HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-11 PACKET 05.2.MNDNR
North & East Metro Groundwater
ManaLiement Area Plan
DRAFT
February 2, 2015
Groundwater is a very important natural resource.
economy and ecology. Many Minnesota communities rely
on groundwater for their drinking water supply.
DNR is responsible for ensuring that the use
of groundwater is sustainable and protects
ecosystems, does not degrade water quality,
and does not limit the ability of future generations
to meet their needs.
Add Your Voice
Over the past year, DNR has gotten advice at monthly
meetings from a team of twenty -one stakeholders about
the proposed North and East Metro Groundwater
Management Area.
Now it's time for you to "Add Your Voice" to the
discussion.
Unfortunately, groundwater is not an unlimited resource.
In specific areas of the state, groundwater is at risk
of overuse and /or contamination.
The DNR has identified the north and east Twin Cities
Metropolitan area as a place where use of groundwater
may not be sustainable if demand trends continue.
The Draft Plan for the proposed North and East Metro
Groundwater Management Area is available on the DNR
website at: www.dnr.state.mn.us
A feedback survey is available on the DNR website.
(Use link on the front page or search: groundwater management area.)
Comments can be submitted through March 31, 2015.
To ensure sustainable use of groundwater in this area, the DNR is proposing to establish the North and East Metro
Groundwater Management Area. The purpose of the Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan is to guide DNR
actions within the GWMA over the next five years.
These are some of the questions we ask you in the online feedback survey.
How clearly does the draft plan explain the following?
➢ That DNR is responsible for ensuring the sustainable use of groundwater
➢ That the purpose of the plan is to guide DNR actions in the N &E Metro GWMA
➢ What is the definition of sustainable use of groundwater in the N &E Metro GWMA
➢ What are the risks to sustainable use of groundwater in the N &E Metro GWMA
➢ What are the groundwater uses in the N &E Metro GWMA
How well do the proposed DNR actions address the risks to sustainable use of groundwater in the N &E Metro GWMA?
Which proposed actions in the draft plan do you think are most important?
Are there specific actions you think DNR should not include in the plan?
Do you think there any important actions missing from the draft plan?
Have you identified any factual errors in the draft plan?
What additional comments or questions do you have about the draft plan?
Add Your Voice — Take the Feedback Survey
wwwAnr.state.mn.us
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Contents
1 . Introduction ................................................................................................ ............................1 -1
Problem .................................................................................................................. ............................1
-1
Purpose .................................................................................................................. ............................1
-2
Process ................................................................................................................... ............................1
-2
PlanStructure ......................................................................................................... ............................1
-3
2. Description of the Boundary and the GWMA ................................................ ............................2
-1
Hydrogeology ...................................................................................................... ...............................
2 -1
WaterUse .............................................................................................................. ............................2
-5
Groundwater appropriations and use ........................................................ ............................2
-5
Projected Water Demands ......................................................................... ............................2
-5
Water Dependent Natural Resources .................................................................... ............................2
-8
Washington County Trout Streams ............................................................ ............................2
-8
Rare Natural Features in the North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area ..........
2 -11
Lakesand Wetlands ................................................................................... ...........................2
-17
WaterQuality ........................................................................................................ ...........................2
-20
Jurisdictions, governance and planning ................................................................ ...........................2
-22
3 . The Goal and Objectives .............................................................................. ............................3
-1
Objective I. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not harm aquifers and ecosystems, and does not
negatively impact surface waters . .....................................................................................................
3 -2
AquiferSustainability ............... . ...... . ........ . ...... . ......................................................................
3 -2
Ecosystems and Surface Waters .................................................................. ............................3
-4
Objective II. Groundwater use in the GWMA is reasonable, efficient, and complies with water
conservation requirements .................................................................................... ............................3
-6
Conservation Requirements for Municipal Systems .................................. ............................3
-6
OtherWater Uses ....................................................................................... ............................3
-6
Objective III. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not degrade water quality .... ............................3
-7
Objective IV. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not create unresolved well interferences or
wateruse conflicts . ............................................................................................................................
3 -8
Objective V. All groundwater users in the GWMA have the necessary permits to use groundwater.
............................................................................................................................. ...............................
3 -9
4. Status of the GWMA in Terms of the Objectives ........................................... ............................4
-1
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan ii
Objective I. Aquifers, Ecosystems and Surface Waters .......................................... ............................4 -1
ClimateData and Trends ............................................................................ ............................4
-1
Groundwater -Level Data and Trends ......................................................... ............................4
-3
Ecosystems and Surface Waters ................................................................. ............................4
-7
Gap Analysis and Recommendations ......................................................... ............................4
-9
Objective II. Water Conservation .......................................................................... ...........................4
-11
MunicipalSystems ..................................................................................... ...........................4
-11
Other Appropriation Categories ................................................................ ...........................4
-16
Gap Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................ ...........................4
-16
Objective III. Water Quality ................................................................................... ...........................4
-18
Gap Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................ ...........................4
-18
Objective IV. Well Interferences and Water Use Conflicts ................................... ...........................4
-19
WellInterferences ..................................................................................... ...........................4
-19
Water -Use Conflicts ................................................................................... ...........................4
-19
Gap Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................ ...........................4
-19
ObjectiveV. Permits .............................................................................................. ...........................4
-20
Compliance ................................................................................................ ...........................4
-20
Gap Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................ ...........................4
-20
5 . Actions ........................................................................................................ ............................5
-1
Objective I. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not harm aquifers and ecosystems, and does not
negatively impact surface waters . .....................................................................................................
5 -1
Objective II. Groundwater use in the GWMA is reasonable, efficient, and complies with water
conservation requirements .................................................................................... ............................5
-5
Objective III. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not degrade water quality .... ............................5
-7
Objective IV. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not create unresolved well interferences or
wateruse conflicts . ............................................................................................................................
5 -8
Objective V. All groundwater users in the GWMA have the necessary permits to use groundwater.
............................................................................................................................. ...............................
5 -9
6. Implementation Schedule ............................................................................ ............................6
-1
7 . Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................ ............................7
-1
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Tables
Table 1 -1
Project Advisory Team .................................................................................. ............................1 -2
Table 2 -1
Native plant communities in the GWMA closely associated with groundwater ....................2
-13
Table 2 -2
Native plant communities in the GWMA often associated with groundwater ......................2
-13
Table 2 -3
Rare plant species closely associated with groundwater ............................ ...........................2
-15
Table 2 -4
Rare animal species closely associated with groundwater .......................... ...........................2
-16
Table 4 -1
Historical and recent water levels in older municipal wells .......................... ............................4
-7
Table 4 -2
Municipal Water Use Rate Types ................................................................. ...........................4
-13
Table 4 -3
Municipal Water -Use Information ............................................................... ...........................4
-14
Figures
Figure 2 -1 Boundary of the North & East Metro GWMA .............................................. ............................2 -2
Figure2 -2 Bedrock aquifers .......................................................................................... ............................2 -3
Figure 2 -3 Geologic cross section .................................................................................. ............................2 -4
Figure2 -4 Water use ..................................................................................................... ............................2 -6
.2 -7
Figure 2 -6 Designated trout streams and other coldwater streams ........................... ...........................2 -10
Figure 2 -7 Native plant communities associated with groundwater grouped by Ecological Systems ...2 -12
Figure 2 -8 Rare species associated with groundwater ................................................ ...........................2 -14
Figure 2 -9 Lake and wetland connection to the regional groundwater system .......... ...........................2 -19
Figure 2 -10 Selected areas with groundwater contamination .................................... ...........................2 -21
Figure 3 -1 Safe yield thresholds for artesian (confined) aquifers .................................. ............................3 -3
Figure 4 -1 Example of historic precipitation patterns in the North & East Metro: precipitation at
Figure 4 -2 Active DNR obwells and trends in
Figure 4 -3 Observation well hydrographs, northeastern Washington County ............. ............................4 -5
Figure 4 -4 Observation well hydrograph (2012), Jordan aquifer, southern Anoka County .....................4 -6
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
1. Introduction
1 -1
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) works with citizens to manage the state's
natural resources, to provide outdoor recreation opportunities, and to provide for sustainable
commercial uses of natural resources. The DNR works to integrate and sustain a healthy environment, a
sustainable economy, and livable communities. This strategy shares stewardship responsibility with
citizens and partners to manage for multiple interests.
r resources to sustain healthy waterways, basins
and groundwater resources. The DNR plays an important role in supporting sustainable groundwater
use through its permit programs, information collection and analysis activities, law enforcement
responsibilities, education, and technical assistance opportunities.
Groundwater is at risk of overuse and contamination in specific areas of the state. To address concerns
of long term sustainable use of groundwater in these areas, the DNR is defining Groundwater
Management Areas (GWMA) and developing management plans. The purpose of the GWMA Plan (Plan)
is to guide DNR actions in managing the appropriation and use of groundwater within the GWMA over
the next five years.
The GWMA represents a geographic area within which groundwater users share a distinct aquifer
system or groundwater resource. Users include both those with appropriation permits and those who
do not require permits to use groundwater.
Problem
The DNR identified the north and east Twin Cities Metropolitan area as an area of specific concern
where groundwater resources are at risk of overuse and reduced quality. Multiple permit holders
(groundwater users) are connected through their use of groundwater and their effect on water
resources.
The DNR manages water resources to assure an adequate supply largely through permitting and tracking
water appropriation and use. The Water Appropriation Permit Program balances competing
management objectives that include development and protection of Minnesota's water resources. Key
challenges for the DNR in managing groundwater appropriations and use in the North & East GWMA
include the following:
• Demand: projected growth in water demand, particularly in Washington County and parts of
southern Anoka County
• Natural Resources: potential for negative effects on groundwater- dependent natural resources
such as wetlands, lakes, and streams
• Conservation: a need for improved and expanded application of water conservation
• Contamination: reduction in the availability of clean groundwater
• Information: gaps in the information needed to determine the sustainability of groundwater use
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Purpose
The purpose of the GWMA Plan is to guide DNR actions in managing the appropriation and use of
groundwater within the GWMA over the next five years. The sustainability of water resources also
depends on many other activities by state and local governments, organizations such as watershed
districts, and by private land owners.
1 -2
Although the Plan is narrowly focu
actions fit into the larger framework of water resource planning and management. Regular review and
revision will follow after the initial implementation period as detailed in Section 6 - Implementation.
Process
The Plan lays out a framework for addressing the groundwater management goals and objectives of the
DNR Groundwater Management Program (Strategic Plan) in light of the particular challenges within the
area. A project team of DNR staff drafted the Plan with advice and feedback from a Project Advisory
Team (PAT). DNR staff includes members from the Division of Ecological and Water Resources (EWR)
and the Division of Fish and Wildlife. The PAT is comprised of stakeholders from state agencies, the
Metropolitan Council, county and city /township governments, a lake conservation district, a watershed
district, industry, and the federal government (Table 1 -1). In response to legislative changes made in
2014 (Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.287, subd. 4) the membership of the PAT was reviewed and changes were
made part way through the planning process to increase the number of team members holding water
appropriation permits.
Fourteen PAT meetings were held from October 2013 through March 2015. Following development of
the draft Plan with input from the PAT, the DNR is seeking wider stakeholder review and comments
through March 2015. Following the stakeholder review, the DNR Commissioner will review the plan for
final approval.
Table 1 -1 Project Advisory Team
Name Affiliation Permit Holder
Project Advisory Team
Mike Bailey
Bailey Nurseries
Yes
Brad Barott
Barott Drilling
No
Bryan Bear
City of Hugo
Yes
Larry Bohrer'
City of Columbus
Yes
John Bum arner*
U.S. Geological Survey
No
Jessica Collin - Pilarski
Washington County
No
Brian Davis
Metropolitan Council
Yes
J o Emerson'
City of White Bear Lake
Yes
Mike Grochala
City of Lino Lakes
Yes
Barbara Haake'
Rice Creek Watershed District
No
Jane Harper
White Bear Lake Conservation District
No
Ran Lemickson
Minn. Dept of Agriculture
No
Jennifer Levitt
City of Cottage Grove
Yes
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Name
Affiliation
Permit Holder
Mark Maloney
City of Shoreview
Yes
James Markoez
White Bear Lake Homeowners
Association
No
Greg McNeelyz
White Bear Lake Restoration
Association
No
Terry Noonan
Ramsey County
Yes
Paul Putzier
Project Manager - DNR, EWR
No
Jay Riggs
Washington County Conservation
District
No
Steve Robertson
Minn. Dept. of Health
No
Bill Short
White Bear Township
Yes
Brian West
RockTenn
Yes
Jim Westerman'
City of Woodbury
Yes
DNR Staff Support to the Project Advisory Team
Glen Champion DNR, EWR N/A
Kate Drewry
DNR, EWR Central Region
N/A
Brian Nerbonne
DNR, Fisheries Section
N/A
Hannah Texler
DNR, EWR Central Region
N/A
1 Joined the Advisory Team in September 2014
2 Joined the Advisory Team in December 2014
Plan Structure
The remainder of the Plan is divided into five additional sections.
SECTION 2 - DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARY AND THE GWMA summarizes background information on
groundwater connected natural resources, water use, and governance that were used to select the
GWMA boundaries. The information also sets the stage for identifying the groundwater management
challenges in the area.
1 -3
SECTION 3 - THE GOAL AND OBJECTIVES states the Plan goal and describes five objectives that the DNR will
pursue to achieve the overall goal of long term, sustainable groundwater use in the GWMA. Together,
the five objectives describe sustainable groundwater appropriation and use based on directives given in
Minnesota Statutes.
SECTION 4 - STATUS OF THE GWMA in Terms of the Objectives provides additional information about
conditions within the GWMA that relate specifically to the five objectives. This information includes a
summary of current understanding of the status of each objective within the GWMA, discussion of gaps
in knowledge or activities, and recommendations for how to fill those gaps.
SECTION 5 - ACTIONS states the actions that the DNR will take over the next five years toward achieving
the five objectives. These actions address the highest priority needs identified from the evaluations
described in Section 4.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
1 -4
SECTION 6 - Implementation provides a schedule for the DNR to perform the Plan actions as well as goals
for achieving measureable outcomes. This section also describes the review and revision process for the
Plan.
SECTION 7 - GLOSSARY of terms used in the Plan.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan 2 -1
2. Description of the Boundary and the GWMA
A geographic area was defined within which to manage groundwater resources. The boundary for this
GWMA was selected by using a combination of physical, governmental, and planning elements.
Establishing a boundary allows us to identify and analyze factors that affect long term water use, and to
identify specific actions that reduce the risk of unsustainable groundwater use.
Elements considered in selecting the boundary of the GWMA included the following:
• Hydrogeology
• Water use
• Water dependent natural resources
• Water quality
• Jurisdictions, governance and planning
The boundary selected for the North & East Metro GWMA includes all of Washington and Ramsey
counties, 10 cities in southeastern Anoka County, and the portion of Hennepin County east of the
Mississippi River (Figure 2 -1). Vertically, the boundary includes all parts of the groundwater system
above the Eau Claire geologic formation. A more detailed description of the elements listed above is
given in the documents: Draft Working Boundary N & E Metro GWMA and Updated Draft Working
Boundary N & E Metro GWMA. Section 2 of this Plan provides summary information on the elements
that were used to select the boundary for the North & East Metro GWMA.
Hydrogeology
Hydrogeology defines the natural conditions and boundaries of the groundwater system. The boundary
includes the following:
rdan aquifer between the hydrologic boundaries
formed by the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers, except for localized outliers of these bedrock
formations (Figure 2 -2)
• The hydrogeological transition area in southeastern Anoka County and Forest Lake in
Washington County adjacent to the margin
All aquifers above the Eau Claire Formation confining unit (Figure 2 -3). The Mt. Simon aquifer
(located below the Eau Claire Formation) is not included because it is hydrologically separated
from the shallower aquifers within the area. Appropriations from the Mt. Simon are also
restricted by statute in the seven county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Topographic watershed boundaries were reviewed. The watersheds are integral to groundwater health
but generally do not match the hydrogeologic boundaries to the regional groundwater system.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
2 -2
wyoming
CHI AGO
D VVASF INGTON
o� Forest Lake
Columbus I
I Scandia
Coon
Rapids
Blaine
_A_NO_KA
- RAMSEY
h
Fridley
I
Ham Lake
Hugo
i
Bear' yT" g Stillwater
Lake
a
°
r
plewood z
Oakdale
E
Woodbury
Afton
NNEPIN� Little
Cana
Roseville
(T
Bloomington
r
e a
a
as p
�c
Eagan
Cottage Grove
jHasting`
North & East Metro GWMA Working Boundary
County Boundary March 05, 2094
Figure 2 -1 Boundary of the North & East Metro GWMA
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
I L,
I �
I I
I I
BENTON _ _ _ I MI LA
— _ — — SHERBURNE J — I
I —
_
ANC?KA
R f ,1
U SSiSS Pf r fVER I I CHISAGO
WLV GHT
I Jw _ENNEPIN I
CARVE — — OT
I NNESD'A NIV
I
�sl U
SCOTT "vF'R
North & East Metro GWMA Working Boundary ANN R
County Boundaries
Line of cross- section
_ Prairie du Chien - Jordan head contours (ft),
Prairie du Chien- Jordan
March 2008 Tunnel City - Wonewoc (Franconia - Ironton - Galesville)
Tunnel City- Wonewoc head contours (R), Mt Simon March 2008
March O5, 2{114
2 -3
Figure 2 -2 Bedrock aquifers
Modified from Mossler potentiometric head contours from Sanocki et a1. and cross section location.
1 Mossler, J.H., 2013. Minnesota Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map M -194, 1:125,000 scale.
2 Sanocki, et al., 2009. U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009 -5226.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
04
}
z
C)
z
a
Z
fn
z
0
4 a
} F
t j
0
4 W �
w�
Qac7
>t
e
A A
i 'IyI
t
2 3 N
x4�j J
r 1 }
s
5
v
� � N
� v
v ❑ -
w
Q, ua y a
� m
G y fl {l
J !b
10 C a Q
G
[.> a u. 0 a`
ii V 7 rn
- rA
J
A V
}
z
Figure 2 -3 Geologic cross section
Modified from Runkel et al? Note the position of the Eau Claire Formation, a regional confining unit.
2 -4
' Runkel et al., 2006. Minnesota Geological Survey Open File Report 06 -04.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan 2 -5
Water Use
Current and projected water use informed the boundary recommendation in the following ways:
• The boundary includes areas with intensive groundwater use, and it includes the majority of the
largest permitted users in the hydrogeologic system bounded by the Mississippi and St. Croix
rivers (Figure 2 -4).
• Substantial growth in water demand is projected in areas served by the aquifer system. The
boundary includes the areas where the largest growth in water demand is expected.
Groundwater appropriations and use
There were 259 active permits to appropriate groundwater in the area at the beginning of 2014. The
average reported groundwater use in the area over the 5 -year period from 2008 through 2012 was
approximately 29.0 billion gallons per year (BGY). This compares to total permitted groundwater
appropriations of 62.5 BGY in 2012. Total average groundwater use over the 5 -year period was 30.6 BGY
after adding domestic well use estimated by Metropolitan Council for 2010 (1.6 BGY). Groundwater use
is shown in several categories in Figure 2 -5.
Projected Water Demands
Water supply plans and water use projections compiled by the Metropolitan Council in 2008 projected
municipal water use will increase 23 percent by 2030
Total water use was projected to increase 20 percent over the same time period. The highest increases
in water demand by 2030 were projected in Woodbury, Hugo, Cottage Grove, Blaine, and Forest Lake.
The Metropolitan Council is in the process of updating projected water demands through 2040,
considering updated demand projections from public water suppliers.
There is always uncertainty in the population projections used to make the water -use projections. For
example, the Metropolitan Council population forecasts for 2040 show more growth in the core cities
and inner suburbs compared to the forecasts available in 2008. What is clear is that population and
water -use will continue to grow in several suburban communities that use groundwater. Substantially
amended permit volumes and /or new permits would need to be issued to meet projected 2030
demands with locally supplied groundwater.
The Metropolitan Council projections did not anticipate large increases in surface -water use, but growth
in supply was assumed to be dominated by local groundwater supplies. Privately owned, domestic
groundwater use was projected to increase slightly but would make up less than one percent of total
water use in 2030.
4 Metropolitan Council, 2013. Public
Minnesota: www.datafinder.org /cafe.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Brighton Hi
,
Golden Valle�
|
k_ ^/
Groundwater Use by Perm
u Proportional mcnm—,1 Use
Total Use, cnm-11(Moo)`
0.0-0u � 30-5u
0.5-1.7 5.0-5e.5
1r—uu
---
North u East Metro oWMA Working ouv uuv
— —
County Boundary
St. Paul nwsSupplied
m/nnompnnoauvpnou
M.htorn di Grant 0
Beat
La 00
0 Baytown
Lake Elmo
Afton
Figure 2-4 Water use
ownshipo sharing a public water supplier (including
private domestic use estimated by Metropolitan Council, in average millions of gallons per day and
groundwater use bypermit.
St. Francis
.1 0 ANOKA
0 Linwood
Oak Grove
0
NowMihen
10 WASHINGTON
Columbus
0
0 0 & Lino Lakes St.
Coon Rapids
0 Blaine 0 Hug. May
I pir-00
Brighton Hi
,
Golden Valle�
|
k_ ^/
Groundwater Use by Perm
u Proportional mcnm—,1 Use
Total Use, cnm-11(Moo)`
0.0-0u � 30-5u
0.5-1.7 5.0-5e.5
1r—uu
---
North u East Metro oWMA Working ouv uuv
— —
County Boundary
St. Paul nwsSupplied
m/nnompnnoauvpnou
M.htorn di Grant 0
Beat
La 00
0 Baytown
Lake Elmo
Afton
Figure 2-4 Water use
ownshipo sharing a public water supplier (including
private domestic use estimated by Metropolitan Council, in average millions of gallons per day and
groundwater use bypermit.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
2% -.1%
Figure 2 -5
■ Water Supply (multiple priorites)
■ Pollution Containment (Priority 5)
N Orlon -Ag Industrial Processing (Priority 5)
■ *Domestic Wells (Priorities 1 and 2)
■ Golf Course and Landscape Irrigation
(Priority 5 or 6)
■ Other Categories (Priorities 5 and 6)
Agricultural Irrigation and Food
Processing (Priority 3)
Dewatering and Basin -Level
Maintenance (Priorities 5 and 6)
Power Generation (Priorities 1 and 4)
2 -7
several categories. Note that domestic well
use was estimated, whereas uses in other categories were reported by permit holders. Allocation
priorities shown in parentheses are based on Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.261.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Water Dependent Natural Resources
2 -8
The GWMA boundary was influenced by natural resources in the area, particularly the surface water
features that are sensitive to changes in groundwater levels. The boundary includes surface water and
ecological features connected to the hydrogeology. Managing groundwater appropriations will have a
direct impact on the health of these natural resources. The following features within the North & East
Metro GWMA will benefit from inclusion:
• Six designated trout streams of eastern Washington County, along with seven non - designated
streams that support a coldwater community including trout
• Wetland complexes across the entire area
• Lakes that may be sensitive to changing aquifer levels
• Sixteen types of groundwater- associated native plant communities
• State - listed rare plant and animal species associated with groundwater
• Numerous additional plant and animal species that inhabit streams, lakes, and wetlands that are
associated with groundwater
Washington County Trout Streams
The DNR has the authority to designate trout streams. Designation provides increased protection from
alterations and appropriations. In addition, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) maintains
higher water quality standards for coldwater streams to protect these sensitive systems.
Designated trout streams
DNR has designated six trout streams in Washington County: Falls Creek, Gilbertson Creek, Old Mill
eek (Figure 2 -6). They range in size and character
based on geology and land use. Tributaries to listed trout streams within the same sections are also
designated as trout streams (Minn. Rules, part 6264, subp. 4), although the tributaries may not support
trout or have perennial flow.
Falls Creek, Gilbertson Creek, Old Mill Stream, and Willow Brook are all small streams that support self -
sustaining brook trout populations, along with an occasional burbot, a fish species that also requires
coldwater habitat. These streams have a mixture of public and private land in their watershed, and
appear to be in good health based on the fish communities present. These streams are all spring -fed
from bedrock aquifers along the St. Croix River Valley.
Valley Creek in Afton is also spring -fed from bedrock aquifers. In the headwaters, there are
predominantly brook trout and slimy sculpin (a small coldwater fish species), while in the middle and
lower portions of the stream brown and rainbow trout predominate. American brook lamprey, non -
parasitic lamprey species found in coldwater streams, is also present. This fish community is indicative
of a healthy coldwater stream.
ty trout streams because it originates in a large
re unsuitable for trout because of the relatively
warmer water temperature flowing from the wetland in summertime and the low dissolved oxygen
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
2 -9
levels. Further downstream, springs from the surficial aquifer flow into the stream and create marginal
conditions for brown trout. Where the stream begins to flow down into the St. Croix Valley, it intercepts
groundwater from bedrock aquifers and conditions be
currently listed as impaired for aquatic life due to a fish community that includes many warmwater fish
species. The brown trout population occasionally shows some natural reproduction, but is
supplemented by annual stocking of yearling trout to maintain a population that is large enough to
support a fishery.
Non - designated troutstreams
There are seven streams in Washington County that have not yet been designated as trout streams but
that support small populations of trout and other coldwater organisms (Figure 2 -6). Most are completely
surrounded by private land. The MPCA classifies these streams as coldwater streams for water quality
and aquatic life standards.
Six of these streams are in northern Washington County in the vicinity of Falls, Gilbertson, and Willow
Creeks, and are similar in their geology and fish communities. The exception is Trout Brook near Afton
originates as a warmwater stream that is cooled by
groundwater from deeper aquifers as it flows into the St. Croix Valley. Trout Brook has a fish community
of warmwater species, as well as a low- density brown trout population.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
CHISAGO
WASHINGTON
. Forest Lake Falls Creek
Columbus
Zavoral's Creek ' 'I
Scandia
Clapp'. Stream�� ;
Swedish F!a - r
.Anoka
G
Blaine
y F
2�
.d
old Mlll Stream.]
Spring Creek ,
Killow 810L..
2
I
Minnea •
killom -
— Designated trout stream
Designated trout stream tributary
Non- designated trout stream
Other DNR Public Watercourse
North & East Metro
GWMA Working Boundary
0 5 1QMiles
Arcola CreE
ANOKA
RAMSEY
Brown's Creek
Stillwater
I
i
I
L ,.
.. Valley
Creek
IAKOTA /
Trout Broo'� // �t...
l
April 03, 2014
2 -10
Figure 2 -6 Designated trout streams and other coldwater streams
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan 2 -11
Rare Natural Features in the North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area
Three groups of native plant communities in the North & East Metro GWMA are closely associated with
groundwater: wetland complexes in the Anoka Sand Plain, seepage plant communities, and wetland
plant communities associated with lakes and streams. Some of these communities contain rare plants
a Biological Survey identified and mapped many of these native
plant communities and rare species, but more comprehensive surveys are needed to complete the
picture of where these features occur in the North & East Metro GWMA.
The Anoka Sand Plain (Figure 2 -7, Table 2 -1) is a broad sandy lake plain with level to gently rolling
topography that includes many types of wetlands. Especially significant are complexes of open, shallow
wetland native plant communities. These complexes of Wet Prairie, Graminoid Rich Fen, Low Shrub Poor
Fen, and Sedge Meadow (referred to collectively as Wet Prairie Complex in this Plan) contain some of
the most significant populations in the state of 17 state - listed rare plant species (Figure 2 -8, Table 2 -3).
Seepage plant communities are associated with St. Croix River bluffs and terraces (Figure 2 -7, Table 2 -1).
These communities are rare in the state and contain a number of rare plant and animal species (Figure
2 -8, Table 2 -3, and Table 2 -4).
There are also a number of wetland plant communities associated with lakes and streams that can also
be influenced by groundwater (Figure 2 -7, Table 2 -2). They range from tamarack swamps and
hardwood - dominated wet forests to open herbaceous vegetation- dominated communities such as
Sedge Meadow and Northern Mixed Cattail Marsh.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
copy' ght2o1 SWeOFMinnesata .0apadmantofNatuaal , 1 MILLE LACS UPLANDS
Restl ,— pNR). Hare festums date were p—ded by MB DyMo a 5
of E -bgkal and "W Re--,, Mrnneaota ONR, and were y n
rent as of "'camber 23, 2013. These date are -1 based an an y _1
-z-1— "-,t of the scat'. The 1-k d data roc am ®-graPh)� CH ISAGO
a shag not be --n ed>a mean that — sign,f —1 features are
went WASHINGTON
Columbus I �
� "Forest a e_ +k' 4r
ANOKA SAND PLAIN
')' a J Scandia
w �
f a
iI
P Anoka r I 4
oil l p.
Blaine I o a
y' t
A_NOKA�
iRAMSEY � in
I 4 I
4
— a
a
Stillwater •
I
I I
BIG WOODS
I
,F! ST. PAUL - BALDWIN PLAINS
Minnea iis•
t �
St. Paul �� I
I �
DAKOTA )
Plant Communities
Associated with Groundwater
Acid Peatland
Cliff /Talus
0 Forested Rich Peatland — Designated Trout Stream
Marsh — Designated Trout Stream
Open Rich Peatland Tributary
Wet Forest North & East Metro
Wet Meadow /Carr GWMA Working Boundary
�
Wetland Prairie
Preliminary Wet Prairie /Rich Fen Complexes
0 5 10 Miles \ March 05,
2 -12
Figure 2 -7 Native plant communities associated with groundwater grouped by Ecological Systems
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Table 2 -1 Native plant communities in the GWMA closely associated with groundwater
Native Plant Community
Ecological System
*Conservation
Associated with
Name
Status Rank
Seepage Areas?
Wet Forest
S3
no
Red Maple —Alder Swamp
(East central)
Tamarack Swamp (Southern)
Wet Forest
S1, S2
yes
Seepage Swamp
Peatland
Wet Sandstone Cliff
Cliff /Talus
S1
yes
(Southern)
Meadow /Carr
Sedge Meadow
Cliff /Talus
S2
yes
Cliff (Southern)
Meadow /Carr
Graminoid Rich Fen (Basin)
Open Rich
S4
no
Peatland
S5
no
Swamp
Open Rich
S4
no
Fen (Basin)
Peatland
S2
no
Low Shrub Poor Fen
Acid Peatland
S5
no
Seepage Meadow /Carr
Wet Meadow /Carr
S3
yes
*S1 = critically imperiled; S2 = imperiled; S3 = vulnerable to extirpation; S4 = apparently secure,
uncommon but not rare; S5 = secure, common, widespread, and abundant.
Table 2 -2 Native plant communities in the GWMA often associated with groundwater
Native Plant Community
Ecological System
*Conservation
Associated with
Name
Status Rank
Seepage Areas?
Wet Forest
S4
no
Maple
central)
Tamarack Swamp (Southern)
Forested Rich
S2, S3
no
Peatland
Wet
S5
no
Swamp
Meadow /Carr
Sedge Meadow
Wet
S4 or S5
no
Meadow /Carr
Wet Prairie (Southern)
Wetland Prairie
S2
no
Forested Rich
S5
no
Swamp
Peatland
Northern Mixed Cattail Marsh
Marsh
S2
no
Marsh
S2 or S3
no
Marsh
2 -13
*S1 = critically imperiled; S2 = imperiled; S3 = vulnerable to extirpation; S4 = apparently secure,
uncommon but not rare; S5 = secure, common, widespread, and abundant.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
copylght20t3 statearM nesofa.f7ep d rofNarurar
MILLS LACS UPLANDS
Resourc (DNRy Rare fe tuas date. p tded by the Dlvrsion
of Ecnfoyi.f a Water ter Rasaurcas, Minnesota ONR, end was
23 2093 Th. dg. based
J
-
\
rrsnf ofDe —he e not on an
exhaesti i v nfory state -The( k fdataforany
•
7
/)
CHI$AGO
area ahal! not be —freed to mean Shat no significant faafL . arc
preaam
I
WASHINGTON
,Columbus l
' • Forst Lakes 2 '
•
Scandia
ANOKA SAND PLAIN
�•
•
Anoka
r •
• J .
�•
•
l
�■
Blaine
&
■
----
--
�, I`
f, •
RAMSEY
�
1
q
I
■
I
I
I
�
5b
I
I
•
•
I
•.
I
Stillwater
p
l
Minneapolis* f
," •
•'
I
ST. PAUL - BALDWIN PLAINS
St. Paul
j
BIG WOODS
e
DAKOTA
/ f
• Rare Plants
•
■ Rare Animals
— Designated Trout Stream
•
— Designated Trout Stream Tributary
North & East Metro
GWMA Working Boundary 4ft k Rkar
March 05, 2014
0 5 10 Mies OAK SAVANNA ~ - TH FFLANDS
2 -14
Figure 2 -8 Rare species associated with groundwater
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Table 2 -3 Rare plant species closely associated with groundwater
2 -15
Rare Plants
Common Name
* *Rarity Rank
General Habitat Type
Poo paludigena
Bog bluegrass
T
Seepage swamps
Hydrocotyle americana
American water-
pennywort
SC
Seepage swamps
Decodon verticillatus
Waterwillow
SC
Small lake margins, stream
edges, floating mats
Potamageton bicupulatus
Snailseed pondweed
E
Small lakes
Potamageton
diversigolius
Diverse- leaved
pondweed
E
Small lakes
Rotala ramosior
Tooth -cup
T
Small lakes, sandy shores
Agalinis purpurea
Purple gerardia
Watchlist
Wet prairie complexes
Agrostis hyemalis
Winter bentgrass
E
Wet prairie complexes
Aristida longespica var.
geniculate
Slimspike three -awn
E
Wet prairie complexes
Botrychium rugulosum
St. Lawrence grapefern
SC
Wet prairie complexes
Fimbristylis autumnalis
Autumn fimbristylis
SC
Wet prairie complexes
Juncus marginatus
Marginated rush
E
Wet prairie complexes
Platanthera flava var.
herbiola
Tubercled rein - orchid
T
Wet prairie complexes
Polygala cruciata
Cross - leaved milkwort
E
Wet prairie complexes
Rubus fuller
Bristleberry
T
Wet prairie complexes
Rubus missouricus
Missouri dewberry
E
Wet prairie complexes
Rubus semisetosus
Swamp blackberry
T
Wet prairie complexes
Rubus stipulatus
Bristle -berry
E
Wet prairie complexes
Scirpus pedicillatus
Woolgrass
Watchlist
Wet prairie complexes
Scirpus triglomerata
Tall nut -rush
E
Wet prairie complexes
Tricophorum clintonii
T
Wet prairie complexes
Viola lanceolata
Lance - leaved violet
T
Wet prairie complexes
Xyris torta
Twisted yellow -eyed
grass
E
Wet prairie complexes
* *E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern; Watchlist = Not on endangered species list but
tracked in the Natural Heritage Information System
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Table 2 -4 Rare animal species closely associated with groundwater
2 -16
Rare Birds
Common Name
* *Rarity Rank
General Habitat Type
Parkesia motacilla
Louisiana waterthrush
SC
Seepage streams
Phalaropis tricolor
T
Wet prairie, rich fen, sedge
meadow
Gallinula chloropus
Common gallinule
SC
Marshes
Sterna forsteri
SC
Marshes
Setophaga cerulea
Cerulean warbler
SC
In this area: hardwood forests
with streams and /or
ephemeral wetlands
Rare Mussels
Simpsonaias ambigua
Salamander mussel
E
Rivers, dependent on
mudpuppies as host
Rare Salamanders
Necturus maculosus
mudpuppy
SC
Rivers and streams
Jumping Spiders
Paradamoetas fontana
A species of jumping
spider
SC
Seeps, marshes, wet prairies
Caddisflies
Limnephilus rossi
A species of northern
caddisfly
T
Springs, streams, lake margins,
marshes
Ochrotrichia spinosa
A species of purse
casemaker caddisfly
E
Streams (other habitat
unknown)
Parapsyche apicalis
A species of netspinning
caddisfly
T
Fast - moving cold small
streams
Dragonflies and
Damselflies
Ophiogomphus
susbehcha
St. Croix snaketail
T
Large, fast, warm -water
streams with cobble, gravel,
sand substrates
Amphiagrion saucium
Red damsel
Proposed
SGCN
Seepage areas
Cordulegaster oblique
Arrowhead spiketail
Proposed
SGCN
Seepage areas, spring -fed
forest streams
Butterflies
Lycaena epixanthe
Bog copper
SGCN
Acid peatlands
* *E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern; SGCN = Species of Greatest Conservation Need
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Lakes and Wetlands
2 -17
The GWMA is rich in lakes and wetlands. The specific characteristics of each feature are highly variable
(depth, acreage, watershed, etc.). All of these surface water features are subject to natural variations
such as precipitation and weather. Surface water features with connections to groundwater may be
subject to changes due to natural variations or pumping.
In 2010 the Metropolitan Council applied a screening method to categorize the potential vulnerability of
surface waters to pumping from bedrock or buried Quaternary aquifers'. Lakes and wetlands were
categorized into four broad groups based on the difference between surface water and shallow
groundwater levels and underlying geology.
• The two categories of lakes and wetlands expected to be most influenced by regional aquifers
are in the discharge and flow- through groups. Discharge features primarily receive groundwater
inflow with limited groundwater outflow. Flow- through features both receive groundwater
inflow and discharge groundwater outflow. These features are likely to be affected by changing
groundwater levels (natural or human induced) in areas where they are not protected by
underlying, low permeability aquitards.
• Indeterminate or recharge water bodies mostly loose water to the regional groundwater system.
These features are typically less responsive to pumping from bedrock or deep aquifers, but
changes in aquifer heads (pressure) may diffuse to these water bodies in areas where they are
not underlain by sufficiently low permeability aquitards.
• Disconnected water bodies, are very weakly connected to the regional groundwater system and
are not considered vulnerable to pumping impacts.
• Discharge, flow- through, and indeterminate or recharge type water bodies were considered to
be potentially connected to the shallow groundwater system. Those water bodies that were
considered also connected to deeper aquifers were rated as potentially vulnerable.
This initial screening could be modified or refined with site - specific data and /or updated regional
models. Lakes and wetlands that were rated as potentially vulnerable are distributed throughout the
GWMA (Figure 2 -9). There are some larger zones of water bodies rated as not vulnerable, such as the
southern part of Woodbury and adjacent areas, most of Grant, and the southwestern half of Blaine.
While potentially vulnerable lakes and wetlands in general could be affected by regional groundwater -
level decline, water levels in smaller basins could also be vulnerable to localized drawdown due to their
small area and storage volume.
The method used in the Metropolitan Council 2010 study was a conservative approach. Some features
were rated as vulnerable based on a possible connection to the regional aquifer system but may not be
highly sensitive to pumping from bedrock or deeper buried Quaternary aquifers. The analysis did not
consider other factors that can influence the sensitivity of lakes and wetlands to drawdowns in the
major aquifers.
5 Barr Engineering, 2010. Evaluation of groundwater and surface -water interactio
assessment: prepared for Metropolitan Council.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
2 -18
For example, there are large differences between water elevations in some vulnerable water bodies and
the heads in the underlying Prairie du Chien aquifer. These large water elevation differences indicate
limited hydraulic connection at those locations, but they were not discerned from the hydrologic and
geologic data used.
Surface water runoff and outflow versus groundwater inflow and outflow were also not considered in
the analysis. Lakes and wetlands that include groundwater as a significant source or natural outflow will
be more sensitive to aquifer fluctuations.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
WASHINGT(
•�/.
C
Forest
Scandia
ie m s
-Anoka ✓ >`G1� a
• Blaine
Jf
G
S
M
ANOKA� ��
- !ENNEPIN
I t
3 ,• � s
Minneapolis. M
St. Pau!T
2 -19
Figure 2 -9 Lake and wetland connection to the regional groundwater system
Classification by Barr for Metropolitan Council (2010)
It
Connected
Indeterminate
Disconnected
Vulnerable
—
Coldwater /trout stream
e
Other DNR public watercourse
Q North
& East Metro
GWMA working boundary
0
5
10 Wes
December 15.2014
2 -19
Figure 2 -9 Lake and wetland connection to the regional groundwater system
Classification by Barr for Metropolitan Council (2010)
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Water Quality
2 -20
Water quality affects the availability and cost of groundwater in the GWMA. Contaminated groundwater
may not be available for use by individuals, industry or cities unless it undergoes treatment. Consumers
may have to use deeper aquifers or rely on surface water sources (e.g. Mississippi River). Contaminated
groundwater also presents a risk to the connected ecosystems (lakes, streams and wetlands), impacting
the species that live there and the people who use these water bodies to hunt, fish, and recreate.
Although locations of groundwater quality concerns were not used to define the GWMA boundary, the
boundary does not divide or cross major areas of groundwater quality problems or limitations. Special
Well Construction Areas (Figure 2 -10) and Southern Washington County PFC (perfluorochemicals)
contamination plumes are included in the GWMA boundary. Special controls on the construction or
modification of wells are enforced in the MDH designated areas to protect water supplies from known
contamination.
The MPCA maintains a record of plumes that may impact water availability in the GWMA, including both
smaller plumes and the large (multi -acre) groundwater contamination plumes in bedrock aquifers
identified in Figure 2 -10. In some cases, pollution containment wells are used to limit movement of
contaminated groundwater into less contaminated or uncontaminated areas of the aquifers. Pollution
containment wells with DNR appropriation permits are indicated on Figure 2 -10.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
CHBSAGO
I WASHINGTON
• Forest Lake
*Columbus r /
S / / •Scandia
l
rAnoka % I
I
• Blaine
rl
--
�2 Spring Laker Park FZ4MSEY
O MO s View f
r i
Fridley I C I
TCAAP Shoreview •
I v'
New Bright n r
illtop
V i Stillwater
!C u
• m4ia Heigh
I i ts Arden Hills. I
r _
it St. A. thony ' �. Ba art
A �l
- 'RLaua rdeie Limo aytown/Wes
).� I Lakeland
Minneap 'S •
I
o ale
i St. P aul Lake Elmo/ Lake
Lan fail a. ale L k land Shores
Lakeland/
Lakel d Shores
DAKOTA
Afton •
- •Newport y}
St. Paul Park
• Pollution Containment wells and Newport St. Paul Park
0 General area of PFC contamination
® PFCs exceed drinking water advisory levels
0 Special Well and Boring Construction Area
North & East Metro
GWMA Working Boundary M`mss;mar�
0 S 10 Miles Hastings •
2 -21
Figure 2 -10 Selected areas with groundwater contamination
Special Well and Boring Construction Areas, areas of PFC contamination, and DNR permitted pollution
containment wells
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Jurisdictions, governance and planning
2 -22
Cities and counties play a critical role in planning and managing for long term water supply and water
sustainability. The DNR determined that the GW
important governance boundaries, to the degree possible and in the context of the natural
hydrogeologic boundaries. The legislature has also designated a specific water - supply planning role for
the Metropolitan Council within the Seven County Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Jurisdictional, governance, and planning frameworks informed the boundary recommendation in the
following ways:
• The boundary conforms to city and county boundaries where possible to connect directly with
municipal water supplies and land -use planning jurisdictions (Figure 2 -1).
• The exceptions:
a. boundaries cross Anoka County, but current
and /or projected increases in water use are relatively low in areas of the county not
included in the GWMA.
b. Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis
east of the Mississippi River are within the major hydrogeological boundaries of the
GWMA.
• The boundary is within the Metropolitan Council jurisdiction, connecting the GWMA with the
water supply planning functions of the Metropolitan Council.
Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organizations play an important role in both
surface and groundwater management in the GWMA. However, the watershed boundaries do not
directly conform to the groundwater system boundaris. The DNR recognizes the important role
surface water management will have in developing long term sustainable use of groundwater, but
the GWMA boundaries do not conform to watershed management district or organization
boundaries where those boundaries cross the Mississippi River or city or county boundaries.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
3. The Goal and Objectives
3 -1
Section 3 describes the goal and objectives for groundwater management, including supporting statutes
and rules. The goal for the GWMA expresses a future desired condition for the area.
The goal for the GWMA is:
In the North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area, the use of groundwater is sustainable
and therefore does not harm ecosystems, water quality, or the ability of present and future
generations to meet their needs.
The goal is drawn directly from the Minnesota Statutes for groundwater appropriations, Minn. Stat., sec.
103G.287, subd. 3, 4 and 5. These statutes describe protection of groundwater supplies, designation of
groundwater management areas, and a standard of sustainability.
Groundwater use is defined as sustainable if that use:
• Does not harm aquifers and ecosystems
• Does not negatively impact surface waters
• Is reasonable, efficient and meets water conservation requirements
• Does not degrade water quality
• Does not create unresolved well interferences or water sue conflicts
To attain the goal for the GWMA, this Plan sets five management objectives that define how these
statutory requirements can be met. All of the management objectives must be achieved simultaneously
to ensure sustainability of groundwater use.
These objectives are:
Groundwater use in the GWMA does not harm aquifers and ecosystems, and does not negatively
impact surface waters.
11. Groundwater use in the GWMA is reasonable, efficient, and complies with water conservation
requirements.
111. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not degrade water quality.
IV. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not create unresolved well interferences or water use
conflicts.
V. All groundwater users in the GWMA have the necessary permits to use groundwater.
The remainder of Section 3 describes each of the objectives in more detail.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Objective I. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not harm aquifers and
ecosystems, and does not negatively impact surface waters.
WN
Groundwater and surface waters together make up a connected hydrologic system that is affected by
climate, geology and soils, land use and land cover, water use, and water quality changes. Therefore,
impacts to aquifers, ecosystems, and surface waters resulting from water appropriations are related
under this objective.
Aquifer Sustainability
The first part of this objective deals with preventing harm to aquifers. The purpose is to ensure that
groundwater continues to be available for use in the future while protecting ecosystems and surface
waters (described below). Groundwater use always reduces storage unless there is an equivalent
increase in recharge through surface -water infiltration. Limits on appropriations can help ensure aquifer
sustainability.
In Minnesota Rules, parts 6115.0630 and 6115.0670, the concept of safe yield is used as the measure of
limits on allowable groundwater use. The concept looks at the impact that water withdrawals from an
aquifer have on aquifer water qualit
not address potential impacts to other resources such as surface waters. Safe yield is defined separately
for water -table aquifers and for artesian (confined) aquifers (see Section 7 for glossary of terms).
For artesian aquifers, a water elevation level in an observation well (obwell) may be set as a threshold
for aquifer protection that ensures compliance with safe yield (Figure 3 -1). To protect the aquifer from
before pumping) must remain in an observation well. A warning threshold of 50 percent of the available
head may be established to allow time for contingency plans to be put in effect if water levels decline.
For water -table aquifers, safe yield is a total -use rate that does not exceed the long -term average
recharge rate (Minn. Rules, part 6115.0630). In short, output (pumping) for the aquifer does not exceed
input (recharge) over the long term. Again, this does not account for impacts surface waters, which are
addressed in the next section. Pumping from artesian aquifers (such as the Prairie du Chien and Jordan
aquifers) typically causes water from the water -table aquifer to flow down into the artesian aquifers.
Therefore, safe yield should be determined based on both direct and indirect withdrawals from water -
table aquifers.
Water levels that have stabilized to a pattern of variations above the threshold indicate compliance with
safe yield. Understanding pumping history and measured water levels is important when evaluating
compliance with safe yield. Declining water levels that remain above the threshold are expected in some
situations, even while use remains within the safe yield. This occurs if pumping rates gradually increase
over time, the system has not come into equilibrium with recent pumping rates, or natural fluctuations
create a temporary downward trend.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
In most circumstances limits on groundwater pumping will be defined by the protection of surface -
water resources and dependent ecosystems or by preventing water use conflicts rather than by safe
yield for water -table aquifers.
Water -table well Deep well
Land surface
Water table
Water level in E
confined aquifer `
Water -table aquifer
A 100% available head
B 50% threshold
C 25% threshold
Confining layer
Top of conned (artesian) aaUifer D
Confined (artesian) aquifer
3 -3
Figure 3 -1 Safe yield thresholds for artesian (confined) aquifers
The available head (A) is the distance between the top of the confined aquifer (D) and the water level (E)
in the deep well. The 50- percent threshold (B) is halfway between these same points; the 25- percent
threshold (C) is one - fourth of the way. Water levels in a confined aquifer must not stabilize below the
25- percent safe yield threshold.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Ecosystems and Surface Waters
3 -4
The second part of Objective I deals with harm to ecosystems and negative impacts to surface waters
when groundwater is overused. The groundwater system is part of the water cycle, eventually destined
to discharge to surface waters such as rivers, lakes, wetlands, or springs. Taking groundwater from
water table and most artesian aquifers diverts water from surface waters or wetlands. Overuse of
groundwater can significantly alter surface water features and the biological communities, recreation,
and other uses that those waters supports.
Surface water appropriations are governed by Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.285. Groundwater appropriations
are governed by Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.287. Groundwater appropriations may also be subject to
additional limits based on their surface water impacts as follows (Minn. Stat, sec. 103G.297, subd. 2):
Groundwater appropriations that will have negative impacts to surface waters are subject to
applicable provisions in section 103G.285.
The DNR will use the surface water protections described in Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.285 as the minimum
threshold for negative impacts when evaluating groundwater appropriations. However, surface -water
pumping (appropriation) has a direct and immediate effect on flow or water level in the surface water
features from which the water is withdrawn. When a surface appropriation is suspended there is an
immediate effect on the water levels.
The same is not true for groundwater appropriations. Determining whether groundwater appropriations
have negative impacts to surface waters is complex. Generally, the effect on connected surface water
in time and is typically distributed among multiple
water f eatu res.
Several thresholds that exist in law are helpful in determining if negative impacts are occurring in
surface waters:
1. Appropriations from lakes listed in Bulletin 25 are limited to a total annual volume of water
amounting to 1/2 acre -foot per acre of water basin (6 inches over the surface area of the water
body) (Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.285, subd. 3). Also, appropriations from lakes less than 500 acres
must be discouraged (Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.261, item d).
2. Appropriations taken directly from surface water bodies are limited according to the
requirements establishing and enforcing protected flows for streams and rivers or protective
elevations for lakes and wetlands (Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.285). These are intended to
accommodate the range of needs and uses of water bodies. For surface -water appropriations,
consumptive appropriations may not be made from watercourses during periods of specified
low flows (i.e. protected flows) or from lakes and wetlands when water levels are below the
protective elevation (Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.285, subd. 2 and 3).
6 DNR Staff, 1968. An Inventory of Minnesota Lakes. Division of Water, Soils and Minerals, Minnesota Conservation
Department
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
3 -5
3. Minnesota Statutes protect trout streams from water appropriations (Minn. Stat., sec.
103G.285, subd. 5) because they are particularly dependent on steady flow, stable cold water
temperatures, and sufficient oxygen levels. These conditions depend on a steady supply of
groundwater from springs or diffuse seepage. The goal is to limit stream depletion due to
groundwater pumping.
4. Calcareous fens' are a rare type of peat- forming, groundwater- dependent wetland that are also
protected in statute (Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.223) because they host rare plants and are sensitive
to impacts. Calcareous fens are very dependent on upwelling groundwater to maintain their
unique chemical and physical characteristics. To meet the statutory requirement, the goal is to
limit depletion of water moving to the fen as a result of groundwater pumping.
5. Public water wetlands may not be drained unless replaced (Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.221), and
temporary drawdown is only allowed if certain conditions are met, including: improving
navigation and recreational uses, improving fish or wildlife habitat, exposing sediments in order
to remove nutrients or contaminants, to alleviating flooding of agricultural land or allowing
mining of metals (Minn. Rules, part 6115.0270).
There are no general thresholds for some of the other features described in Section 2 of this Plan:
springs and seeps and wetlands that have saturated soil near the surface but do not have ponded water
for much of the year, and native plant communities other than calcareous fens.
Section 5 of the GWMA Plan provides a set of actions to meet Objective I.
7 There are no known calcareous fens in the North & East Metro GWMA.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Objective II. Groundwater use in the GWMA is reasonable, efficient, and
complies with water conservation requirements.
Water conservation is a key component of ensuring sustainability, and an important goal within the
GWMA. Efficient use increases the water available for current and future uses and can help reduce
stress on the water resource. Explicit conditions may be placed on appropriation permits that require
conservation practices appropriate to a specific use.
Conservation Requirements for Municipal Systems
Minnesota Statute, sec. 103G.291 requires public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people to
implement demand reduction measures by January 1, 2015. This includes all but one of the municipal
systems in the GWMA.
The measures must include a rate structure or outline a program that achieves demand reduction. They
must also have a water supply plan that is approved by DNR. In the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area,
including the GWMA, all communities that have public water supplies must prepare water supply plans
(Minn. Stat., sec. 473.859). These plans must be consistent with the Metropolitan Council Master Water
Supply Plan, providing an opportunity for cross - jurisdictional consistency and cooperation. The plans lay
out future challenges and options for a communi
community to its water use and conservation goals.
Minnesota Statute, sec. 103G.291 also requires public water suppliers to adopt and enforce water -use
restrictions when the governor declares a critical water deficiency. The restrictions must limit watering
lawns, washing vehicles, irrigating golf courses and parks, and other nonessential uses.
Other Water Uses
Water conservation conditions may be placed on appropriation permits other than those for municipal
water supply where reasonable use can be quantified, for example:
• The amount of water reasonably needed for a particular agricultural situation (soil types,
climate, and crop type)
• Specific goals for water use for golf course operations in the GWMA
• Water use goals for specific industries
Non - permitted water users across the GWMA should also practice water conservation. The DNR
supports conservation requirements for private and non - permitted use established through local
jurisdictions such as watershed districts and municipal governments.
Section 5 of the GWMA Plan provides a set of actions to meet Objective II.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan 3 -7
Objective III. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not degrade water quality.
Pumping groundwater does not directly degrade the quality of the water in the aquifer in most
circumstances. However, some pumping can cause water levels in wells to fall below the top of an
artesian aquifer (See Figure 3 -1), resulting in conversion to a water -table condition. In some
circumstances this can lead to changes in water chemistry and degradation of water quality. Compliance
with safe yield for artesian aquifers prevents this situation from occurring as described under Objective
The effects of groundwater pumping on existing contamination must be considered when evaluating
groundwater appropriation permits. Groundwater pumping can cause existing groundwater pollution to
move or spread. Changes in groundwater levels and pressures can increase the movement of pollutants
between aquifers or increase the spreading of pollutants within the same aquifer.
In some cases, pollution containment wells are used to limit movement of contaminated groundwater
into less or uncontaminated areas of the aquifers (Figure 2 -10). The MPCA, in cooperation with the
responsible parties, determines duration and volume of pumping to contain pollution plumes and limit
the movement or spreading of groundwater contamination.
Finally, water quality considerations in surface -water features must be incorporated into groundwater
appropriation thresholds for surface - waters. Changes to the amount of groundwater flow into surface -
water features can affect water quality items such as temperatures and oxygen levels in trout streams.
Section 5 of the GWMA Plan provides a set of actions to meet Objective III.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan 3 -8
Objective IV. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not create unresolved well
interferences or water use conflicts.
DNR must also address competing demands for appropriations of water within the sustainable limits.
The purpose of this objective is to manage water appropriations in accordance with the allocation
priorities in Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.261. The first priorities for water allocation are domestic water use
and use of surface water for power generation. Five other priority levels are given for other uses: all
other consumption of less than 10,000 gallons per day, agricultural irrigation and processing, other
power production, other consumption greater than 10,000 gallons per day, and non - essential uses.
A well interference problem occurs when groundwater appropriation causes the water level in public
water supply well(s) or private, domestic well(s) to fall below the reach of those wells (Minn. Stat., sec.
103G.287 subd. 5 and Minn. Rules, part 6115.0730). According to Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.287, subd. 5,
this applies to public water supply and private domestic wells constructed according to the state well
code (Minn. Rules, part 4725). An interference complaint can only be valid for a domestic well if that
well was constructed before appropriation permits allegedly causing the interference were issued.
An interference problem may be resolved by modifying the affected well, replacing the well with a
deeper well, replacing the well with an alternate water supply (e.g. connection to a public system), or
modifying permitted pumping rates or schedules. Potential for well interference is considered when
evaluating new water appropriation permits or amendment applications. The DNR follows procedures
described in Minn. Rules, part 6115.0730 to mitigate potential interference that may be caused by new
or increased appropriations and to respond to interference complaints.
A water use conflict occurs when water demands among existing and proposed users exceed the
available waters. A water use conflict can only be resolved by limiting or restricting the rate, volume,
and /or timing of water appropriations. The available waters must first be determined based on resource
sustainability (Objectives I and II) before allocating the available waters among users. The DNR follows
procedures described in Minn. Rules, part 6115.0740 to resolve water use conflicts.
Section 5 of the GWMA Plan provides a set of actions to meet Objective IV.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
M
Objective V. All groundwater users in the GWMA have the necessary permits
to use groundwater.
Objectives I, II, III and IV (above) can only be tracked and achieved with an effective permitting system.
Permits provide key data on groundwater use and the means to limit use if necessary to meet
sustainability objectives. To be in compliance with current state requirements, individuals and
organizations must, at a minimum, do the following if requesting 10,000 gallons of water per day or one
million gallons of water per year:
• Obtain a water appropriation permit
• Pay annual fees
• Report annual water use according to permit conditions
Permit holders must also comply with special conditions placed on their permits that are designed to
ensure sustainability and /or monitor resource conditions. Some permits may include special conditions
such as groundwater -level monitoring from wells specifically constructed for that purpose.
Objective V is meant to emphasize the importance of permitting and permit compliance to meet the
sustainability goals of the North & East Metro GWMA. Section 5 of the GWMA Plan provides a set of
actions to meet Objective V.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
4. Status of the GWMA in Terms of the Objectives
4 -1
This section describes our current understanding of the status of the North & East Metro GWMA with
respect to the five objectives described in Section 3. Based on the five objectives, the definition of
sustainability with respect to groundwater is that use:
• Does not harm aquifers and ecosystems
• Does not negatively impact surface waters
• Is reasonable, efficient and meets water conservation requirements
• Does not degrade water quality
• Does not create unresolved well interferences or water sue conflicts
All of the sustainability objectives must be achieved to attain overall sustainability of groundwater use in
the GWMA.
The status described is based on currently available information and an assessment of information and
data gaps. The gaps need to be addressed to meet long term goals of groundwater sustainability in the
GWMA. The status of each objective is briefly summarized below.
Objective I. Aquifers, Ecosystems and Surface Waters
Groundwater, surface waters and groundwater- dependent ecosystems are interrelated. Groundwater
levels fluctuate in response to a number of influences including climate, land use, and groundwater
pumping. Managing for groundwater -use sustainability requires quantitative knowledge of the
influences on groundwater and its connection to surface water.
Two types of information are needed to make water - appropriations permitting decisions that protect
aquifers, surface water resources, and associated biological communities. First, acceptable levels of
hydrological impacts must be determined for each type of feature. General considerations are discussed
in Section 3.0, but site specific thresholds may be needed for particular surface -water features. Second,
an estimate of how and the degree to which existing or proposed water appropriations may change the
hydrological regime must be made. The projected or interpreted impacts may then be compared to the
established thresholds.
Climate Data and Trends
The main driver of groundwater recharge variations is climate. The climate in the North & East Metro
GWMA is characterized by variable
precipitation, evaporation, and other climatic factors that affect hydrology. The hydrologic effects of
climate must be understood before one can assess the hydrologic effects of groundwater use.
Although long term average annual precipitation has been higher in the Twin Cities since the mid -
eighties compared to the previous decades, the Twin Cities experienced relatively lower precipitation in
parts of the last decade. For example, the 1981 -201
St. Paul International airport (red line on Figure 4 -1) is higher than 30 -year climate normal for previous
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan 4 -2
decades. Below normal precipitation in several recent years is reflected in the declining five -year moving
average precipitation (dotted gray line in Figure 4 -1). This is consistent with hydrological data indicating
a recent drier period.
In addition to changes in the amount of annual precipitation, the timing (wetter springs), nature (larger
rain events over shorter periods), and distribution of precipitation also is changing in the midwest
Precipitation and other climatic factors affect groundwater recharge and groundwater levels. Relatively
small changes in precipitation over large areas can have a significant effect on groundwater recharge
and groundwater levels. The current climate monitoring network may be inadequate for determining
this important part of the water balance in the GWMA. The network should be evaluated and expanded
to fill data gaps.
45
40
35
L
U
30
!4
Q
"u
d
♦ Annual Precipitation, MSP
Climate Normal Precipitation (19 81 -2010)
- - - -- 5 Yr Moving Average Precipitation
♦
♦ ♦
jl ♦
� i ♦
♦ # ♦ ♦ i 4
!� rl ♦ # + 4F 1 5 R # � `
♦ ` t # IL ♦ y ri i
4 Y ��5♦ 1 1
i � Y ♦ � ♦ 4 ,F
#♦ i i i� i �j�9 ii
� i - ♦ ii
� i ♦ ♦ �: � r
♦ i,
♦ ♦ ♦ # ♦
r i ♦
f 1
� #i ♦,�
1 'F
! .
♦ ♦ #
♦ ♦
1_
i
♦ ♦ c ♦ a
I y♦
f ♦
25
20
I
#
♦ ♦
15 ,
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
Figure 4 -1 Example of historic precipitation patterns in the North & East Metro: precipitation at
Pryor, S. C., D. Scavia, C. Downer, M. Gaden, L. Iverson, R. Nordstrom, J. Patz, and G. P. Robertson, 2014: Ch. 18:
Midwest. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo,
Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 418 -440.
doi:10.7930 /JOJ 1012 N.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan 4 -3
Groundwater -Level Data and Trends
Monitoring groundwater levels is an important element of groundwater management and ensuring
compliance with the safe yield thresholds. Levels must be viewed in the context of natural climate
fluctuations and groundwater pumping history.
Since 1944 the DNR has managed a statewide network of dedicated water -level observation wells.
Water -level readings from these observation wells are available on the DNR web page. There are 60
actively measured obwells within the GWMA boundary area (Figure 4 -2). Nineteen of these wells have
been constructed since 2009 and provide only short records. Some appropriation permit holders also
maintain observation wells as required in permit conditions. Other organizations have also installed
observation wells. For example the Valley Branch Watershed District measures water levels in 15
shallow observation wells three times per year.
Historical data from inactive or sealed obwells and from obwells outside the GWMA provide additional
useful information about changing groundwater levels overtime.
DNR staff reviewed data from obwells throughout the state for statistically significant trends in annual
minimum water levels for the 20 -year period from 1993 through 2012. Nineteen wells at 14 locations in
the North & East Metro GWMA had sufficient data for an
of different depths). Four of these obwells had upward trends; three had no trend; and 12 had a
downward trend (Figure 4 -2).
In general, the available obwell data indicate that recent groundwater levels have been near or below
low points of the previous 30 years regardless of proximity to areas of intensive groundwater pumping
(with the exception of rising groundwater levels in parts of Ramsey County as a result of reduced
pumping). This leads to the conclusion that weather was a major factor in recent lower groundwater
levels in the vicinity of the GWMA. Lower water levels in areas where groundwater use has substantially
increased over the last 20 years appear to reflect a combination of climate and pumping effects. At
observation wells completed in artesian aquifers, water levels are not approaching safe yield thresholds.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
zflac
• Anoka 2016
z�
`C-
Minneapolis
27041
1 62037
i
I
I
I
I
2027
CHISAGO
I WASHINGTON
2026 .Columbusl Forest Lake
I Scandia
1
❑ 82030
, ■ 82031
I
i -
2009
2007
J' di)8fl i ❑ 82040 a2a55 82033
- I
,
12012
i 82029 ■
f
4NOKA� —_ —i
RAMSEY
62046
A'
62952 ® I
i
62033 1044
62038 0 ® 4?045
62039 1
,
A
62030 - I82oer
I
,
IT 62002 62008 82009
620,0 1
® 62043
1 62001
I
,
02014 ❑ ❑ 62049 I
St. Paul'
I
2050
62040
❑
1:182051
DAKOTA
i
19005 ■10004
❑ 82039
82042 82023
O 82043 Ib
82022 82024
82047
>� 82048
Stillwater•
i.rsvr�ar
P1 0
{Pi S
Active DNR Obwell
Bedrock
Buried Artesian St. Paul RWS Supplied
o Water Table L o O #her &V Minneapofs Supplied North & East Metro Annual Minimum Trend GWMA Working Boundary
Up
None 19
Down
0 5 10 Miles
82053 92045❑
82011
8205
,
82012 ■
82053
82054 d
March 05, 2014
4 -4
Figure 4 -2 Active DNR obwells and trends in an
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
4 -5
Based on observation well levels, lake levels, and stream gauging data, the 1990s to early 2000s was a
wet period in this region with relatively high water levels and flows. The period 2007 through 2013
included at least one period of hydrologic drought. This determination is based on a comparison with
measured water levels and stream flows during and following the last extreme drought in the region
(1988 -89 at locations with low water use Relatively low water levels were most prevalent in
groundwater and surface water measurements reflective of groundwater conditions such as stream
baseflow.
Figure 4 -3 is one example of the gradual fluctuations
wells open to several different aquifers at different depths in northeastern Washington County. This
obwell nest is four miles from the nearest municipal well and there is little other groundwater use in the
vicinity. Water levels gradually declined in these observation wells from 2003 through 2010 and
remained low through 2013. Water levels in the shallower obwell (82024) dropped below the minimum
level of the previous extended drought that occurred in 1991, and water levels in the deeper obwells
overlapped with levels previously measured in 1990 -91 from 2009 through 2013.
830
825
820
815
810
_ 805
C
g 800
u,
795
790
785
780
775
Jan-$
De" Jan - 3an -9 Jan - pec-OA Jan - 3an -1
Figure 4 -3 Observation well hydrographs, northeastern Washington County
The three observation wells are completed in three different aquifers: a shallower buried Quaternary
aquifer (82024), a deeper buried Quaternary aquifer in a bedrock valley (82023) and a bedrock aquifer
(82022).
Seasonal water level fluctuations have increased in the buried Quaternary and bedrock aquifers in areas
of intensive groundwater pumping. Seasonal fluctuations at these locations increased due to
9 Some of the effects of this drought are described in: Minnesota DNR, 1989. Drought of 1988; and in Holmstrom
and Ellefson, 1990. The Effects of the 1988 Drought on Water Resources in Wisconsin: USGS Open -File Report 90-
149.
10 Data sets used: DNR observation wells 13007/18, 13009/13, 82024, 82031, and 82033; North Center Lake;
Wisconsin USGS observation well PK- 35/17W/08 -0040 (USGS Station 453013092314601); Apple River near
Sommerset, Wisconsin (USGS Station 05341500); and St. Croix River at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin (USGS Station
05340500)
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
M,
groundwater pumping but appear to have become stable over the last 6 to 10 years at obwell locations.
An example is shown in Figure 4 -4. Groundwater levels are expected to be stable or to rise if average or
wet hydrological conditions prevail in the next several years and pumping rates remain stable. If dry
conditions continue, we should expect additional water level drops in aquifers of the GWMA.
Other historical groundwater measurements were compared to more recent measurements in the
GWMA, such as water levels measured at the time of municipal well construction. Recent water levels
measured in municipal wells in the northeastern part of the GWMA while they were not pumping are
mostly above or close to the historical measurements made at the time of construction (Table 4 -1). For
the recent measurements, water levels in the pumping wells may not have fully recovered from
pumping and may be lower than in the aquifer nearby. These data do not necessarily show that long
term pumping influence is negligible at these locations, but the data suggest that pumping has not
pushed water levels substantially outside of their historical range. The water -level measurements listed
in Table 4 -1 vary from 96 to 172 feet above the top of the Prairie du Chien in those wells, indicating that
water levels are clearly within the safe yield thresholds (Figure 3 -1).
896
894
892
890
0
7
° — w 888
v
�o
886
884
882
33,,-7 3,,- 13n -$ 3 ]a0- 3,0-95 3an-oo 3,0- 3an- !an 5
Figure 4 -4 Observation well hydrograph (2012), Jordan aquifer, southern Anoka County
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Table 4 -1 Historical and recent water levels in older municipal wells
4 -7
city
Well
Unique No.
A uifer s 1
Date of
Historic
Measurement
Date of
Synoptic
Measurement
Difference in
Water Level
feet
North St. Paul
208222
PCJ
1942
3/30/2011
11
North St. Paul
208223
PCJ
1942
3/30/2011
4
North St. Paul
205744
CJDN
11/23/1964
3/30/2011
13
North St. Paul
208224
CJDN
12/0/1957
3/30/2011
-9
White Bear Lake
14005
CJDN
8/14/1959
8/28/2012
21
White Bear Lake
226567
CJDN
6/2/1965
3/30/2011
-2
White Bear Lake
205733
PCJ
3/31/1966
3/30/2011
7
White Bear Lake
226566
PCJ
1969
3/27/2012
20
White Bear Twp.
226570
CJDN
9/1956
8/9/2011
-12
Vadnais Heights
224790
PCJ
11/1972
3/29/2011
-6
Lino Lakes
240171
PCJ
11/10/1971
3/24/2011
-1
Mahtomedi
208507/
208506
PCJ /CJDN
1933
8/9/2011
-26
Oakdale
208454
CJDN
6/24/1969
3 28 2011
5
Oakdale
208462
CJDN
10/1958
3/28/2011
0
Oakdale
208463
CJDN
4/20/1964
3 28 2011
4
1 Aquifer codes: CJDN (Jordan), PCJ (Prairie du Chien and Jordan)
2 This is a standby or backup well that has not been pumped in recent years.
3 Historical measurement in an adjacent well that has been sealed.
Available Groundwater Model Results
Computer or numerical models of groundwater systems can provide valuable insights and predictions of
changes that might result from changing climate and pumping. Several regional computer groundwater
flow models that include the North & East Metro GWMA have been developed since the late 1980s. A
new, regional model (Metro Model 3) was released June 2014 The model covers an 11 county area,
and should not be used directly for more local decision making. However, the model provides a starting
point for subregional or local analysis of aquifer conditions and effects of climate and cumulative
groundwater appropriations. A local refinement of Metro Model 3 is planned by the Met Council and
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the northeastern Metro area. The local refinement will provide
valuable information about potential effects of pumping and weather variability in the GWMA.
Ecosystems and Surface Waters
Groundwater pumping rates may result in negative impacts to some surface waters, recreational and
other uses of those resources, and their ecological communities. Several types of surface waters and
wetlands that are potentially vulnerable to natural variations (drought) and to groundwater pumping
influence were identified in Section 2. These include designated trout streams, non - designated trout
11 Metropolitan Council, 2014. Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Groundwater Flow Model Version 3.0: prepared
prepared by Barr Engineering.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
4 -8
streams, wetland native plant communities associated with groundwater, and lakes and wetlands that
are hydrologically connected to the regional aquifer system.
Groundwater use in the vicinity of the six designated trout streams (Figure 2 -6) is briefly summarized
here. There are no permitted wells within 1 mile of Falls Creek, Willow Brook, or Valley Creek. All of the
trout streams except Willow Brook have at least one permitted well within 3 miles. There are a total of
nine wells within 1 mile of a trout stream and those wells pumped a total of 109.2 million gallons in
2012. A majority of that pumping was from wells in
that groundwater pumping has on the trout streams has not been fully evaluated.
The City of Woodbury has conducted significant testing and analysis to evaluate the potential for
impacts from its municipal wells in its eastern well field on Valley Creek. The results of those analyses
were used to place limits on pumping these wells in
Woodbury are working cooperatively to collect stream flow data near the headwaters of Valley Creek
and evaluate potential negative impact of municipal pumping on the designated trout stream. This is
one example of evaluations of pumping impacts applied to a specific water feature in the GWMA.
There are a large number of lakes and wetlands that the Metropolitan Council classified as connected to
the regional groundwater system and potentially vulnerable to impacts from pumping from buried
Quaternary and bedrock wells (Figure 2 -9). These include a number of features near areas of relatively
intensive groundwater use. A number of the wetland native plant communities that are associated with
groundwater (Figure 2 -7) are in or adjacent to these features.
classification system did not consider some factors
that affect the sensitivity of lakes and wetlands to groundwater appropriations. Factors, such as the
amount of surface inflow and outflow to a lake, can substantially affect the sensitivity of the feature to
changing levels in underlying aquifers. For example, Washington County considered the relative
importance of precipitation and surface water inputs in classifying water bodies in the northern part of
the county
The classifications by the Metropolitan Council are generally based on regional information and should
be refined for more local, lake specific characteristics to better evaluate vulnerability.
A review of all hydrologic studies that provide useful information for evaluating groundwater- surface
water interactions is beyond the scope of this Plan document. Several studies and additional data that
focus on particular water features have been developed by watershed districts, counties, DNR, the U.S.
Geological Survey, and others. These are resources for evaluations of these features.
Permit holders have also developed important local information to help understand groundwater
pumping impacts on surface waters and wetlands through aquifer testing and water monitoring. The
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), under contract with the Metropolitan Council, is conducting a project to
12 Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc., 2003. Integrating Groundwater and Su
Washington County: prepared for Washington County.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
4 -9
improve understanding of groundwater -lake interactions in the northeastern Metro area. The results of
the study will be useful for prioritizing evaluation of groundwater pumping impacts.
Gap Analysis and Recommendations
Aquifers
The safe yield definitions in Minn. Rules, part 6115.0630 are the criteria used to evaluate the
sustainability of aquifer levels in the North & East Metro GWMA. Safe yield defines sustainability of long
term water storage in the aquifer system and the capacity of the aquifer system to supply water. There
are sufficient data available to evaluate compliance with safe yield at recent pumping rates in the North
& East Metro GWMA. There are no indications that recent pumping rates present a risk for exceeding
safe yield in the North & East Metro GWMA. This is supported by the available observation well data
and water -level measurements in other wells. Metro Model 3 results also indicate that total pumping
rates are below estimated average recharge for the aquifers included in the GWMA.
Continued collection of data from the obwell network, water use reports, and climate stations will allow
for early detection of trends. Observations reflect impacts of current and historical climate and land -use
changes in addition to pumping history. Continued growth in groundwater demand is expected for parts
of the GWMA, particularly in growing suburbs in Anoka and Washington counties. Additional obwell
locations and climate stations may be needed to improve assessment of climate conditions, aquifer level
sustainability and other management objectives.
improved assessments of future risk. Additionally, data collection and analysis typically required for new
or amended permit evaluations, such as performing and analyzing aquifer pumping tests, will also
provide more information where needed. Further work is needed to evaluate the risk of exceeding safe
yield under potential future scenarios.
Ecosystems and Surface Waters
Appropriations from water basins (lakes and wetlands) listed in Bulletin 25 are limited by statute to a
total annual volume of water amounting to % acre -foot per acre of water basin (6 -inch depth over the
surface area). While this limit is protective of some water basins, it is likely not sufficient to prevent
negative impacts to all water basins and biological communities associated with water basins in the
North & East Metro GWMA. Site specific thresholds may be appropriate for some sensitive features
likely to be influenced by groundwater appropriations.
As discussed above, the available information allows for comparing the relative vulnerability of different
water basins. Improved methods for determining the hydrological impacts of groundwater pumping on
basins are under development, and additional studies are underway to identify basins particularly
sensitive to appropriations.
Improved methods for determining the hydrological impacts of groundwater pumping on flow in water
courses are also under development. Site specific maximum diversion thresholds are needed for
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
4 -10
sensitive water courses such as trout streams. Therefore, additional evaluation is required to identify
impacts of groundwater appropriations on trout streams and other water courses within the GWMA.
In general, quantitative assessment of groundwater pumping impacts on surface waters is more
demanding than assessing compliance with safe yield. Many surface waters and connected ecosystems
are sensitive to relatively small hydrologic changes, and evaluating groundwater- surface water
interactions is more complex than evaluating aquifer levels.
Monitoring data are the foundation for impacts assessment. There is a relatively dense network of
precipitation gauges, observation wells, lake gauges, and stream gauges in the North & East Metro
GWMA. Nevertheless, monitoring gaps are likely to be identified as improved impacts assessment
methods are implemented. The planned data system should also allow for more efficient assessment
and use of monitoring data. There is also an opportunity for the DNR to partner with other entities such
as watershed districts and other local units of government on data collection and management.
A particular area of high uncertainty is lake evaporation. The DNR is working with other organizations to
develop improved monitoring of lake evaporation on White Bear Lake and plans to extend what is
learned to other lakes in the GWMA.
Groundwater recharge is another area of uncertainty. Recharge cannot be directly measured, but
recharge can be estimated using land use, climate, soils, and groundwater data. A comprehensive
climate and water monitoring plan is under development for the North & East Metro GWMA.
Pumping impacts to surface waters cannot be directly measured but must be interpreted from models
developed using appropriate field data. To assess current or existing impacts, one must interpret or
extrapolate conditions that would have occurred without groundwater pumping. Projections of future
conditions are needed to assess the future effects of existing appropriations and the potential effects of
proposed appropriations. Improved modeling analysis is needed to quantify the impacts. At the same
time, ongoing monitoring will be needed to evaluate and update model projections.
Metro Model 3 may serve as a valuable starting point for improved assessments of the risk to lakes from
groundwater appropriations. It is a coarse, regional scale model and was not designed to be directly
used for assessing pumping impacts on individual water bodies. The Metropolitan Council and U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) are in the process of developing a refined, subregional model of the
northeastern Metro to be completed in 2016. This project also includes developing information
regarding groundwater -lake interactions, including a collection of related data and information
describing characteristics that affect them.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Objective II. Water Conservation
4 -11
Water appropriation permits incorporate water conservation so the permitted volumes are reasonable
and for a beneficial use. Explicit conditions may also be placed on water - appropriation permits that refer
to conservation practices appropriate to a specific use. Additional water -use data reporting,
supplemental to the monthly appropriation volumes, is currently only required for municipal water
systems. Municipal systems include conservation goals in their water supply plans. Some permits for golf
course irrigation and other uses also include conservation requirements as permit conditions.
Municipal Systems
Minnesota Statute, sec. 103G.291 requires public water suppliers to adopt and enforce water -use
restrictions when the governor declares a critical water deficiency. The restrictions must limit watering
lawns, washing vehicles, irrigating golf courses and parks, and other nonessential uses.
This statute also requires public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people to implement demand
reduction measures by January 1, 2015. Demand reduction measures are intended to reduce water use
and must include a conservation rate structure or a conservation program. Demand reduction measures
established by January 1, 2015 by public water suppliers will be included in the next round of water
supply plans. New, 10 -year water supply plans will be due beginning in 2016. DNR staff has confirmed
conservation rate structures are in place in 21 out of 30 municipalities in the GWMA (Table 4 -2).
In the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, all communities with public water supply systems are required to
develop water supply plans and must submit a municipal water -use information sheet with the annual
water -use report. These data are tied to conservation goals required in the water supply plans. The data
required in the reports include the following:
• Total water pumped divided into residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural, other and
unaccounted use categories
• Total per capita demand (annual total pumped for all uses /population served)
• Residential per capita demand (annual residential use /population served). The current goal is
75 gallons per day
• Maximum day to average day ratio (maximum use in a 24 -hour period divided by total annual
volume divided by 365 days). The current goal is less than 2.6
• Unaccounted for water (total volume pumped minus volume sold or used by the utility as a
percentage of total pumped). The current goal is less than 10 percent"
The 5 -year averages of the data reported by water suppliers along with reported apparent trends in
these values are summarized in Table 4 -3. Municipalities report the apparent trends over five year
13 The 7- County Metropolitan Area average for municipal systems in 2002. This measure was selected by a
committee represented by DNR, Metropolitan Council, and the Minnesota Section of the American Water Works
Association (AWWA).
14 The 7- County Metropolitan Area average for municipal systems in 2002.
is AWWA Leak Detection and Water Accountability Commit
Journal AWWA, 88(7) 108 -111.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
4 -12
periods as part of the water supply planning process. The trends information is not a statistical analysis.
For the 2008 -2012 period, all of the municipal public water suppliers in the North & East Metro GWMA
submitted the water use reporting information sheets as required, but 14 percent left some items on
the forms blank, and 7 percent missed some yearly submissions.
Each public water supplier may track information differently based on differing billing systems, and each
item is not categorized in the same way by all suppliers. For example, one supplier may categorize an
apartment building to be a commercial user, whereas a different supplier may categorize an apartment
building to be a residential user. Standardizing these categories would require that some suppliers
change their billing or other information systems.
In the North & East Metro GWMA, 45 percent of municipal suppliers exceeded the residential use goal
of 75 gallons per capita per day, 21 percent exceeded the maximum day -to- average -day ratio goal of
2.6, and 45 percent exceeded the maximum unaccounted -for water goal of 10 percent. Values for these
three measures ranged from 40 to 110 gallons per capita per day, 2 to 11, and 0.4 to 29 percent,
respectively.
Additional water -use data reporting that is supplemental to the monthly appropriation volumes is
currently only required for municipal water systems, and not for most other appropriation permit
holders. Additional reporting for non - municipal systems would fill a data gap under this objective.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
4 -13
Table 4 -2 Municipal Water Use Rate Types
Water
System'
Rate Typez
Conservation
Rate?
Arden Hills
Increasing Block
Yes
Bayport
Increasing Block
Not
confirmed
Blaine
Increasing Block
Yes
Centerville
Increasing Block
Yes
Circle Pines
Increasing Block
Yes
Columbus
Uniform
No
Cottage
Grove
Increasing Block
Yes
Forest Lake
Seasonal
Yes
Fridley
Increasing Block
Yes
Hugo
Increasing Block
Yes
Lake Elmo
Increasing Block
Yes
Lakeland
Uniform
No
Lexington
Increasing Block
Yes
Lino Lakes
Increasing Block
Yes
Mahtomedi
Increasing Block
Yes
Marine on St.
Croix
Uniform
No
Moundsview
Increasing Block
Yes
Water
System
Rate Type'
Conservation
Rate?
New Brighton
Uniform
No
Newport
Increasing Block
Yes
Oak Park
Heights
Increasing Block
Not
confirmed
Oakdale
Increasing Block
Yes
Shoreview
Excess Use
Yes
Spring Lake Park
Increasing Block
Yes
St Paul Park
Increasing Block
Not
confirmed
St Paul Regional
Water Services
Seasonal
Yes
Stillwater
Seasonal
Yes
Vadnais Heights
Increasing Block
Yes
White Bear Lake
Increasing Block
Not
confirmed
White Bear
Township
Increasing Block
Not
confirmed
Woodbury
Increasing Block
Yes
' Water rate information was not readily available for all public supply systems in the GWMA.
ngle volumetric rate.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Table 4 -3 Municipal Water -Use Information
Summary of data reported on the Municipal Water -Use Information Sheet averaged for the 5 -year
period from 2008 through 2012, average for total annual water use, and apparent 5 -year trends
4 -14
Public Water
Water Pumped
Total Per
Residential
Maximum
Unaccounted
Supplier
(million
Capita
Per Capita
Day /Average
(percentage of
gallons), Trend
Demand
Demand
Day, Trend
total), Trend
(gallons per
(gallons per
day), Trend
day), Trend
Goal
--
--
< = 75
< = 2.6
< = 10
Bayport
77.7, decreased
62.8,
41.4,
2.7,
0.4,
decreased
increased
no trend
no trend
Blaine
2623.4,
129.5,
79.2,
2.2,
8.9,
increased
no trend
no trend
decreased
no trend
Centerville
98.2, increased
70,
59.8,
2.65, decreased
8,
increased
increased
no trend
Circle Pines
167.9,
90,
71.5,
2.3,
10.1,
no trend
increased
increased
no trend
no trend
Columbus
16.8, increased
unknown
unknown
11.3, increased
28.5,
no trend
Cottage Grove
1359.1,
102.5,
89.8,
2.6,
13.2, increased
increased
decreased
decreased
decreased
Forest Lake
443.78,
119.1,
79.1,
2,
16.6,
increased
no trend
no trend
decreased
no trend
Fridley
1078.8, no
110.9,
82,
unknown
19.2, increased
trend
decreased
no trend
Hugo
385.2,
100.1,
68.1,
3.2,
3.5,
increased
no trend
increased
no trend
no trend
Lake Elmo
123.2,
116.5,
94.9,
2.2,
7.8,
decreased
decreased
no trend
no trend
no trend
Lakeland'
79.8, increased
63.4, increased
47.1,
3.2,
9.8,
increased
no trend
increased
Lexington
65.2,
85.5,
66.6,
Unknown
17.6,
no trend
no trend
increased
no trend
Lino Lakes
544.8,
95.7,
77,
3.8,
1.5,
increased
no trend
no trend
no trend
no trend
Mahtomedi
281.6,
95,
79.1,
2.6,
2.1,
no trend
decreased
no trend
no trend
no trend
Marine on St.
3.1,
110.2,
110.2,
2.9,
11,
Croix
increased
increased
increased
no trend
no trend
Minneapolis
20514.8,
110.5,
41.8, no trend
1.7, decreased
14, no trend
decreased
decreased
Mounds View
498.4,
109.2, no trend
73, no trend
2.4, no trend
12.5, increased
decreased
New Brighton
1331.4, no
166.2, no trend
79, no trend
1.5, no trend
29.4, increased
trend
Newport
99.8, decreased
72.3, increased
54.6,
1.7, no trend
5.9, no trend
increased
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
4 -15
Public Water
Water Pumped
Total Per
Residential
Maximum
Unaccounted
Supplier
(million
Capita
Per Capita
Day /Average
(percentage of
gallons), Trend
Demand
Demand
Day, Trend
total), Trend
(gallons per
(gallons per
day), Trend
day), Trend
Goal
--
--
< =75
< =2.6
< =10
North St. Pau 14
447.3,
96.4,
64.3,
2.3, decreased
10.8, increased
decreased
decreased
decreased
Oakdale
971.4,
97.5, increased
70,
2.4,
5.9,
decreased
increased
no trend
no trend
Oak Park
231.8,
135.4,
64.6,
2.1,
13.2,
Heights
no trend
increased
no trend
no trend
no trend
St Paul Park
202.2,
91.7,
64.2,
2.1,
15.2, increased
no trend
decreased
increased
no trend
SPRWS (SW)
16505.7,
109.3,
39.7,
1.7,
14.3,
decreased
decreased
no trend
no trend
no trend
SPRWS (GW)
987.6, no trend
Not reported separately
Shoreview
1106.3,
109.4,
69.4,
2.6,
13.8,
no trend
decreased
increased
no trend
decreased
Spring Lake
284.5,
118.1,
73,
2.3,
8.2,
Park
decreased
decreased
increased
no trend
no trend
Stillwater
758.5,
116.6,
82.3,
2.3,
8.8,
increased
decreased
no trend
no trend
no trend
Vadnais
522.5,
110.5,
76.4,
2.4,
9.5,
Heights
no trend
increased
increased
no trend
no trend
White Bear
943.2,
105.6,
65.6,
2.5,
6.3,
Lake
decreased
no trend
increased
no trend
no trend
White Bear
493.3,
109,
88.2,
8.3,
unknown
Township
increased
increased
increased
no trend
(2 permits)'
45.6, no trend
116.6,
Not reported separately
no trend
Woodbury
2731, increased
123.9,
99,
2.5,
2.1,
increased
increased
no trend
decreased
The measures and goals are explained on page 4 -12.
1 Supplies Lakeland, Lakeland Shores, and Lake St. Croix Beach. Source is the Mt. Simon aquifer.
Z Supplies Mahtomedi and Willernie
3 Supplies Minneapolis and the Morningside neighborhood of Edina, and sells water wholesale to Columbia
Heights, Crystal, Golden Valley, Hilltop, New Hope, and Bloomington.
4 Supplies North Saint Paul and a portion of Maplewood
5 Supplies Oakdale and Landfall
6 St. Paul Regional Water Services ( SPRWS) supplies St. Paul, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Maplewood, Mendota,
Mendota Heights, and West St. Paul and sells water wholesale to Arden Hills, Little Canada, and Roseville.
Supplies White Bear Lake and Birchwood Village
8 Supplies White Bear Township and a portion of North Oaks
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Other Appropriation Categories
MR-
For appropriations other than municipal water supply, conservation measures are not specifically
tracked by DNR. Typical permit language requires that the permittee shall, whenever practical and
feasible, employ water conservation techniques and practices. Conservation requirements have been
developed for some specific appropriation categories (e.g. golf courses) and are applied to some permits
or permit amendments.
An estimated 5 percent of groundwater use in the GWMA is met by wells that do not require a DNR
appropriation permit. There are also currently no conservation standards for the non - permitted
groundwater users.
Pollution containment pumping facilities are reviewed on a regular basis as part of overall site review
under the applicable remediation program administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or
Minnesota Department of Agriculture. For example, lower pumping rates were tested for the 3M
pollution containment wells in Woodbury, but the lower rates were found to allow polluted
groundwater to escape the containment system. In general, pumping more than is necessary is avoided
because of the added costs for pumping, treatment and disposal.
Industrial users may seek assistance from trade associations and from the Minnesota Technical
Assistance Program (MnTAP) of the University of Minnesota to help find industry - tailored ways to
prevent pollution and reduce resource use. More efficient water use can save businesses money by, for
example, reducing energy costs and wastewater fees. These measures usually must be tailored to an
individual facility.
Gap Analysis and Recommendations
Community water supply plans provide the best opportunity for the DNR to engage with public water
suppliers and the Metropolitan Council on conservation. The required demand reduction measures will
be an important component of the plans. Goals for residential per capita demand, maximum- to
average -day demand, and unaccounted for water will also be set in these plans. These goals may need
to be updated for water supply plans.
Annual reporting of water use by category (residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural) should be
made consistent between municipalities to enhance the accuracy of water use tracking.
It is important for DNR to develop water use category and business sector specific techniques, practices
and measures for all appropriation permits. Permit conditions for each category or sector should be
more consistent. Information collected on these conservation related permit conditions should be
evaluated and reported to support management of groundwater appropriations.
Groundwater users not required to hold DNR permits should be responsible for conservation and
reasonable water use measures. DNR has the option to require general permits for wells that pump
below the current regulatory limit (10,000 gallong per day or 1,000,000 gallons per year) within the
GWMA (Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.287, subd. 4). If required, the fee to request authorization under a
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
4 -17
general permit does not apply, and the DNR may waive measurement and volume reporting
requirements.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Objective III. Water Quality
4 -18
In the North & East Metro GWMA, movement of man -made contaminant plumes is a concern. The
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has designated five Special Well and Boring Construction Areas
in the GWMA where groundwater contamination is a risk. Additionally, there are concerns over
perfluorochemicals (PFC) detected in groundwater in several areas of southern Washington County
(Figure 2 -10).
Special controls on the construction or modification of wells are enforced in the MDH designated areas
to protect water supplies from known contamination. The potential effects of groundwater pumping
outside of the plume boundaries on these contaminant plumes is also a concern and has been and will
continue to be considered in evaluating of groundwater appropriation permit applications. These
analyses are typically local in nature and address concerns for individual wells or groups of wells when
they are proposed, but subregional scale analyses may also be employed, where needed.
Avoiding groundwater contamination or the further spread of contamination may reduce the availability
of clean groundwater in the North & East Metro GWMA.
Gap Analysis and Recommendations
The current situation suggests that more integration between the DNR, MPCA and MDH would be
beneficial in the GWMA.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan 4 -19
Objective IV. Well Interferences and Water Use Conflicts
Well Interferences
There have been no confirmed well interferences in the GWMA. Potential for well interference is
considered when evaluating new water appropriation permit or amendment applications.
Water -Use Conflicts
There are no known water use conflicts in the North & East Metro GWMA. As discussed for Objective I
above, current uses appear to fall within safe yield thresholds for the area. Future requests for
additional appropriations will be evaluated for potential to exceed safe yield due to cumulative impacts
of permitted users.
Protection of groundwater- dependent surface water features and biological communities may require
limiting water appropriations in some areas. It is possible that water use conflicts could arise if
cumulative impacts of more than one existing or proposed appropriations would risk negatively
impacting these resources. Implementation of improved analysis methods and data for evaluating
surface water impacts could reveal water use conflicts not previously identified.
Gap Analysis and Recommendations
Well interference is almost always a local issue. Local data will continue to be needed to evaluate the
risk for well interference due to new or amended appropriations. These evaluations will continue to use
pumping tests and /or local aquifer monitoring where needed on a site specific basis.
16 A well interference complaint is confirmed to be valid only after DNR receives a complete Water Well
Information and Complaint Questionnaire and finds through an investigation that well interference caused a water
outage.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Objective V. Permits
4 -20
Water uses that exceed 10,000 gallons per day and /or 1,000,000 gallons per year, except for domestic
supplies that serve 25 persons or fewer, require a water - appropriation permit. Some water uses that
exceed one million gallons (MG) in a year may be reported under general permits.
Compliance
There are no known groundwater uses in the GWMA that require a permit that are not covered under
an existing permit. Nevertheless, a thorough audit of water wells has not been conducted for the
GWMA. It is possible that there are unidentified groundwater uses that require permits. Since July 2013,
new wells that will require a water appropriation permit must receive preliminary well construction
approval from the DNR prior to construction. This helps the DNR monitor compliance and assists permit
applicants in the planning and capital investment process.
DNR staff obtains compliance reports from the Minnesota Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS)
electronic permits database. When pumping volume exceeds the appropriation permit amount
(overuse), the DNR investigates and takes appropriate action.
In 2012, 16 groundwater appropriation permits reported use exceeding their permitted appropriations
by more than 10 percent 17 . That represents 6 percent of the permits in the GWMA.
Reported average use annual use from 2008 through 2012 exceeded the permitted volume for only 3 of
the over 250 active groundwater appropriation permits in the area.
In general, compliance with permitted volumes is high in the North & East Metro GWMA. Special
circumstances may lead to pumping exceeding permitted volume in a given year, such as waterline
breaks, other system problems, or one -time uses. In other cases in which permitted volumes were
exceeded for multiple years, a permit holder may have appropriated a reasonable volume for the use,
but a permit amendment was needed and /or may have been pending.
In addition to the limits on annual volume and maximum pumping rate, some permits may include
special conditions such as groundwater -level monitoring. The DNR staff is working with permit holders
who have monitoring conditions on compliance with both measurement and reporting requirements.
Gap Analysis and Recommendations
It is possible that high- capacity wells constructed before July 2013 could be appropriating groundwater
without a required permit. To fill this data gap, the DNR staff will cross -check wells in the County Well
Index with DNR water appropriation permits to identify potential unpermitted groundwater use. The
DNR staff will then further investigate whether any high- capacity wells not associated with a DNR water
appropriation permit are being used to pump more than 10,000 gallons per day or 1,000,000 gallons per
year. Some permit holders that have the required appropriation permit may have replaced permitted
17 Because water use must be measured or estimated with an accuracy of plus or minus 10 percent, overuses of
less than 10 percent are considered to be within the range of potential measurement error.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
4 -21
wells without notifying DNR. The cross - checking could also identify these wells, and the permits could be
updated with the new well information.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
S. Actions
5 -1
Prior sections of the North & East Metro GWMA Plan have described the area; introduced the
sustainability goals, objectives and sustainability
understanding of natural resources and appropriations with respect to the sustainability thresholds.
Section 4 described some of the information and data gaps that need to be addressed to continue to
manage groundwater sustainably. This section restates the sustainability goal for the GWMA, and
introduces the specific actions by each objective that DNR plans to take to meet the sustainability goal.
The 2014 GWMA Goal: In the North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area
(GMWA), the use of groundwater is sustainable, and therefore, does not harm
ecosystems, water quality, or the ability of present and future generations to meet their
needs.
Objective I. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not harm aquifers and
ecosystems, and does not negatively impact surface waters.
1. DNR will improve monitoring of groundwater levels, basin water levels, stream flows, climate,
groundwater associated biological communities and water use within the GWMA to inform DNR
permit decisions.
a. DNR will continue to build a comprehensive hydrological and climate monitoring system for the
GWMA. DNR will coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies in these efforts. The
following are some initial efforts that may be adjusted over time:
i. Stream Flow Monitoring - By 2016 - Review Washington Conservation District, Valley Branch
Watershed District, Metropolitan Council, and Rice Creek Watershed district stream flow
monitoring stations and data with those agencies and evaluate opportunities for
collaboration or data collection and maintenance improvements.
iii. Groundwater Level Monitoring - By 2016, install 3 observation wells. These are in addition
to the existing 60 DNR groundwater level observation wells. In addition, DNR will continue
to work with permit holders on reporting groundwater level data and adding observation
wells as needed.
iv. Identify additional climate monitoring requirements and add weather stations as needed to
provide precipitation, temperature, solar radiation, dew point, and wind speed for improved
evapotranspiration estimates.
In cooperation with the White Bear Lake Conservation District and others, DNR will
participate in the establishment, maintenance and monitoring of a network of
evaporation stations on White Bear Lake.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
M
ii. DNR will evaluate the benefits of evaporation monitoring networks on lakes in the
GWMA.
iii. DNR will summarize the available climatological data related to groundwater
management for the new GWMA reporting system
b. DNR will continue to improve information on water use within the GWMA.
Refine estimates of groundwater use that does not require a permit. Note: permits are not
required for uses that are less than 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year or
other domestic supplies that serve 25 or fewer people.
c. DNR will develop and use standard groundwater models and methods to predict volumes, rates
and water level impacts from groundwater appropriations.
DNR supports the ongoing work of the USGS and the Metropolitan Council to update,
locally refine, and apply the Metro Model 3 to improve understanding of the effects of
groundwater appropriations on the levels of White Bear Lake and other lakes in the
GWMA.
d. Develop additional information on groundwater associated biological communities to inform
permit decisions.
A GIS -based model will be developed to map potential Wet Prairie Complexes on the
Anoka Sandplain.
Field surveys will be conducted to refine th
document additional locations of native plant communities and populations of state -
listed rare plant and animal species in the GWMA.
e. DNR will create anew GWMA reporting system, to make the results of data collection and
analysis in the GWMA available to the public.
2. DNR will develop and apply sustainability thresholds for aquifers, ecosystems and surface waters
in the GWMA
a. DNR will use safe yield for aquifers to determine limits to appropriation permits in the GWMA.
b. specified low flow as the maximum rate of
withdrawal with no material increase in temperature (for trout streams) in determining a
negative impact as required by Minnesota Statutes, sec. 103G.287, subd. 2.
18 Sustainability means that groundwater and surface water levels, water quality, and ecosystems are not harmed
and that present and future generations will be able to meet their need for water.
19 Safe yield for artesian conditions means the amount of groundwater that can be withdrawn without degrading
water quality or causing a continual decline in groundwater levels that results in a change from artesian to water
table condition. Safe yield for water table conditions means the amount of water that can be withdrawn without
degrading the quality of the water in the aquifer and without allowing the long term average withdrawal to exceed
the available long term average recharge to the aquifer system based on representative climatic conditions.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
5 -3
DNR will continue to coordinate studies and work with permitted groundwater users
having potential negative impacts on Valley Creek, Browns Creek, Trout Book and other
trout streams within the GWMA.
c. DNR will develop thresholds to determine negative impacts to basins and wetlands as required
by Minnesota Statutes, sec. 103G.287, subd. 2 20
i. DNR will work with USGS, Met Council, Watershed Districts and others to evaluate lakes
and basins in the GWMA for specific susceptibility to changing groundwater levels.
ii. DNR will work with USGS and others to model the total annual volume of water that is
withdrawn from White Bear Lake due to permitted groundwater appropriations. If the
total annual volume withdrawn is greater than one -half acre -foot per acre, then DNR
will work with permittees to adjust their permits. DNR will use the procedures outlined
in Minnesota Rules, part 6110.0740 to resolve any water use conflicts that are identified
by this analysis.
iii. DNR will set a protective elevation for White Bear Lake using the considerations listed in
Minn. Stat. 103G.285, subd. 3.
iv. DNR will work with BWSR, USFWS, Watershed Districts and others to determine limits
on withdrawals from wetlands in the GWMA due to groundwater appropriations as
guided by statute and rule.
d. DNR will manage appropriations to meet the sustainability thresholds.
3. DNR groundwater appropriation permits will integrate sustainability limits, individual and
cumulative permit analysis, and will include evaluation of existing permits within the GWMA.
a. DNR will evaluate each new permit application individually, as well as in conjunction with other
permits in the related aquifer systems to address challenges of cumulative impacts.
b. DNR will complete a review of all existing permits in the GWMA within 5 years, and if necessary
adjust permits to achieve sustainable groundwater use
c. Where needed, and in accordance with statutory requirements, DNR will limit current and
future appropriation S. 22
4. DNR will improve communication on the status of Objective I (aquifers, ecosystems, surface
waters) in the GWMA.
20 DNR has not determined negative impact limits for wetlands and lakes. However, we recognize that this is a vital
component of assessing sustainability of aquifers and surface water features such as lakes and wetlands. DNR is
committed to working with stakeholders as these negative impact limits are established.
21 DNR has not determined the detailed steps and timeline for how we will evaluate and implement any necessary
changes to existing permits. However, we recognize that this is a vital component of GWMA planning, and we are
committed to working with permittees as we develop that process.
22 DNR has not determined the detailed steps and timeline for how we will evaluate and implement any necessary
changes to existing permits. However, we recognize that this is a vital component of GWMA planning, and we are
committed to working with permittees as we develop that process.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan 5 -4
a. DNR will create a new GWMA reporting system to make the results of data collection and
analysis in the GWMA available to the public
b. The GWMA reporting system will include a listing of applications for new or amended water
appropriation permits in the GWMA.
c. DNR will hold at least two GWMA Advisory Team meetings per year. They will be open to the
public.
d. DNR will increase education and outreach to the public about sustainable use of groundwater in
the GWMA.
e. DNR will encourage counties to participate in the County Geologic Atlas program.
i. Anoka County in cooperation with the MGS and DNR is in the process of
completing a Geologic Atlas
ii. Invite Ramsey County to participate in an update for that county
iii. Washington County in cooperation with the MGS and the DNR is in the process
of updating its Geologic Atlas
S. DNR will improve access to data collected and analyzed by other organizations in the GWMA.
a. DNR will actively support and participate in the development of a more comprehensive and
accessible data management system within the GWMA, including website improvements.
b. DNR will pursue hydrologic data (stream flow, groundwater levels, lake levels, evaporation, etc.)
being collected by organizations in the GWMA including but not limited to conservation districts,
watershed districts, counties, Minnesota Departments of Health and Agriculture, BWSR and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
6. DNR will ensure that community water supply plans include actions that must betaken if
cumulative aquifer withdrawals exceed thresholds or if negative impacts on surface waters are
occurring due to groundwater withdrawals in the GWMA.
7. DNR will promote groundwater recharge in the GWMA, consistent with sound water quality
management.
a. DNR will work with other organizations and agencies including watershed districts, counties and
local units of government to identify important groundwater recharge areas and opportunities
to enhance recharge.
b. DNR will support local government efforts to protect important groundwater recharge areas
through zoning and land use planning.
c. DNR will update the groundwater sensitivity maps for the GWMA within 5 years.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan 5 -5
Objective II. Groundwater use in the GWMA is reasonable, efficient, and
complies with water conservation requirements.
1. DNR will ensure that groundwater users are complying with water conservation requirements in
their water supply plans and permits.
a. DNR will include water conservation requirements in appropriate permits as framed by
statute, rule, and public water supply plans.
DNR will work with the Metropolitan Council to evaluate current conservation goals
and update those as needed.
b. DNR will evaluate compliance with water conservation requirements on permits that
include them. DNR will contact permit holders relative to these reviews.
c. When considering a permit transfer request or amendment request to increase
appropriations in this GWMA, DNR will evalu
conservation requirements in their permit and the conservation goals contained in
applicable water supply plans.
d. DNR will partner with local units of government such as Soil and Water Conservation
Districts (SWCDs) to assist in developing and complying with conservation requirements in
water appropriation permits.
e. DNR will update the information it uses to develop water conservation requirements
specific to each water use category (i.e. water supply, non -crop irrigation, industrial
processing, water level maintenance, special categories).
2. DNR will improve communication about and promote the values of water conservation in the
GWMA.
a. DNR will promote lessons learned about water conservation by municipalities, industries,
and other water users in the GWMA.
b. DNR will include descriptions and evaluations of water conservation practices being used in
the GWMA in the new GWMA reporting system.
c. DNR will provide assistance to local units of government and other organizations to
encourage and implement water conservation measures for water uses that do not require
a DNR water appropriation permit (e.g. private domestic wells).
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan 5 -6
d. DNR will update its website to include links to organizations with water conservation
information (e.g., University of Minnesota Technical Assistance Program, Metropolitan
Council Conservation Toolbox, and SWCDs).
3. DNR will work with other organizations to promote appropriate water storage, water re -use, and
use of viable alternative water sources in the GWMA as a means to conserve of groundwater.
4. DNR will promote the use of water conservation strategies in community water supply planning in
the GWMA.
a. DNR will require that water supply plans include measureable conservation goals.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
5 -7
Objective III. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not degrade water quality.
1. DNR will include compliance with local, state, and federal water quality regulations as permit
conditions.
a. DNR will coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies to identify water quality regulations
that apply to groundwater use and clarify how best to include them in appropriation permits.
2. DNR will ensure that permitted appropriations do not degrade water quality by moving known
contaminants.
a. DNR will evaluate new permit applications in the GWMA for their potential to move known
contaminants.
b. DNR will evaluate all existing permits in the GWMA for their role in moving known
contaminants . 23
3. DNR will ensure that community water supply plans take into account contaminant management.
4. DNR will improve communication about known contaminants and pollution management in the
GWMA.
a. DNR will use a new reporting system to describe and evaluate status of contamination and
pollution plume management in the GWMA.
23 DNR has not determined the detailed steps and timeline for how we will evaluate and implement any necessary
changes to existing permits. However, we recognize that this is a vital component of GWMA planning, and we are
committed to working with permittees as we develop that process.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Objective IV. Groundwater use in the GWMA does not create unresolved well
interferences or water use conflicts.
1. DNR will continue to review permit applications to identify and reduce the likelihood of well
interferences and water use conflicts.
2. DNR will resolve well interferences and water use conflicts applying the framework outlined in
statute and rule.
3. DNR will improve information on aquifer characteristics in the GWMA to improve its ability to
identify and reduce the likelihood of interferences and conflicts prior to permit approval.
4. DNR will increase education and awareness about resolving well interferences and water use
conflicts.
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
ME
Objective V. All groundwater users in the GWMA have the necessary permits
to use groundwater.
1. DNR will improve its capacity to detect unpermitted groundwater use.
DNR will complete an annual analysis to identify potential unpermitted groundwater use in the
GWMA and take appropriate action.
DNR will provide updated information to well drillers and consultants on existing laws and the
water appropriation permit application process as it is available.
C.
identify and report unpermitted use.
2. DNR will ensure that permitted volumes reflect actual use and that actual use does not exceed
permitted volumes.
a. DNR will evaluate water use reports and will contact permit holders whose reports indicate
inaccuracies.
b. DNR will monitor permitted versus reported use and bring permittees whose reported use is
higher than permitted use into compliance.
c. DNR will work with permit holders to adjust permitted volume to better match actual use and
need, consistent with other plan objectives.
3. DNR will ensure that water users comply with conditions on appropriation permits.
a. DNR will work with permit holders to bring them into compliance with their permit conditions.
DNR will focus on permits that have been reviewed to address challenges of cumulative impacts
and sustainability thresholds (Objective 1, action 3).
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
6 -1
6. Implementation Schedule
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan 7 -1
7. Glossary of Terms
any water - bearing bed or stratum of earth or rock capable of yielding groundwater in
sufficient quantities that can be extracted (Minn. Rules, part 6115.0630, subp. 2)
withdrawal, removal, or transfer of water from its source regardless of how the water is
used (Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.001, subd.4)
a water body or aquifer overlain by a layer of material of less
permeability than the aquifer. The water is under sufficient pressure so that when it is
penetrated by a well, the water will rise above the top of the aquifer. A flowing artesian
condition exists when the water flow is at or above the land surface (Minn. Rules, part
6115.0630, subp. 4).
a depression capable of containing water which may be filled or partly filled with waters of the
state. It may be a natural, altered, or artificial depression (Minn. Rules, part 6115.0630, subp. 5)
an aquifer composed of glacially associated sands and /or gravels, over
which a confining layer of clay or till was deposited
a water fee (rate) structure that encourages conservation and may include
increasing block fees, seasonal rates, time of use rates, individualized goal rates, or excess use
rates (Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.291, subd. 4(a))
actions that reduce water demand, water losses, peak water demands,
and nonessential water uses. Demand reduction measures must include a conservation rate
structure, or a uniform rate structure with a conservation program that achieves demand
reduction (Minn. Stat., sec. 103G.291, subd. 4(a)).
subsurface water in the saturated zone. The saturated zone may contain water under
atmospheric pressure (water table condition), or greater than atmospheric pressure (artesian
condition) (Minn. Rule, part 6115.0630, subp. 11)
a group of plants that interact with each other and with their environment in
ways not greatly altered by modern human activity or by introduced organisms
Two or more adjacent water -level observation wells completed in different aquifers,
or different depths within the same aquifer. Used to determine vertical differences in
groundwater levels or heads.
the average of a climate variable such as precipitation or temperature over a
a water -level observation well in the DNR network
evaporation from a thin film of water having
no appreciable heat storage (Farnsworth et al., 1982).
Draft North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan 7 -2
the amount of water required in the watercourse to accommodate instream needs
such as water -based recreation, navigation, aesthetics, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality,
and needs by downstream higher priority users located in reasonable proximity to the site of
appropriation (Minn. Rules, part 6115.0630, subp. 12)
the water level of the basin necessary to maintain fish and wildlife habitat,
existing uses of the surface of the basin by the public and riparian landowners, and other values
which must be preserved in the public interest (Minn. Rules, part 6115.0630, subp. 13)
the addition of water to the groundwater system
water table condition: the amount of groundwater that can be withdrawn from an aquifer
system without degrading the quality of water in the aquifer and without allowing the long term
average withdrawal to exceed the available long term average recharge to the aquifer system
based on representative climatic conditions (Minn. Rules, part 6115.0630, subp. 15)
artesian condition: the amount of groundwater that can be withdrawn from an aquifer system
without degrading the quality of water in the aquifer and without the progressive decline in
water pressures and levels to a degree that will result in a change from artesian condition to
water table condition (Minn. Rules, part 6115.0630, subp. 15)
the process of transport of water from plant roots to above ground parts where it is
released to the atmosphere as vapor
Water table aquifer or an aquifer where groundwater is under atmospheric
pressure (Minn. Rules, part 6115.0630, subp. 17)
A situation where the available supply of waters of the state in a given area is
limited to the extent that there are competing demands among existing and proposed users
which exceed the reasonably available waters (Minn. Rules, part 6115.0740. subp. 1).
A situation where an appropriation reduces water levels beyond the reach of public
water supply and private domestic wells constructed according to Minn. Rules, part 4725 (Minn.
Stat., sec. 103G.287, subd. 5; Minn. Rules, part 6115.0730).