or permanent rural, which indicates that the MUSA would
not extend into these areas in the foreseeable future. These areas of the county will
continue to utilize subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) for sewage treatment.
The Metropolitan Council's decisions to expand the MUSA will need to consider the
impact on groundwater resources as higher density development will increase water
supply demands. The Metropolitan Council is authorized to do regional water supply
planning as discussed in Chapter 5.
County Comprehensive Planning Process and Zoning
In 2010 the County Board of Commissioners adopted its most recent comprehensive
plan. The goals and policies in the Washington County 2030 Comprehensive Plan
apply to the unincorporated areas of the county. Incorporated cities prepare their own
comprehensive plans.
The Washingron County 2030 Comprehensive Plan outlines seveal goals ro pro�¢
i� namal remurceswhile managing grow�h and developmen[ The elements of �he
Comprehensive Plan relatlng mos[directly ro groundwa�rpro�ctlon arefound in
the Land Useand Namal Remurcesmctlons.The Comprehensive Plan promoRs
development in urban areaswhere urban mrviws �n be provided, and encouages
open spa� design of housing in �he rual areas. Open spa� design allows the housing
ro be dus�red on b� �hatare much smaller �han �hose in conventlonal subdivisions
keeping a subsbntial per�nbge of �he properry as permanently pro�c�d open
space. The purpose of dus�ring houses is ro provide a more effitlent um of �he land
while preserving good agnmlmal land, open spa�, scenicviews and namal dainage
rys�ms.
W i�h regard ro �he eHect of land use on groundwa�r �he comprehensive plan staRS:
"Washingron County will regula� developmentso �hat groundwa�r qualiry and
quantiry is pro�cted from degadatlon and depletlon and is maintained in a a(e
condition for the benefit of all citizens. Pollution prevention will be the rop priority.
StandaNs ro prevennhe contaminatlon of groundwa�rwill be esbblished and
enforced. More stringentstandardswill be adop�d ro pro�¢areas of signifi�nt
groundwa�rrechargeY
In �he Namal Remurcesmctlon of �he comprehensive plan Goal 62 and i�stra�gies
arespetlficrowa�rresourws. Goal62sb�s'Pro�ctgroundwa�randsurfa�wa�r
remur�es�hrough coordinatlon and collaboatlon wi�h sta�and lo�l wa�rresour�
organizatlons"
Thisplanuses�he .. . a�asaguideromoveforwardonits
groundwa�rstra�gies.
City Comprehensive Planning and Zoning
Incorpoa�d tltles develop �heirown comprehensive plansand zoning ordinances
based on an oveall directlon set by elected offitlalsand planning commisioners. Plans
and ordinanws are devebped working wi�hin paame�rs set by sb� stam�sand on
guidelines set by �he Mehopolitan Council. Ciry Comprehensive Plansare reviewed by
the Metropolibn Council and sb� agencies foradheren� ro �heir policies and plans.
Cities aaoss �he counry are growing atwrying a�s. Those mnred by �he MUSA are
developing at higher residentlal densities and wi�h greater per�ntages of commercial
and industrial land use. Communitlesoutside �he MUSA setgrowth aRSand densitles
esbblished by regional and lo�l goals politles and comprehensive plans devebped
by lo�l elec�d offitlals but many fa¢ors de�rmine �he a¢ual a� of grow�h.
Land um planning and land use decisions have an important role in pro�¢ing
groundwa�r resour�s. It is impeative that groundwa�r pro�ctl on stra�gies are
incorpoated inro ciry comprehensive plansro bet�rpro�ctgroundwa�rremurws.
Therestra�giesshould address�hesitlng of commercial and industrial development
using hazardous ma�nals, the po�ntlal impact of impervioussurtaws ro groundwa�r
rediarge, and the long-�rm susbinabiliry of groundwa�rsupplies.
Local Government Units
Per Minnesota Statute 103B.235 local governments having land use planning authorities
within a watershed shall prepare a local water management plan (LWMP) . If the
metropolitan county that the LGU resides in has an approved groundwater plan, the
county must be given the opportunity to review and comment on the LWMP. The LWMP
provides an effective opportunity for LGUs to incorporate groundwater considerations
into their future growth plans.
Land Use and Source Water Protection
Source water protection is the process of protecting the source of drinking water
from becoming contaminated. For example a stream, river, lake, or an aquifer can be
a source of drinking water. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) administers
the State's Source Water Protection Program. Part of this program is wellhead
protection. Wellhead protection is the process of managing land use in critical zones
of groundwater recharge to reduce the risk of contaminating water supplies. Public
Water Suppliers (PWSs) are required to write and implement Wellhead Protection
Plans that provide a scientific analysis to identify key groundwater recharge area and
guidelines for land use and zoning that are protective of groundwater. It is imperative
to groundwater protection that county and city land use plans and zoning ordinances
incorporate wellhead protection. Chapter 8 discusses source water and wellhead
protection in further detail.
Watershed Plans
Watershed Management Organizations are required to complete a watershed plan.
Although the Board of Water and Soil Resources encourages integrated water planning,
surface water planning and groundwater planning are essentially dealt with separately
in the metropolitan area. The required components for watershed plans are defined by
statute and include:
• An inventory of the water resources in the watershed.
• An assessment of issues facing the water resources in the watershed.
• Established goals and policies to protect the water resources in the watershed.
• An implementation program and prioritization of activities.
1.2 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The county's Department of Public Health and Environment (PHE) will provide the
overall coordination for implementing the Plan. It is not expected that all the strategies
identified in this Plan will be initiated at once. As a ten year plan, once adopted and each
year after, PHE will develop an annual work plan detailing the next year's activities and
measuring the effectiveness of the activities completed the current year.The strategies
included in the annual work plans will be determined by the priority of the issues at the
time and the available resources to accomplish the strategies. For instance, a drought
would most likely raise the awareness and magnitude of water conservation. In that
situation, there will be a greater public will to implement actions to address water
conservation and preserve the water supply.
The users of this Plan will include state agencies, regional organizations, county and
city officials, watershed organizations, and active citizens. PHE will provide overall
leadership, coordination, and annual review for implementing the Plan but it will take
the concerted and coordinated efforts of all stakeholders and residents to effectively
carry it out.
Funding
Minnesota Statute 103B.255 states: °A metropolitan county may levy amounts necessary
to administer and implement an approved and adopted groundwater plan. A county
may levy amounts necessary to pay the reasonable increased costs to soil and water
conservation districts and watershed management organizations administering and
implementing priority programs identified in the county's groundwater plan:'
Funding is necessary to coordinate and implement the Plan. These activities
include developing an annual groundwater program work plan with stakeholders,
implementing Plan strategies, and initiating other related program activities.
The primary source of funding is from the county environmental charge (CEC). The
CEC is a service charge for managing waste to avoid contaminating groundwater. It
is collected by haulers as a percentage of the garbage bill. The CEC is used for the
management of solid waste, hazardous waste, recycling, resource recovery, and
groundwater work. The county is mandated by the Waste Management Act to develop
and implement a Solid Waste Master Plan. The purpose of a county solid waste plan is
to coordinate the implementation of an integrated waste management system in order
to protect public health and the environment. The workfrom the county's solid waste
and groundwater plans complement each other in the protection groundwater.
Additional supportive funding comes from the BWSR Natural Resources Block Grant,
the county water testing program, other grants for specific initiatives, and partnerships.
Collaborative initiatives such as groundwater related research projects, rule and policy
development, education and technical assistance programs, and capital improvement
projects will be funded based on the specific goals and benefits of the participating
or benefiting partners. To the greatest extent possible, state and federal grants will
be sought to fund projects. Efforts will be made to develop cooperative,joint funding
of projects from local government and watershed organizations. The county will
provide overall coordination of grant funding efforts, including cost-sharing. As part of
implementation, financial assistance may also be available to individual homeowners
through cost-share grants or low interest loans available from the WCD, or other
organizations.
The primary workof groundwater protection for the county is carried out by PHE in
the groundwater program, the solid and hazardous waste programs, and the septic
programs. In addition, other county departments lend support atvarying levels,
including Administration, Information Technology (Geographic Information Systems),
Public Works, and the County Attorney's Office. The Washington Conservation District is
also an important partner in providing base technical services.
Measurement
The PHE Department is committed to integrating performance management and
continuous improvement into its environmental programs and services. Performance
management provides a frameworkfor the regular collection, analysis and reporting of
performance measures that track resources used, work produced, and specific results
achieved.The information and knowledge gained from this process informs continuous
improvement activities to address gaps between the present condition and the desired
future condition. The performance measures presented in the plan were developed
through a process that took both population and performance accountability into
consideration.
Population accountability is about the well-being of whole populations; it refers to the
results or quality of life conditions that we want to exist for our whole population: clean
and sustainable groundwater for all Washington County residents.AppendixA provides
a definition of the quality of life result that the plan addresses, why it is important, and
the causes and forces contributing to the current state of the county's groundwater
quality and quantity.
Performance accountability refers to the county groundwater program's accountability to
partners and stakeholders for the performance of the program. The principle distinction
between the two types of accountability is between ends and means. Results addressed
in the population accountability component are about the°ends"we wantfor residents,
while performance measures are about the°means"to get there by measuring how well
programs are working.The measures represent the activities that need to take place in
order to°turn the curve" on our current state- that is, what it would take to do better
and each partner's contribution.
The following tool was used to identify and organize measures for each of the issues
outlined in the plan*:
Quantity Quality
How much did we do How well did we do it (%1?
#f _)_.°� How well did we deliver service?
o What did we do? How
w much service did we
deliver?
Is anyone better off V%L
� How much change for the better did we produce (#)?/ What
W quality of change for the better did we produce(%)?
Headline PerFormance Measures
Those measures you would use to present or explain your
program's performance to policy makers or the public.
Secondary Measures
All other measures for which you now have data. These measures
will be used to help manage the program.
Dat� Develo�ment enda
Measures you would like to have, listed in priority order.
*Measures were not developed at this time for land spreading, mining and landfills but will
be developed asstrategies are implemented in annual workplans.
In order to effectively use the performance measures, progress on achieving results
will be continuously monitored and evaluated. Overall plan measures will be used to
select and prioritize annual work plan activities. Progress on work plan activities will be
monitored on a quarterly basis and overall plan measures will be evaluated annually to
ensure they are relevant.
1.3 GROUNDWATER ISSUES & PLAN STRUCTURE
. . � TodevelopffieplanffieCounryCommissionersappoiniedaGroundwaierAdvisory
— -- - Committee (GWAC), as required in Minnesota Stamie 103B255. The GWAC members
�- _ s��� � represeniffieperspeciivesofciiizens,ruralandurbanLGUs,WMOs,consiruciion,well
� , drilling,agriculmre,andhydrologyprofessionals.ATechnicalAdvisoryCommittee(TAC)
� madeupofprofessionalandagencystakeholders,stafffromoffiercountydepar[menTS,
LGUs, WMOs, regional, and staie agencies was also formed. The GWAC and ffie TAC
helped creaie ffie foundaiion forffie Plan and ideniified ffie primary issues ffiai need io
, '� be addressed io ensure enough clean groundwaier is available inio ffie fumre. These
' � issuesareshownonffienexipage.Tofurtherorganizeffieseissuesffieyweredivided
inio groups ofeiihergroundwaierquaniity orgroundwaierqualiry.
Work groups were convened io d iscuss and develop ffie plan siraiegies. The work
Th2GWAC 9roupmembersincludedGWACandTACmembersbuialsoideniifiedexper[s
working in oraffecied by each par[icular issue. These workgroups were imperaiiveio
developing ffioughtful and aciion orienied siraiegies.
and the
Chapier 2 provides an overview offfie groundwaier resources, including geology,
hydrology, groundwaier recharge, and groundwaier dependeni resources.
TAC helped
Chapiers 3 ffirough 8 focus on main issues ideniified by ffie GWAC, and are organized as
follows:
create the
• An overview offfie issue, including any per[ineni research and background
fOUndatlOn informa[ion.
• A°policy`ouiliningihespecificconcems,needs,andraiionaleforproieciing
and conserving groundwaier resources and;
f01"th2P�Bll • Siraiegiesprovidingdireciionioproieciandconservegroundwaierresources.
Changing climaie and unprediciable precipitaiion were ideniified as primary issues
and duringffieeadystagesofplandevelopmentTheclimaiechangeworkgroupdiscussed
where climaie change issues should be addressed in ihe plan. li was decided ihai
climaie change should noi be iTS own chapier, bui needs io be addressed ihrough
Id2lltl�l2d numerousportionsofffiedocumeniandmorespecificallyinihesiraiegiesfor
groundwaierand sunc�e waier inieraciion and supply.
primary
issues.
Groundwater Supply
Groundwater & Surface Water
Interaction
Source Water and Wellhead
Protection
Volatile Organic Compounds
Perfluorochemicals
Nutrients, Pesticides,
Road Salt
Emerging
Contaminants
Septic Systems
Land Spreading
Hazardous Waste
Mining
Landfills
.._.....__.._.._._. __.....,
r � Groundwaierisafiniieresource.Theihreemainfaciorsaffeciinggroundwaierquaniiry
�,-_'-� are:
�'- � •." .Theamouniofgroundwaierpumpedouiofaquifers.
'� ;
� `r+ io.� •Thevolumeofrechargeioaquifers6omrainfall,snowmeltandlakes.
�� �`_+ •Thevolumeofgroundwaiernamrallydischargediolakes,weilands,and
- '-,-�� streamsffiroughgroundwaierandsurfacewaierinieraciion.
�� Usingabankinganalogyioexplainffiesefaciors,ffieaquifersfunciionasffiebank
m �s ' i
account Pumping waier oui of aquifers is analogous io making wiihdrawa Is from
>��� ffiebankaccountRecharge6ominfiliraiionofrainfallandsnowmeliisanalogousio
making a deposii in ffie bank account Waierstored in ffie aquifer can be likened io
gaininginierestiniheaccount Effeciivelymanagingffiegroundwaieraccounimeans
iracking ffie amouni deposiied, moniioring ffie balance, and making decisions on how
much can be wiffidrawn (pumped) wiffioui overdrawing ffie account
Humans
Humans have no conirol over weaffier and, ffierefo re, ca nnoi d ictaie ffie vol ume of
Bff2Ctth2�Blld �'aieravailableforreplenishingaquifers.However,humansdohaveaneffecionffie
la nd sunc�e where groundwaier recharge occurs. Developmeni of ffie land genera Ily
increases ffie amouni of impervious sunc�es (pavemeni a nd buildi ngs) and compacTs
SUI"fBC2Wh21"2 soil.Theseaciionsreduceffieareaavailableandffienamralabilityofprecipitaiionio
infi liraie ffirough soils inio aquifers. This reduces ihe volume of recha rge (deposiTS) io
aquifers and ffius reduces ihe waier quaniiry available for use by humans and namral
groundwater ecosynems.
The county's populaiion is projecied io increase by 52 percentto a iotal of363,190
reCharge residenTS6om2010ioffieyear2030. Thegrowffiinpopulaiionwillcreaieanincrease
in groundwaier pumping io serve household, irrigaiion, commercial, and i ndusirial
OCCUI"5. needs. Hisiorically,iheregionsaquifershaveservedpopulaiionswiffiabundaniwaier,
however, ffiere are limiTS io ihe amo uni of waier ava ila ble for pumping (wiffid rawa Is)
before aquifers are depleied, lake levels are lowered and siream Flows are diminished.
Managing ihe groundwaier ban k accouni will iake a concer[ed effor[io balance
recharge (deposiTS) wiffi discharge (wiihdrawals). Muliiple communiiies share ffie
region's aquifers and ii will iake a collaboraiive, coordinaied approach io develop a
sustainable groundwaier managemenirystem.
Forffie purpose offfiis Plan ihe groundwaier quaniiry issues are groundwaiersupply
and groundwaierand sunc�e waier inieraciion.
13.2 Grou ndwater Qua lity
Mainiaining clean,safe, drinkable groundwaier is criiicalio human and environmental
healffi and io ffie economic and social vitality of our communiiies. While much offfie
counry's groundwaiersupply is in good condiiion, ffie qualiry of groundwaier in many
areas is suffering. There are locaiions where contaminanTS in groundwaierare ai levels
above staie human healin guidance values, which ideniify how much is safe io drink
In ffiese areas, ffiere are added financial and social cosTS io manage ffie affecied waier
supplyioassureiiisireaiedandfilierediomeeisafedrinkingwaierstandards. Fxisiing
groundwaierconiaminaiion was caused by a combinaiion of land use and wasie
disposal praciices, and namral geologic condiiions.
The source of groundwater contamination from Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
in the county has been from disposal of cleaning agents at industrial facilities and
landfills, spills, leaks, and disposal of chlorinated solvents and petroleum products
at several industrial sites. Perfluorochemical (PFC) contamination of groundwater
is a result of industrial disposal of these chemicals at various landfills or dump sites
throughout the county. The existing groundwater contamination by VOCs and PFCs is
discussed in Chapter 6. Additionally the county has areas of high nitrate concentrations
in groundwater. The sources of nitrates are primarily from the use of fertilizer for
agriculture and turf management. Nitrates will be discussed in Chapter 7.
There are other counties with similar land use and industrial practices that don't have
the extent of groundwater contamination that Washington County does. The reason
is throughout most of the county, groundwater resources are moderately to highly
susceptible to pollution introduced from the surface environment. Figure 3 and Figure
4 illustrate the°Sensitivity of Groundwater Systems to Pollution.° These figures show
the increased abilityfor surface contaminants to get into groundwater because of the
natural geology of the county. There are areas with little depth to bedrock and that
decreases the time and ability for soil to filter out contaminants before they flow into
the aquifers. Factors that determine a groundwater systems sensitivity include surface
geology, bedrock geology and land use. These factors are discussed in Chapter 2.
Contaminated groundwater affects the health of ecosystems as well. As will be
discussed in Chapters 2 and 4, surface water bodies are connected to or interact with
groundwater. The connection between the groundwater and surface water body
will determine how the surface water is affected by the quality of the groundwater.
The federal clean water act requires water bodies be assessed based on water quality
standards to ensure the water fulfills its designated use, such as fishable, swimmable, or
drinkable. A water body that doesn't meet the clean water standard for its designated
use is listed as°impaired° by the MPCA. Various pollutants that are monitored include
phosphorus, bacteria, sediment, lack of oxygen, and others. If a water body is listed as
impaired the MPCA and responsible LGUs must then complete a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) study, which sets pollutant reduction goals needed to restore the waters.
In Washington County, several water bodies have been listed as impaired (Figure
5). Many of the strategies put forth in this Plan will not only address groundwater
contamination, but may also work towards addressing surface water quality.
Prevention against and early detection of groundwater contamination is essential to
protect public health and natural ecosystems. It limits human exposure to harmful
contaminants and prevents the spread of groundwater pollution in the environment.
Once groundwater is contaminated it may remain contaminated for decades.
Groundwater clean-up is costly, complex, and not always feasible.
The groundwater quality issues that are addressed in this Plan include Source Water and
Wellhead Protection, Volatile Organic Compounds and Perfluorochemicals, Nutrients,
Pesticides, and Road Salt, Emerging Contaminants, Septic Systems, Land Spreading,
Hazardous Waste, Mining, and Landfills.
This page intentionally left blank.
Groundwaier resources are a major componeni offfie regions basic infiasirucmre
and must be managed, proiecied, and conserved io sustain ffie economic vitaliry and
environmental healih offfie county. To accomplish ffiis, ihe science of groundwaier
must be understood. The Groundwaier Resource Overview provides iechnical
informaiion necessary for understanding and addressing groundwaier issues
in ihe counry. Topics discussed include geology, geomorphology, groundwaier
hydrology, groundwaiersensiiiviry io polluiion, climaie, sunc�e waier inieraciion, and
groundwaierrelaied namral resources.
2.1 GEOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE
Groundwaier moves ffirough several geologic formaiions wiffiin ihe county. Advancing
and reireaiing marine seas lek behind a sequence of limestone, sandstone, and shale
bedrock layers daiing backio ffie Paleozoic Era (570 io 245 million years ago). Following
GfOUIIdWBt2f iheseevenTS,ffiebedrockwassubjeciedioalongperiodoferosion.Beginningaboui
1.5 million years ago in ffie Quaiemary period, a sequence of glaciers advanced and
reireaied across ffie county shaping ffie land and leaving in ffieir wake formaiions of
I710V25thl"OUgh clay,siltsand,andgraveloniopofbedrockformaiions.
2.1.1 BedrockFormations
52V21"B� BedrockfoundaiffielandsurfaceorimmediaielybeneaffiyoungerglacialdeposiTs
was formed in shallow seas during ffie Paleozoic Era (570 io 245 million years ago).
g20�OgIC Theselayersorbedsofsandsione,shale,andlimesionearecolleciivelyreferred
io assedimentary rocks.These rocks are divided inio groups orformaiions based
on simi lariiies in age or rock type. Figure 6 illusiraies ihe bedrock geology of ffie
f01"I71BtIOnS �ountyshowingffiedifferingrockrypesandgroupings.Table1,onffiefollowing
page, provides a descripiion ofihe bedrock geologic formaiions or groups sor[ed by
hydrologic significance.
within the
2.1.2 Bedrock5tmcture
The bedrocksirucmre refers io ffie angle ofihe layers or beds, hulTS, fiacmres, and
COUllty. erosionalfeamres.Sedimentaryrocksaretypicallydeposiiedinhorizontalbedsor
Iayers.Overiime, ihese beds are subjecied io small movemenTS wiffiin ihe ear[h's
crusi causing downward and upward folding, fracmring, and huliing. In most cases
in ihe counry, ffie bed rock layers ii li genily io ihe west. M inor fold ing of ihe rock
occurs in easiem por[ions offfie county. Some huliing offfie rockalso occurs near
ihe St Croix RivecThe Twin Ciiies Basin is a resuli of many small folds and hulTS in a
siep-wise hshion. FaulTS appeario be a much more impor[anisirucmral feamre in
souffiem Washingion Countyffian folds.One large fold,ffie Hudson-Akon aniicline, is
likely better described as a series of nor[heasi-souffiwesttrending normal siep hulTs
wiffi a displacemeni of 50 io 150 feei. Nu merous block hulTS in ffie souiheasiem
por[ion ofsouffiem Washingion Counry were ideniified during an evaluaiion of niiraie
conceniraiions in bedrockaquifers.
Table 1: Washington County BedrockGeology
Bedrock Thickness
Age Formation or Description (Feet)
Groups
Decorah5hale Thesethreeformationsmakeuptheyoungestoruppermost
Platteville bedrockfoundinWashingtonCounty.Theyarefoundonlyin 0-35
Limestone Group south central portions of the County.
Glenwood Shale
Middle The St. Peter Sandstone consists of poorly cemented (crum bly)
Ordovician medium-grained, pure quartz sandstone. The lower portions
St. Peter contain inter-layered beds of shale and coarse sand. The St. 0-66
Sandstone PetersubcropsinmuchofthewesternportionoftheCounty,
and there are scattered remnants of the unit found
throughout the northern and eastern parts of the Coun .
Dolostone dominates most of this unit. Minor sandstone and
shale layers are found in the lower portions. The Prairie Du
Chien is known to contain abundant fractures and openings
and, in some areas, sinkholes and caves occur. Areas with
Lower Prairie Du Chien sinkholes, large fractures and caves are called Karst areas. The
Ordovician Group Prairie Du Chien underlies most of Washington County. 134-203
Notable absences of this unit occur in deeply incised bedrock
valleys and in the extreme northwest and eastern parts of the
County. In central and southern parts of Washington County
where the Prairie du Chien is thicker the lower 40 feet is a
lea a uitard.
The Jordan Sandstone consists of poorly layered, poorly
cemented, medium to coarse sand. TheJordan is found
Jordan5andstone throughoutWashingtonCountywithnotableexceptionsin 66-96
deeply incised bedrock valleys in the north and east and a
region in the extreme northwest part of the Coun .
The St. Lawrence Formation is composed of thin layers of shale
St. Lawrence and siltstone and is found under all of Washington County 30-58
Formation except in some areas along the St. Croix River and in the far
northwest.
The Tunnel City Group (formerly the Franconia Formation)
consists mostly of fine-grained sand in southern Washington
County and ranges from medium to coarse grained in the
Upper Tunnel City Group north. The upper portion is an aquifer and lower half to one 154-165
third is an aquitard. The thickness of the Tunnel City Group
Cambrian ranges from 154 to 165 feet. These units underlie the entire
Coun except a minor area in the St. Croix Valle .
The Wonewoc Sandstone (formerly the Ironton-Galesville
Wonewoc Sandstone) is composed of fine to coarse-grained sand. This q5- 66
Sandstone unit is found underlying all of Washington County exceptin
onedeepl incisedportionoftheSt.CroixValle inLakeland.
EauClaire Thisformationconsistsofshale,siltstoneandveryfine-
Formation 9rained sandstone. This unit underlies all of Washington 63-114
Coun
The upper third of this unit consists of very fine grained sand
Mt.Simon andsiltstonebeds.Thelowertwo-thirdsarecomposedof 760-255
Formation medium to coarse-grained sandstone. The Mt. Simon underlies
all of Washington Coun .
Pre- Undivided Theseconsistoflayersofshaleandsandstoneoverlying �
Cambrian volcanic rocks.
In addition to the minor movements and fracturing, bedrock is subject to weathering
and erosion. Weathering is caused by the actions of freezing and thawing, and by
chemical dissolution of minerals in the rock. Sinkholes and caves are known to exist in
areas along the Mississippi and St. Croix River Valleys. These features were formed by
the chemical erosion of limestone bedrock. Sinkholes and caves are referred to as karst
features which are visible in the southern part of the county where shallow depressions
on the land surface have been caused by the subsidence of underlying bedrock.
The bedrockformations in the county were eroded first by water and then by glacial ice
over a several hundred million year period. Figure 7 illustrates the present topography
of the bedrocksurface as it exists below the surface or glacial sediment.This map
represents the extent to which the original bedrock formations were eroded. Prior to
the advance of glaciers, the land surface was dissected by stream gullies and valleys
separated by bedrock uplands and plateaus. This eroded bedrock surface was later
buried by sediment derived from glaciers.The present topography of the county was
influenced to a major extent by the pre-glacial topography. Many of the current low
areas are situated over bedrockvalleys. Lakes and wetlands are concentrated in these
low areas.The dissected bedrock surface has an important effect on groundwater
resources as is described later in this chapter.
2.13 Surface Geology
Understanding the physical characteristics, extent, and relationship of the surface
geology is key to developing an overall understanding of groundwater. Over the past
1.5 million years (Quaternary Period), continental scale glaciers advanced from northern
regions four times into the county, further eroding the bedrock and depositing
sediment. The last two glacial advances significantly influenced the present surface
geology and landscape.
These glaciers were massive - several thousand feet thick - and moved slowly,
transporting and depositing large quantities of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. The glaciers
deposited sediment in several different ways, which had a direct bearing on the present
geology and landscape.
Sediment deposited directly by glacier ice is called glacial till. As the glaciers receded,
they generated a substantial volume of inelt water. Melting glaciers deposited great
quantities of coarse sand and gravel beneath and close to the glacier margins.These are
called ice-contact deposits. Further away from the glacier, braided melt water streams
left broad deposits called glacial outwash. In some locations, melt-water formed lakes
within depressions in the wasting ice mass and also in front of the glacier. Sand and silt
deposits formed in the bottom of the lakes are termed ice walled lake deposits or glacial
lake deposits.
The southeast corner of the county was not covered by either of the last two glaciers
but was covered by older glaciers. Remnants of older glacial till cover some of the
region. The landscape is dissected by ravines, gullies, and streams. Surface sediment has
filled in some of these features but, in general bedrock is found at or near the surface.
Soils in this region tend to be thin and composed of fine sand and silt.
Figure8 illustrates the Surface Geology in the county providing the distribution of four
glacial deposit types as grouped by the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS). These
deposit types -sand and gravel, fine sand, sandy silt, and glacial till - are described in
Table 2.
Table 2: Surface Geology Washington County, MN
SURFACE GEOLOGY UNIT TYPE SURFACE GEOLOGY UNIT DESCRIPTION
Sand and gravel deposits are widespread and deposited in three
primaryways: a) at the glacier's margin by melt water. These are
SandandGravel �ermedicecontactdeposits;b)byglacialmeltwatersawayfrombut
still proximal to the ice margin. These are termed outwash deposits;
and c) by post glacial rivers that coursed through the St. Croixand
MississippiRiverValle s.Thesearetermedterracedeposits.
Fine sand deposits are found in much of Washington County. The
FineSand principalenvironmentforthedepositionoffinesandswasinlakes.
Fine sand is also found in post-glacial and modern river deposits.
SandySilt SandysiltdepositsarefoundthroughouttheCountyandwere
deposited in both lake and river environments.
Glacial till is deposited directly by glacial ice. Till is characteristically
highlyvariable, containing a mixof sediment ranging from clay
GlacialTill �hroughsand,gravel,andboulders.Fourdiscernableglacialtillunits
have been mapped based on sediment type (MG51998). Till is found
at the surface and at greater depths in the northern part of the
County. Till units are thickest in the north and thin to the south.
2.1.4 Geomorphology
The shape of the land, or geomorphology, is the product of long-term geologic
processes described above.The pre-glacial landscape was strongly modified by
glaciers in most of the county. Large quantities of coarse glacial sediment were
deposited haphazardly at the glacier margin, creating a landscape dominated by hills
and depressions. Further from the glacier margin, broad, gently rolling plains of sand
outwash were deposited. Glacial lakes left behind regions of relatively flat silty and
sandy soils. The southeast corner of the county represents a contrast to the recently
glaciated areas.
The county can be divided into five distinct areas, or geomorphic regions, based on
common geologic and topographic features. Figure 9 illustrates the locations of these
regions.These regions share a commonality of factors that influence groundwater and
the issues that may affect groundwater resources. The five regions are described below.
St. Croix Moraine: The St. Croix Moraine is the dominant geomorphic feature in
the county marking the furthest most eastern advance of the last great ice sheet
in the region. Glacial sediment is up to several hundred feet thick. The landscape is
characterized by rolling hills, ridges, and closed depressions. A complex mixture of
ice-contact, outwash, ice-walled lake, and glacial till deposits cover the bedrock. Lakes
and wetlands occupy many of the depressions. Streams are nearly absent. Most surface
water either infiltrates into the ground or runs to closed depressions.The moraine
dominates the central and northern parts of the county and extends into Woodbury.
Glacial Lake Hugo Plain:The Glacial Lake Hugo Plain lies in the northwestern partof
the county. The terrain is gently rolling to flat. The surface geology consists primarily of
fine sand and sandy silt glacial lake deposits and outwash. Wetlands and shallow lakes
are common.
Lake Elmo-Cottage Grove Outwash Plain: As the last glacial ice melted back, a large
area to its south was covered with sandy outwash deposits. The outwash plain is gently
rolling and punctuated by shallow depressions and lakes. Parts of the plain are hilly
where the outwash deposits overlay the rolling topography of the St. Croix Moraine.
The outwash plain covers parts of the south central region of the county extending from
Lake Elmo to Cottage Grove. In the southern portion of the outwash plain, the bedrock
surface topography is reflected on the undulating land surface.
Denmark Dissected Plain: The Denmark Dissected Plain lies in the southeastern part
of the county outside the region covered by the last glacial advance. This area exhibits
a gentle to strongly rolling topography controlled by the topography of the bedrock
surface. In general, thin soils cover the bedrock. This region is distinct from the rest of
the county because there is a relatively well developed surface drainage system and few
lakes or wetlands are found.
St. Croix and Mississippi River Terraces: Broad flat to gently rolling areas covered by
sand and gravel are found along the eastern and southern edges of the county. These
are called terrace features which were formed from the deposition of sediment in vastly
larger glacial melt-water river valleys.
2.2 GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY
Groundwater hydrology or hydrogeology is the smdy of the interaction beNVezn
� eartlima�rialsandwa�cTheoccurrenwofwa�rin�heear�h(qroundwa�r)andih
movement is �he primary focus of �he field of hydrogeology. To address groundwa�r, it
is important ro s�p back and first look anhe larger'hydrology"picmre. The hydrologic
cycle is depicted below, in Illustration 1. The hydrologic cycle explains the three paths
precipibfion bkes af�rhlling onro �he land surface.
1. Precipibfionevapora�sinrotheatrnospheredirectlyor�hroughplan�.
2. Precipitafionrunsoffdirectlyrosurfawwa�rbodies(lal�s,streams,wetlands).
3. Precipitafioninfiltra�sdownwardinrogeologicformafions.Wa�rthat
infiltra�s inro �he ground moves �hrough an unsamra�d zone ro �he wa�r
table. At �his pointitbecomes groundwa�r.
Illushation 1
co�m��mm�
�rydrom9fc p ��
PrecI011ation
�' Erepotreneq�Nlan
P9 iin u s�n m
\ +��on
u `
� °�� a. . ��
a
{ � �� �
�� �,.y..
: WM1IEA a
SourmJlinoisSd�eWaterSUrvegVniriePesa3rcM1lnstitutcUnioersityollllinoisUrMna-CM1ampaign -
The infiltrafion of precipitafion inro groundwa�r is referred ro as groundwater
recharge.
Groundwa�rFlows �hrough porous geologic ma�nals. The less porous �he geologic
ma�nal,�hegrea�r�hedifficulryforgroundwa�rroFlow�hroughi[ Aquikrsare
geologic formafions �hat transmit groundwa�r in sufficient quanfifies ro a well
for human consumption. Permeable sand and gravel crea� what is �Iled pnmary
porosiry. Highly fracmred and broken ma�rials like limesrone crea� secondary
porosiry. Aquikrs �n exhibit pnmary porosiry, secondary porosity, ora combinafion
of �he Nvo. In �he counry, bo�h porous sand and gravel glacial orsurfaw deposiS and
highly fiacmred, wea�hered, limesrone and sandsrone bedrockfomrations actas
aquikrs.
Geologic uniTSihattransmii little groundwaierare referred io as aquitards orconfining
_ - Iayers.Aquitardscanexhibiiarangeofporosity6omneadyimpermeableiomoderaiely
- impermeable.AllaquitardshavesomecomponeniofpermeabiliTyandallowsmall
amounTS ofwaierio pass ihrough ffiem. In ihe county, clay orsili-rich glacial iill or
- lakedeposiTS,andshalebedrockformaiionsfunciionasaquiiards. Aquiiardslimiiffie
,.--�-.�-_.. amouniofgroundwaierFlowpassingfromoneaquiferioanoiher.
' ._ .- . Aquiferscanbeeiffierconfinedorunconfined.Confinedaquifers,alsocalledartesian
_ - . . � -- aquifers,haveaquiiardsaboveffiem.Unconfinedaquifershavenoaquitardaboveihem
_ - andmayalsobeconsideredawaiertableaquifer.
�'—'°� =-� Infiliraiionofsurfacewaieriniogroundwaier,orrecharge,occursinrechargeareas.
The infiliraiion poieniial in ihe county, based on soil types, is depicied in Figure
10. Recharge capability is conirolled byffie amouniand iiming of precipitaiion,ffie
sunc�e geology and geomorphology, bedrock geology, and bedrockiopography.
Groundwaier recharges waier iable aquifers in widespread a reas of ffie county where
� sunc�esedimeniishighlyiomoderaielypermeable.Rechargeisespeciallyfocused
on Flai areas and areas where depressions dominaie ffie land sunc�e. Groundwaier
recharges ffie bedrockwhere bedrock aquifers are in contaciwiffi waiertable aquifers
orwherebedrockiscloseioihelandsunc�e. Rechargeanddischargeareasareshown
in Figure 11.
In aquifers, groundwaier is driven by gravity, migraiing boih vertically and horizontally,
iowards groundwaier discharge areas. Groundwaier discharge areas include streams,
lakes, weilands and wells.The major groundwaierdischarge zones in ffie county are ffie
St Croix and Mississippi Rivers.
Waier bodies ffiai don i funciion as groundwaier recharge or discharge feamres are
referredioasperched. Perchedlakesandweilandsareseparaied6omgroundwaierby
a confining geologic formaiion composed offinergrained clay orsili maierial.
2.2.1 CountyAquifersandAquitards(Hydrostratigraphy)
The geologic uniTS described onTables 1and 2 can be grouped and divided inio eiiher
aquifers oraquitards. Hydrosiraiigraphy is ffie grouping ofgeologic uniTS byihe
properties of g roundwaier Flow.
2.2.2 Quaternary Hydrostratigraphy
The Quaiemary geologic formaiions are varied and complex in ffie counTy and so is
groundwaier Flow ffirough ihem. In some cases, such as wiih broad outwash plains, ffie
geology and groundwaier hydrology is predictable. In many cases ffiough, especially
in deeper, olderglacial sedimenTS, geologic formaiions change overshort distances
causing groundwaierFlowio be less predictable. Table3 provides a descripiion offfie
Quaiemary aquifers and aquitards or hydrostraiigraphy.
Table 3: Hydrostratigraphy Glacial Sediment Units Washington County
Hydro-
stratigraphic Hydrologic Hydrostratigraphic Unit Description/Importance
Unit Funftion
Quaternary sand and gravel deposits are important aquifers in the
County. These deposits occur at the surface and at varying depths
down to bedrock.5and and gravel units at or near the land surface
SandandGravel MajorAquiferto functionasimportantgroundwaterrechargeareas.Watermoves
MinorAquifer rapidlyandinlargequantitiesthroughsandandgravelaquifers.
Drinking water supplywells in sand and gravel aquifers are found in
the northern part of the Countyand in terrace deposits along the
major rivers.
Quaternaryfine sand aquifers are used infrequently forwater supply,
but are important as groundwater recharge areas. Fine sand readily
FineSand MinorAquifer transmitsgroundwaterbutinmostcasesatmoderateratesand
quantities. Fine sand units tend to be relatively level or contain
basins that enhance groundwater recharge.
Sandysilt units function as aquitards because theytransmit ground-
SandySilt MinorAquitard waterveryslowlyandinlowquantity.5andysiltunitsattheland
surface allow less infiltration or recharge to aquifers.5andysilt is
found at the surface and at depth.
Because theyvary greatly in sediment size and density, glacial till
units can function as minor aquifers to aquitards in Washington
MinorAquitardto County.5andy,lesscompactedtillsfunctionasminoraquifers.Two
GlacialTill MajorAquitard ��Ilswithhigherpercentagesofsandandgravelhavebeenmappedin
the county. Dense, clayand silt rich tills transmit water at lower rates
and quantities and function as aquitards. Two till units have been
mapped having greater abundance of clay and silt in the County.
2.23 Bedrock Hydrostratigraphy
Four bedrock aquifer hydrostratigraphic units are found beneath the county. The units
vary in thickness, porosity, permeability, and water quality. The principal bedrock
groundwater sources used by county communities, well owners, and industry are
the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers. Other bedrock aquifers include the St. Peter
Sandstone, theTunnel City Group (formerly named the Franconia formation) the
Wonewoc Sandstone (formerly named the Ironton-Galesville Sandstone), and the Mt.
Simon Hinckley Sandstone formations. Three bedrock hydrostratigraphic units function
as major aquitards. Table 4 provides a description of the bedrock hydrostratigraphy of
the county.
Table 4: Hydrostratigraphy
Hydro- Hydrostratigraphic Unit
stratigraphic Hydro-logic Description/Importance Thickness
Unit Function
These units are discontinuous and where they occur in
Decorah Washington County, function as a groundwater
Patteville Aquitard confining unit. The shales are least permeable. Parts 0-35
Glenwood of the Platteville limestone are permeable and may
yield minor amounts of water, but it is not considered
an important groundwater source in the County.
The St. Peter Sandstone is discontinuous in
Washington County. The St. Peter was eroded
St. Peter Aquifer Minor S�gnificantly prior to deposition of glacial sediment.
Sandstone Aquitard Minor The unit is a minor source of water for private well use. 0-66
In some areas, the lowest portion of the St. Peter
contains siltstone and shale and may act as a
confining layer.
The Prairie Du Chien Group limestone is an important
aquifer in Washington County because it is relatively
thick and exhibits a high level of porosity. Many
private and public water supplies tap into this source.
Prairie Du Chien The aquifer is available nearly County-wide with ex- 134-203
ceptions in the northwest corner and far eastern side
Aquifer ofthe County. In central and southern Washington
Major Countywhere the Prairie du Chien is thicker, the lower
40 feet is a leaky aquitard.
The Jordan Sandstone is the most used aquifer for
Jordan municipal purposes in Washington County. It is
Sandstone another relativelythick and porous unit that supplies 66�6
abundant water to wells. It is available in nearly all
areas of the County.
The St. Lawrence Formation is composed of thin
St. Lawrence layers of shale and siltstone and is found under all of
Formation A9uitard Washington County except in some areas along the St. 30- 58
Croix River and in the far northwest.
Aquifer-Upper The Tunnel City Group (formerlythe Franconia
Tunnel City Formation) is a thick shale and siltstone unit. The
Group A9uitard- upper portion is an aquifer and lower half to one third 154-165
Lower i an aquitard.
The Wonewoc Sandstone (formerly the Ironton-
Galesville Sandstone) consists of porous sandstone.
Wonewoc qquifer Major This aquifer is used in areas ofthe Countywhere the q5�6
Sandstone shallower Prairie Du-Chien.lordan aquifer is absent or
may be unusable. The aquifer underlies most of the
County except near Lakeland.
Eau Claire The Eau Claire Formation shale and siltstone transmit
Formation A9uitard little water. This unit acts to effectively separate the 63-114
Wonewoc Aquifer from the Mt. Simon Aquifer.
This is a productive aquifer located beneath the entire
Mt. Simon County. It is used only in areas located adjacent to the
Hinckley Aquifer Major St. Croix River and, in one case, in Forest Lake. At 160-255
Formation present, there is a State ordinance prohibiting use of
this aquifer except for municipal water supplies.
23 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
Groundwater recharge has a direct bearing on the future of county groundwater
quantity and quality. The factors that influence groundwater recharge include geology,
geomorphology, climate, and land use.
23.1 Groundwater Recharge to Water Table Aquifers
The quantity of groundwater recharge varies from year to year and decade to decade
based on climate fluctuations and land use. Differing geology and geomorphology
influence where groundwater recharge is more or less prevalent. The quantity and
quality of groundwater recharge can be altered by human activity. In urban regions,
where the land cover contains a higher percentage of impervious surfaces, groundwater
recharge may be reduced. Point source and non-point source pollution released in
groundwater recharge areas will degrade water quality.
The five main geomorphic regions of the county function in varying capacities as
groundwater recharge areas (Figure 9).The recharge characteristics of the five regions
are described in Table 5.
23.2 Groundwater Recharge to Bedrock Aquifers
As discussed previously, and as presented on Table 4, one minor and three major
bedrock aquifers lay below the county. Aquitards provide separation between these
aquifers.
For bedrockaquifers to recharge there must be a pathwayfor groundwater to move
from the surface downward. Groundwater recharge to bedrock aquifers occurs where
aquitards are absent. The upper bedrock aquifers (St. Peter Sandstone, Prairie du
Chien group, Jordan Sandstone) receive recharge waters from overlying sand and
gravel, fine sand, or sandy till glacial sediment. Recharge to deeper bedrock aquifers
is concentrated in bedrockvalleys where aquitards have eroded away and the
deeper aquifers are in contact with water bearing glacial sediment. Figure7 shows
the locations of bedrock val leys and Figure 6 shows the uppermost bedrock surface
beneath the glacial or surface sediment.
Deeper aquifers also receive recharge through leaking aquitards. Recharge through
aquitards, though less significant, is an important source of groundwater in the deepest
aquifers.
Table 6 describes the hydrogeologic factors affecting recharge of bedrock aquifers.
233 Groundwater Flow and Discharge
Groundwater flows horizontally and vertically through aquifers from recharge areas to
discharge areas. Groundwater flow can be mapped using water level elevation data
collected from wells and surface water bodies. Points of equal elevation are connected
by lines to draw a contour map of the groundwater level surface. Flow direction can
be determined by drawing lines perpendicular to the groundwater contours. The flow
direction is towards the contour of lowest elevation.
Table 5: Recharge Functions of Geomorphic Regions Washington County
Geomorphic Topography/Geology Groundwater Recharge Function
Region
The heavily rolling moraine land surface is Recharge occurs over most of the moraine.
coveredwithpermeablesandandgraveland Areaswithhigheramountsofclayorsilttill
moderate to less permeable fine sand deposits and ice walled lake sediments have lower
and glacial till. In urbanized areas of the recharge functions. Closed depressions
St. Croix moraine (Oakdale, Woodbury, Stillwater) there and level sandy regions function as key
Moraine isahigherdegreeofimpervioussurfaces. rechargeareas.
Natural surface water drainage is limited to a
few small creeks. Abundant closed depressions
containing lakes and wetlands are common.
Otherde ressionsared .
Relatively low-lying and gently rolling to flat. In areas where there is sufficient thickness
Contains mostlyfine sand and silty sand units. of unsaturated materials between the land
GlacialLake Thewatertableisgenerallyveryclosetoorat surfaceandthewatertable,amoderateto
Hugo Plain the land surface.5urfacewaterdrainage high amount of rechargewill occur.
systems are relatively undeveloped (except in
ditched areas).
Moderatelyflattorollinganddominatedby Becauseofthegentleterrain,the
fine to medium sand material. Closed abundance of permeable geologic material
Lake Elmo- depressions contain lakes and wetlands, others and the presence of numerous closed
Cottage Grove are dry. There is generally little natural surface depressions, this is a key recharge area in
OutwashPlain waterdrainage.lnthesouthernpartofthis theCounty.
region, the sandy outwash unit thins and lies
directl incontactwiththebedrock.
Moderately rolling to rugged terrain with thin Recharge is mainly into the Prairie Du
soils or bedrockat the surface. There is a well- Chien and Jordan Aquifers. Much of the
Denmark developed surface waterdrainage networkof region is subjectto rapid infiltration of
Dissected Plain small ravines and valleys. Closed depressions surface precipitation into the groundwater
(karst features) are present but not abundant system.
and are typically dry. The fractured and karsted
PrairieDuChiena uiferisclosetothesurface.
These regions borderthe Mississippi and St.
St. Croix Croix Rivers and are generally level to Groundwater recharge is high on the flat
and moderately rolling. The surface geology sand and gravel plains.
consists of abundant sand and gravel.
Mississippi
Terraces
Table 6: Recharge Factors Bedrock Hydrostratigraphy Washington County
Hydro- Hydrologic
stratigraphic Function Description of Groundwater Recharge Factors
Unit
Prevents recharge to the St. Peter Sandstone and underlying
Decorah bedrock aquifers. Present in much of Woodbury and Cottage Grove
Platteville Aquitard and in parts of Lakeland, Afton and Denmark Township. Recharge
Glernvood into lower aquifers may be focused along the edges of the
Platteville.
Recharged in areas where it is not overlain by the
Decorah/Platteville/ Glernvood confining layer, generally in the
St. Peter Minor Aquifer West central part of the County (Mahtomedi, Dellwood and Grant).
Sandstone Minor Aquitard The lower portion may act as a minor aquitard to the Prairie Du
ChienJordan Aquifers. Numerous erosion channels and windows
are cut through exposing the Prairie Du ChienJordan Aquifer to
Quaternary sediment and recharge.
Prairie Du Chien Recharge is from Quaternary aquifers. In general, regions on the
Group St. Croix Moraine, Lake Elmo-Cottage Grove Outwash Plain and St.
Croix and Mississippi Terraces not overlain by the Decorah-
Platteville-Glenwood aquitard are significant recharge areas. Some
recharge probably occurs from the St. Peter Sandstone. Glacial till
Major Aquifer units may function as local aquitards. In the Denmark Dissected
Plain region, quaternary sediment is thin or absent and
Jordan Sandstone groundwater recharges directly to the Prairie Du ChienJordan
system. In this area as well as areas along the major rivers, karst
features may create highly permeable localized recharge
conditions. In central and southern Washington County where the
Prairie du Chien is thicker, the lower 40 feet is a leak a uitard.
St. Lawrence The St. Lawrence Formation is composed of thin layers of shale
Formation A9uitard and siltstone and is found under all of Washington County except
in some areas along the St. Croix River and in the far northwest.
Aquifer-Upper The Tunnel City Group (formerly the Franconia Formation) is a
Tunnel City Group Aquitard- thick shale and siltstone unit. The upper portion is an aquifer and
Lower lower half to one third is an aquitard.
Recharge occurs in the far northwest and northeast portions of the
County in isolated bedrock valleys where the Tunnel City Group is
Wonewoc eroded. Communication with the overlying Quaternary aquifers will
Sandstone Major Aquifer vary based on the thickness and extent of till that lies above the
aquifer. Bedrock valleys are important conduits into this aquifer.
Recharge from outside the County and leakage through the Tunnel
City Group is also a factor.
Eau Claire Major Aquitard A major region-wide aquitard preventing downward migration of
Formation groundwater to the Mount Simon Aquifer.
Recharged outside of the county in areas where it is not overlain
Mt. Simon by the Eau Claire formation. Recharge from leakage through the
Sandstone Major Aquitard Eau Claire Formation is also a factor. The Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources has currently placed a moratorium on use of the
Mt. Simon A uiferforwater su I.
23.4 Groundwater Flow and Discharge: Water TableAquifer
Groundwater flow through the water table aquifer is illustrated on Figure 12.
Groundwater flow through the water table aquifer follows three general paths:
1. From recharge areas to local discharge areas such as minor streams, ditches,
wetlands, and lakes.
2. From recharge areas into the major river valley discharge areas (Mississippi and
St. Croix).
3. From recharge areas through the water table aquifer into bedrockaquifers.
23.5 Groundwater Flowand Discharge: BedrockAquifers
Figures 13-17 illustrate groundwater flow patterns in the bedrock aquifers. As is
depicted on the figures, groundwater moves from the central upland regions of the
county flowing in a radial pattern to the east, south, and west. Groundwater discharges
to both the Mississippi River to the south and west and to the St. Croix River to the
east. Along the west edge of the county, groundwater flows into Ramsey and Anoka
Counties.
Groundwater discharges into the major rivers through sand and gravel deposits.
Discharge is also concentrated in seeps, bedrockfractures, in ravines eroded backfrom
the main river valleys, and along contacts between confining layers and aquifers.
Groundwater also discharges to domestic, municipal, and industrial wells. High capacity
wells can have a significant impact on groundwater flow, creating zones of influence
miles in diameter. When a well is pumped, it creates a drawdown in the aquifer water
level. This drawdown, referred to as the cone of depression, can extend for great
distances depending on the rate of pumping, capacity of the aquifer, and influence of
other wells.
23.6 Groundwater Recharge Climate-Precipitation
Precipitation amount is the principal driver for groundwater recharge volume. In turn,
recharge volume impacts water levels in aquifers, the amount of water available to
sustain human consumption, and the volume of water available to supply surface water
bodies that depend on groundwater interaction.
The county lies in the northern mid-continental region of North America exhibiting
a climate of warm humid summers and cold dry winters. The climate is influenced by
three major elements: polar air masses originating in Canada, subtropical air masses
originating in the Gulf of Mexico, and variable air masses from the Pacific regions. The
region experiences marked short, near and long-term climatic variations in temperature
and precipitation. In this region, the amount of precipitation considerably exceeds the
amount of evaporation resulting in abundant surface water resources and groundwater
recharge.
Based on data from 1900-2012, the average annual temperature in Washington County
(near Stillwater) is 45.7°F.Temperatures average 13.6°F in January (the coldest month)
and 73.4°F in July (the warmest month).There is a slight variation in temperature
from the southern to the northern parts of the county. The first frost usually occurs
in early October and the last frost usually occurs in mid May. The graph below shows
�
the average annual temperature over time, from 1900-2012. Since 1900, the overall
temperature trend is increasing, with 8 of the hottest years on record occurring in the
last 15 years.
Precipitation statistics since 1900 indicate an average annual precipitation of 29.9
inches.The following graph illustrates precipitation data from 1900 to 2012. The graph
shows the difference either greater than or less than the average annual precipitation.
This is referred to as the deviation from the mean annual precipitation. The graph helps
to illustrate the degree of precipitation fluctuations above and below normal from year-
to-year and from decade-to-decade. As an overall trend, we are seeing a slight increase
in precipitation. However, there have been several periods of low precipitation in recent
years, most notably in the late 1980s, and again from 2007-2011.
�
Average Annual Temperature near Stillwater, MN 1900-2012
Deviation from Mean Precipitation near Stillwater, MN 1900-2012 —
Groundwater levels are closely tied to surface water levels in much of the northern
part of the county. Fluctuation of groundwater levels due to climatic variations has
several major implications on local and regional planning efforts. Growth of housing in
parts of the county with shallow water tables may be effected by short and long-term
groundwater level fluctuations. Prior to new development, flooding potential should be
evaluated in landlocked areas and areas with shallow groundwater.
It will be equally important to understand the affects drought conditions could have on
groundwater systems. Even droughts of less magnitude, such as occurred in the late
1980s, triggered concerns about diminishing water supplies and lowered lake levels.
A drought of the magnitude seen during the 1920s and 1930s could create a serious
shortage of groundwater for pumping and may set up potential conflicts between the
needs of different communities and the protection of natural resources.
23.7 Groundwater Recharge - Land Use
Land cover and land use changes are incremental. The proliferation of impervious
surfaces on the landscape will, over time, slowly reduce groundwater recharge. It would
take decades of monitoring to actually measure the effects. The infiltration potential in
the county, based on soil types, is displayed in Figure 10.To accommodate an expected
population growth to 363,190 residents by 2030, activities on the land and alteration of
the land surface will continue to have an impact on infiltration and ultimately recharge
to the aquifer. Chapter 3 discusses specific strategies that will encourage infiltration and
recharge areas in the county, to offset continued land use changes.To assure long-term
economic and environmental health, groundwater protection and conservation must
be incorporated into city and county comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and land
use decisions.
2.4 GROUNDWATER DEPENDENT RESOURCES
As discussed previously and depicted on Page 20, the hydrologic cycle refers to the
interaction between water in the atmosphere, surface water, and groundwater. Each
element of the hydrologic cycle performs vital functions. The atmospheric contribution,
in the form of precipitation, provides the main source of groundwater recharge, and
was discussed in the previous section. Surface water resources, and their interaction
with groundwater, are also very importantfor understanding the complete picture of
groundwater resources in the county.
2.4.1 Lake Resources and Groundwater
Lakes provide important public recreation for swimming, boating, and fishing as well
as important ecologic and hydrologic functions. Lakes are also desirable aesthetic
features to residents and visitors. Lakes function both as groundwater recharge areas
and groundwater discharge areas.The role of groundwater in the overall ecologic
health of lakes and aquifers is important, but often not well understood. Two extensive
studies completed since the current Plan was adopted in 2003 for the Northern and
Southern halves of the county, provide a good overview of groundwater and surface
water interaction. The studies categorize lakes and water bodies in terms of recharge,
discharge, or flow-through potential, depicted in Figures 18-19.
Groundwater Recharge Lakes
Groundwater recharge lakes collect and store water which, in turn, recharges regional
aquifers. Many lakes in the county are positioned above bedrockvalleys, providing
a steady source of water for recharging deeper bedrock aquifers. Groundwater
recharge lakes are significant in maintenance of groundwater quality and quantity.
Recharge lakes add stability to aquifer levels by collecting and storing large quantities
of precipitation that will eventually infiltrate to groundwater systems. Watershed
management goals should focus on maintaining the natural storage function in
groundwater recharge lakes to promote groundwater recharge. Diverting water out of
lake basins will decrease the amount of water available for recharge.
Groundwater quality can be impacted by the water quality in recharge lakes. Efforts to
protect surface water quality will also ultimately protect groundwater quality. Examples
of recharge lakes include Oneka, Goose, Long Lakes in the northern part of the county,
and Tanners, Battle and Colby Lakes in the southern part of the county.
Groundwater Discharge Lakes
Lakes dependent on groundwater discharge from springs are common in the county.
Groundwater input varies by lake with some lakes receiving relatively high levels
of spring flow and some lakes only moderate amounts of spring input. Lakes with
abundant groundwater input tend to be clear and are highly valued by residents
and the visiting public. The clearest and cleanest lakes in Washington County rely on
high volumes of groundwater discharge or springs for their primary source of water.
Northern Washington County's Square Lake receives over 70 percent of its volume from
springs and is regionally renowned for its clear waters, attracting thousands of scuba
divers annually. Other discharge lakes include Lake Elmo and Lake Edith.
Flow Through Lakes
Flow through lakes are those for which recharge and discharge occur in different
areas. These can be important recharge areas and are also very sensitive to changes
in groundwater levels. Several lakes in the county are classified as flow-through lakes
including Big and Little Carnelian, Big Marine, Carver, Demontreville, Eagle Point, Forest,
Lake Elmo, and White Bear Lake. Using White Bear Lake as an example there are areas
of groundwater inflow to the lake and areas where lake water discharges to the water
table aquifer. The USGS 2013 study's preliminary findings indicate that lower lake levels
may be partially explained by increased use of groundwater in the area. However, there
are potetially other factors and the USGS is undertaking additional studies to better
understand the specific relationship between pumping from deep bedrockaquifers and
surface water features in Washington County. White Bear Lake is discussed further in
Chapter 4.
2.4.2 Stream Resources and Groundwater
The county contains numerous spring-fed tributaries, including Trout Brook, Valley
Creek, Brown's Creek, the Mill Stream and other smaller named and unnamed creeks,
that are dependent on groundwater discharge to maintain flow and ecological health.
The majority of the springs and creeks lie along the St. Croix River Valley. As with spring-
fed lakes, spring-fed creeks are ecologically fragile.
Many of the Washington County spring-fed creeks are suitable for brook trout and
brown trout to thrive and reproduce. The DNR lists six designated trout streams in
the county (Figure20). Numerous other small streams with naturally reproducing
brook trout populations also exist in Washington County. These streams are not DNR
°designated trout°waters.
Groundwater systems are the principle source of water for streams in Washington
County. A 1999 study conducted by the St. Croix Watershed Research Station found
that approximately 85 percent of the total volume of discharge from Brown's Creek was
derived from groundwater sources. In the same study, it was found that approximately
92 percent of the volume of stream discharge in Valley Creek was from groundwater
discharge. Maintaining sufficient quantities and high quality groundwater are critical
to maintain stream base flow and water temperatures. Spring flows to streams is
threatened by both the depletion of groundwater recharge from the increase of
impervious surfaces and the increase in pumping from aquifers thatfeed streams. Since
that time, Brown's Creek Watershed District has completed a total maximum daily load
(TMDL) study for Brown's Creek, which is impaired for aquatic life due to a lack of cold
water fish assemblage and due to high turbidity. They are also monitoring groundwater
levels to determine if lowering aquifers are a cause of the temperature increases in the
creek.
2.43 Groundwater Fed Wetlands
The National Wetlands Inventory Map (Figure21) illustrates the location of wetlands in
the county. A 1984 study (University of Minnesota) calculated that only 42.9 percent of
original wetland acreage in the county remained. Each remaining wetland performs
one or more of the following vital hydrologic functions:
water storage and flood control;
water treatment;
groundwater recharge;
groundwater discharge; and
• critical habitat.
It would be extremely difficult to quantify the exact benefit wetlands provide in
protecting and conserving groundwater resources. Nevertheless, preserving and
protecting the remaining wetlands in the county is critical to maintaining groundwater
recharge and water quality.
The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) was signed into law in 1991.The
purpose of the law is to prevent further loss of wetlands and to promote restoration
of former wetlands. A°net gain" in wetlands is the desired result. The WCA requires
persons proposing to drain or fill a wetland to first attempt to avoid the impact; second,
attempt to minimize the impact; and finally, replace any impacted area with another
wetland of equal function and value.The law is administered by local government units
and the Washington Conservation District. Some communities within the county have
additional rules in place that are meant to protect and preserve wetlands. Several water
management organizations also have rules in place to protect wetlands. The BWSR
oversees WCA programs.
2.4.4 Unique and Rare Natural Communities
Groundwater discharge supports a number of different wetland types found primarily
adjacent to streams and along the edges of the St. Croix and Mississippi River Valleys.
Groundwater seepage provides a highly stable source of consistently cool, mineral rich
water creating conditions suitable to support unique plant and animal communities.
These communities are highly susceptible to disruption in groundwater discharge and
from land disturbances.
According to the publication °St. Croix River Valley and Anoka Sand Plain- A Guide to
Native Habitats"(University of Minnesota Press 1996), there are several unique and rare
natural community types in Washington County dependent on groundwater seepage
including black ash seepage swamps, hardwood seepage swamps, rich fens, circum
neutral tamarack swamps, sedge meadows, wet prairies and moist cliff communities.
In 2010 the Brown's Creek Watershed District developed a Groundwater Dependent
Natural Resource Comprehensive Management Plan to protect a fen in the City of Grant.
Groundwater seepage is the key feature that sustains these relatively rare natural
resources. Several unique and rare plant and animal species are found in these
groundwater seepage communities including: False Mermaid, American Water-
pennywort, Bog Bluegrass, and Halberd-Leaved TearThumb. Rare animal species
include the Red-Shouldered Hawk and the Louisiana Waterthrush. As with stream
resources, threats to seepage wetlands include loss of groundwater flow from over-
pumping, increasing impervious surfaces, loss of recharge from water diversion and
groundwater quality degradation.
Groundwater
IS d Vltd�
ai�uiiu ewuiie uywuwuuiy,Viwiuuyi��Neiieuwiuie
waier used fordrinking, commercial, indusirial, and irrigaiion needs. Compeiing wiffi
consumpiive groundwaier uses are namral resources such as sireams, lakes, and
weila nds ffiai are dependeni on a sieady groundwaier supply io mai nta in ffieir vita lity.
The counry's coniinued populaiion grow[h puTS an increasing demand on waier
supplies. Overuse of groundwaier decreases ffie a mouni ava ila ble for public a nd
privaiewaiersupplies,andreduceslevelsinlakes,weilands,andsireams. Evidence
offfie overuse of groundwaier has become more appareni in receniyears wiih ffie
increase in residenTS wells pumping short and ihe decreasing levels of counry lakes,
including W hiie Bear Lake. This will be discussed fur[her in Chapier4.
Anoffien c�ior ffiai affecTS groundwaier supply is ihe weaffiec The highesi dema nd
on aquifers oken comes during droughi condiiions. DroughTS pose a serious ffireatto
groundwaiersupplies due io ffie compounded effecTS of i ncreased waier use for lawn
sprinkling and crop irrigaiion, and decrease in replenishmeni or recharge of aquifers.
In ffie Twin Ciiies Meiro poliian Area, summer waier usage is 26 iimes ihe waier usage
in ffie winier(per DNR 2007 ciied 6om WaierSustainability Framework, Domestic Use
Technical WorkTeam Repor[). To develop long-ierm stabiliry of aquifer levels, waier use
ha biTS musi cha nge, as must ihe misco ncepiio n ihai g ro undwaier reserves a re i nfin iie.
resource in
Groundwaiersupply is also impacied by contaminaiion. The county has known
groundwaierconiaminaiion 6om perFluorochemicals, volaiile organic compounds, and
WBShlllgt011 niiraies.Theseffireaienffieavailablecleanwaierneededfordrinking.Addiiionally
ffiere are emerging contaminanTS ffiai are currenily being ideniified and analyzed by
MDH. These contaminanTS will be discussed further in Chapiers 5 ffirough 7.
COUIItY.
Grou ndwater App rop riat ion
To a greai ez2enigroundwaiersupply can be managed ffirough appropriaiion permiTS.
The DN R is ffie only staie agency ffiai permiTS a ppropriaiions of g roundwaier bui
waiershed disiricTS also have ffie auihorityio appropriaie groundwaier.
Depar[men[ ofNamral Resources
The Depar[meni of Namra I Resources regulaies ffie appropriaiion of g roundwaier
underMinnesota Rules Chapier6115 and Minnesota Siamie 103G. The DNR also
moniiors groundwaier levels and has an ez2ensive observaiion well neiwork in ffie
counry,seeFigure22. ADNRpermiiisneededioappropriaiegroundwaierforany
domestic use serving 25 o r more persons or for any use exceed ing 10,000 ga Ilons per
day or 1,000,000 gallons in a year.
M innesota law seTS genera I prioriiies for waier appropriaiions in ffie Staie as ouilined
6om highestto lowesC
• firstprioriry,domesticwaiersupply,excludingindusirialand
commercial uses of municipal waiersupply, and use for power produciion ffiai
meeTS ffie coniingency planning provisions;
• second priority, a use of waierffiai involves consumpiion of less ffian
10,000 gal lons of waier per day;
third priority, agricultural irrigation, and processing of agricultural products
involving consumption in excess of 10,000 gallons per day;
fourth priority, power production in excess of the use provided for in the
contingency plan;
fifth priority, uses, other than agricultural irrigation, processing of agricultural
products, and power production, involving consumption in excess of 10,000
gallons per day; and
sixth priority, nonessential uses.
Additionally, Minnesota Statute 103G.271 restricts the use of the Mt. Simon-Hinckley
aquifer in a metropolitan county. Use of the Mt. Simon will only be permitted if the
appropriation is for drinking water, there are no feasible alternatives, and a conservation
plan is developed.The intent is to protect this resource for high priority water use.
This statute also prohibits the DNR from issuing a water use permit to increase the
volume of appropriations from any groundwater source for a once-through heating/
cooling system using in excess of 5,000,000 gallons annually. Existing systems must be
terminated by the end of their design-life or no later than December 31, 2010.
The commissioner of the DNR also has statutory authority (Minnesota Statute 103G.287,
subd.4) to designate groundwater management areas (GWMA). These areas are
designated to limit total annual water appropriations and uses to ensure sustainable
use of groundwater that protects ecosystems, water quality, and the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. A GWMA is being developed for the north and
eastTwin Cities metropolitan area and is discussed further in Chapter 4.
Wafershed Disfricfs
Watershed Districts are also charged with providing for the protection of groundwater
and regulating its use to preserve itfor beneficial purposes, as defined in Minnesota
Statute 103D.201 Subd.2 (14). Watershed Districts have the authority to regulate
groundwater use and appropriations under Minnesota Statute 103D335 Subd. 10 if
the powers are incorporated into the Watershed DistricYs plan, as defined in Minnesota
Statute 103D341 Subd. 1. In December 2004 the Washington County Water Consortium
developed a report titled, °Incorporating Groundwater Protection into Watershed
District Rules:' This report recommended that watershed districts use their authority
to regulate groundwater use for wells that pump between 1,000 to 10,000 gallons per
day or between 100,000 to 1,000,000 gallons per year (wells not regulated by the DNR).
Currently none of the watershed districts in the county use the authority to regulate
groundwater that is granted to them under state statute.
Water Supply Planning and Conservation Efforts
Water supply planning and conservation are other methods to control water supply.
There are many agencies currently working on water supply planning and many water
conservation initiatives are currently in progress.
Universify ofMinnesofa
The 2009 Minnesota Legislature commissioned the University of Minnesota to develop
the Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework. The framework is a comprehensive
report designed to protect and preserve Minnesota's lakes, rivers, and groundwater into
the future. It makes recommendations to the State of Minnesota on actions to fund to
wark toward this goal. To read click on (� �� � � , � _ ..
Mefropolifan Council
The Metropolitan Council engages in water planning for the metropolitan area. In
March 2010 they published the Metropolitan Area Master Water Supply Plan. The
plan lays out an adaptive approach to water supply management and is an important
tool for guiding long-term water supply planning at the local and regional level. The
plan includes information to help LGUs plan for future development based on water
needs, including the water availability analysis, the water conservation toolbox, and
the Twin Cities Metropolitan Groundwater Flow Model. To read the plan, use the water
conservation toolbox or the model go to i1 Eet �>s;Gt.an (� ���nr!I'14<< ��.r ���er�a>!y l�i�nnir��,
Public Water Suppliers
Public water suppliers (PWSs) serving more than 1,000 people must develop a water
supply plan and submit it to the DNR for approval per MN Statute 103G.291. The plan
must address projected demands, adequacy of the water supply system, existing
and future water sources, natural resource impacts, emergency preparedness, water
conservation, supply and demand reduction measures, and allocation priorities.
Additionally, PWSs serving more than 1,000 people must encourage water conservation
by employing water use demand reduction measures that reduce water use, water
losses, peak water demands, and nonessential water uses before requesting an increase
in the authorized volume of appropriation.
Local Governmenf Unifs
Water use in growing communities often escalates as homeowners and businesses
establish new landscaping. To address these issues, communities throughout the
county have identified a number of tools for conserving water. These include sprinkling
ordinances, summer surcharges, showerhead and toilet replacement programs,joint
energy/water audits, aggressive leak detection programs, and water meter upgrades.
Communities and businesses in the county are working to create opportunities for
water reuse, such as collecting rain water runoff from the roof of a building and using
it for lawn irrigation. There is currently a conflict in the plumbing code that makes
it difficult to store rain water in tanks inside of a building and then connect it to the
irrigation system outside. This is one example where existing rules make it difficult to
implement practices that are imperative to conserving our water supply. It will take a
coordinated effort by all stakeholders to determine the changes needed in rules and
statutes to make water conservation efforts achievable and protective of public health.
Another benefit of water conservation is reduced capital costs for new wells and water
treatment plants. Consumers can also save money on water, wastewater management,
and energy. Sound water supply management will reduce water use conflicts, protect
economic health, and will sustain natural resources dependent on groundwater.
Conservation and water supply planning will require increased coordination among
municipalities, public education, and potentially, the formation of sub-regional water
supply systems where conflicting needs can be balanced. The strategies in this chapter
work toward this goal.
,'� � - 3.1 POLICY
� � — Thecounrywillpar[nerinacoordinaiedeffor[iodevelopsustainablegroundwaier
;� � _ managemeniffiaibalancesffiedischargefromffiewaiersupplywiihsufficieni
amounTS ofqualiry recharge, ensuring sufficienisupplies of counry groundwaier are
� � � available.
!r_
y
� 3.2 STRATEGIES
1. Developacountywidegroundwaierinformaiiondatabase,informedbyffie
work offfie DNR and ihe Meiropolitan Council, which ffie county and LGUs can
use io deiermine:
a. Awaierbudgetthaiincludessunc�ewaierandgroundwaier
inieraciion, an assessmeni offfie geologic condiiions, land use, and
groundwaier contaminaiion and climaie change irends and impacTS.
b. HowgroundwaierinffiecountyinieracTSregionally.
c. Aliemaiivedrinkingsuppliessuchasdeeperwells,surfacewaier
supply, or inierconneciions. This workwill build off of Public Waier
Supply plans required by MN Stamie 103G.291.
d. Theimpaciofhighcapacirywellsandmakerecommendaiionsonhow
io a Ileviaie ihai impact
2 Usingiheinformaiion6omihegroundwaierinformaiiondatabase,developa
iiered approach alert sysiem for aquifer levels.
3. AnalyzeffieDNRobservaiionwelldaiaiodeierminewhichwellscloselyfollow
pattems of precipitaiion, high capaciry pumping, ora combinaiion of boih.
4. DevelopanannualforumforffieDNRandiheMeiropolitanCouncilioshare
and updaie ffie Washingion Counry Waier Consortium wiin groundwaier
supply informaiion. This informaiion will be used io develop implementaiion
aciions forihe Groundwaier Plan Work Plans.
5. Developacountywidewaierconservaiionplaninpar[nershipwiffiLGUsand
staie agencies, informed by Siraiegy 1 above, ffiaC
a. Researchesandmakesrecommendaiionsonbesipraciicesregarding
conservaiion meihodssuchasiieredwaierraiestrucmres,iwomeier
sysiems wiih one meieriracking irrigaiion use only,ihe effeciiveness
and distribuiion of rain sensors, conduciingjoini energy/waier audiTS,
showerhead and ioilei replacemeni programs, and waier leak deieciion
projecTS.
b. EvaluaiesiheconFlicibetweenihebuildingcodeandffieeffor[sio
reuse non-potable waiec Including implementaiion iiemsio educaie
and collaboraie wiih building officials on ihe besi meffiods io resolve
ihese conFlicTS.
u Collaboraie wiihstaie permitting agencies io require beneficial use of
remediated groundwater and not allow direct discharge of treated
groundwater to a surface water.
d. Develops pilot projects for research and education on how water reuse
can be accomplished safely and affordably.
e. Evaluates existing educational efforts and makes recommendations on
what is most effective for citizens, land owners, public officials, LGUs,
and building officials, focused on water conservation.
Develops a reuse incentive program.
This page intentionally left blank.
�
`_�--_-- -- r�
BOth
groundwater
quantity and
C,�Ud�ltY hdV2
an impacton
surface water
Lakes, weilands, and sireams are 6equenily sunc�e exposures ofihe waieriable
inierseciing ffie land sunc�e. Boffi groundwaierquaniity and qualiry have an impaci
on surface waierquaniity and qualiry.The reverse is also irue in ffiaisunc�e waier
quaniity and quality can impaci groundwaiec Understanding ihe degree io which
surface waier level Flucmaiions affeci groundwaier level Flucmaiions and vice versa is
ez2remely impor[ani in understanding ihe waier balance. In Washingion County, lakes
and weilands can funciion boffi as groundwaier recharge or groundwaier discharge
zones and in mosi cases, streams and rivers funciion as groundwaier discharge zones.
Chapier 2 provides deta iled descripiions of groundwaier a nd sunc�e waier feamres
in ffie counry. Since adopiion offfie lasi Plan,iwo studies have been compleied on
groundwaierand sunc�e waier managemeni forffie Nor[hem and Souffiem halves of
ffie counry. Informaiion 6om ffiese smdies is referenced in ffie groundwaier resource
overview, as well as in ffiis seciion.
Sunc�e waier is managed and regulaied by Staie agencies, waiershed organizaiions,
and local govemmenTS. W hen ffie 2003 counry groundwaier plan was written waier
managemeniorganizaiionsand localgovemmenTSdidniusuallyhciorgroundwaier
provisions inio ffieir plans, policies, and rules.This is no longerffie casa Currenily
al I of ffie W MOs in ffie county discuss groundwaier i n ffieir plans by referencing ffie
counry groundwaier plan and mosi discuss groundwaier and sunc�e waier inieraciion.
Addiiionally mosiofffie local govemmenTS have also included informaiion on
groundwaier in iheir local waier managemeni plans. Awareness on ffie impor[ance
of including groundwaier as par[ of managing sunc�e waier came aboui mosily due
io ffie Nor[hem and Souffiem Washingion Counry groundwaier and surface waier
inieraciio n smdies ihai were suppor[ed by ihe counry a nd waiersheds. These smd ies
providedvaluableinformaiiononcounrywaierresources Fumreeffor[sshouldbuild
off ofihese smdies and focus on fur[her researching ffie level of conneciion beiween
surface waier and groundwaier, idenii(ying groundwaier recharge and discharge zones,
and developing policies and rules io proieci and holisiically manage waier resources.
There are many hciors ffiai affeciffie balance of groundwaier and sunc�e waier
qUBlltltyBnd inieraciion.InChapier3populaiiongrowffiwasdiscussedasahciorforgroundwaier
supply. Populaiiongrow[halsoaffecTSgroundwaierandsunc�ewaierinieraciion
beca use ihe i ncreased impervious surhce from ffie associaied developmeni reduces
qUd�lty. ffiesurfaceareaforaquiferrecharge.lnfiliraiionofrainwaierisffiemainmeffiodio
rechargeorincreaseffieamouniofgroundwaierinaquifers. Developmeninoionly
decreases ffie amouni of area available for recharge ii also compacTS pervious surfaces
ffiai are lek and ffiai decreases ffie volu me of rai n ihai ca n infi liraie io ihe aq uifers.
Addiiionally,ihere is growing concem ffiatthe rapid increase in pumping from aquifers
in ffie counry overffie pasiseveral decades is having an impacion sunc�e waier
feamres and presenTS a challenge io long-ierm waiersupply stabiliry. A 2013 smdy by
ffie USGS confirmed ffie conneciion beiween W hiie Bear Lake and ffie groundwaier
rystem, and suggesied ihai lower lake levels are partially relaied io increased pumping
in ffie a rea. A follow up smdy by ffie USGS was sta r[ed in July 2013 io a nswer wiffi more
specificiryffie conneciion between groundwaieruse and lake levels ffiroughouiffie
nor[h and easi meiro. The USGS smdy is expecied io be compleie by 2015.
Several efforts are underway to address long-term issues related to current reliance on
groundwater and the current expectations that all future water needs in the county will
be met with groundwater. In the fall of 2013 the Metropolitan Council began a series
of studies and evaluations looking at options to support higher water levels in White
Bear and other Iakes.The study will look at the feasibility of using treated wastewater
(from groundwater) to recharge aquifers in the north metro, rather than discharging
treated water to the Mississippi. The Metropolitan Council will be completing work on
advancing conservation efforts and conducting pilot studies to evaluate the impact
conservation practices can have on water use.
In the north and east metro DNR has years of monitoring data, and as noted a growing
concern over longterm growth of groundwater use, and the implications for water
supply and impacts to surface water features. In response to the DNR studies, work by
the USGS and others, and a specific requestfrom the White Bear Lake Conservation
District in April 2013, the DNR determined to move forward with the state's first
Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) in the north and east metro. The GWMA tool
is meant to support the DNRs responsibility to manage Minnesota's water resources
now and for future generations. The new aspect of this tool is that it allows DNR to
take into unt cumulative impacts from multiple appropriations (many wells taking
groundwater from the same aquifers) and may include establishing limits to total
annual appropriations within a management area. This is the first time DNR will use a
designated Groundwater Management Area to address cumulative impacts of water use
to help manage water resources over the long-term. DNR intends to include a sufficient
area of hydrogeologically related water users to ensure a comprehensive analysis of
pumping related issues and the GWMA may include a large percentage, possibly
all, of Washington County. The designated area and plan will be developed with input
from the county, local governments, the Metropolitan Council, state and federal
agencies and local residents.
Another effort to minimize the impact of development on infiltration was put forth
in Minnesota Statutes 2009, section 115.03, subdivision Sc to°develop performance
standards, design standards or other tools to enable and promote the implementation
of low impact development and other stormwater management techniques:' This effort
is called Minimum Impact Design Standards (MIDS) and focuses on mimicking natural
hydrology in development to reduce surface water pollution and recharge aquifers.
Having reliable mapping data about geology and groundwater resources in the county
is essential to understanding the groundwater and surface water interaction and for
making planning and land management decisions. The county geologic atlas serves
this purpose and will be updated over the course of this plan. The Minnesota Geologic
Survey updates Part A of the atlas, which is the geology information. The update will
be available in 2015. The DNR updates Part B of the atlas, which is the groundwater
pollution and sensitivity. The Part B update should be available by 2017.
It is also important to have data on the chemical composition of groundwater as found
in the 2012 study by RobertTipping titled Ci��,racterizing Ground+n�ater Flovv �i� ��:�;e"f��,=cki
_ E?�€r�c�,l and I-Iydr�c,sYratigraphic F,ppoaach.This
study found that by mapping the distribution of certain chemical types, such as
chloride, determinations can be made on the presence of recent waters in an aquifer
and groundwater pathways, both horizontal and vertical. This information assists
groundwater planners and managers to map and evaluate how groundwater conditions
change with time and land use. For example, this data could be used to determine the
effect of high capacity pumping on groundwater flow paths and to what degree high
capacity pumping drives contaminants deeper by greatly increasing the rate of vertical
movement along fractures or multiple aquifer wells.
Strategies around groundwater and surface water interaction focus primarily on
collecting and analyzing data to better understand the regional infiltration rate in the
county, encouraging use of recharge areas and infiltration methods for surface runoff,
and education around the connection between our surface and groundwater.
4.1 POLICY
The county will partner in a coordinated effort to increase the understanding of
groundwater and surface water interaction in the county and use this information to
make informed groundwater management decisions.
4.2 STRATEGIES
Promote and encourage research related to better understanding the regional
infiltration system and the specific relationships between groundwater
aquifers and surface water bodies. This includes an understanding of the
impact that groundwater withdrawal has on surface water bodies that are
dependent on groundwater discharge.
2. Stay engaged in the DNR's process of developing a groundwater management
area for the north and east metro to ensure the counties needs are represented
in the process.
3. Support the completion and rollout of the County Geologic Atlas Part A and the
Hydrogeologic Atlas Part B.
4. Build on previous groundwater and surface water studies, along with other
available data, to inventory and rank groundwater recharge areas (including
wetlands, lakes, streams, and fields) in the county. Include contamination
potential, and distance to bedrock as part of the ranking criteria.
5. Develop, through the Washington County Water Consortium, a county-wide
groundwater monitoring plan and a data tracking and mapping system in
coordination with watershed management organizations (WMOs).
6. Collaborate with LGUs and WMOs to identify and preserve regional recharge
areas. Encourage WMOs and LGUs to incorporate protection of recharge areas
into plan updates.
7. Develop and implement an expanded education program for citizens and
public officials on the interaction between groundwater and surface water, the
value of and need to protect groundwater recharge areas and wetlands; and
implementation of best management practices and low-impact development
and redevelopment strategies to protect groundwater resources.
8. Encourage the development of design standards for low impact storm water
management tools, including infiltration, that evaluate proposed locations of
practices, specifically:
a. Collaborate with MDH and Metropolitan Council to develop guidelines
on placement of infiltration BMPs in wellhead and source water
protection areas, on hazardous waste generator sites, and in areas of
known contamination. The criteria for these guidelines will be based on
factors such as hydrogeology, aquifer vulnerability, evaluation of the
soil and groundwater at the site for existing contamination, and
contamination potential based on proposed land use.
b. Once guidelines are developed, work with LGUs and WMOs to develop a
map showing areas where it is not recommended to infiltrate.
c. Develop educational materials and an outreach plan for LGUs, WMOs,
Hazardous Waste Generators, and others on proper placement of
infiltration BMPs in accordance with the guidelines and map.
9. Encourage the use of low impact storm water management tools, including
infiltration, in areas where practices can be safely placed in accordance with
Strategy 4.2.8.
10. Collaborate with LGU's, state agencies, and MGS to collect and map baseline
data of the recommended chemicals in groundwater to evaluate how
groundwater conditions change with time and land use changes.
This page intentionally left blank.
■ i��
- ' n
� —
Groundwater
protection is
Source waier proieciion is ffie concepi of managing land use in criiical zo nes of
groundwaierrecharge io reduce ffie riskofconiaminaiing waiersupplies. Source waier
proieciion is designed io preveni raffierffian remediaie coniaminaiion of groundwaier.
In response io ffie amended Federal Safe Drinking WaierAciof 1988,ffie Minnesoia
Legislamre passed ihe Groundwaier Proieciion Aci of 1989 direciing ffie MDH
io develop a wellhead proieciion program. Minnesota's Wellhead Proieciion
Rules (4717J00 and 4720.5100 io 4720.5590) setthe iechnica I and adminisiraiive
requiremenTS offfie Wellhead Proieciion Program.
Minnesota Wellhead Proieciion Rules apply only io public waiersupply wells.The
definiiion of a public waiersupply well is°a well ffiai provides drinking waier for
huma n use io 15 or more service conneciions or io 25 or more persons for ai leasi 60
days a year.` This includes schools, office buildings, restauranTS, public buildings, and
municipal waiersupplysysiems.
Underihe Wellhead Proieciion Program, all PWSs are required io manage an inner-
wellhead managemenizone (a 204fooi radius surrounding a public waiersupply) by:
• maintainingffieisolaiiondistancesfornewlyinstalledpoieniialsourcesof
d251gl12dt0 �ontaminaiionasdefinediniheSiaieWellandBoringCode(MinnesotaRule
Chapier 4725);
• conduciingavulnerabilityassessmeniofffiewellandffiewellheadproieciion
prevent area;
• conduciinganinvenioryofpoieniialsourcesofcontaminaiionwiffiinihe
wellhead proieciion area based on ffie vulnerability assessmenC
I"Bth21" thBll . developing a plan io manage and moniiorexisiing and proposed poieniial
so urces of conta minaiion; a nd
I"21712dIBt2 • establishingaconiingencysiraiegyforanaliemaiivewaiersupplyshouldihe
waiersupply be disrupied by coniaminaiion or mechanical hilure.
COIltBI71111Bt1011 In addiiion io ffie inner-wellhead managemenizone requiremenTS, PWSsserving
municipaliiies,subdivisions, manuhcmred home parks, and hciliiiessuch as nursing
homes, schools, hciories, and hospitals musi prepare a wellhead proieciion plan. The
Ofgl"OUIIdWBt2f. majorcomponenTSOfaplanincludeamapshowingffieboundariesofffiewellhead
proieciion area, an inveniory of poieniial sources of contaminaiion, and a plan io
ma nage ffiese sources.
Privaie well owners are responsible foriheir own drinking waier quality. The counry
offers a privaie well waieriesiing program for residenTS. This program includes
consultaiion wiih PHEstaff aboui drinking waier concems and iesting opiions for
general drinking waierqualiry (niiraie and coliform bacieria). The counry program also
offers offieriesting opiions for privaie well ownerssuch as lead and arsenic. Privaie
well owners need io be well informed and diligeni in caring forffieirdrinking waier.
In ffie county, where groundwaier is ffie sole sou rce of drinking waier, source waier
proieciion is especially impor[ant Figure23 shows ffie locaiion of privaie wells in
the county, pulled from the County Well Index. Many wellhead protection areas in the
countycross local governmental boundaries (see Figure24). Strong state, county, and
local government coordination will be essential to carry out an effective Source Water
Protection Program.
Well Management
The MDH licenses well contractors, administers the permitting process for constructing
wells and sealing abandoned wells, and inspects wells in Washington County. The
Minnesota Well Code became effective in 1974. In some cases, past (pre-well code
era) construction may have contributed to groundwater contamination. Improperly
constructed and abandoned unsealed wells can act as direct conduits for surface
contaminants to enter shallow groundwater and deeper bedrock aquifers.
Local geologic conditions may require special well construction methods. For example,
the State Well Code prohibits completion of new wells in fractured bedrock aquifers
that are not covered by at least 50 feet of glacial deposits within a one mile radius of the
well site.The MDH also regulates well construction in regions of known contamination.
These regions are designated Special Well and Boring Construction Areas (SWBCA).
Special well construction practices may be imposed to prevent human exposure to
harmful contaminants in these areas.These efforts are also geared to promote well
construction techniques that minimize the riskof cross-contaminating aquifers during
and after well construction. Four SWBCA exist in the county (Figure 24). They include
the Lake Elmo/Oakdale site that is an expansion of the existing Washington County
Landfill site (Lake Jane), Lakeland/Lakeland Shores site, St. Paul Park and Newport
site, and the Baytown/West Lakeland Townships site. For information on each site see
Chapter 6.
Abandoned Wells
Abandoned wells are wells that are no longer in use. State Law requires well owners
to either repair abandoned wells and place them in service, or have them permanently
sealed by a licensed well contractor. Abandoned wells are a threat to groundwater
quality. Abandoned wells are common in both developed, older residential areas
that are presently served by public water supplies and in older rural homesteads.
Abandoned well identification and sealing efforts will help prevent contamination of
groundwater. The County launched an abandoned well sealing cost share program in
the mid-2000s, and plans to continue efforts as funds are available.
A,�
� �
� :��
�,�J��a � l ,
A� � � ` ��
,�,-�
5.1 POLICY
The county will par[ner wiih staie agencies and local govemmenTS io proieci
groundwaierand public healih for privaie well owners and PWSs ffirough coordinaied
source waier proieciion and wellhead proieciion effor[s.
5.2 STRATEGIES
1. The county will assist in ihe developmeniand implementaiion ofsource waier
proieciion and wellhead proieciion aciiviiies. W hen requested ihe counry will
hcilitaie wellhead proieciion sieering committees when proieciion areas cross
jurisdiciional boundaries.
2 DevelopaforumforPWSsiomeeiannuallyioshareinformaiionandhear
updaies 6om M DH. The informaiion 6om ihese meeiings will be used io
develop implementaiion aciions forffie Groundwaier Plan Work Plans.
3. WorkwiihPWSsandWMOsiosirengiheneducaiionefforts,anddevelopand
disiribuie maierials needed io inform home owners on where ffiey gettheir
waierfrom, whaisource waier proieciion is, and ihe effor[s ihey can make io
ensure ihey do ni conta mi naie ffieir drin ki ng waier.
4. Asappropriaie,ffiecounrymayconsiderSourceWaierProieciionAreasand
Drinking Waier Supply Managemeni Areas when ma king land use decisio ns,
and encourage LGUs io do so as well.
5. The county will coniinue a well sealing program for residenTS who wish io
volu nta rily sea I wel Is. Th is includes:
a. SeekingouTSidefundsioexpandwellsealingoppor[uniiies.
b. Expandingeducaiionandouireachregardingiheneedioseal
abandoned wells.
c. Placing a higher prioriry on ideniifying and sealing unused wells in
Source Waier Proieciion Areas, Drinking WaierSupply Managemeni
Areas,andareasofknowncontaminaiion. Wellsihaipeneiraieioffie
same aquiferused by a public waiersupplyrystemshould be sealed
first
d. Developing a pibi projectto ideniify abandoned wells in a small
geographic area. Then evaluaie ihe process io deiermine ffie feasibiliry
of expand ing ffie inveniory.
This page intentionally left blank.
wasningron counrymn�insseverai b�eions maeare mnmm�ina�ed wim voiaeie
organicorinorganic mmpoundsand perFlUOrochemlcals.These chemlcalsleamedlnm
gmundwa[er fmm legal and Illegal was[e dlsposal� undergmund [anks�and spills.
VOCz
V06are �rboo-mnbining mmpounds [M1a[ evapora[e easity fmm wa[er Inro air a[
ao- eemperawr�. m�is �iswny me dise�aroe odor of gasori�e a�d ma�ysoroe��,
a�d� �sty be deeec�ed.vo¢are mnrained �in a wide var�iery ovmmmeraai, �induso-�iai
esde�eai prod��rs�i��wd�i�9 r�ei ons,9asori�e,soroe��„aea�ersa�d de9reasers,
pai�c,�i�k,dyes,refrigera�c,a�d peniad�.
inere are four ideneaed io�eions �in me munry maeare mnram�ina�ed wim vo¢
a[a level Na[ posesa publlc M1eaIN nsk. MDH declared Speaal Well and Boring
Con4mRionAreas(SNBULsomeOmes�lledwelladvisories. TM1epurposeof
a SNBUIS ro InPorm [M1e publlc of po[en[ial M1eal[M1 rlsks In areas ofgmundwa[er
Washington onram�inaeion,provideFOrmemnsnuceonovraFwa�ersuppi�ies,andpreveneme
spread orconram�inaeion due ro me �improper driu�ing orweus or borings. wasningron
Counry counrynasmursv✓ecnsff�v�..zs�anaaaa�ieonaiio�eonswimPCC�onram�inaeon
mat arerlt desgnated SV✓cAS.
contains
SPVPfd�
�OCdLOOS
tfldt d fP
contaminated
Wltfl VOCS
and PFCS.
Lake Elmo/Oakdale
Lakeland/Lakeland SM1Ores
Bay[ownNVe4 Lakeland TownsM1ips
SC Paul Park/Newpor[
IakeElmo/Oakdale
TM1e Lake Elmo/Oakdale SWUwas es[abllsM1ed due [o VOC & PFC mn[amina[ion a[ [M1e
WasM1ingron County Landfill near Lake Jane In Lake Elmo and Ne Oakdale Disposal s[e.
nieiai voc mnram�inaeon was found ae me wasxingmn counry �andeu �in i sai,
and an olfiaal SNBUwases[abllsM1ed In 1993. In 1996�[M1esi[e en[ered [M1e MPU-
aam����s�e�ea aosea �a�aeu P�og�am a�a me mPCn nas mke� aameo�ai s�ev=ro
mprooe me ia�deu �ooer a�d me gro��dwa�er remed�iaeo� synem. ndd�ieo�airy,
Icipal wa[er service� provided by Ne Oakdale municipal rys[em�was ex[ended In[o
NeSNBUm 1986�and pnva[ewellsweresealed.
n 2003 PFC mn[amina[ion was Pound a[ boN dlsposal si[esand In 20 W[M1eywe�e
de[ec[ed In Oakdale5muniapal wa[er suppty, TM1e LakeElmo/OakdaleSNBUwas
sedln200�[olntludePFQ Oakdale5municipalwa[ersupptylstrea[edbyGranular
ARiva[ed Grbon (GAQ fil[ersand residenLCOn prlva[ewellsln [M1eSNBUarealso
usng GACfiI[ers.
IakelanNlakeland5hores
On December 16� 198� Ne MDH Issued a SNBU Por por0ons of Lakeland and Lakeland
SM1O�es. G�oundwa[e� quallty moni[o�ing of ove� 360 p�lva[e wells Indla[ed Ne
presence ofa varlety of V06. Solven[sand petroleum produc[swere Pound In 193
wellsand In 86 wells [M1e levels of one or more of Ne V06 e:ceeded [M1e levels Na[
are considered safe to drink. Residents in these homes are connected to the Lakeland
municipal water system. At least two sources and plumes are suspected as the source
of contamination, with the northerly plume containing fluorocarbons (freon) and
petroleum products, and the southerly plume containing solvents.
Baytown/West Lakeland Townships
On May 6, 1988, the MDH issued a SWBCA for parts of Baytown Township, West Lakeland
Township, and the city of Bayport in response to the discovery of VOC contaminants in
several private wells in the area. The primary contaminant present in the groundwater
within the SWBCA is trichloroethylene (TCE). TCE was most commonly used as a
degreasing agentfor washing metal parts and also as a dry-cleaning solvent. Exposure
to high levels ofTCE in drinking water can damage the liver, kidneys, immune system,
and nervous system. Exposure to low levels of TCE over a long period of time, may be
linked to an increased risk of several types of cancer. TCE may also harm a developing
fetus if consumed in high concentrations by an expectant mother. TheTCE Health Risk
Level (HRL) established by MDH is 5(N g/L). In May of 2013, MDH issued a new Health
Based Value (HBV) for TCE at 0.4 (N g/L). An HBV level is not regulatory in nature (it must
go through a longer rulemaking process at the state level to become an HRL), but can
be used as a good indication of the health risk associated with a chemical and is what
the state will use moving forward regarding all decisions to protect public health.
The source of theTCE contamination is suspected to be a former metal working
business known as Neilsen Products Company, that previously occupied (1950s-60s) the
property at 11325 Stillwater Boulevard in Lake Elmo. The MPCA took remedial action at
this site with a hydraulic barrier. The barrier includes four extraction wells to collect and
capture the contamination before it migrates off of the property. The extracted water
is then treated by air stripping to remove the TCE from the water. The water is then
discharged backto the soil using horizontal wells approximately 25 feet underground.
The plume ofTCE contamination is approximately 5 miles long and 2 miles wide,
extending from northeast Lake Elmo to the St. Croix River. Groundwater movement is
generally to the east, toward the St. Croix River, but is complicated due to the fracture
flow in the Prairie du Chien aquifer, and other hydrogeologic conditions.
TCE has been detected in glacial sediments in northeast Lake Elmo, at the Lake Elmo
Airport, and in Bayport. A public water supply is only available in portions of the cities
of Bayport and Lake EImo.The remainder of the SWBCA is served by private wells.
Baytown Township enacted an ordinance on September 8, 2003, pertaining to water
testing and installation, testing, and maintenance of whole-house granular activated
carbon (GAC) filters. West Lakeland Township enacted a similar ordinance on March 1,
2004.The ordinances require residents to install an approved GAC filter when TCE or
carbon tetrachloride is detected in a well at concentrations exceeding exposure limits.
All filter installation, testing, and maintenance costs are the responsibility of the well
owner.The ordinances also require periodic testing and reporting of results.
Some requirements of the ordinances do not apply if the MPCA is monitoring and
maintaining a whole house GAC filter for the well owner. Currently, the MPCA will
install, maintain, and test a whole house GAC filter for an existing well within the SWBCA
that exceeds the interim exposure limit of 0.4 Ng/LTCE, only if the well is located on
property approved for development on or before April 9, 2002.
Additionally Minnesota Statutes, section 1031.236, passed during the 2003 legislative
session, requires a seller of real property in Washington County not served by a
municipal water system or that has an unsealed well, to state in writing to the buyer,
whether, to the seller's knowledge, the property is located within a SWBCA.
Sf. Paul Park/Newporf
On November 10, 1997 the MDH issued a SWBCA for portions of St. Paul Park and
Newport. Groundwater in the SWBCA has been contaminated as a result of spills, leaks,
and disposal of chlorinated solvents and petroleum products at several industrial sites
including the Ashland Refinery, the former Aero Precision Engineering Company, and
the former Park Penta Corporation.
Contamination is found in the Prairie du Chien bedrock and at lower levels in the Jordan
aquifer. The contaminants of concern are petroleum products, several VOCs, and
pentachlorophenol (PCP). Currently residents in these areas are on municipal water.
PFCs
PFCs are a family of manmade chemicals that have been used for decades to make
products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. PFC containing wastes were
disposed of by the 3M Company at the 3M disposal sites in Oakdale, Woodbury, and
Cottage Grove, and the former Washington County Landfill in Lake Elmo. PFCs were
released from the sites, resulting in contamination of groundwater and nearby drinking
water wells (Figure26).
In the county the drinking water sources of nine communities have been impacted by
PFCs in the groundwater. Listed below are the four sources of the PFC contamination
that have been identified in the county. For more information on each follow the links:
,,� � < ;r:�n . , �
• IV1UH Haz�rdous Siies in ib1N - 31V1 Gakdale Site
• MDH Hazardous Sites in MN -3M Woodbury Site
• AnDH Hazardo!as SitAs in fl4N - 3M Cottage Grove SitA f-aciliry and PFCs
Many studies and reports have been completed by the MDH with regard to PFCs.
Poinf of Use Wafer Treafinen f Sysfems for PFC Removal
MDH contracted for an independent study of water treatment systems to provide
residents with information about how to reduce or remove PFCs from water. To view
the report go to �� s-�r:. .__
The East Metro PFC Biomonitoring Project and Follow-up Project
The East Metro PFC Biomonitoring Pilot Project was one of the first biomonitoring
projects directed by the legislature in 2007. This biomonitoring project was conducted
to measure PFCs in the blood of East Metro residents known to have been exposed to
PFCs through drinking water. Participants included 196 adults who lived in Oakdale,
Lake Elmo, and Cottage Grove.The MDH Public Health Laboratorytested participants'
blood for PFOA, PFOS, PFBA, PFBS, PFHxS, PFPeA, and PFHxA.
Three PFCs (PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS) were found in the blood of all participants. Levels
of each were somewhat higher than those found in the general US population, but
comparable or lower than levels found in other studies of communities exposed to
PFCs in drinking water.Two PFCs (PFBA and PFBS) were found in a smaller proportion of
participants, and two (PFHxA and PFPeA) were notfound in any participants. For people
on private wells, PFOA and PFOS levels in drinking water were related to levels in blood.
The results from this project (and all biomonitoring projects in the state) were analyzed
by the MDH Environmental Health Tracking and Biomonitoring Advisory Panel. Based
on recommendations from the panel, MDH was tasked with conducting a follow-up
study of these participants to determine how PFC levels in their blood has changed over
a two-year time period. One of the follow-up projecYs goals was to find out whether
efforts to reduce drinking water exposure to PFCs had been successful in reducing PFC
blood levels in the population. Another goal was to learn more about how people are
exposed to PFCs.
Participants included 164 adults who agreed to give a second blood sample in 2010.
The MDH Public Health Laboratory analyzed blood samples for the same 7 PFCs
measured in 2008. Three PFCs (PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS) were found in the blood of all
participants. Levels of these PFCs have declined since 2008 in most participants. On
average, individual levels of PFOS went down by 26%, PFOA by 21 %, and PFHxS by 13%.
20101evels were still somewhat higher than the most recent information available for
the general U.S. population.
The other 4 PFCs were less frequently detected: PFBA in 34 people (21 %), PFBS in 7
people (5%), and PFPeA in 1 person. PFHxA was not detected in any samples. This was
similar to 2008, though PFBA was detected in a greater percentage of participants (25%)
in 2008.
Because these declines are similar to other exposed communities, results show that
efforts made to reduce drinking water exposure to PFCs in the East Metro were
successful. Over time it is expected that levels will continue to go down to general U.S.
population Ievels.To view the reports produced from these studies go to �=;�st A4es,:. -
PFCs in Class 8 Firefighting Foam
Another source of PFCs researched by the MDH and the MPCA is municipal, refinery,
and airport fire training facilities where special PFC bearing fire-fighting foams were
reportedly used. The view the report of their findings go to: '< <`- �_ .- <. <.._
PFCs in Homes and Gardens Study
In addition to drinking PFC containing water, it is possible people may be exposed to
PFCs from other sources, such as eating vegetables from a garden or bare soil in a yard
that was watered with PFC containing water. To determine the risk of exposure to PFCs
from these sources this study looks at whether soil, home-grown produce, and house
dust in Oakdale, Lake Elmo, and Cottage Grove contain PFCs that people could come in
contact with. To follow this study go to ',
.��� ' ThecounrywillworkwiffistaieagenciesandlocalgovemmenTSioirackexisiing
contaminaiion plumes, increase residenYs awareness ofexisiing groundwaier
.�_ "� contaminaiion,andconiinueioeducaieresidenTSOnffiesiepsffieycantakeioensure
' ��l-� iheirdrinkingwaierissafe.
'4;A 9
6.1 STRATEGIES
1. The counry will coniinue io work wiffi MDH and Baytown and Wesi Lakeland
Townships (as requesied by ihe iownships) wiih iesiing privaie homes forVOCs
in accordance wiihiheirordinances.
2 The counry will assisi MDH and LGUs as requested wiffi educaiion and ouireach
relaied io groundwaier contaminaiion, including bio-exposure and
accumulaiion as wiih PFCs.
3. Develop an iniergovemmenial communicaiion plan forCondiiional Use PermiTs
a nd offier developmeni projecTS ihai may impaci or be impacied by existing
grou ndwaier conta minaiion.
4. The County Epidemiologist will coniinue io represeniWashingion County
residenTS byserving on ffie MDH Environmental HealffiTracking and
Biomoniioring Advisory Panel.
5. The county will suppor[ coniinued legislaiive advocacy forffie MDH
Environmenial HealihTracking and Biomoniioring Program.
This page intentionally left blank.
A �"='"� , '�1[r�.4 m�sma
r_"__ , �a
y�+—�' � ror�wrrrria�agerrie�ea�dagri�wmraipra�e��aio�gwima�irriaiwas�es��ieam
kr�'� � [M1rougM1[M1esoilandmn[amina[egmundwa[ecTM1eyanalsomnoffof[M1elandln[o
� . s f [ b descausngNemrob f[ d � p� d. Fg 5 M1 ssurface
w[ b d N[ reon[M1eMPU�mp � d [ I t F [M1 pmper
�� ` appf [ f g� W[uraland g [ M1 � I dp p M1 ndfngof
. a [ sen[alropro[ec[ gg d[ q rty,
� � J y y� ng� ie de vmanagemeneare ry�d [�e .c [i randpes[�de
�}i� appl��tonsarewdetyusedrogrow opsandmanagemr6Manyofineusers�nclude
�:, , � memunrylnmaintenanceofltspmpernes,mmmeraalbusinesses,golfmurses,horse
r��ms, o�ma�as,a�a noeey r��ms,aio�9 �m m�ee ��<<e�nysr��e ve�m��aea reeaio�
cerenzers, p�ead�,a�d a��rr�ai was�e eyprod��ss naoe eee�,nowr� m degrade me
quai�iry ofgrounawaeer. conram�inaeion risksare magniaea �in soumem wasningron
Agdcul[ure counrywnereminpermeabiesoiisr�eabovesnauowbedrodaqu��rrs.counryresden�,
on prlva[e well wa[er are responsble fm [e4ing Neir own drinking wa[er quallty, TM1e
andmrf �^ryorfersapri•a�eweuwa�ere�e�gprograrriforr�ide��,.misprograrri�i��wdes
n raeo� wim PHE smrf aeo�e dri�ki�g waeer �o��er�sa�d e�e�g opeo�s ror
general dnnking wa[er quallty(nitra[eand mllform bac[eria).
management
FerN/izerUSe
n�orrirrio� �orripo�e�e of fererizers, ��io-a�e, �is me rrion �orrirrio� gro��dwaeer
arecounry o�ram�i�a�ri�wasni�gro�co��ry,N�io-a�e�sryaissoroes�i�Naee�a�amo����a�iry
m�o�9n son a�a �i�ro �e9io�ai aawr �s. Nina�e ieoeis a� aiso ee eie r�orri r�n�i�g
wide :epe�.v:eem:,d�i:��::ed�i�mapeers.
in wasxingmn counry, me average n�io-a�e ievei �is z.os mm�igrams per i�ieer (mg/p based
activities. o oeria,000weuwa�er�ess�o�d�«edeeiwee�is�aa�dzoi3.wnaeeieoeisare
M1igM1es[ In Ne souNem Wasfiing[on County mmmuni[ies ofCO[bge GTOVe� Denmark
Townsfilp�and Grey Cloud Island. In Ne souNem por[ion of Ne munry� Ne bedmd
se [o [M1esurface�mvered bya [M1in layer ofglacial ma[erlal offering Ilml[ed
pro�eaio� ro me �inaee-�e�sieoe aqwrers eeiow. H�inoriai dara �oue�eed ey PHE
and suppor[ed bya MPU4udy Indi�[e 16 percen[ of [M1e prlva[e wells [es[ed In [M1e
Co[bge Grove area e:ceed Ne 5[a[e Heal[M1 Risk Liml[ Por nitra[e of 10.0 mg/I.
TM1e primary M1eal[M1 mncem assoaa[ed wiN e:posure [o nitra[e Is meNemoglobinemla�
onty known as"blue babyryndmme4 TM1IS mndi[ion ocmrswM1en nitra[e
s abmrbed Inro [M1e blood stream wM1ere I[ reacti wi[M1 M1emoglobin [o produce
mememogioe��em��a,m�s��mr �r���gmeeiood�saen��ryroarryoxyge�mmees�es
ofine eody. n«ord���g ro me moH m�s�o�d��eo� rareryo�a,rs��� m��idre� oider ma� e
mo�mso����aaw�
w,rxra.u,.
ve�y rew9�o��aNaee� �mvi� naoe eee� �oue«ea ro� v�eaae a�arysis �i�
WasM1ing[on County, A2000 MPCAS[udy mmple[ed In [M1e Cottage Grove area [es[ed
J9 priva[e wells and Pound Na[ 68 percen[ of Ne groundwa[er samples mnbined
pesticide or pesticide breakdown products. None of the samples collected by the MPCA
exceeded the federal and state drinking water standards for pesticides. According to
the study, there was a strong correlation between pesticides and nitrate occurrences
in groundwater. The MPCA states that the correlation between pesticides and nitrate
indicates that agricultural practices are the most likely source of the contaminants.
Road Salt Storage and Use
Salts, such as sodium chloride and magnesium chloride, are widely used to de-ice roads,
parking lots, driveways, and sidewalks. Chloride has been shown to have detrimental
effects on aquatic ecology. The storage and application of de-icing salts creates the
potential for surface water and groundwater pollution.
During winter, snow removal concentrates road salt and sand in ditches and in snow
removal stockpiles. Spring melting results in the release of runoff contaminated with
chloride and trace metals. The polluted runoff may contaminate surface water or
infiltrate into the groundwater.
Unprotected road salt storage sites also pose a risk to water quality by allowing rain and
melting snow to leach contaminants into groundwater. Covered and lined facilities will
eliminate groundwater contamination from stockpiled road de-icing materials. Limiting
de-icing compound use or using less environmentally damaging products will reduce
the level of contamination spread during de-icing operations.
In 2008 the St. Anthony Falls Laboratory of the University of Minnesota conducted
a series of research papers, funded by the Local Road Research Board, on the use of
road salt and its effect on lakes, streams, and aquifers in Minnesota. The third report is
titled °Potential for Groundwater Contamination by Road Salt in Minnesota"November
2008. A few findings from this report are increased chloride levels in groundwater
wells in close proximity to road networks, chloride concentration in some urban wells
has increased by 15%, and the MPCA has found higher chloride concentrations in
shallower monitoring wells than in deeper wells. To read this report go to: i �� ;.
The MPCA is running the Metropolitan Area Chloride Project that researches the effect
of road salt on our lakes and streams and the infiltration of salt laden water getting into
aquifers. For more information visit: Metropolitan Are� Chloride Projed: Ra�d Salt and
Animal Waste
Animal manure, when used properly, provides essential nutrients, organic matter,
and moisture to crop-land. Application of manure in geologically sensitive areas, and
runoff or seepage from feedlots, horse farms, and hobby farms can increase the level of
nitrogen in groundwater to levels of concern. Manure in feedlots, and horse and hobby
farms may also contain disease-producing organisms that can cause diarrheal diseases,
infectious hepatitis, parasitic infections, cholera, dysentery, salmonella, and typhoid
fever in humans and domestic animals. Manure management and operation practices
for feedlots, and horse and hobbyfarms, and geologic conditions are all factors that
potentially affect groundwater quality.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency established a feedlot regulatory program in
2000.This program is administered either by the MPCA or can be delegated to county
governments. Currently the MPCA administers the state feedlot program and permits
three feedlots in the county.
The Washington County Zoning Ordinance regulates land use in unincorporated
townships. The Zoning Ordinance contains provisions for managing manure and
feedlots. Provisions of the Ordinance call far°the adoption of all Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency minimum requirements, the prohibition of new feedlots within
1000 feet of any lake or pond or within 300 feet of a river or stream, and require all
new feedlots to have a permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.° The
Washington Conservation District provides technical assistance and consultation to
animal feedlot operators.
���
`;-�!``�>':k y
a ��.�
�
� �
��n_
n a�S�
����.:�
� 7
1
7.1 POLICY
The countywill partnerwith state agencies, local governments, and stakeholdersin a
balanced approach to implement best management practices that reduce groundwater
contamination from nutrients, pesticides, and road salt.
7.2 GENERAL NUTRIENT STRATEGIES
1. Re-evaluate the Cottage Grove Nitrate Study and expand to Afton, Grey Cloud
Island, DenmarkTownship, and other communities as needed.
2. Map well testing data from the county testing program, including data from
community and county nihate clinics.
3. Continuetooperateandpromotearesidentprivatewelltestingprogram.
4. Developeducationmaterialsthatdirectprivatewellownerswheretoaccess
drinking water testing for pesticides. Investigate options to offer pesticide
testing of groundwater to private well owners.
5. Develop a program that identifies long term m onitoring stations for nitrates and
pesticides. Analyze data for trends in levels of these contaminants.
6. Identify available partnerships and funding opporNnities to address
Agricultural NutrientManagement.
a. WatershedDistrict/WMOprograms
b. USDANRCSprograms
c. SWCDStateCostSharePrograms
d. NPEAPengineeringassistanceprogramsforfeedlotdesign
e. MDA loan program
73 URBAN NUTRIENTS STRATEGIES
1. Develop and implementan education program directed athomeowners
outlining proper use and disposal of lawn and garden chemicals, salt usage and
storage, and managementof petwaste. Thiseducation should include:
a. Information on their location in relation to the groundwater sensitivity
m aps and wellhead protection areas.
b. WhichBMPstouseforwhatpractice(suchassoiltestingbefore
application of fertilizers) and how they will minimize their effect on
groundwater.
2. Develop an outreach plan to educate lawn care companies, golf courses,
kennel operations, and county and LGU public works departments on how
to use BMPs to minimize the effects on groundwater caused by the use
and storage of fertilizers, pesticides, and road salt, while properly maintaining
their properties.This education should include information on the property
location in relation to the groundwater sensitivity maps and wellhead
protection areas.
7.4 AGRICULTURE NUTRIENTS - ANIMAL WASTE
MANAGEMENT
Complete an inventory of existing animal holding facilities, including horse
farms, in the county.
a. Inventory everything from small farms, including horse farms, to large-
scale operations based on animal units. Include an update to the
existing feedlot inventory (current information from 1995). Gather
existing information from other groups such as the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
b. Evaluate the risk to groundwater that existing feedlots and animal
holding facilities may have at their specific location, using tools such as
the groundwater sensitivity map. This information will be used to
develop and implement targeted BMP plans to protect groundwater.
c. Investigate if and how communities in the county govern animal waste
management, and work with LGUs and WMOs using this information,
to develop recommendations to other communities on effective rules
and methods for animal waste management.
2. Promote implementation of on-the-ground BMPs to contain and/or treat runoff
from animal feeding and holding areas.
a. Determine areas in need of upgraded facilities and promote assistance
programs to ensure installation of facilities.
b. Promote and encourage the completion of nutrient management plans.
c. Promote coordination with NRCS to promote other USDA programs that
may assist in addressing animal waste runoff.
d. Target educational efforts in sensitive areas identified in number 7.4.1
above.
3. Develop an educational plan to promote programs and assistance related to
management of animal feeding and holding facilities and the impact they
can have on water resources. This program should also include information on
new research types of BMPs and how they should be used.
7.5 AGRICULTURE NUTRIENTS - NON-ANIMAL WASTE
1l : ► : 1l ► 1
1. Complete an inventory of active agricultural areas in the county, including
orchards, nurseries, and vineyards.
a. Update the existing row crop and agricultural inventory (currently
based on 2007 MLCCS information). Inventory everything from small
farms to large-scale operations.
b. Evaluate the risk to groundwater that actively farmed areas may have at
their specific location, using tools such as the groundwater sensitivity
map. This information will be used to develop and implement targeted
BMP plans to protect groundwater.
2. Complete an inventory of abandoned and unused agricultural operations in the
county and identify any clean up needs. Compare these areas to areas sensitive
to groundwater contamination to determine risk level and to target BMP efforts.
3. Promote implementation of BMPs to contain and/or treat agricultural runoff.
a. Prioritize where BMPs are most needed, such as wellhead protection
areas, ravines, or waterways.
b. Promote conservation tillage and cover crop practices.
c. Promote and encourage the development of nutrient management
plans for active farmland, including orchards, nurseries, and vineyards.
d. Promote coordination with SWCDs, USDA NRCS, and others to increase
on the ground implementation efforts and funding to landowners.
4. Develop an educational program regarding:
a. Programs and assistance related to agricultural nutrient management
and the impact it has on groundwater.
b. Types of BMPs such as differentfertilizers, application rates, timing, and
cover crops.
� i �
�
� ' ��
� a � i .�1:,�
� ��
Emerging
contaminants
Emerging contaminan[s are substances tha[ have been released ro, found in, or have
the po[entlal ro en[er groundwater or surface wa[er and don'[ have sta[e human healtli
based guidance tha[identlfies how much of i[is safe ro drink. In recen[years, more
research and m oniroring is going rowards diswvery of this group of contaminan[s. This
is due in par[ ro:
better m ethods (or detecfing substances a[ lower levels;
de[ectlon of additlonal substances;
use of new substances; and
use of old substances in new ways.
Emerging contaminan[s indude pharmaceuficals, pesticides, indusnial effluen[s,
personal careproduc[s, fire retardan[s, and other i[ems tha[arewashed down drains
and no[ able ro be processed by m unidpal was[ewa[er neatrn en[ plan[s or septic
systems. PerFluorochemicalsareknownasanemergingwntaminan[bu[duerotheir
presence in wunry groundwa[er they are diswssed in Chapter 6. Other com mon
exam ples of emerging contaminan[s are:
IIIC�UdE • Tridosan, a chemical compound used in anfibac[erial produc[slikesoap and
hand sanitlzer.
• Acetaminophen,amediwtlonwidelyusedroreducefeverandpainJ[isusedin
phBfllIBCEUtICB�S, manybrandsofnonpresaiptlonmediwtlonsJ[isalsowmbinedwitliother
drugs in some prescriptlon pain medicatlons.
• Tonalide, a musky6agrance used in wsmetics and personal wre produc[ssuch
pEStICIdES, asshampooandlotlon.l[isalsousedindeaningproduc[ssuchassoapand
laundrydetergent.
personal care
products,
and others.
The M DH has a Contaminan[s of Emerging Concem program tlia[ investlga[es and
comm uniw[es the health and exposure po[entlal of tliese wntam inan[s in drinking
watec The M PCA parmers witli MDH and im plem ents the Am bient Groundwater
Moniroring Program ro m oniror groundwa[er for emerging wntam inan[s (Figure 1�.
For more in(ormatlon and ro view the findings on spedfic wntam inan[s please visiC
Forinformatlononmoniroringforthesewntaminan[spleasevisiC . nibieni
Groundvvarer IVloniroring Proq_ram.
�����
I� �
8.1 POLICY
The counry will workwiffi MDH, MPCA, local govemmenTS, and stakeholdersio educaie
residenTS on ihe impaciemerging contaminanTS have on groundwaierand howio
proieci addiiional groundwaierconiaminaiion 6om emerging contaminanTS.
8.1 STRATEGIES
1. Track and moniioremerging coniaminanTS research ai boih ffie staie and
federal Ievels.This includes ffie MDH ContaminanTS of Emerging Concem
program (ffie nominaiion and evaluaiion of new coniaminanTS), ffie U.S.
Environmenial Proieciion Agency guidance, and Drug Enforcemeni Agency
changes io drug disposal.The county will also promoie staie agency moniioring
foremerging contaminanTS, including coordinaiion wiffi staie agencystaff on
ideniifying areas orwells foremerging contaminanTS moniioring.
2 Develop and promoie educaiion and ouireach relaied io emerging
contaminanTS, forffie general public, elecied officials, and PWSs. Coniinue
io promoie ffie county's unused medicaiion drop box.The county mayseek
fi na ncial assista nce 6om staie a nd/or federal resources fo r emerging
contaminanTS ouireach aciiviiies.
' � Properireaimeniofwasiewaierreduceshealffirisksiohumansandanimalsand
P=i{�a. reducesffieffireaiofcontaminaiioniosurfaceandgroundwaieclnurbanareasof
� ihe Twin Ciiies, including par[s offfie counry, ffiousands of homes and buildings are
connecied io ffie MUSA and wasie waierireaimeni planTS (W WTP), brieFly described
'�'�� inChapier1.lnlowerdensiry,ruralsettings,whereffieMUSAdoesnoiez2end,homes
- andbusinessesmusirelyonSSTS,commonlycalledsepiicrystems,ioireaiwasie.
=� Apropedydesigned,installed,andfunciioningSSTSeffeciivelyireaTSSeptageand
� �" decreasesiniroduciionofbacieria,viruses,andoiherdiseasecausingorganismsinio
_���' groundwaiecAsanaddedbenefiiSSTSalsoiakegroundwaierpumpedforhumanuses
(��-;=� andrechargeiidirecilyioffielocalwaieriable.
�,vr^:.� _ .
�"'-` '��'='� WhileSSTScanbeanefficienimeansofireaiingwasieinruralareas,failingorpoody
maintained SSTS have ffie poieniial io coniaminaie groundwaier and surface waier
SSI�SI�lUSt foranumberofcontaminanTS,includingniiraies,coliformbacieria(EColi),and
phosphorus. A hiling sysiem does noi have ffie required ffiree feei ofseparaiion from
ihe waiertable, bedrock, orsome offier limiiing feamre, and is iherefore noi adequaiely
beprOper�y ireaiingwasie.AsaresultwasiewaierffiaiFlows6omffiesefailingsystemsisunireaied
sepiic iank efFluent A 2004 MPCA repor[ found one home wiffi a hulry SSTS can easily
YY1BIIltBIY12d �oniribuiemorebacieriaffianaWWTPireaiingwaier6omffiousandsofhomes.
and operated
to prevent
surface and
groundwater
contamination.
SSTS in Washington County
SSTS are widely used ihroughouiffie counry, wiffi approximaiely 80%of ffie
geographicalarea inffiecounryserved byffiisrypeofwasteireaimeni(Figure28). This
eq uaies io over 16,000 sysiems as of 2013, wh ich serves a pproximaiely 48,000 residenTS,
and ireaTS an average of3.6 million gallons of wasie waier a day.This is equivalentto
ihe a mou ni of waste waier ireaied by ffie Si Croix Valley WasiewaierTreaimeni Pla ni
(W WTP) ihaiserves ffie communiiies of Siillwaier, Oak Park HeighTS, and Bayport The
resuliing polluiion fromffiai par[icularWWTP is managed and regulaied fromjusia
few d ischarge poinTS. I n conirast for communiiies served by SSTS ffiere are ffiousands
of individual discharge poinTS ffiai have ffie poieniial io coniribuie polluiion; resuliing
in coniaminaiion ofsurrounding soils and groundwaiec Jusi as ffiis W WTP musi be
managed and maintained io prevenisurface waier coniaminaiion, ihe ffiousands of
SSTS must be propedy mainiained and operaied io prevenisunc�e and groundwaier
contamination.
Pasi studies have shown h igher conceniraiions of niiraies and offier polluianTS in
a reas of hig h density sepiic rystems. For example, a February 2000 study by ffie M PCA
evaluaied coniaminaiion relaied io SSTS beneaffi an unsewered por[ion ofsouffieast
Washingion County. The locaiion was chosen forsmdy based on ihe highersensiiivity
of groundwaiersysiems io coniaminaiion (Figures 3 and 4) and ffie relaiively high
densiry of o Ider SSTS. Ai ffie same iime ffie smdy resulTS showed ffie average niiraie
conceniraiion from well samples was 592 mg/I, a relaiively high average when
compared io ffie counry average of 205 mg/I. In addiiion, noo-fecal coliform bacieria
were deiecied in 15 of 52 sa mples. The smdy concluded °grou ndwaier impacTS from
niiraie from SSTS can be minimized by balancing bisize and well placemeniand well
depih`and °larger bisizes and siringeni conirols on mainienance of SSTS are needed
io minimize i mpacTS 6om sepiic rystems.`
SSTS Ordinance and Local Enforcement
Minnesota Statutes 7080 through 7083, enforced by the MPCA, addresses statewide
rules for SSTS, guidelines for licensing of SSTS professionals, and a local frameworkfor
regulation. Every county must have a SSTS ordinance that is at least as strict as the rules
set by the MPCA. Washington County's septic ordinance was first adopted in 1972, was
most recently revised in 2009, and will be undergoing another revision by 2014. The
county PHE department administers the SSTS program in unincorporated areas of the
County and portions of the County delegated through contracts with incorporated
cities (seventeen communities as of 2013). The communities of Stillwater and Dellwood
have adopted and enforce their own ordinances. The SSTS Ordinances in cities must be
as restrictive as the county SSTS Ordinance.
The county SSTS Ordinance and local SSTS Ordinances regulate the location, design,
installation, use, and maintenance of SSTS. Additionally the county inspects and
requires replacement of systems when they are failing. To help ensure thatfailing SSTS
are identified and replaced, the 2009 revised ordinance requires SSTS inspection at a
point of sale.
Replacement of a failing system can be a costly endeavor, roughly $8,000-20,000
depending on the system. As a result, the strategies below discuss options for financial
assistance to residents who are required to replace their systems. There is also an
opportunity to improve surface water quality in some areas of the county, since failing
SSTS have been identified as a potential load contribution in phosphorusTMDLs.
The current county SSTS program also requires regular maintenance of existing systems,
since regular maintenance and inspection of a SSTS can extend the life of a system.
Residents receive a reminder every three years to pump their septic system, and
pumping records must be filed with the county by licensed SSTS pumpers.
The county will par[ner wiih staie agencies, local govemmenTS, and stakeholders io
proieci groundwaier from contaminaiion ffiai is ca used 6om hi ling SSTS.
Develop a counry wide assessmeniffiai uiilizes geologic daia, niiraie iesiing/
mapping, housing stock daia, and a communiry approach io deiermine risk
levels of exisiing rystems ihroughouiffie counry, and idenii(y possible areas of
co ncem for h iling sysiems.
Use assessmeni data io:
a. SeiuptargeiedinvenioryinareasofconcemforhilingSSTS.
b. Inform decisions rega rding placemeni of SSTS, rype of SSTS io be
insta Iled, or offier a liemaiives (hookup io city sewer).
c. Developmaierialsffiaidescribeffienecessityioanalyzeffiecumulaiive
affeciofSSTScommunitywideversusforeachindividualhome. Use
ffiese maierials io educaie and inform public officials, coniraciors, and
SSTS owners.
2 Sirengihen educaiion efforts and develop maierialsio inform home owners
on ffie impaci a hiling SSTS can have on groundwaier and sunc�e waier
resources. Incl ude educaiion on proper use and mainiena nce of SSTS io ensure
funciiona lity of ffie sysiem.
3. Define a meffiod and develop maierialsio educaie realiors and iiile companies
on SSTS rules and requiremenTS during propertyiransfers.
4. Defineameffiodioveri(ySSTScomplianceinspeciionsoccurduringproperty
iransfers.
5. Researchanddevelopfinancingopiions,includingffiepossibilityofacosi
share, grant or loan program for SSTS sysiem replacemeni.
This page intentionally left blank.
� Beneficialuseofsolidwasteisasustainabilitypraciicewherean°IndustrialBy-Produci`
� QBP) (classified in Staie Rule as a solid wasie and defined byihe MPCA as a residual
maierial resuliing from industrial, commercial, mining, and agriculmral operaiions ffiai
{v.t;z arenoiprimaryproducTSandarenoiproducedseparaielyinffieprocess)isspreadon
i agriculmralfieldsioaliersoilforcropproduciion. LandspreadingoflBPsprovidesan
`�
�,'`a environmentalbenefiibyreducingiheneediousecommercialproducTS,reducesffie
� demandfordisposalfaciliiies,andisihusamoreeconomicalopiion.
�.-;.^r � .i�
4� Z Solid wasie land applicaiion is a highly regulaied staie program. Minnesota
: ���� Adminisiraiive Rules 7035.2860, Beneficial Use ofSolid Wasie,seTSffie rules by which
.: �� � � solidwastecanbelandspread.Addiiionallyffiecounrylicensessolidwasteapplicaiors
a.� �� underiTSSolidWasieManagemeniOrdinanceN114.Thisprogramannuallyreviews
"'Y ` �r .4. ...� _
and wriies license condiiions forihe producTS ihe applicaiorsubmiTS analyticals for
and iniends io a pply. The mosi common I BP ffiai is spread o n county fields is lime
Th2CUl"I"211t sludge,alihoughoffierproducTSareallowedonacasebycasebasis.Alsoihecounry
conducTS individual siie inspeciions priorio an IBP applicaiion. IBPs cannoi be applied
wiffiouisoil iests demonsiraiing ihe need forffie produci, and analysis offfie produci
COUllty demonsiraiinghumanandenvironmenialsafery. Parameierssuchasslope,distanceio
waieriable, distance io a down gradienisunc�e waier, permeabiliry ofihe soil, and soil
pH a re some of ffie local concems addressed in ffie ord inance. To view ffie ord inance:
ordinance _,
The Federal Environmental Proieciion Agency (EPA) has land applicaiion regulaiions
d02511't forlandapplyingseptage.TheMPCAdoesnoiregulaieffielandapplicaiionofseptage
bui does require ffiaiany applicable staie and LGU requiremenTS musi also be followed.
Bddl"255�BIld lhecurrenicounrysepiicordinancedoesniaddresslandspreadingofseptageso
ffierefore ii is regulaied underffie .,_ .. ...
Spl"2Bdlllg Thecountyisbeginningffieprocessofupdaiingffiesepiicordinanceandwillbe
addressingffieallowanceoflandspreadingofseptageinihecounry. Rawseptage
carries paihogens and emerging contaminanTS, which are a public healffi concem.
Of52ptBg2. Thecountyshouldconsidernoiallowinglandspreadingdueioffiepresenceof
emerging contamina nTS and ihe sensiiiviry of waier resources in ffie county. This
plan recommends ihai if land spreading ofseptage is allowed in ffie county ffie sepiic
ordinance be updaied io include a strong regulaiory componentto ffiese aciiviiies
ffiai includes requiremenTS aboui distance and slope io sunc�e waier bodies, weilands,
and offier groundwaier dependeni nam ral resources, ihai considers ffie geology
and infiliraiion raies, has requiremenTS based on ihe distance io ffie waiertable, and
requires ffie land spreaders io moniiorsunc�e and groundwaierio ensure public healffi
and safety.
_ _ ,� _,,, 10.1 POLICY
The counry will pa r[ner wiih staie agencies, local govemmenTS, a nd stakeholders io
ensure sufficieni regulaiion and oversighi are in place io proieci public healffi, safery,
and groundwaier 6om poieniial contaminaiion by land spreading aciiviiies.
10.2 STRATEGIES
1. Forffie land applicaiion of lime sludge and offier wasies as approved by ihe
staie and counry, ffie counry encourages waiershed managemeni organizaiions
io ideniify sensiiive waier feamres and appropriaie seffiacks forffiose feamres,
and provide such informaiion io ffie county for consideraiion in ffie approval
process for land applicaiion.The counry also encourages waiershed
managemeni o rgan izaiions io work di recily wiffi businesses ihai la nd a pply, io
make sure sensiiive waier feamres a re proiecied.
2 This plan recommends ihe counry prohibiiffie land spreading ofseptage uniil
such iime ihaisufficieni research and best managemeni praciices have been
established by eiiherffie EPA orffie MPCA io ensure ffiai public healffi and
safery a re noi co mpromised.
3. Ifffie county decides io allow land applicaiion of sepiic wasie ffiis plan
recommends ihe county develop and implemenia rigorous regulaiory program
io ensure ffie process is done safely a nd proieciive of counry sunc�e a nd
groundwaiec Include in ffie regulaiory programffie requirementto noiify
W MOs, WCD, a nd LGUs so ffiai ciiizen inquiries can be addressed. Also require
ihe land spreader moniiorany impacTS io sunc�e and groundwaier.
4. Developandimplemenianeducaiionalprogramforciiizensregardingland
spreading ofsepiage.
� -� '— Impropedyhandledhazardouswasiehascontaminaiedgroundwaierinlocalizedareas
�.-- ofWashingionCounry.Hazardouswastesincludeiiemsihaiareignitable,ioxiGreaciive,
'� and corrosive. Fourhazardous wasie-relaied SWBCA have been ideniified by MDH in
ffie counry (Figure24). In ffiese areas, special well construciion praciices are in effectto
proieciffie public 6om contaminaied groundwaier (see Chapier 8). In addiiion, ffiere
are nine aciive Siaie or Federally designaied soil and groundwaier contaminaiion areas,
iermed Superfund Siies, locaied in ffie counry (Figure29).
Sources ofcontaminaiion in groundwaierfrom hazardous wasie include municipal,
commercial and indusirial dumps; old or unregulaied landfills; leaking underground
storageianks; accidental spills from pipeline rupmres ortanker rollovers; improper
disposal of household wasies; and mismanagemeni by hazardous waste generaiors.
II71pl"Op21"�y Themajorityofhazardouswasiereleasesffiaihaveconiaminaiedgroundwaier
occurred priorio ffie implementaiion of Federal and Staie regulaiions in ihe 1980s.
hand�ed Propedymanagedhazardouswasiesshouldnoiposeaffireattogroundwaier.
The Washingion Counry Wasie Managemeni Masier Plan 2012-2030 (Masier Plan)
emphasizesffie reduciion ofioxic and hazardous wasie. Recycling ofwaste coniinuesio
hBZBI"dOUS beanimportanielemeniofwastemanagemeni-emphasizingbofficommercialsecior
and household hazardous wasie disposal programs. The Master Plan also contains
provisions focused on modifying indusirial processes io reduce or eliminaie ffie use of
WBSt2 hB5 ioxic and hazardous maierials. To viewffie plan clickffie lin� :._ .. .. ... .. .:.
contaminated �yashingtonCountyHazardousWasteManagement
Washingion Counry's PHE has been implemeniing a hazardous wasie licensing
gl"OUIIdWBt21" andinspeciionprogramforoverihreedecades.Currenily,WashingionCounty's
Environmental ProieciionTeam licenses and inspecTS approximaiely480 hazardous
wasie generaiors, four hazardous wasie hciliiies, and administers a household
III�OCB�IZ2d hazardouswasie(HHW)colleciionprogramaiffiecountyEnvironmentalCeniecAll
hazardous wasie generaiors are required io obiain permission 6omihe County for
each wasieihey generaie and io annually repor[ffievolumes ofwastes produced. The
BI"2BSOf EnvironmentalProieciionTeam,incoordinaiionwiihffieWashingionCounryAttomey's
Office, invesiigaies complainTS regarding ffie mismanagemeniof hazardous wasies and
WBShlllgt011 invesiigaiesoccurrencesofabandonedwastes.
The HHW program provides a separaie colleciion sysiem for residenTS io dispose of
COUllty. �ommonproducTSSUChaspainTS,solvenTS,andpeiroleumwasies.In2009,Washingion
Counry opened a new HHW colleciion hcility, ffie Washingion County Environmental
Cenier i n ihe City of Wood bury. In addiiion io providing ffie perma neni hcility,
saielliie colleciion evenTS are offered ihroughouiffie counry several iimes each year.
The HHW program is impor[ani in reducing poieniial groundwaier polluiion by giving
aliemaiives io residenTS who mighi offierwise dispose of hazardous wasie down dra ins,
sepiic sysiems, and in backyards.
The PHE provides technical assistance and education to businesses and the public to
minimize or eliminate toxic materials use.This approach has led to the reduction in
volume and toxicity of wastes at the generator level, decreasing the potential impacts
to the environment and groundwater.
The county also has an usused medication drop box program. This program provides
a method for the safe disposal of inedication and keeps these contaminants out
of our groundwater. Strategy 8.2.2 includes continued promotion of the county's
unused medication drop box program. For information specific to the program go to:
_ � , � _ , ,�+,
Storage Tank Systems
Underground storage tank (UST) systems that contain petroleum or hazardous waste
are a potential threat to water quality. The MPCA regulates the design and operating
rules for UST systems including piping and dispensers. The county has no regulatory
control over UST systems. The volume of contaminants leaking from failing tanks has
been significantly reduced since the implementation of regulatory controls. More
information on the MPCA Regulatory Program for UST systems is available at: '
' io�:; i rr,c; >i � , .:r T.: i� �' � ,T` ��� >er,
Above-ground storage tank (AST) systems that contain petroleum or hazardous waste
are very safe when properly designed and operated. However AST systems are subject
to construction flaws, corrosion, cracking, weld and valve failures, spills during transfers,
and occasionally tank rupture. When AST systems leak or spill, the stored substances
may flow into lakes and rivers, migrate through the soil to the water table, or catch
fire, thereby contaminating soil, groundwater, or surface water and creating hazards to
aquatic life and human health.
AST systems which store liquid substances that may pollute the waters of the state are
regulated by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7151, if site capacity is less than one million
gallons. Larger facilities (facilities with a capacity of one million gallons or more) are
regulated by permits negotiated with MPCA.The goal of regulating ASTsystems is
to prevent spills and leaks by providing storage tankowners with various safeguard
options. More information on the MPCA Regulatory Program for AST systems is
available at: ,'; � _ _ �. . _. ,�
Transportation of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Waste Spills
Hazardous wastes are transported throughout Washington County by truck, rail
and pipelines. The movement, loading, and off-loading of hazardous wastes pose
potential threats of accidents, leaks, and spills. To reduce spill incidents and volume
the Minnesota Legislature passed MN Chapter 115E, Oil and Hazardous Substance
Discharge Preparedness. This requires hazardous waste transporters to prepare and
train to respond to petroleum and chemical spills. Pipelines, trucking, and railroad
businesses that transport more than 100,000 gallons of hazardous waste per month are
mandated to develop spill prevention and preparedness plans.
When a spill does occur, State agencies and the party responsible for the spill are
required to ensure environmental protection. Public safety is the responsibility of local
first responders. All spills that have the potential to impact the environment must
be reported to the State of Minnesota Office of Public Safety (Minnesota State Duty
Officer) within 24 hours. The MPCA oversees the initial response and cleanup of non-
agricultural spills and the MDA oversees the clean-up of agricultural chemical spills.
Pipelines
Eight companies operate pipelines in Washington County. Products carried in local
pipelines include natural gas, fuel oil, crude oil, gasoline, and other petroleum products
(Figure 30). Pipelines cross many parts of Washington County, including areas
considered sensitive to groundwater contamination.
The U.S. Department ofTransportations, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration regulate pipelines.The MPCA is responsible for responding to pipeline
release incidents and local first responders are responsible for public safety. The county
does not have direct pipeline regulatory authority, but does have the opportunity to
review permit applications and comment on what efforts should be made to protect
groundwater. More information is available at:
11.1 POLICY
The county will work io red uce ihe risk of groundwaier coniaminaiion by ensuring
sound managemeniof hazardous wasie wiffiinihe counry.
- 11.2 STRATEGIES
� � � 1.Thecountywillworkioensureffiaigroundwaierproieciionisaniniegralpar[
-, ofStaie,counry,andlocalrulesandpermittingprogramsihairegulaie
� hazardous wasie storage, iranspor[aiion, disposal, clean up, and
,y�;�;,e�r.,,�-.°p..�=5�_ emergencyresponsestructures.
2 FxpbreopiionsioencourageBMPsainewandexisiingsalvageyardsinffie
cou nry, io promoie proper ma nagemeni of wasie and preveni g roundwaier
contamination.
3. Coniinue iosirengffien ouireach and educaiion on household hazardous wasie
disposal opiions ihrough ffie use offfie county environmenial cenier and offier
household hazardous wasie hcil iiies ffiai are available.
4. Developeducaiionmaierialsandanouireachplanforhazardouswasie
generaiors ffiai expla ins ffieir poieniial groundwaier impaci.
a Creaieahierarchyofeducaiionbasedonioxicityiogroundwaier.
b. Educaiionmaierialsshouldbeprioriiizedbyhoweffeciiveffieyareai
getting ffie message outto residenTS.
Y_ J,.
'�,�„ ' Aggregateminingisanimportantindustryintl�ecounry.Mostminingareascontainan
_�. ` abundanceofhighlypermeablesandandgravelorhighlypermeablebedrodc.Mining
' _ - '�:.; increasespotentialimpac�rogroundwaterfromspillingofchemiolsand/orfuel.After
`. °�, - I_ mining is completed tl�e mining site may be more sensifive ro contamination tl�an tl�e
'fi
Y_ _ .s.
,z,�,� s.�� - pretniningconditionduerotl�eshallowerdepthofgroundwaterandinsomeoses,
��n!" � removaloFlesspermeablesoils.
. Miningmaytakeplacebelow�hewatertable,requinngde�vateringeffor�.Opeafions
��� �� pumpingmorethan10,000gallonsperdayorover1,000,000gallonsperyearmust
��.,.. �5=`, obtainaDNRwaterappropnationpermitGroundwaterdawdowninminingareazhas
- - �' thepotentialroimpactbolandregionalwaterquantiry.
The Wazhingron Counry Mining Ordinance regulates the removal of sand, gavel, rodc,
soil, and other namral deposi� in uninmrpoated rownships. The mining ordinance
also regulates tl�e production of asphalt and mncrete. Incorpoated dties with mining
Mining activiryadministerminingordinancesandmncreteandasphaltproductionwitl�intl�eir
boundaries.
inCfea5e5 Themunryminingordinancehasprovisionsroprotectgroundwatertl�atindude
requiremenrs for borings to show the depth ro groundwater, water qualiry monitoring,
potentia� amandaroryEAWforanymineproposedbelowthegroundwaterlevelorthatwill
exovate 40 or more acres ro a mean deptl� of 10 feet a mandarory EIS for any mine
propwed ro exovate 160 or more acres ro a mean deptl� of 10 feet �he submitbl
impaCtSto ofgadingplansandphasedrehabilitztionplansrotheWCDandtl�eappropnate
watershed for tl�eir approval, and any abandoned wells must be sealed.
gfoUndWatef Themunryordinancealsorequirestl�ecounryissueformalpermitstl�atindudeannual
inspections, and that each operafion undergoes a review process witl� a public heanng
ffom5pi��ing everyfiveyears.Currentlytl�ecounryholdsl2activeminingpermi�.
Silio sand mining has made a presence in Minnesota, more regionally in tl�e
ofCflemiCa�S soWheaztempartofthestate.ThissandisneededforhydaulicfacWring(6adcing)
processes ro release petroleum and namal gazfrom deep inside the earth. The
counry's geology provides tl�e rype of silio sand tl�at is mwt desiable ro use in 6acking
and/offUe�. sotl�ereispotenfialforanincreaseinsiliosandmines.Thereiswrrentlyoneactive
silio sand mine in �he counry boted in and regulated by �he Ciry of Woodbury.
The mncems of inaeased silio sand mining in the munry indude greater potenfial ro
contzminate groundwater, increased depletion of groundwater due ro use by mining
opeafions, noise and light pollufion, and potenfial senous heal�h effec� from silio
laden dus[ This groundwaterplan remmmends thatthe munry update i� mining
ordinance ro indude spedfic regulations forsilio sand mining ro protect public healtl�
and safery.
.j� ��`
�����
r . ,, :S
s. ^ ?
_ .i #..`..
p .�.�:;;rlk � � ,..
�-�.-���
�'�C:;�
�'�-;��`�'�z.
.� ,�c�
`�=�e:
12.1 POLICY
The wunry will wordina[e wi[h local govemmen[s and stakeholders [o regula[e mining
activitles and ensure suffiden[ mining redam atlon [o pro[ec[ groundwa[er and public
heal[h and safery.
12.2 STRATEGIES
1. The wunry will wntinue to review and provide wm m ents on any propased
mining operatlons wi[hin [he wunry, induding 6acsand mining, in order [o
pro[ec[ groundwa[ec The counry will review propasals spedfically for.
Proposed m ining process and use of chemicals.
Proximiry [o sunc�e wntam inan[s based on surrounding land uses.
Proximiry [o groundwa[er dependen[ na[ual resources induding
horizontal distance and dep[h.
Distance 6om [he bottom of [he excavatlon [o [he rop of [he wa[er
table.
The amounrofwa[er appropriatlon reques[ed.
Proposed land use af[er mining.
Requiremen[s for annual operatlng perm i[s.
Proposed m anagem enrof was[e wa[er induding wash wa[er.
L The counrywill review and wmment on any propased ordinance or rule
changes 6om municipalitles and o�her LGUs, wi�h regards [o mining operatlons,
in order to protect groundwater.
3. The counrywill review the current wunry mining ordinance, in the context
of facsand m ining, [o ensure pro[ectlon of groundwa[ec Sugges[ed changes
and/orwmmen[s mayindude requiring additlonal moni[oring, limiung
excavatlon [o certain distances 6om [he wa[er table, and fur[her restrictlons
under certain geologic wnditlons.
The county has a difficuli hisiory wiih landfills and disposal siies in relaiionship io
< Y ., groundwaiecThe formerly known Washingion Counry Landfill and disposal siies in
� Oakdale,Woodbury,andComgeGrovearesourcesofPFCgroundwaierconiaminaiion.
- �'� TheformerWashingionCountyLandfillwaspuiinffieMPCAsClosedLandfillProgram
;� ��- in2008andsinceffiattimehasundergonemanyyearsofcleanup.TheOakdale,
- - e Woodbury, and Cottage Grove disposal siies have been in ffie Staie Superfund Program
� �� since2007andhaveundergoneyearsofcleanupaswell.
� -.
� ��� _� �� � Therearevariousreasonsseveregroundwaiercontaminaiionoccurredaiffiesesiies.
� .s„�_ ����� � � �� One is because ffiey were operaiing aia iime when liners wereni required. Anoffier
_. '�, d�.> .
_ reason is due io ffie rype ofgeology in ffie county. The counry's geology, especially in
ffie souffiem part, doem i have much iill before bedrock is exposed and is also riddled
wiffi fracmred bedrock and areas of karst All ofihese characierisiics creaie a simaiion
wiffi greai poieniial for contaminaiing groundwaier.
The county's
sensitive
geology
creates a
situation
with great
potential for
contaminating
In 2008 ffie M innesoia Legislamre passed a bil I ca Iling for a work gro up io advise ffiem
on updaiing MPCA rules for indusirial landfills ffiai address groundwaiersensiiiviry.
One offfie drivers offfiis was ffie history of groundwaier contaminaiion in ffie counry
along wiffi a proposal by Xcel Energyio develop a new lined landfill in Wesi Lakeland
Township ffiai would receive Fly ash 6om coal combusiion.
Reco mmendaiions pui for[h io ffie leg islam re by ffiis work group ihai affeci
groundwaierare:
Permitting of industrial wasie landfills should be based on hydrogeology.
The use ofsiie specific hydrogeologic investigaiions needs io be done io
characierize groundwaierai proposed siies instead ofa single criieria oriest
The MPCA moved forward wiffi ffiese recommendaiions and broughttogeffier a
group ofstakeholders who wroie ffie°Indusirial Landfill Guidance`document This
documeni informed ffie staie legislamre and in March 2012 ihey adopied Minnesota
Adminisiraiive Rule 70013111 °Addiiional Siiing RequiremenTS forCer[ain Landfillsffiai
have noi Received a Permii beforeJanuary 1, 2011.` This rule provides criieria ffiaiare
based on a siie's sensiiiviry io groundwaier co nta minaiion. These criieria include:
• Theapplicanimusiprovideacer[ificaiionforsiieandgroundwaiercondiiions
gl"OUIIdWBt21". 6om a professional geologist licensed in Minnesota and a cer[ificaiion for
strucmral condiiions 6om a professional engineer licensed in Minnesota.
• TheprediciedminimumiimeofiravelofgroundwaiercontaminanTS6omffie
proposed IandfilPs base grade io an approvable proposed compliance
bounda ry is ai leasi 100 days.
• GroundwaierFlowisknowninsufficienideiailioallowmoniioringforpoieniial
contaminani releases, and siie and groundwaier condiiions would allow ffie
ownedoperaiorsufficienispace and iime io implemeni correciive aciions io
prevenicontaminanTS released fromffie landfill6om exceeding applicable
standards ai a compliance boundary.
• NokarsiexisTSwiffiin200feeilaierallyofiheproposedwasiefillarea.
At sites where carbonate bedrockexists, either more than 50 feet of undisturbed,
unconsolidated overburden has been maintained prior to construction so that
karst is not likely to develop or the commissioner finds based on the site
evaluation that karst is not likely to develop.
These proposed rules support this plans recommendation to not allow siting an
industrial landfill in the county in order to protect groundwater.
Mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) is another waste stream where PHE works with
stakeholders to protect groundwater. The Washington County Waste Management
Master Plan 2012-2030 guides county waste management activities and was developed
with guidance from the MPCA Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan
2010-2030. PHE programs that are impacted by the state waste objectives are solid and
hazardous waste management, groundwater protection and management, and energy
management. The State of Minnesota has established an order of preference for solid
waste management, known as the Solid Waste Hierarchy, which the county's waste
management plan has adopted. Based on this Hierarchy, landfilling is the least desired
waste management option. The order of preference for an integrated solid waste
management system is:
a. Waste reduction and reuse;
b. Waste recycling;
c. Composting of source-separated compostable materials, including, but
not limited to yard waste and food waste;
d. Resource recovery through mixed municipal solid waste composting or
incineration; and;
e. Land disposal which produces no measurable methane gas or which
involves the retrieval of inethane gas as a fuel for the production of
energy to be used on-site or for sale; and
f. Land disposal which produces measurable methane and which does
not involve the retrieval of inethane gas as a fuel for the production of
energy to be used on-site or for sale.
The groundwater plan supports this integrated management system and encourages
the county to go a step further and continue to ensure that landfills are not sited in
the county. This recommendation is due to the sensitive geology and the existing
contaminated groundwater in the county.
13.1 POLICY
The county will partnerwiih siaie agencies, local govemmenTS, and stakeholders io
preveniffie siiing of landfills in ffie counTy in an effortio proieci groundwaier 6om
contamination.
13.1 STRATEGIES
1. Thecountysuppor[s�Jllni .. _. .�°�i °AddiiionalSiiing
RequiremenTS for Certain Landfills ffiai have noi Received a Permii before
January 1, 2011.`
2 The countywill coniinueio review and provide commenTS on any proposed
landfill operaiionswiffiin ffie county in orderio proiecigroundwaier.
3. The county will review and commeni on any proposed stamie or rule changes
6om ffie staie wiffi regards io landfill operaiions in orderio proieci
groundwaier.
4. The County Groundwaier Plan suppor[s ffie work ofihe Washingion County
Wasie Ma nagemeni Master Plan 2012-2030 io implemeni aciiviiies for a n
iniegraied solid wasie managemenirystem ffiai is proieciive of groundwaier.
5. This plan recommendsffie counTy prohibiiffiesiiing of landfills in ffie countyio
proieci groundwaierffiai is vulnerable due io ffie sensiiive geology.
This page intentionally left blank.
6 Bedrod Geology p.85
� BedrodTOpograpM1y p.e6
8 Surface Geology p.e�
9 GeomorpM1icRegions p.88
io i�einaeo�PO�e�eai o.as
ia l �ro��dwa�erciowPrao-ied�cn�ie�
ia l �akeaass�eaeo�-NOrmer�co��o. I o.s�
za I Pri•a�eweu�oaeo�s-co��o.weui�dex I o.ioz
D I MPUAmbien[Gmundwa[erWells I o.106
N
W{I�E
��
5
J_ 2 3 6 i
_ i �
� .o......
�
i
e..e .I ...e
�����:....,
I� i
i,�_:.. �..
L_ - 43 -
I
I ..,o.
i�
2000 MUSA
2005 MUSA Staging
2010 MUSA as af 10/12/O6
Untlesignated MUSA
2015 MUSA Staging
2020 MUSA
2025 MUSA Staging
2030 MUSA
2040 Urban Reserve
Permanent Agriculture
Permanent Rural
Rurel Resitlential
Unsewered Urban
a a�e
ee o.�vo�m
an. .,v �. �maro�m.rnm��m��n,ama�amo is���`ee
m n!ia�a i� e�me �omm �m�K.°n��„s,..�n �ro� a� e.e..amm
� m�m�m�r.a�� osn
N
W ��E
5
0 1 2 3 6 5
Miles
o..... �
� .e.. .� y �
v l
/
_-.�,,......,�
.e... .,.o ;
_ �.} .,0000�w. z;,(. +��.:i
�. ..�� r
..� �
"" I � f ����
.e �x�L \ v' V ���
�
_ �_i
- Very High
High
High-Moderete
Moderate
Low - Moderete
Low
Very Low
water
x
a
Wi�AE
�
5
0 1 3 3 4 5
Miles
— Very Xigh
High
Xigh-MOtlerate
Motlerate
Low
water
N
W�E
4�.
�"
5
0 1 2 3 6 5
Miles
N
W��E
5
a i z a a s
Mlles
1
���o
��:
�
I I N °wo :
I
�.o,�EO�
�,E � Ea
r
l
� �� ica l'_' _ �
_evwi�xnb_ _ --- - -_— — o�. Pn s \
t �� , . � .�� �
� ,a...,�P "'N/
�.
MUA ElYO iDV� . �
T � X�
LA
� � WOOOBVRY
�
Lx o'vuz+ a
�.. .
Cambrian Undifferentiated
� Decorah
_ Eau Claire
Tunnel Cky-WOnewoc
Jordan
Platteville•Glenwood
Prairie Du Chien Group
St. Lawrence-Franconia
St.Peter
N
W ��. E
S
m
0 1 2 3 4 5
Miles
v.eo:.a e� wa.rn..�o� ca��r� ms s„oPm cn �. rt o.v+mm��t -oaiisr�oi3
Da�e swrm rmm�esqa Geqogn� Sunq. wzanmgwn counry c�s soppnn unn
300 ft.
1050 ft.
N
W �j E
5
0 1 2 3 6 5
Ni�rs
1� �
..�t �I1j���;_ —_�-_"
' ,,:. ��fYj � ,�',e.
� . � e � �.o�..
. . ` ,
� �! :.t
i . .�.„,... , .
t 5 ��� •t.. .
�
�." . ��, .
... '�� v �� .,
�� I
,. `.'ct : ..
. c.
s,a �,� – �
A�
�t � •
� ._. –.,���
.,,.e ` .l o.
,..o._. —
r �,fiC� �, � ,;.� r
�� �. rt t � � I �
�, . �
..
�� `i�w
i p l i � . ` y�����
n � I � l • ��� ��
W1 � A ' { /
e ���
�.o�. , .� �.•...,
♦
r„
Bedrock Near Surface
Ice Contact Deposit (Des Moines)
�l Lake Sand (Des Moines)
Outwash (Des Moines)
Mizetl Till (Des Moines)
Till (Des Moines)
� Glacial Till, Sand antl Gravel (Des Moines)
Floodplain Alluvium (Loamy)
Floodplain Alluvium (Santly)
- Wcustrine Deposits
_ OrganicDeposits
Pre Wl Keweenawn Outwash
- Pre Wl Keweenawn Till
Pre WI Superior Outwash
� Glacial Till (Pre -Late W I Superior)
Ice Contact Deposit (Superior)
- Lacustrine Sand and Silt (Superior)
Outwash (Superior)
Till (Superior)
Glacial Till, Santl antl Gravel (Superior)
Lowest River Warren Terraces
Midtlle River Wanen Terrace
Upper River Warren Terrace
Motlern Lake
Slopewash Santl (Wisc.)
:
w ,E
�'
s
o�=3a=
Mlias
II.
.,00
V.
I. �o..,s.�,
I ll• �� •••09E•
I 1 i
v . .o,..,. o.
.z� .:
I. St. Croix Moreine
11. Glacial Lake Hugo Plain
111. Lake Elmo-COttage Grove Outwash Plain
IV. Denmark Dissected Plain
V. St. Croix antl Missi55ippi River TerraCes
u
w1��E
�,
_
o i z 3 a s
..e�a. Advmnuuq w=eea.i oe�>>o�
�F
�
,
Very High
High
Moderate
s ��w
s �e,Y �ow
s Water
..,.�
�
4 y� � .
, s::_
N
W�E
5
0 1 d 3 J 5
hlJex
�
L,,
_�
�
..,¢�
��
y ,�
� y'1
p �
a�
��
�h
�
:
�;� r
:L16�
t
�
� �� M {;,I .
_�'� `:�r�.
,. �, �
�n i�,.
�
��P.
. anme �
�10'
f ��i� y �
. .. .�
.* /
iov.xs.ur ��
\ .
_ � Recharge
s Discharge
/ N
W'���,f�i�E
C , ^ ��.
T
S
� _ � 3 i 5
Nlles
1� water Level Elevation (tt.)
x
w e
s
o i i 3 a s
Miles
'L� Water Level Elevation ((tJ
rv
w.�� e
s
a i z a a s
mn�
'1� water Level Elevation (ft.)
x
w�e
s
0 1 2 3 4 5
Mlles
'\. Water Level Elevation (RJ
rv
w �i�e
s
o i z 3 a s
Miles
�� Water Level Elevation (k.)
p N
Wy.�E
5
0 1 2 3 0 5
MJes
�. Water Level Elevatian (ft.)
N
W�E
d
s
0 1] 3 a 5
Miles
f High Flow-through
. . �� Low Flow-through
. � HighGroundwaterFlow-through
. LowGrountlwaterFlow-through
._ ' High Precipitation Flow-through
� � Low Precipitation Flow-through
� High PreCipitation ReCharge
. � Law Precipitation Recharge
f High Grountlwater Recharge
,_ ; �� Lqw Groundwater Recharge
n
w��e
s
o i z 3 a s
Miles
� Discharge
s Flow-through
�► PerChetl
Recharge
���
W iI�cPLE
�t�'.
< 5
0 1 2 3 6 5
MVes
�. Deslgnatetl T�outStream
N
w'�e
F '
s
o i z 3 a s
Miles
i �.. a • ��.� . - I
} � a, •
�' � �� � � ��,
� ..e .
. � � V�', ¢� � ,' � . . �
. � ..l7�` � _'.� •�. -1
J ,-� • y �, ;�; � �
�. . f , k...
: c �� � � �rt +�.�`
'��-i �,' s :c�,
; a ',"' ti; � , C ,.
� � ,. 1 0..,`
,, �„
� b :,.r � . ;
I r '
\
�i � � .( . `,..
.r �
' �� . ;' ���.iS...."�:�
�iN��
� _ ..
�. �,
\ �.V:
I •� .
�.o.. 1
•— •!
Type 1. Seasonally Flootletl Basin or Flat
Type 2. Inlantl Fresh Meatlow
;�� Type3.InlandShallowFreshMarsh
Type 4. Inlantl Deep Fresh Marsh
s Type 5. Inland Open Fresh Water
Type 6. Shrub Swamp
� Type 7. Woodetl Swamp
f TYPe 8. Bog
x
w�.e
s
o i x a a s
M�lae
• DNR Water Level Moniioring Wells
H
W�E
0 1 2 0 5
• Active Well
• Sealetl Well
x
w�e
s
o i z 3 a s
Milas
�. �. ,� .e�
� —
f
� .e..,.,.
� DrinkingWaterSUpplyManagementAreas
.,:o�
�//� .,.o.
, � �
w:�.E
�
..e.. .o.,,.�� �/ � ,
o��3a
% Milea
C� Special Well Construc[ion Areas
�
w�.E
s
0 1 3 3 6 5
M�lae
rrr�/������//7
/��� � ���ri�
Extent of PFC's Detected - Jan 2008
x
w.��e
s
o i z a a s
Mlles
• MPG1 Monitoring We115
�
w.(-'�-�:�4e
�t
s
o i i 3 a s
Mil¢s
Community Systems
SSTS Locations
N
W . i E
5
0 1 3 3 6 5
Milee
• Super Funtl Sites
N
W �E
3
0 1] 3 6 5
MileS
�� Crude Oil
1. Nahrel Gas
' _ � Non XVL Protluct
N
W J.��E
�
5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Milas
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER PLAN MEASURES
POPULATION ACCOUNTABILITY
Quality of Life Result: Clean and sustainable groundwater for all Washington County residents
Why is this important?
Groundwater is one of Washington County's most valuable natural resources. Safe drinking water, healthy lakes and
streams, and economic vitality all depend on protecting and conserving this resource. Protecting groundwater
resources is one of the most central roles of public health and a fundamental component to a safe and healthy
society.
How are we doing?
Quality: The county has known areas of groundwater contamination including VOC contamination in eight
communities and PFC contamination in four communities. Nitrate levels in the southern region of the county are also
elevated. Combined with the threat of emerging contaminants, there is strong evidence that the quality of the
county's groundwater is compromised which in turn reduces quantity.
Quantity: Recent history is starting to indicate that the previously held notion that there is an overabundance of
groundwater supply is false. Increasingly, residents are being forced to lower their pumps, and for those surface
water bodies connected to aquifers, levels are dropping. Both of these circumstances indicate a drop in aquifer
levels.
At the residential level, the county currently monitors data on well water testing and well sealing activities. The rate
of water testing has been relatively low due to limited resources available for marketing and education. Well-sealing
rates have remained constant over the past few years and increased slightly in 2012 due to available funding.
What will it take to do better?
Collaboration: Effective collaboration with key state and local agencies is a cornerstone to the success of the
Washington County Groundwater Program. Due to a lack of statutory authority, the county's primary role is to
promote and facilitate collaboration around the prevention, treatment and monitoring of groundwater quality and
q ua ntity.
The partners who have a role to play in improving the quality and quantity of the county's groundwater include the
following state and local agencies: Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health, Pollution Control
Agency, Department of Agriculture, Metropolitan Council, Board of Water and Soil Resources, municipalities,
watersheds, and residents. Many of these partners have sometimes conflicting priorities. Our role as the county is to
bring them together on common issues and help them recognize their role and stake in the implementation of
strategies that address groundwater issues.
Education and Outreach: Focused, coordinated education and outreach to the public about groundwater quality and
quantity issues is a key element to groundwater protection.
Initiatives: Initiatives focused on instilling a sense of urgency among residents and LGUs around groundwater quality
and quantity are critical to sustaining achievements in disease reduction and increased longevity that we frequently
take for granted.
Groundwater Supply Performance Measures
Qua ntity Qua lity
How much did we do (#)? How well did we do it (%)?
Customers: % of water bodies in database with known surface
# of local government units water and groundwater interaction
% of local government representation at open
� Activities: forum
°
w # of water bodies identified and maintained in a
groundwater information database
# of # of local government units invited to attend
annual forum
Is anvone better off (#)/(%)?
+•
u
w #/% of local government units that update ordinances to reflect best practices
w
"' $ per capita water use for municipal systems
Headline Performance Measures & Data Development A¢enda
% of local government units that update ordinances to reflect best practices
$ per capita water use for municipal systems
% of water bodies in database with known surface water and groundwater interaction
% of local government representation at open forum
Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Performance Measures
Quantity Quality
How much did we do (#1? How well did we do it (%1?
Customers:
# of local government units % of county with recharge areas identified
.. # watershed management organizations % of watershed management organizations and
�° local government units that incorporate protection
"' Activities: of recharge into plan updates
# of recharge areas identified, inventoried and
ranked
# of best management practice guidelines
developed
Is anvone better off (#1/1%1?
Y
u
� #/% of regional recharge areas established
"' #/% of watershed management organizations and local government units that implement best
management practices and low-impact development and redevelopment strategies
Headline Performance Measures & Data Development Aeenda
% of regional recharge areas established
% of watershed management organizations and local government units that implement best management
practices and low-impact development and redevelopment strategies
% of county with recharge areas identified
Source Water & Well Head Protection Performance Measures
Quantity Quality
How much did we do (#1? How well did we do it (%1?
Customers: % of wells identified in high priority areas
# of local government units % of funds available for abandoned well sealing
# of public water suppliers % of local government unit representation at
.. # of homeowners with private wells forum
`o
�
"' Adivities:
# of abandoned wells identified
# of outside funding opportunities identified for
abandoned well sealing
# of local government units invited to attend
annualforum
Is anvone better off (#1/1%1?
� #/% of total abandoned wells sealed
w #/% of abandoned wells sealed in high priority areas
w
`�' #/% of Wellhead Protection Plans undated to reflect collaborative strategies on water supply issues
Headline Performance Measures
% of total abandoned wells sealed
% of abandoned wells sealed in high priority areas
Secondarv Measures
# of abandoned wells identified
# of total abandoned wells sealed
# of abandoned wells sealed in high priority areas
Data Development Aeenda
% of Wellhead Protection Plans undated to reflect collaborative strategies on water supply issues
Groundwater Contamination Performance Measures
Existing VOC and PFC Contamination
Quantity Quality
How much did we do (#1? How well did we do it (%1?
Customers:
# of local government units
# of public water suppliers
Y # of residents
w
"' Activities:
Existing VOC and PFC Contamination Existing VOC and PFC Contamination
# of homeowners identified % of homeowners contacted that test water
# of homeowners contacted supply
Is anvone better off (#1/1%1?
Y
u
W
,"'�„ #/% of customers implementing best management practices in areas of known contamination
Headline Performance Measures & Data Development Aeenda
% of customers implementing best management practices in areas of known contamination
Secondarv Measures
% of homeowners that test water su
Groundwater Contamination Performance Measures
Nutrients - General
Quantity Quality
How much did we do (#)? How well did we do it (%)?
Customers:
# of local government units
# of public water suppliers
# of residents
r
°
„ Activities: Nutrients—General
Nutrients— General % of studies completed for high-risk communities
# of studies conducted in high-risk communities % of county that is mapped
# of well testing data mapped % of samples collected
# of long-term monitoring stations for nitrates and % of long-term stations for nitrates and pesticides
pesticides identified monitored
Is anvone better off (#)/(%)?
Y
V
N
„#/% of customers implementing best management practices in areas of known contamination
Headline Performance Measures & Data Development Aeenda
% of customers imqlementinQ best manaQement qractices in areas of known contamination
Secondarv Measures
# of studies conducted in high-risk communities
# of IonQ-term monitorinQ stations for nitrates and qesticides identified
Groundwater Contamination Performance Measures
Nutrients - Urban
Quantity Quality
How much did we do (#1? How well did we do it (%1?
Customers:
# of public water suppliers
Y # of businesses
� # of residents
W
Activities: Nutrients — Urban
Nutrients— Urban % of highly sensitive areas that receive outreach
# of highly sensitive areas identified and education
Is anvone better off (#1/1%1?
Y
u
W
,�„ #/% of customers that adopt or implement best management practices
Headline Performance Measures & Data Development A¢enda
% of customers that adopt or implement new practices
Groundwater Contamination Performance Measures
Nutrients - Agricultural
Quantity Quality
How much did we do (#)? How well did we do it (%)?
Customers:
# of animal holding facilities
o # of crop farmers
�
W
Activities: Nutrients— Urban/Agriculture General/Animal
Nutrients -Agriculture General/Animal Waste/Non-Animal Waste
Waste/Non-Animal Waste % of customers that receive outreach education
# of customers identified
+•
Is anvone better off (#1/(%1?
u
W
W #/% of customers that adopt or implement best management practices
Headline Performance Measures & Data Development Aeenda
% of customers that adopt or implement new practices
Groundwater Contamination Performance Measures
Emerging Contaminants
Quantity Quality
How much did we do (#1? How well did we do it (%1?
Customers:
# of local government units
# of public water suppliers
o # of residents
w
W
Activities: Emerging Contaminants
Emerging Contaminants % of areas or wells identified that are monitored
# of areas or wells identified % of areas or wells with known contamination and
risk levels
Is anvone better off (#1/1%1?
Y
u
W
,�„ #/% of areas or wells with identified risk levels that implement best management practices
#/% of areas or wells with identified risk levels that implement remediation strategies
Headline Performance Measures & Data Development A¢enda
% of areas or wells with identified risk levels that implement best management practices
% of areas or wells with identified risk levels that implement remediation strategies
Septic Systems Performance Measures
Quantity Quality
How much did we do (#)? How well did we do it (°�l?
Customers:
# of homeowners with a septic system °� of compliance inspections completed during the
# realtors and title companies time of a property transfer
o °� of areas of concern with known risk level
,�„ Activities: °� of realtor and title company attendees that are
# compliance inspections completed satisfied with training and plan to share
# of areas of concern for failing systems identified information
# of trainings offered to realtors and title
companies
Is anvone better off (#)/(°�l?
v #/°� of failing systems replaced
,�`�„ #/°� of attendees representing realtors and title companies who have increased knowledge of the
impact a failing system can have on groundwater and surface water resources
Headline Performance Measures
°� of fail
# compliance inspections completed
# of failing systems replaced
Secondarv Measures
Data DevelopmentAeenda
Hazardous Waste Performance Measures
Quantity Quality
How much did we do (#)? How well did we do it (%)?
Customer: % of salvage yards inspected
# of hazardous waste generators % of residential participants at the county
� # of residents environmental center and collection events
�
"' Activities:
# of salvage yards identified
# of types of materials collected at WCEC and
remote events
Is anvone better off (#)/(%)?
+•
u
� #/% of salvage yards implementing best management practices
"' #/% of residential household hazardous waste collected
Headline Performance Measures & Data DevelopmentAeenda
% of salvage yards implementing best management practices
% of residential household hazardous waste collected
Secondarv Measures
# of types of materials collected at WCEC and remote events
% of residential participants at the county environmental center and collection events
#/% of residential household hazardous waste collected
1992 Draft Washington County Comprehensive Groundwater Plan
In 1990, Washington County began developing a groundwater plan and in November of 1992 released a draft
Comprehensive Groundwater Management Plan. The 1992 Draft Plan was not guided through the final review
and approval process and, therefore, was not finalized and implemented.
2003-2013 Washington County Groundwater Plan
In January 2001 the Washington County Board of Commissioners re-activated the Washington County GWAC for
the purpose of guiding and advising County staff in reviewing and re-drafting the 1992 draft Plan (as required by
Minnesota Statute 103B.255). The county also established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that included
stafffrom the DNR, MPCA, MDH, MDA, Metropolitan Council, WCD, U of M, local governments, and WMO's.
County staff led these groups in the development and final adoption of this plan in 2003.
2014-2024 Washington County Groundwater Plan
In June of 2012 Washington County kicked off the process of updating the 2003 plan. Again a GWAC and TAC
aided in the process of identifying the necessary issues that should be addressed between 2014 and 2024. To
determine the strategies in the plan work groups were formed consisting of the technical experts and specific
partners needed to carry out the work in each issue area into the future. The work of these groups and county
staff is reflected in Chapters 1 to 13 of this plan.
1036.255 Groundwater plans.
Subdivision 1. Authority. A metropolitan county may prepare and adopt groundwater plans in accordance with
this section.
Subd. 2. Responsible units. The county may prepare and adopt the plan or, upon request of a soil and water
conservation district, the county may delegate to the soil and water conservation district the preparation and
adoption of all or part of a plan and the performance of other county responsibilities regarding the plan under
this section and section 103B.231.
Subd. 3. Local coordination.To assure the coordination of efforts of all units of government during the
preparation and implementation of watershed and groundwater plans, the county shall conduct meetings with
local units of government and watershed management organizations and may enter into agreements with local
units of government and watershed management organizations establishing the responsibilities during the
preparation and implementation of the water plans.
Subd. 4. Assistance. The county may contract with the Minnesota Geological Survey, the United States
Geological Survey, a soil and water conservation district, or other public or private agencies or persons for
services in performing the county's responsibilities regarding the plan under this section and section 103B.231.
Counties may enter into agreements with other counties or local units of government under section 471.59 for
the performance of these responsibilities. To assist in the development of the groundwater plan, the county
shall seek the advice of the advisory committee, the Minnesota geological survey, the departments of health
and natural resources, the pollution control agency, and other appropriate local, state, and federal agencies.
Subd.S. Advisorycommittees.
(a) The county shall name an advisory committee of 15 members.The committee must include
representatives of various interests, including construction, agriculture, hydrogeology, and well
drilling. At least four members of the committee must be from the public at large, with no
direct pecuniary interest in any project involving groundwater protection. At least seven
members must be appointed from watershed management organizations, statutory and home
rule charter cities and towns, and these local government representatives must be
geographically distributed so that at least one is appointed from each county commissioner
district.
(b) The county shall consult the advisory committee on the development, content, and
implementation of the plan, including the relationship of the groundwater plan and existing
watershed and local water management plans, the effect of the groundwater plan on the other
plans, and the allocation of costs and governmental authority and responsibilities during
implementation.
Subd. 6. General standards.
(a) The groundwater plan must specify the period covered by the plan and must extend at least
five years, but no more than ten years, from the date the board approves the plan. The plan
must contain the elements required by subdivision 7. Each element must be set out in the
degree of detail and prescription necessary to accomplish the purposes of sections 103B.205
to 103B.255, considering the character of existing and anticipated physical and hydrogeologic
conditions, land use, and development and the severity of existing and anticipated
groundwater management problems in the county.
(b) To the fullest extent possible, in a manner consistent with groundwater protection, a county
shall make maximum use of existing and available data and studies in preparing the
groundwater plan and incorporate into its groundwater plan relevant data from existing plans
and the relevant studies and provisions of existing plans adopted by watershed management
organizations having jurisdiction wholly or partly within the county.
Subd. 7. Contents. A groundwater plan must:
1. cover the entire area within the county;
2. describe existing and expected changes to the physical environment, land use, and development in the
county;
3. summarize available information about the groundwater and related resources in the county, including
existing and potential distribution, availability, quality, and use;
4. state the goals, objectives, scope, and priorities of groundwater protection in the county;
5. contain standards, criteria, and guidelines for the protection of groundwater from pollution and for
various types of land uses in environmentally sensitive areas, critical areas, or previously contaminated
areas;
6. describe relationships and possible conflicts between the groundwater plan and the plans of other
counties, local government units, and watershed management organiza�tions in the affected
groundwater system;
7. set forth standards, guidelines, and official controls for implementation of the plan by watershed
management organizations and local units of government; and
8. include procedures and timelines for amending the groundwater plan.
Subd.8. Reviewofthedraftplan.
(a) Upon completion of the groundwater plan but before final adoption by the county, the county
shall submit the draft plan for a 60-day review and comment period to adjoining counties, the
Metropolitan Council, the State review agencies, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, each soil
and water conservation district, town, statutory and home rule charter city, and Watershed
Management Organization having territory within the county. The county also shall submit the
plan to any other county or watershed management organization or district in the affected
groundwater system that could affect or be affected by implementation of the plan. Any
political subdivision or watershed management organization that expects that substantial
amendment of its plans would be necessary in order to bring them into conformance with the
county groundwater plan shall describe as specifically as possible, within its comments, the
amendments that it expects would be necessary and the cost of amendment and
implementation. Reviewing entities have 60 days to review and comment. Differences among
local governmental agencies regarding the plan must be mediated. Notwithstanding sections
103D.401, 103D.405, and 473.165, the council shall review the plan in the same manner and with
the same authority and effect as provided in section 473.175 for review of the comprehensive
plans of local government units.The council shall comment on the apparent conformity with
metropolitan system plans of any anticipated amendments to watershed plans and local
comprehensive plans.The council shall advise the Board of Water and Soil Resources on whether
the plan conforms with the management objectives stated in the council's water resources plan
and shall recommend changes in the plan that would satisfy the council's plan.
(b) The county must respond in writing to any concerns expressed by the reviewing agencies within
30 days of receipt thereof.
(c) The county shall hold a public hearing on the draft plan no sooner than 30 days and no later
than 45 days after the 60-day review period of the draft plan.
Subd. 9. Review by metropolitan council and state agencies. After completion of the review under
subdivision 8, the draft plan, any amendments thereto, all written comments received on the plan, a record of
the public hearing, and a summary of changes incorporated as part of the review process must be submitted to
the Metropolitan Council, the State review agencies, and the Board of Water and Soil Resources for final review.
The State review agencies shall review and comment on the consistency of the plan with State Laws and Rules
relating to water and related land resources.The State review agencies shall forward their comments to the
board within 45 days after they receive the final review draft of the plan. A State review agency may request and
receive up to a 30-day extension of this review period from the board.
Subd. 10. Approval by board. After completion of the review under subdivision 9, the Board of Water and
Soil resources shall review the plan as provided in section 103D.401.The Board shall review the plan for
conformance with the requirements of sections 103B.205 to 103B.255, and chapter 103D.The Board may not
prescribe a plan but may disapprove all or parts of a plan which it determines is not in conformance with the
requirements of sections 103B.205 to 103B.255, and chapter 103D.
Subd. 11. Adoption and implementation. The county shall adopt and implement its groundwater plan within
120 days after approval of the plan by the Board of Water and Soil resources.
Subd. 12. Amendments. To the extent and in the manner required by the adopted plan, all amendments to
the adopted plan must be submitted to the towns, cities, counties, the Metropolitan Council, the State review
agencies, and the Board of Water and Soil Resources for review in accordance with the provisions of subdivisions
8 to 10.
Subd. 13. Propertytax levies. A metropolitan county may levy amounts necessary to administer and
implement an approved and adopted groundwater plan. A county may levy amounts necessary to pay the
reasonable increased costs to soil and water conservation districts and watershed management organizations of
administering and implementing priority programs identified in the county's groundwater plan.
HIST: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 16; 1992 c 511 art 2 s 3;1995 c 184 s 18-23
Copyright 2001 by the Office of Revisor
every ten years.
The County shall prepare proposed amendments updating the Plan and give notice of the proposed Plan
amendments before the end of any calendar year. Notice of public hearing on proposed Plan amendments and
a description of the amendments shall be published by the County in at least one legal newspaper in the County.
Publication shall occur at least ten days before the hearing. Notice shall also be mailed at least 30 days before
the hearing to all the towns, and statutory and home rule charter cities having territory within the County, to the
Metropolitan Council, Watershed Districts, Watershed Management Organizations, DNR, MPCA, MDH, and BWSR.
At the hearing the County shall solicit comments on the proposed Plan amendments. Any person may submit
a request to the BWSR not later than ten days following the close of the hearing, asking that the proposed Plan
amendments be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of section 103B.255, subdivisions 8, 9, and 10.
The County shall not adopt any proposed Plan amendments before the BWSR has decided whether the
amendment is in accordance with provisions of section 103B.255, subdivisions 8, 9, and 10. If the BWSR has not
made a decision within 45 days of the close of the hearing, unless the County agrees to a time extension, review
in accordance with the provisions found in section 103B.255, subdivisions 8, 9, and 10 shall not be required.
The Groundwater Plan is intended to extend through the year 2024. The Plan is intended to be updated at least
At this time, there are no known conflicts between the Groundwater Plan and other Washington County, local
government, Watershed District, Watershed Management Organization, or neighboring county plans. Comments
received from these agencies indicated the Washington County Groundwater Plan conforms and supports
existing Water Management Plan. If conflicts should arise in the future, they may be addressed by the following
informal or formal conflict resolution processes.
INFORMAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION
The County or other local units of government may request a meeting with the Chair of the BWSR to informally
resolve disputes before initiating a contested case procedure as covered under Minnesota Statutes 103B345. An
informal hearing can be called to:
Determine the meaning of any provision of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B;
Resolve conflicts between any two ground water protection plans or a ground�water protection plan and
a surface water management plan or comprehen�sive water plan; or
Settle any other dispute relating to the Groundwater Plan.
The informal resolution process is as follows:
1. A meeting with the Chair of the BWSR may be requested in writing by any of the involved parties.
2. The nature of the provision of omission causing the conflict must be described, whether it is in the
Groundwater Plan, or other control. All parties in the conflict must be identified.
3. The Chair shall acknowledge the request in writing, and request a meeting of all parties. If request for a
meeting does not satisfy the parties, or if there is no response from one of the parties, the Chair shall
make a reasonable effort to obtain the information needed for resolution in another manner.
4. The Chair shall establish the meeting time and place, and inform all parties in writing. A local unit of
government may be represented by any person or persons of its choosing, subject to control of the
Chair.The Chair may consider any relevant and reasonable evidence or argument by local unit of
government in reaching a resolution.
5. The decision of the Chair may be announced at the meeting, or made later. In any case, the decision shall
be submitted in writing to all parties, and will be effective 60 days following the decision of the Chair.
ANALY515 OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS
6. A petition may be filed within that time pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B345, subdivision 3,
for a contested case hearing under that section.
FORMAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION
A county or other local government may petition for a contested case hearing if:
The interpretation and implementation of a groundwater protection plan is challenged by a local unit of
government aggrieved by the plan;
If two or more counties or local governmental units disagree about the apportionment of the costs of a
project implemented in a groundwater protection plan; or
If a county and other local unit of government disagree about a change in local surface or groundwater
and related land resources plan or official control recommended by the County under MN Statute 103B.
The process for a formal resolution of a conflict is as follows:
1. A petition must be filed within 60 days after the date of adoption of approval or the disputed ordinance,
or the date a local unit of government receives a recommendation of the County Board under MN
Statute Section 103B325.
2. The petition must be made in writing, addressed to the BWSR, and include the following: the names,
phone numbers, and addresses of the parties or their representatives involved in the petition; a request
for a hearing; a statement of the allegations or issues to be determined by the hearing; and proof of
service of a copy of the petition on all others involved in local units of government.
3. The petition is considered filed with the BWSR when it is received by the Board. The BWSR shall
acknowledge receipt of the petition in writing.
4. If the aggrieved county or other local unit of governmentfiles a petition for a hearing, a hearing must be
conducted by the State Office of Administrative Hearings under the contested case procedure of
Minnesota Statues Chapter 14 within 60 days of the request.The subject of the hearing may not extend
to questions concerning the need of a groundwater protection plan. In the report of the administrative
lawjudge, the fees of the Office of Administrative Hearings and transcript fees must be equally
apportioned among the parties to the proceeding. Within 60 days after receiving the report of the
administrative lawjudge, BWSR must make a final decision on the issue. All parties will be informed of
the decision in writing.
5. A decision of the board may by appealed to the Court of Appeals in a manner provided by Sections 14.63
to 14.69.