HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.C.3. Review of Scott County WMO Proposed Rules
IS: c. 3~
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Review of Scott County WMO Proposed Rules
DATE: December 21, 2004
INTRODUCTION:
Attached to this memo are draft comments on staff review of the Scott County WMO
Proposed Rules and also attached are the Scott County WMO Rules on the Scott County
Water Management Plan.
BACKGROUND:
Scott County has taken over the water management planning for most of Scott County
except for established watershed districts such as the Prior Lake - Spring Lake
Watershed District (PLSLWD) and the Lower Minnesota Watershed District (LMRWD).
Scott County WMO's Board has adopted a Comprehensive Water Resource Management
Plan on February 10,2004 and the City of Shakopee has to update its Local Stormwater
Management Plan by February 10, 2006 to come in compliance with this plan.
With this plan, the Scott County WMO has completed proposed rules to be a part of the
plan and has given these proposed rules for Cities and Townships to comment on.
Staff has prepared a list of comments on the Scott County WMO Rules and is attached
for Council review and comments. The comment period does end on December 31, 2004
and staff is trying to extend this review period. However, the Scott County WMO Board
will not be meeting until next year to extend the period if they so desire. Thus, staff feels
it is important to provide some comments to the Scott County WMO Board on their rules.
The major concerns that staff would have with the proposed rules can be summarized as
follows:
. Does the City Stormwater Management Plan stay in effect until we modify the
plan by February, 2006 to come in compliance with the Scott County WMO plan,
or do these rules take effect and who will enforce these rules.
. There are a number of ordinance changes that these rules suggest or require that
the City undertake in order to meet these rules. In order to implement these
ordinances, it will take time to prepare for adoption.
;;
. Some of the requirements in the rules seem to be more restrictive than the State or
other watershed management plans in the area and City staff is wondering if this
is necessary or prudent to be more restrictive.
. How do these proposed rules compare to the PLSL WD rules or the LMR WD
rules and can they be more consistent with each other to provide uniformity in the
City of Shakopee, as we have three water management districts in our City.
. The rules are not very flexible in dealing with expansion of existing roadways and
may add significant costs to these roadway projects, particularly County roads,
when there is currently a County road funding shortage. I think it is in the best
interest of all Cities, Townships and the County to look at the cost of meeting
these rules by roadway authorities, versus the benefit of meeting these current
rules.
Staff has compiled these rules with the assistance of the City of Prior Lake and our
consultant, WSB & Associates, Inc., and would ask Council to approve a motion to send
these comments forward to Scott County with any modifications that City Council may
have. Staff would also propose to submit these rules and comments to the Environmental
Advisory Committee (EAC) and the Planning Commission for their comments and pass
these comments on to Scott County for their review, as well. It is not known if Scott
County would accept any comments after December 31, 2004. However, part of our
comments would be to ask Scott County to accept comments from our EAC and Planning
Commission.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Review the Scott County WMO Proposed Rules and direct staff to send the
comments, as drafted, to Scott County on these rules.
2. Review the Scott County WMO Proposed Rules and send the draft comments
with modifications by City Council to Scott County.
3. Table for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recomme~d Alternative No. 1 or No.2, submit the draft comments on the
Scott County WMO Proposed Rules, with the condition that other comments from the
EAC and the Planning Commission also be accepted by Scott County.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review the Scott County WMO Proposed Rules and direct staff to send the comments, as
drafted, to Scott County on these rules.
~ihL
Public workSD.. cmr
BUpmp
ENGRlEMPLOYEEFOLDERlPPENNINGTON/COUNCIUWMORULES
DRAFT
~
SHAKOPEE
December 16, 2004
Dr. Dawn Tracy
Scott WMO
200 4th Avenue West
Shakopee,1fN 55379
RE: Scott Watershed Management Organization Proposed Rules
Dear Dr. Tracy:
The City of Shakopee has completed its review of the proposed rules for the Scott Watershed.
Management Organization and offers the following comments:
General
. Clarify if the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan is the governing plan
until the City updates its SWMP to meet the County's WMO plan by February 2006.
. A question for the Scott WMO is how do these rules compare to the Prior Lake - Spring
Lake Watershed District's and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District's rules?
. These rules may require several ordinance changes which need time to prepare and
implement.
. The City has not,brought the rules before the Environmental Advisory Committee or the
Planning Commission to review and comment. These bodies will meet in January to
discuss and comment. Weare asking Scott County to receive comments from them by
January 31,2005.
Relationshiv with Municivalities and Countv
Page 3: It appears that it is the intent of the Scott WMO to either enforce these rules or have the
cities enforce these rules. Additionally, this section indicates that the WMO will review City and
County sponsored projects for consistency with the Scott WMO Rules. It is anticipated that this
would result in a WMO review for all of the City's road projects, park projects, and other
municipal improvements that require a permit under the WMO Rules. This appears to be a
significant change from previous rule and plan discussions as it was our understanding from the
WMO's Plan review process that the WMO would not have any direct permitting role (either
before or after the City updates its plan) for the incorporated city areas.. Please provide
clarification as to the role of the WMO in plan review and permitting for both city and non-city
projects in incorporated areas both before and after the City updates its Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan. It is the City's position that such a permitting role is not needed
within the incorporated city areas of Scott County.
COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857
129 Holmes Street South. Shakopee, Minnesota. 55379-1351.952-233-3800. FAX 952-233-3801. www.ci.shakopee.mn.us
DRAFT
Rule B - Procedural Requirements
Page 11: The WMO rules require the City to send a certification of completion for a project to
the applicant once the project is complete. It is recommended that the WMO revise its rules to
have the applicant request a certification of completion from the City.
Rule C - General Standards
Page 13: The WMO has included rules which regulate activities within a bluff zone. The City
has a bluff ordinance. Will the WMO have jurisdiction over the bluffs in municipalities where
bluff ordinances exist? Is the WMO requiring the cities to revise their existing ordinances? It
was our understanding that the Scott WMO rules would apply to unincorporated areas only.
Rule D - Storm water Manaf!ement
Page 15: Policy l.q states that transportation projects should meet the "spirit and intent" of the
WMO's storm water policies. This is vague and non-specific. We agree that transportation
projects should have flexibility due to corridor constraints and their linear nature, but that more
detail regarding the definition of "spirit and intent" is needed.
Page 15: Rainfall intensities should be defined in the rule for the required storm events.
Page 15: Our interpretation of this section is that pre-settlement rates apply to all
nonagricultural areas to be annexed including existing roads and farmsteads. The use of
,presettlement rates for new roads in undeveloped areas is manageable; however, existing
roadway corridors often have constraints that could potentially cause substantial additional cost.
Our experience with previous projects and this requirement is that the implementation of this
standard results in substantial right-of-way and additional easement costs. This is of particular
concern in communities where the cost of land along existing road corridors is constantly
escalating. For these reasons we request that existing road surfaces be counted as impervious
surface and not the pre-settlement condition. If existing agricultural areas are allowed to utilize
an agricultural curve number (CN), why are roads not treated the same? The City recommends
the County review the cost implications of these rules on County highway projects.
Page 16: The rules associated with the "downstream impact analysis" are very confusing.
It is very important that this section is clear and provide rules that can be feasibly implemented
as it could result in substantial additional costs.
The requirements for the downstream impact assessment in the rules include the identification of
low floor and entry elevations of public and private structures downstream as well as restrictions
on the allowable bounce in wetlands and water bodies. It is unclear if the list of requirements
pertains to water bodies and structures downstream and/or if it only pertains to water bodies and
structures within the site. Additionally, this requirement may significantly affect the analysis
needed for road projects. These requirements need to be clarified with the WMO. Impact on
municipal road projects should be carefully considered by the WMO in relation to these
requirements.
Page 21: The proposed table shows allowable bounces for existing wetlands but does not
indicate what design storm relates to the allowable bounce. This needs to be added to the rules.
DRAFT
Additionally there will be cases in reconstruction projects where there is no choice but to use a
highly susceptible wetland for rate control. The bounce would still be managed but a zero
bounce is not feasible. An example would be the expansion of a road next to a lake where there
is no room for a pond and only pretreatment structures can be used to meet NPDES
requirements. In this case, a wetland's classification for habitat may be out-weighed by its storm
water function in protecting a lake. This issue needs to be addressed as an exception or waiver to
the bounce table. Several County and municipal road projects would result in placement of
ponds in wetlands to meet this requirement, which will result in additional wetland impacts with
substantial mitigation costs. These additional wetland impacts are not likely to meet the
avoidance criteria ofthe WCA.
Page 23: These rules require volume control practices for development and redevelopment that
create impervious surface and increase runoff volumes above existing conditions for the 2-year
storm event. This volume control must include reduction in site runoff volume of at least ~ inch
of runoff from all new impervious surfaces and mitigate any downstream impacts. The City does
not believe that a blanket requirement for infiltration should be implemented in area as this
should be investigated on a case-by-case basis.
Page 23: The City of Prior Lake and the PLSL WD is working on a program to provide volume
mitigation credit. The WMO should consider offering this type of program.
Page 28: The environmentally sensitive waiver, which allows only 8% impervious, is unlikely
to ever be used in a City. On a 50 acre development, it would allow less than 1 unit per acre. A
waiver that reflects an urban environmentally sensitive design would be helpful.
Page 30: The rules require a temporary or permanent sediment basin for disturbed areas where 5
acres or more drain to a common location. This is more restrictive than the NPDES rules. The
WMO rules should be changed to conform to NPDES requirements so as to simplify
implementation of design review and streamline the review/permitting process.
Rule G - Wetlands
Page 34: The City has a DNR-approved shoreland ordinance, which regulates setbacks. The
WMO should not regulate this in Cities with a DNR approved shoreland ordinance.
Page 34: The WMO rules require buffers around wetlands upon development or redevelopment.
The ratings of the wetlands are to be based on a function and value assessment that is to be
completed as part of the permit application. It is the City's assertion that buffers should be
evaluated on a site-by-site basis or determined at the local level. If water does not flow overland
to the wetland, the buffer is ineffective for water quality improvement and the needed buffer
widths of 100-500 feet for habitat improvement are highly impractical in an urban setting.
Page 25: Grading should be allowed in the buffer areas. There are example such as the
construction of a road between 2 wetland areas where grading for safety purposes in buffer area
may be required. Construction of mitigation sites will also require grading within buffer limits.
DRAFT
Page 38: Buffers are required to have monuments identifying their location. The rules state that
these monuments will be provided by the LGU. This will incur cost to the City in the
development and production of these buffer markers. Additionally, these markers are ineffective
because they are often removed by landowners who view them as a visual and maintenance
nuisance. The markers are also easily vandalized. The plan does not address monitoring and
enforcement of the buffer requirements.
Rule H - Bridfle and Culvert Crossinfls
Page 39: The WMO is requiring that new arterial road construction be 5 feet above the OHW or
highest known water level, or 3 feet above the 100-year flood level (whichever is greater). This
standard is more restrictive than Federal Highway and MnDOT and has created design issues on
17th Avenue. It is desirable that water overtops roadways prior to homes and property being
flooded. Additionally, this requirement will likely result in significant wetland impacts that will
not meet the WCA sequencing requirements. Furthermore, the State requires Risk Assessments
for all culvert crossings greater than 48" to ensure adequate detour routes and potential flood
damages are evaluated. What is the purpose of this rule being contained within the County's
Plan? This requirement should be removed from the rules and the design requirements for roads
should remain with the local road authorities.
Rule N - Enforcement
Page 46: More detail regarding the LGU's implementation process and the extent of the
WMO's involvement is needed. Again, it was the City's understanding that the WMO did not
intend to do plan review or issue permits in incorporated areas.
Appendix B - Simplified Hvdroloflic Yield Method (SHYM)
We acknowledge the SHYM as a tool for landlocked basin analysis; however, landlocked basins
should still be allowed to have a positive outlet. The City uses a back-to-back 100- year, 24-hour
elevation to determine outlet elevations. Outlets to landlocked basins should be allowed within
the rules ofthe WMO.
The City of Shakopee appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rules. If you
have any questions, please contact me at (952) 233-9300.
Sincerely,
Bruce Loney
Public Works Director
City of Shakopee
, .~ ;-
.~. !\~()fla!Jemel)f C? Scotl1fJalmfsel1Janaren{ Or!JAnrzalion
~J " ~ 2.00 ~fJurfh ;tlvmuc 1Vesf
.shClkof>ee, NfN 53579-'1220
~ ~.
~ ~ 952.-4g6-8034 ~;;11952.-49G-884o
~ ~
0' www. co.Jcofl. mn.lL~ ~
~
- I~
...-~
iSCOtl
Memo
Date: October 12,2004
To: WMO Mailing List ~
From: Dawn Tracy, Scott WMO Administrator'
Subject: Scott Watershed Management Organization Proposed Rules
As most of you are aware, the Scott WMO Board adopted the Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan
(Water Plan) on February 10, 2004. Since then, the Watershed Planning Commission has been working on
drafting rules that will dictate implementation and enforcement of the Water Plan. The WMO has completed
writing proposed rules and the WMO Board has approved their release for the public comment period. The
proposed rules are included in this mailing for your review and are also posted on ?urwebsite at
www.scott.~.us. lnec()IllIJlent period for the proposed rules package is 45 davs. L'I:hisco.i!iilientperiad,wil/.en,t
.j Cl!:tL!!J!.~gl1lbei:~i9!':,.iiJ04.) Please direct written comments to Dr. Dawn Tra;y at the 'address provided on this
letterhead.
The WMO Board has scheduled a public hearing on the proposed rules for 10 a.m. on November 16th, 2004 in the
County Board Room in the Scott County Government Center at 200 Fourth Ave W. in Shakopee.
Thank you for your interest in, and attention to, the proposed rules for the Scott WMO. We look forward to
working with you throughout the rules process. As always, you are always welcome to attend the Watershed
Planning Commission (WPC) meetings on the fourth Tuesday of every month from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Scott
County Government Center, Room A217. If you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact me at.252-496-8054 or bye-mail me at dtracy@co.scott.mn.us.
CC: David Umnacht, Scott County Administrator
Barbara Marschall, Chair. Scott WMO Board
,t,. '
,
t,: ;,
, ,~
SCOTT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
RULES
Policy Statement
Relationship with Municipalities and County
A. Definitions
B. Procedural Requirements
C. General Standards
D. Stormwater Management
E, Erosion and Sediment Control
F. Floodplain Alteration
G. Wetlands
H. Bridge and Culvert Crossings
1. Drainage Alterations
J. Groundwater
K. Security
L. Variances
M. Appeals
N. Enforcement
a.Fees
Appendix A: Wet Pond Design Standards
Appendix B: Simplified Hydrologic Yield Method
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 1
)
, .~
POLICY STATEMENT
The Scott Watershed Management Organization (Scott WMO) is a watershed management
organization as defined in the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act (Minn. Statutes Chapter
103B). This Act provides the Scott WMO with power to accomplish its statutory purpose - to protect,
preserve and manage surface and groundwater systems within the Scott WMO.
The Scott WMO has adopted a Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan pursuant to
the Acts and Minn. Rules Chapter 8410. The Water Plan provides the management goals, policies and
objectives that the Scott WMO will use to protect, improve, preserve, and manage water resources in the
WMO, and the need and reasonableness for rules and ordinances to enforce the objectives of the plan.
The following Rules implement the plan's principles and objectives.
Increased quantities of stonnwater over presettlement conditions leads to larger volumes of water
and higher flow velocities, which in turn provide the erosive power to damage stream channels and
ultimately render them unstable. These issues are transferred downstream as additional water and
scouring power is added along a watercourse. Many times the streams or rivers outlet into lakes,
wetlands or other watercourses (receiving waters) and the material being transported is deposited in areas
where lower velocities decrease the waters' sediment carrying capacity. This leads to issues associated
with sedimentation in downstream areas, which can, among other things, decrease floodplain storage,
damage water resources, and destroy habitat. Loss of topsoil due to erosion also renders soilless fertile
and makes it harder to establish vegetation on disturbed areas. Aside from the physical issues described
above, there are economic implications due to increased volumes and flow of stonnwater. Unstable
stream channels over time have the ability to depress land values, damage property, endanger high value
structures and render prime building locations unbuildable directly impacting the health, safety and
'welfare of the County. In addition, unstable channels undennine bridges, clog culverts, and can
otherwise damage infrastructure requiring costly repairs and ensuring legal problems for both public
agencies and private individuals.
With an increase in water quantity, there is usually a corresponding decrease in water quality.
Water quality is an important amenity in the County - both in tenns of surface water and groundwater.
Stonnwater can carry a variety of pollutants, which can affect downstream areas as well as groundwater
through infiltration.
Wetlands can be impacted directly by development and land disturbing activities; and indirectly
by hydrologic and water quality changes associated with development and land disturbing activities.
Wetlands provide a variety of functions and values, which are important to the overall character and
function of the watershed.
Groundwater is the primary source of potable water in Scott County. Improperly functioning
individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) can impact groundwater quality.
These Rules protect the public health, safety, welfare and natural resources of the Scott WMO by
regulating the improvement or alteration of land and waters within the WMO to reduce the severity and
frequency of high water, to preserve floodplain and wetland storage capacity, to improve. the chemical
and physical quality of surface waters, to reduce sedimentation, to preserve the" hydraulic and
navigational capacities of water bodies, to preserve and protect channels and drainageways, to promote
and preserve natural infiltration areas, protect groundwater, and to preserve natural shoreline features. In
addition to protecting natural resources, these Rules are intended to minimize future public expenditures
on problems caused by the improvement or alteration of land and waters.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 2
)
> ..
RELATIONSIDP WITH MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTY
The Scott WMO recognizes that the control and determination of appropriate land use is the
responsibility of the Local Units of Government (LGUs; i.e., municipalities and the county). The Scott
WMO also intends that permitting and enforcement of these rules will be the responsibility of the LGUs.
LGUs are responsible for adopting Local Water Plans (L WP) that implement the Scott WMO
Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan. The Cities are the LGUs within their corporate
limits. Since the County is the planning and zoning authority in the unincorporated area, the County is
responsible for the Local Water Plan in the unincorporated area and is considered the LGU for the
unincorporated area.
LGUs that have an adopted Local Water Plan with rules and procedures equivalent to the Scott
WMORules will be responsible for permitting and enforcement of the rules. Until such time as the
LGUs have equivalent rules and procedures, the Scott WMO will playa direct role in projects and permit
activities, as appropriate. An LGU can choose to adopt the Scott WMO Comprehensive Water
Resources Management Plan without local specifications and defer to the Scott WMO for review,
approval, inspection, and enforcement, provided that a fee structure for these services is in place. LGUs
may adopt more restrictive standards, but the Scott WMO Comprehensive Water Resources Management
Plan, and these Rules, represents the minimum standard for watershed management. For those LGUs
that assume the authority to administer and enforce their L WP, the Scott WMO reserves the right to make
inspections to view the actions of the city in order to make sure the Comprehensive Water Plan and these
Rules are being followed. lfthe LGU fails to properly implement an adopted Local Water Plan, the Scott
WMO may revoke the Local Plan Approval, administer the Rule for that LGU, and the LGU will be
responsible for costs and damages.
The Scott WMO encourages LGUs to review required Erosion Control, Resource Management
and/or Stormwater Management plans under these rules for new development and redevelopment as part
of the preliminary plat process.
The Scott WMO desires to provide technical advice to the municipalities and the county in the
preparation of local stormwater/resource management plans and the review of projects that may affect
water resources prior to investment of significant public or private funds. It is also the Scott WMOs
intent to review LGU and Scott County sponsored/owned projects for consistency with these rules even
after LGUs complete their Local Water Plans.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 3
..- )
..
RULE A - DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires, the following words and tenns
shall have the meanings set forth below.
References in these Rules to specific sections of the Minnesota Statutes or Rules include amendments,
revisions or recodifications of such sections.
The words "shall" and "must" are mandatory; the word "may" is pennissive.
Agricultural Activity - The use of land for the growing and/or production and wholesale distribution of
field crops, livestock, and livestock products for the production of income or own use, including but not
limited to the following:
1. Field crops, including but not limited to, barley, beans, com, hay, oats, potatoes, rye,
sorghum, and sunflowers.
2. Livestock, including but not limited to, dairy and beef cattle, goats, sheep, hogs, poultry,
game birds and other animals including deer, rabbits and mink.
3. Livestock products, including but not limited to, milk, butter, cheese, eggs, meat, fur and
honey.
4. Trees, shrubs, bushes, and plants for wholesale distribution.
5. Sod fanning
6. Orchards
Alteration or Alter - when used in connection with public waters or wetlands, any activity that will
change or diminish the course, current or cross-section of public waters or wetlands.
Applicant - any person or political subdivision that submits an application to a Local Unit of Government
(LGU) for a pennit under these Rules.
Best Management Practices or BMPs - techniques proven to be effective in controlling runoff, erosion
and sedimentation including those documented in the Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment
Control Planning Handbook (BWSR, 1988); Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas (MPCA, 2000);
the Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual (Metropolitan Council 2001); and other sources as
approved by the Scott Watershed Management Organization: as such documents may be amended,
revised or supplemented.
Bluff - means a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment in which the average grade of
any portion of the slope is 25 percent or greater and there is at least a 25- foot rise in elevation.
Bluff District - are the District shown on the attached Map 1: Bluff Districts of the Scott WMO.
Bluff Impact Zone - means the bluff and a 25 foot zone at the top of a bluff in which the clear-cutting of
existing natural vegetation is prohibited.
Buffer - An area of natural, unmaintained, vegetated ground cover abutting or surrounding a watercourse
or wetland.
Commissioners - Appointed members of the Watershed Board or the Watershed Planning Commission.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 4
, .
, .
Compensatory Storage - excavated volume of material below the floodplain elevation required to offset
floodplain fill.
Comprehensive Plan - The Scott County Comprehensive Plan as amended.
Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan - the watershed management plan for the Scott
Watershed Management Organization adopted and implemented in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
section 103B.231.
Construction Activity - Is a disturbance to the land that results in a change in the topography, existing
soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative), or the existing soil topography that may result in
accelerated stonn water runoff, leading to soil erosion and the movement of sediment into surface waters
or drainage systems.
County - Scott County, Minnesota.
Dead Storage - the pennanent pool volume of a water basin, or the volume below the runout elevation of
a water basin.
Detention Basin - any natural or manmade depression for the temporary storage of runoff.
Development - the construction of any structure or road on, or the subdivision of land.
Dewatering - means the removal of water for construction activity.
Drain or Drainage - any method for removing or diverting water from waterbodies, including excavation
of an open ditch, installation of subsurface drainage tile, filling, diking or pumping.
Easement - The right to use the land of another owner for a specified use. An easement may be granted
for the purpose of constructing and maintaining walkways, roadways, individual sewage treatment
systems, utilities, drainage, driveway, and other uses.
Energy dissipation - means methods employed at pipe outlets to prevent erosion including but not limited
to: concrete aprons, riprap, splash guards, and gabions.
Erosion - the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of wind, flowing water, ice movement or
land disturbing activities.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Ii. plan ofBMPs or equivalent measures designed to control runoff
and erosion and to retain or control sediment on land during the period of land disturbing activities in
accordance with the standards set forth in Rule E.
Excavation - the artificial removal of soil or other earth material.
Fill - the deposit of soil or other earth material by artificial means.
Floodplain - the area adjacent to a waterbody that is inundated during a IOO-year flood.
Hardship - As defined in Minne~ota $~~t,ues, Chapter 394.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 5
, )
I
Highly susceptible wetland type - means a wetland characterized as a sedge meadow; open or coniferous
bog; calcareous fen; low prairie; coniferous or hardwood swamp; or seasonally flooded wetland.
Hydric soils - A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.
Impervious Surface - means a constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water
into the soil and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increases rate of flow
than prior to development. Examples include rooftops, sidewalks, patios, driveways, parking lots,
storage areas, and concrete, asphalt or gravel roads.
Infiltration Area - A stormwater retention method for the purpose of reducing the volume of stonnwater
runoff by transmitting a flow of water into the ground through the earth's surface.
Infrastructure - the system of public works for a county, state, or municipality including, but not limited
to, structures, roads, bridges, culverts, sidewalks, stormwater management facilities and pipes, pump
stations, sanitary sewers and interceptors, hydraulic structures, permanent erosion control and stream
bank protection measures, water lines, gas lines, electrical lines and associated facilities, and phone lines
and supporting facilities.
Land Disturbing Activity - any change of the land surface to include removing vegetative cover,
excavation, fill, grading, stockpiling soil, and the construction of any structure that may cause or
contribute to erosion or the movement of sediment into waterbodies. The use of land for agricultural
activities shall not constitute a land disturbing activity under these Rules.
Landlocked Basin - a basin that is one acre or more in size and does not have a natural outlet at or below
the existing flood elevation as determined using the Simplified Hydrologic Yield Method in Appendix B.
Least susceptible wetland type - means a wetland characterized as a gravel pit, cultivated hydric soil,
dredged material or fill, or material disposal site.
Low Floor - the finished surface of the lowest floor of a structure.
Moderately susceptible wetland type - means a wetland characterized as shrub-carr, alder thicket; fresh
wet meadow not dominated by reed canary grass; or shallow or deep marsh not dominated by reed canary
grass, cattail, giant reed or purple loosestrife.
Municipality - any city or township wholly or partly within the Scott Watershed Management
Organization.
NRCS - the Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Normal Water Level (NWL) - for a reservoir with a fixed overflow, means the lowest crest level of that
overflow. For a reservoir whose outflow is controlled wholly or partly by movable gates, siphons or other
means, it is the maximum level to which water may rise under normal operating conditions, exclusive of
any provision for flood surcharge. For a closed depression wetland, it is the maximum level to which the
water may rise under normal precipitation conditions exclusive of any provision for flood surcharge.
Nonpoint Source - Nutrient and pollution sources not discharged from a single point e.g. runoff from
agricultural fields, feedlots or urban streets.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 6
\
NURP - the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program developed by the Environmental Protection Agency to
study stormwater runoff from urban development.
Ordinary High Water (OHW) Leve1- "Ordinary high water level" means the boundary of water basins,
watercourses, public waters, and public waters wetlands, and:
1. The ordinary high water level is an elevation delineating the highest water level that has been
maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly
the point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly
terrestrial;
2. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the
channel; and
3. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the
normal summer pool.
Owner - Any individual, fIrm, association, partnership, corporation, trust or any other legal entity having
proprietary interest inthe land.
Parcel - a parcel of land designated by plat, metes and bounds, registered land survey, auditors
subdivision or other accepted means and separated from other parcels or portions by its designation.
Permittee - the person or political subdivision in whose name a permit is issued pursuant to these Rules.
Person - any individual, trustee, partnership, unincorporated association, limited liability company or
corporation.
Political subdivision - "Political subdivision" means a county, city, town, school district, or other local
government jurisdiction to which the state provides state aids or on which the state imposes state
mandates.
Public Health and General Welfare - are defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 103D.011, subdivisions
23 and 24.
Public Waters - any waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005, subdivision 15.
Public waters wetlands - "Public waters wetlands" means all types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands, as defmed in
United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition), not included within the definition
of public waters, that are ten or more acres in size in unincorporated areas or 2-1/2 or more acres in
incorporated areas.
Redevelopment - the rebuilding, repair or alteration of a structure, land surface or facility which creates
less than 1 acre of new impervious surface, involves greater than 1 acre of land disturbance, and for
which over 50 percent of the parcel involved is disturbed by a land disturbing activity. Note: for the
purposes of these Rules if an activity creates more than 1 acre of new or additional impervious surface
the activity is considered new development and exceptions in these Rules for redevelopment do not apply
to the increased (new) impervious surface.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 7
J
Retention - The prevention of direct discharge of stormwater runoff into receiving water; examples
include systems which discharge through percolation, exfiltration, and evaporation processes and which
generally have residence times less than three days.
Runoff - rainfall, snowmelt or irrigation water flowing over the ground surface.
Sediment - The solid mineral or organic material that is in suspension, is being transported, or has been
moved from its original location by erosion and has been deposited at another location.
Sedimentation - the process or action of depositing sediment.
Shoreland District - Means shore land areas regulated by a local municipal or county Shoreland
Ordinance, or by Minnesota Statues 103F. Generally Shoreland District consists ofland located within a
floodplain, within 1,000 feet of the OHW of a public water or public waters wetland, or within 300 feet
of a stream or river.
Slightly susceptible wetland type - means a wetland characterized as a floodplain forest; fresh wet
meadow dominated by reed canary grass; or a shallow or deep marsh dominated by reed canary grass,
cattail, giant reed or purple loosestrife.
Stabilized - means the exposed ground surface has been covered by appropriate materials such a mulch,
staked sod, riprap, wood fiber blanket, or other material that prevents erosion from occurring. Grass
seeding is not stabilization.
Standard - a preferred or desired level of quantity, quality or value.
Stormwater Detention Pond - A natural or created ponding area that provides temporary storage of
excess stormwater for the purpose of attenuating the peak rate of runoff by controlling the rate of pond
discharge. Ponding areas that drain completely between storm events are dry detention ponds. Ponding
areas that provide temporary storage in combination with a permanent wet pool are wet detention ponds.
Stormwater Management Plan - a plan forthe permanent management and control of runoff prepared and
implemented in accordance with the standards set forth in Rule D.
Stormwater Quality Pond - A created ponding area per WW. Walker (1987) criteria; which provides a
permanent pool for the purpose of sediment and pollutant removal to reduce water quality impacts of
urban development.
Stormwater Retention Pond - A natural or created ponding area which provides permanent storage of
excess stonnwater for the purpose of attenuating the peak volume of runoff, from which the only release
of flow is by infiltration or evaporation.
Structure - anything manufactured, constructed or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on
land, including portable structures, earthen structures, water and storage systems, drainage facilities and
parking lots.
Subdivision - the separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land .under single ownership into two or more
parcels, tracts, or lots.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 8
( J
I
Surface water - means all streams, lakes ponds, marshes, wetlands, reservoirs, spring, rivers, drainage
systems, waterways, watercourses, and irrigation systems whether natural or artificial, public or private.
SWCD - the Scott Soil and Water Conservation District.
Top of Bluff - means the point on the upper part of the bluff where the average slope levels off to 18
percent or less.
Toe of Bluff - means the point at the lower part of the bluff where the average slope levels off to 18
percent or less.
Water basin - an enclosed natural depression with definable banks capable of containing water that may
be partly filled with public waters.
Waterbody - all surface waters, water basins, watercourses and wetlands as defined in these Rules.
Watercourse - any natural or improved stream, riv~r, creek, ditch, channel, culvert, drain, gully, swale or
wash in which waters flow continuously or intermittently in a defmite direction.
Waters of the State - Means all stream, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs:
reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems, drainage systems and all other bodies or accumulations of water,
surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within, flowthrough,
or border upon the state or any portion thereof.
Watershed - a region draining to a specific watercourse or water basin.
Wetland - any wetland as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 1030.005, subdivision 19; and any
public waters wetland as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 1030.005, subdivision l5a.
Wetland Conservation Act or WCA - the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended.
,
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 9
,
r
, RULE B - PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
I
1. APPLICATION REQUIRED. Any person, or political subdivision, undertaking an activity for
which a pennit is required by these Rules shall first submit to the applicable Local Governmental Unit
(LGU) for review a pennit application, design data, plans, specifications and such other infonnation and
exhibits as may be required by these Rules.
2. FORMS. Pennit applications shall be submitted on fonns provided by the LGU. Fonns are
available at the applicable LGU office.
3. ACTION BY THE LGU. The LGU shall approve or deny an application containing all
required infonnation, exhibits and fees, in accordance with Minnesota Statues, Section 15.99.
4. CONFORMITY WITH SUBDMSION PLAN. The LGUs will consider the criteria for
subdivisions in these Rules before preliminary approval is received from the municipality or county. The
preliminary and final subdivision approval obtained from the municipality and county shall be consistent
with the conditions of the approved pennit.
5. NOTIFICATION. The LGU shall mail notice ofthe pennit application to the owners ofIand
within a distance specified by the LGU of the described activity, at least 7 days prior to the scheduled
meeting date of the LGU officials at which the application will be considered. The names and addresses
of the owners to be notified shan be obtained by the applicant from a licensed abstractor and furnished to
the LGU with the pennit application. Neither the failure to give mailed notice to any owner nor any
defect in the notice shall invalidate an action by the LGU on a pennit application.
6. CONDITIONS. A pennit may be approved subject to reasonable conditions to assure
compliance with these Rules. The conditions may include a requirement that the pennittee and owner,
including any mortgagee, enter into an agreement with and in fonn acceptable to the LGU to (a) specify
responsibility for the construction and future maintenance of approved structures, (b) document other
continuing obligations of the pennittee or owner, (c) grant reasonable access to the proper authorities for
inspection, monitoring and enforcement purposes, (d) affinn that the LGU or other political subdivisions
can require or perfonn necessary repairs or reconstruction of such structures, (e) require indemnification
of the LGU for claims arising from issuance of the pennit or construction and use of the approved
structures, and (f) reimburse the reasonable costs incurred to enforce the agreement. Penn its and
agreements may be filed for record to provide notice of the conditions and continuing obligations.
7. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. The LGU will issue apennit only after the applicant has satisfied
all requirements of these Rilles, paid an required fees, and submitted to the LGU any required security.
When an LGU issues a pennit where plans are required, the LGU shall endorse in writing or stamp the
plans and specifications as "approved." All activity under the pennit shall be done in accordance with
the approved plans and specifications, one set of which shall be kept on the site of the activity at all times
while the authorized work is in progress.
8. VALIDITY. Issuance of a pennit based on plans, specifications or other data shall not prevent
the Scott WMO and LGUs from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in the approved plans,
specifications and data, or from preventing any activity being carried on thereunder in violation ofthese
Rules.
Draft Proposed RulesBJuffVersion 10/13/04 10
, .
'f
9. MODIFICATIONS. The pennittee shall not modify the approved activity or plans and
specifications on file with the LGU without the prior approval of the LGU.
11. INSPECTION AND MONITORING. After issuance of a permit, the LGU and the Scott
WMO may perform such field inspections and monitoring of the approved activity as the LGU and the
Scott WMO deems necessary to determine compliance with the conditions of the pennit and these Rules.
Any portion of the activity not in complianceshall be promptly corrected by the pennittee. In applying
for a penn it, the applicant consents to entry upon the land for field inspections and monitoring, or for
perfonning any work necessary to bring the activity into compliance. The cost of the LGU for field
inspections and monitoring, including services of consultants, shall be payable by the permittee as
provided in Paragraph 4 of Rule O.
12. SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION. The LGU may suspend or revoke a pennit issued under
these Rules wherever the pennit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or in
violation of any provision of these Rules, or if the preliminary and final subdivision approval received
from the municipality or county is not consistent with the conditions of the pennit.
13. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION. The LGU will certify completion of an activity for
which a permit has been issued under these Rules and authorize the release of any required security upon
inspection and submittal of certification from a professional engineer verifying completion of the activity
in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of the permit. As built plans of final grades and
public infrastructure, and copies of documents, with evidence of recording where appropriate, that
establish easements or provide for maintenance of structures required by the permit shall be filed with the
LGU before completion can be certified and any security released. All temporary synthetic, and
structural erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs, (such as silt fence) must be removed following
approval of the Certificate of Completion before any securities can be released. No activity may be
certified as complete if there are any unpaid fees or other outstanding pennit violations. If the LGU fails
to make a determination as to compliance of an activity with the conditions of the permit within 60 days
after submittal of the foregoing information verifying completion, the activity shall be deemed complete
and any surety shall thereupon be released.
14. OTHER PERMITS. The applicant shall secure all environmental permits and approvals
required by other governmental entities, and promptly provide the LGU with copies of such permits and
~pprovals after issuance.
15. ADMINISTRATION OF RULES. The Scott WMO Administrator shall administer and
enforce these Rules under the direction and control of, and subject to the powers expressly reserved to,
the Watershed Board of Commissioners. At any time within 5 days after a decision or determination by
the Scott WMO Administrator interpreting or applying these Rules, the applicant, permittee or any other
person or political subdivision with an interest in the decision or detennination, may appeal to the
Watershed Board of Commissioners. The Watershed Planning Commission, at a regular meeting shall
produce advice for the commissioners regarding the appeal. Following the Watershed Planning
Commission meeting, the commissioners shall, at a regular=or special meeting, consider and affirm,
reverse or remand the decision or determination that is on appeal.
16. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of these Rules is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by
a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of these Rules shall not be affected thereby.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 11
\ ,
1
RULE C - GENERAL STANDARDS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the commissioners to protect the water resources of the Scott
Watershed Management Organization (Scott WMO) by requiring that all activities within the Scott
WMO comply with minimum standardsfor the protection of water quality and natural resources.
2. REGULATION.
(a) All land disturbing activities, whether requiring a pennit under these Rules or
otherwise, shall be undertaken in conformance with best management practices and in compliance with
the standards and criteria in these Rules.
(b) No person shall conduct land disturbing activities without protecting adjacent
property and waterbodies from erosion, sedimentation, flooding or other damage.
(c) Land disturbing activities shall be planned and conducted to minimize the extent of
disturbed area, runoff velocities and erosion potential, and to reduce and delay runoff volumes. Erosion
and runoff controls, consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs), shall be properly installed
before commencing land disturbing activities, and sufficient to retain sediment on-site. Erosion and
runoff controls shall be regularly inspected and maintained. . Vegetation shall be installed over the
disturbed areas promptly if the land disturbing activity ceases or is suspended, and upon completion.
Pipe outlets must be provided with temporary or pennanent energy dissipation if connected to a surface
water.
(d) When possible, existing natural watercourses and vegetated soil surfaces shall be
used to convey, store, filter and retain runoff before discharge into public waters or a stonnwater
conveyance system.
(e) When possible, runoff from roof gutter systems shall discharge onto lawns or other
pervious surfaces to promote infiltration.
(f) Use offertilizer and pesticides in the shoreland protection zone shall be done so as to
minimize runoff into public waters by the use of earth material, vegetation, or both.
(g) When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions
are not sufficient to adequately handle runoff using natural features and vegetation, various types of
constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, watercourses a.nd
ponds may be used. Preference shall be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation and
infiltration rather than buried pipes and man-made materials and facilities.
(h) Whenever the Scott WMO or appropriate Local Unit of Government (LGU)
detennines that any land disturbing activity has become a hazard to any person, or endangers the property
of another, adversely affects water quality or any waterbody, increases flooding, or otherwise violates
these Rules, the owner of the land upon which the land disturbing activity is located, or other person or
agent in control of such land, upon receipt of written notice from the Scott WMO or the LGU, shall
within the time period specified therein repair or eliminate such condition. The owner of the land upon
which a land disturbing activity is located shall be responsible for the cleanup and any damages from
sediment that has eroded from such land. The Scott WMO or LGU may require the owner to obtain a
permit from an LOU under these Rules before undertaking any repairs or restoration.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 12
,
T
(i) Unless there is no proposed activity within 200 feet of a bluff and authorization is
received from the Scott WMO or the appropriate LGU; land disturbing activities, development or the
redevelopment of land in Bluff Districts shown on Map 1: Bluff Districts of the Scott WMO attached to
these Rules shall:
(aa) Have a topographic sunrey to determine if a bluff is present, and if present
there shall be:
..
(aaa) A bluff impact zone in which the clear-cutting of natural vegetation
is prolnbited;
(bbb) A structure set-back equal to the height of the bluff as measured
from the toe of the bluff to the top of the bluff; but in no cases shall the setback be less
than 30 feet or more than 100 feet; and
(ccc) An Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) setback of 50 feet.
Draft Proposed Rules BluffVersiolllO/13/04 13
.
. )
RULE D - STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Scott WMO to:
(a) Require each development or land disturbing activity to manage its stormwater
effectively, either on or off-site.
(b) Manage subwatershed discharge rates and flood storage volumes to be"consistent
with the goals of the Scott Watershed Management Organization Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan.
(c ) Promote and encourage a reduction in runoff rates, encourage infiltration and
promote increased groundwater recharge.
(d) Manage stormwater to minimize erosion, with an emphasis on stabilizing flow rates
and velocities and prioritizing critical areas based on site characteristics, aesthetic conditions, and
existing vegetation.
(e) Promote development strategies, land use practices, and water management activities
that decrease and desynchronize peak runoff rates, lengthen the watershed time of concentration, and
raise base flow levels. .
(f) Promote development strategies to create and/or improve downstream conveyance
systems.
(g) Promote strategies that allow for the orderly transition from privately maintained
drainage systems to public drainage systems as development occurs.
(h) Use an outcome based analysis and resource oriented management to recognize and
avoid potential downstream impacts from stormwater due to development or redevelopment.
(i) Use existing, natural retention and detention areas for stormwater management while
maintaining or improving the existing water quality.
(j) Encourage publicly owned, operated, and maintained regional stormwater ponds,
where feasible.
(k) Encourage stormwater infiltration areas where feasible and environmentally
beneficial, to promote the infiltration of stormwater to recharge subsurface aquifers.
(1) Fund the construction of publicly owned, operated, and maintained regional
storm water management systems in part or by entirety, through developer user fees.
(m) Require peak runoff rates to not exceed existing conditions and the capacity of
downstream conveyance facilities or not to contribute to flooding for the eight cities within the Scott
WMO.
(n) Require peak runoff rates not exceed pre-settlement conditions and the capacityof
downstream conveyance facilities or not to contribute to flooding in unincorporated areas of the Scott
WMO.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 14
I ..
, ,
(0) Require runoff volume control as a function of the capacity of the downstream
infrastructure.
(p) Route runoff to water treatment ponds or other acceptable facilities before
discharging to waters of the state.
(q) Require transportation projects to meet the spirit and intent of the stontlwater policies
above.
2. REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall commence a land disturbing activity
or the development or redevelopment of land, unless specifically exempted by Paragraph 9 below,
without first obtaining an approved Stonnwater Management Plan and permit from the appropriate LGU.
3. CRITERIA. Stormwater management plans shall comply with the following criteria:
(a) A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory will be used to analyze
runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels.
(b) Runoff rates for the proposed activities, development or redevelopment within the
eight cities (City of Savage, City of Shako pee, City of Prior Lake, City of Jordan, City of Belle Plaine,
City of New Market, City of New Prague, and the City of Elko) shall:
(i) Not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-year, 10-year and 1 OO-year critical
storm events;
(ii) Not accelerate on or off-site water course erosion, downstream nuisance,
flooding or damage as demonstrated by the applicant according to Rule D 3(d) below; and
(iii) Runoff rates may be restricted to less than the existing rates when necessary
for the public health, safety and general welfare of the Scott WMO.
(c) Runoff rates for the proposed activities in unincorporated areas shall:
(i) Not exceed pre-settlement runoff rates for the 2-year, lO-year and IOO-year
critical storm events for land areas currently within unincorporated areas of the Scott WMO
(Note: As land is annexed into a city, the land being annexed carries with it the existing
condition. Parcels developed after the date of this Rule within unincorporated areas will be
regulated using pre-settlement conditions and this would then become the existing condition for
the city once the area is annexed. If agricultural land is annexed, agriculture is the existing
condition).
(ii) Not accelerate on or off-site water course erosion, downstream nuisance,
flooding or damage as demonstrated by the applicant according to Rule D 3(d) below; and
(iii) Runoff rates may be restricted to less than the presettlement rates when
necessary for the public health, safety and general welfare of the Scott WMO.
The following curve numbers shall be used to analyze pre-settlement conditions:
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 IS
r
, ~
Hvdrolo1!ic Soil Group Runoff Curve Number
A 30
B 55
C 71 .
D 77
For post-development runoff, drained hydric soils shall be assumed to revert to an undrained condition
unless the applicant demonstrates that publicly owned and maintained drainage facilities will be adequate
to maintain the drained condition.
(d) An assessment of the potential for downstream impacts is required except when the
proposed activity, development or redevelopment is less than 20 acres and less than 8 percent of the site
is covered by impervious surface. To demonstrate that the proposed activity does not accelerate on or
off-site erosion, downstream nuisance, flooding or damage, the applicant must complete an evaluation
downstream to the point where the proposed activity is 10 percent of the drainage area (e.g. a 10 acre
development must evaluate downstream to the point where the drainage area is 100 acres). The
evaluation at a minimum must consist of an assessment of:
(i) Potential impacts to areas surrounding downstream landlocked lakes or
ponds, or lakes or ponds with inadequate outlets where flood levels would be increased by added
runoff volume.
(aa) Evaluations must include:
(aaa) An assessment of water levels in the water body resulting
from the contributing watershed's full annual runoff yield during a 1 OO-year wet
year using the Simplified Hydrologic Yield Method (SHYM) (See Appendix B),
or more rigorous methods for back to back 1 OO-year critical events, for both
existing conditions and fully developed watershed conditions; and
(bbb) The identification of public and private structures
(including low floor and entry elevations of residences, and individual sewage
treatment systems (ISTS)), and infrastructure (sanitary sewer, stonnwater pipes
and facilities, and roads) surrounding the water body and located within 2
vertical feet of the future conditions water level elevation predicted using the
SHYM, or the elevation for the back to back 1 OO-year critical event.
(bb) If there are public or private structures or infrastructure located
within 2 vertical feet of the future conditions SHYM, or back to back lOO-year critical
event elevation, the applicant must demonstrate that no adverse impacts to health, safety
and welfare, or property damage, would occur; or provide corrective actions. Corrective
actions shall include the following as necessary to mitigate the impact:
(aaa) Controlling post-development runoff volumes at existing
conditions;
(bbb) Controlling runoff rates to less than existing conditions for
cities described in Paragraph 3(b) of this rule, or to less than pre-settlement rates
for unincorporated areas (Paragraph 3(c) of this Rule);
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 16
r .l
,
(ccc) Protecting or re-locating impacted structures or
infrastructure, or securing easements for additional flooded areas; or
(ddd) Other actions necessary to mitigate the impact.
(ii) Potential impacts to downstream infrastructure along the drainage path and
downstream public waters.
(aa) Evaluations must include:
(aaa) The identification of existing public and private drainage
easements;
(bbb) The locations, condition, and dimensions of the existing
drainage infrastructure;
(ccc) An assessment of the hydrologic and hydraulic capacity of
the downstream public and private infrastructure;
(ddd) An assessment of property damages; and health, safety and
welfare impacts relative to increased flooding of public and private
infrastructure. Minnesota Department of Transportation guidelines. shall be used
to assess safety of flood levels at downstream driveways and road crossings.
(bb) If property damage, public health, safety and welfare impacts are
identified, if downstream infrastructure consists of private drainage systems, or if public
easements are not in place, the applicant must provide corrective action. Corrective
actions shall include the following as necessary to mitigate the impact:
(aaa) Actions described in Paragraph 3(d)(i)(aaa), (bbb), (ccc),
and (ddd) of this rule;
(bbb) Obtaining easements;
(ccc).The upgrading, protecting or re-locating impacted
infrastructure; or
(ddd) Other actions necessary to mitigate the impact.
(iii) Potential erosion impacts to watercourses.
(aa) Evaluations must include:
(aaa) An assessment of existing watercourse erosion, bank
stability, bank protection, and watercourse slope as follows.
(ia) Existing watercourse erosion shall be described for
the g~nyr~l condition of any watercourse located on or downstream of
the proposed project.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 17
r
. ,
(ib) Watercourse slope shall be described by reach (i.e.,
channel length with similar characteristics) if slope varies by reach
downstream of the proposed project.
(ic) Bank stability and bank protection shall be
described using the methodology from US EP A, 1999: Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers
chapter 5 as summarized in the following tables. Assessment should be
completed at a maximum of500 foot intervals. A minimum of2
representative locations shall be assessed.
(bbb) An assessment of downstream flows and velocity for the
2-year and 10-year critical storm events for existing and proposed conditions.
(bb) The applicant must provide corrective actions that mitigate in
proportion to the proposed project impact as specified in Paragraph 3( d)(iii)( cc) of this
Rule; if:
(aaa) Existing watercourse erosion is significant, or ifbank
stability or bank protection conditions are marginal or poor (i.e., if the score for
either the left or right bank as shown in the following tables for bank stability
and bank protection is 5 or less);
(bbb) The water course slope is greater than 2% for any reach of
500 feet or more; or
(ccc )The predicted watercourse flow, or velocity increases by
5% or more from existing to the proposed condition.
(cc) Corrective actions shall include the following as necessary to
mitigate the impact:
(aaa) Actions described in Paragraph 3(d)(i)(aaa), (bbb), (ccc),
and (ddd) of this Rule;
(bbb) Installation of streambankstability and protection
measures; or
(ccc) Other actions necessary to mitigate the impact.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 18
r
,
Bank Stability Condition
Ootimal Sub optimal Maf1!inal Poor
Note: determine Banks stable; Moderately stable, Moderately Unstable; many
left or right side by evidence of infrequent, small unstable; 30-60% eroded areas;
facing downstream erosion or bank areas of erosion of bank in reach "raw",
failure absent or mostly healed has areas of unvegetated,areas
Score each bank minimal; little over. 5-30% of erosion; high are frequent along
potential for future bank in reach has erosion potential straight sections
problems. <5% of areas of erosion. during floods. and bends;
bank affected obvious bank
sloughing; 60%-
100% of bank has
erosion scars.
SCORE _(LB) Left Bank 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
SCORE (RB) Ri,ght Bank 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Bank Protection Condition
Ootimal Sub ootimal Mar2inal Poor
Note: determine More than 90% of 70-90% of the 50-70% of the Less than 50% of
left or right side by the streambank streambank streambank the streambank
facing downstream surfaces and surfaces covered surfaces covered surfaces covered
immediate by native by vegetation; by vegetation;
Score each bank riparian zones vegetation, but one disruption disruption of
covered by native class of plants is obvious; patches stream vegetation
vegetation, not well- of bare soil or very high,
including trees, represented; closely cropped vegetation has
understory shrubs, disruption evident vegetation been removed to 5
or nonwoody but not affecting common; less than centimeters or less
plants; vegetative full plant growth one-half of the in average stubble
disruption through potential to any potential plant height.
grazing or mowing great extent; more stubble height
is minimal or not than one-half of remaining.
evident; almost all the potential plant
plants allowed to stubble height
21'OW naturally. remaining.
SCORE _(LB) Left Bank 10 9 g 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
SCORE (RB) Right Bank 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I 0
(iv) Potential impacts to public and private structures and improvements;
(aa) Evaluation must include:
(aaa) The location and elevation of structures with low floors, or
entries within 2 vertical feet of the I OO-year critical stonn flood level;
(bbb) The location and description of known existing flooding
problems; and
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 19
r ,
.
(ccc) A hydrologic and hydraulic assessment of flooding impacts
of the proposed project on downstream public and private structures.
(bb) The applicant must provide corrective actions that mitigate in
proportion to the proposed project impact as specified in Paragraph 3 (d)(iv)(cc) of this
Rule; if:
(aaa) The proposed project increases the IOO-year flood level
where existing structures with low floors or entries are located 1 foot or less
above the existing 100-year flood level; or
(bbb) The proposed project decreases the elevation above which
the low floor or entry of an existing structure is above the lOO-year flood level to
less than 1 foot.
(cc) Corrective actions shall include the following as necessary to
mitigate the impact:
(aaa) Actions described in Paragraph 3(d)(i)(aaa), (bbb), (ccc),
and (ddd) of this rule; or
(bbb) Other actions necessary to mitigate the impact.
(v) Potential impacts to wetlands with exceptional vegetative diversity functional
value (see Rule G for determination of Exceptional value wetlands).
(aa) Evaluation must include:
(aaa) Delineation and functional values assessment of wetlands
according to Rule G;
(bbb) A hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the before and
after project water level bounce and period of inundation for wetlands with
exceptional vegetative diversity for the I-year, 2-year and IO-year critical events.
(bb) The applicant must provide corrective actions that mitigate in
proportion to the proposed project impact as specified in Paragraph 3(d)(v)(cc) of this
Rule; if the water level bounce and period of inundation created by the storms evaluated
in Paragraph 3(d)(v)(aa)(bbb) exceeds the limit specified in the following table.
(cc) Corrective actions shall consist of runoff rate and volume controls
necessary to keep the water level bounce and period of inundation within the limits
specified in the following table.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 20
. \
, .
Hydroperiod Highly Moderately Slightly Least-
standard susceptible susceptible susceptible susceptible
wetlands * wetIands* wetlands* wetIands*
Storm Bounce Existing Existing plus 0.5 Existing plus 1.0 No limit
feet feet
Period of Existing Existing plus 1 Existing plus 2 Existing plus 7
Inundation for 1 day days days
& 2-year events
Period of Existing Existing plus 7 Existing plus 14 Existing plus 21
inundation for days days days
10-year event
* See Rule A Defmitions.
Source: Storm Water and Wetlands: Planning and Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing
Potential Impacts of Urban Stonnwater and Snow Melt Runoff on Wetlands. June 1997. State of
Minnesota Stormwater Advisory Group.
(e) The minimum design capacity of all drainage systems shall accommodate the runoff
from a 10-year storm event. All drainage systems and facilities shall be designed to withstand the runoff
from the critical one hundred 1 DO-year event or accumulative antecedent conditions without damage to
the system or facility, downstream areasandJor significant risk to public health, safety and welfare unless
waived in accordance with paragraph 4( c ) of this Rule.
(f) Regional detention basins shall be utilized to manage peakflow rates and runoff
volumes, and meet water quality objectives when feasible. On-site detention basins, volume control
facilities, and pennanent sedimentation and water quality ponds will be utilized for land disturbing
activities, the development or redevelopment of land that creates greater than 1 acre of impervious
surface when regional basins are not in place or feasible, or would not otherwise met requirements for the
protection of downstream areas according to Paragraph 3( d) of this Rule that are located between the
project and the regional basin.
(g) The LGU may approve alternative BMPs instead of permanent sedimentation and
water quality ponds if it finds .that the water quality performance of the proposed alternative BMPs is
equivalent to that of a permanent sedimentation and water quality pond designed according to the criteria
set forth for permanent sedimentation and water quality ponds in Paragraph 3(k) of this Rule below. The
generally accepted performance of permanent sedimentation and water quality ponds designed to these
criteria is 60% Total Phosphorus removal and 80% Total Suspended Solids removal on an annual
average basis. The assumed performance for the BMPs shall be based on information from independent
laboratory work, studies, or reference materials including the Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual
(Metropolitan Council 2001), as such manual may be amended, revised or supplemented. The LGU may
require monitoring of alternative practices and contingency plans similar to the requirements for the
General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stonn Water Associated With Construction Activity Under
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Permit Program Permit MN
Rl 0000 1 (NPDES General Construction Permit) issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
August 1 2003, as amended.
(h) Analysis of flood levels, storage volumes and flow rates for waterbodies and'
detention'basins shall be based on the range of rainfall and snow melt durations producing the critical
flood levels and discharges.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 21
'I: ,
. ,
(i) Landlocked water basins may be provided with outlets if an outcome based analysis
and resource oriented management review regarding downstream impacts is completed that demonstrates
that:
(i) A hydrologic regime is maintained that complies with Rules G and I;
(ii) Dead storage is provided to retain future conditions SHYM predicted water
volumes, or the back to back I aO-year critical event water volume, above the highest anticipated
groundwater elevation to the extent possible while preventing damage to property adjacent to the
basin;
(iii) The outlet does not create adverse downstream flooding or water quality
conditions, or materially affect stability of downstream watercourses according the criteria in
Paragraph 3(d) of this Rule;
(iv) Proposed development tributary to the land-locked basin has incorporated
runoff volume control practices to the extent practical;
(v) There is a demonstrated need for an outlet to protect existing structures and
infrastructure; and
(vi) The outlet design is part of an approved comprehensive local water
management plan.
(j) Detention basins shall be designed to provide:
(i) An outlet structure to control the 2-year, lO-year and lOO-yearcritical stonn
events to runoff rates specified in Paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c) ofthis rule;
(ii) An identified overflow spillway and downstream route sufficiently stabilized
to convey a 100-year critical stonn event;
(iii) A nonnal water elevation above the OHW of adjacent waterbodies or
nonnal water level (NWL) where an OHW is not established; and
(iv) Access for future maintenance.
(k) Pennanent sedimentation and water quality ponds shall be designed to the Wet Pond
Design Standards set forth on Appendix A to these Rules and provide:
(i) Water quality features consistent with NURP criteria and best management
practices;
(ii) A pennanent wet pool with dead storage of at least the runoff from a 2.S-inch
stonn event;
(iii) Pond outlets shall be designed to prevent short circuiting of the flow from
pond inputs to the outlet.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 22
I .
\
(iv) A normal water ~levation above the OHW of adjacent waterbodies, or
normal water level (NWL) where an OHW is not established;
(v) An outlet skimmer to prevent migration offloatables and oils for at least the
I-year storm event; and
(vi) Access for future maintenance.
(1) Unless a municipality or the county has adopted an ordinance prescribing a minimum
low floor elevation, which ordinance shall govern, any new residential, commercial, industrial and other
habitable structures shall be constructed with the following low floor elevation:
(i) In the case of a land-locked basin, the low floor elevation shall be the lesser
of 3 feet above the surveyed basin overflow; or 3 feet above the high water level of the basin as
determined from an estimate using the SHYM (Appendix B), or I OO-year back to back events,
under full build-out conditions for the contributing watershed.
(ii) Where the I DO-year flood level has been established, . low floor elevations
shall be at least 1 foot above the I DO-year flood level.
(iii) For public waters and public water wetlands [DNR protected water bodies]
where the I DO-year flood level has not been established, low floor elevations shall be at least 3
feet above the ordinary high water le"el (OHW).
(iv) In all other cases, the low floor elevation shall be at least 3 feet above the
highest known water level.
(m) Development and redevelopment that creates impervious surfaces and increases
runoff volumes above existing conditions for the 2-year critical storm event (not including snow melt
events) must incorporate runoff volume control practices into the design. The design must explicitly
address the use of best management practices to limit the loss of pervious area, and limit runoff volume
increases from impervious areas to the extent feasible considering site-specific conditions.
(i) At a minimum volume control practices shall provide a reduction in site
runoff discharge volume of at least 12 inch of runoff from all new impervious surfaces.
(ii) Volume controls shall be greater than Yz-inch from new impervious surfaces
if necessary to mitigate downstream impacts in accordance with Paragraph 3(d) of this Rule.
(iii) When using infiltration for volume control, infiltration volumes and facility
sizes shall be calculated using the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and saturated
infiltration rate from the table below, and shall be capable of infiltrating the required volume
within 72 hours. Documented site-specific infiltration or hydraulic conductivity measurements
completed by a licensed soil scientist or engineer may be used in place of the values in the table.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 23
( ,
,
Hydrologic Soils Infiltration Soil
Type Rate Texture
A 0.30 incheslhour Sand, loamy sand, or
sand loam
B 0.15 incheslhour Silt loam or loam
C 0.07 incheslhour Sandy clay loam
D 0.03 incheslhour Clay loam, silt clay loam,
Silty clay or clay
Source: Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds (SCS, 1986), as amended, revised or supplemented.
(aa) Infiltration areas will be limited to the horizontal areas subject to
prolonged wetting.
(bb) Areas of permanent pools tend to lose infiltration capacity over time
and will not be accepted as an infiltration practice.
(cc) Before infiltrating runoff, pretreatment shall be required for parking
lot runoff and for runoff from new road construction that will 'enter the infiltration
system. The pretreatment shall be designed to protect the infiltration system from
clogging and to protect groundwater quality. Pretreatment options may include, but are
not limited to, oiVgrease separation, sedimentation, biofiltration, filtration, swales or
filter strips. To minimize potential groundwater impacts it is desirable to infiltrate the
cleanest runoff. To achieve this, a design may propose greater infiltration of runoff from
low pollutant sources such as roofs, and less from higher pollution source areas such as
parking lots.
(dd) Infiltration systems must be designed to bypass higher flows.
(ee) Infiltration areas must be fenced or otherwise protected from
disturbance before the land disturbing activity starts.
(iv) Constructed infiltration practices, such as infiltration ponds and trenches, as
the best management practice for volume control shall be avoided by using other appropriate
volume control practices, credits, or areas of project sites, and shall not be used:
(aa) For runoff from fueling and vehicle maintenance areas,
(bb) On areas with less than 3 feet vertical separation from the bottom of
the infiltration system to the elevation of seasonal high groundwater or top of bedrock,
(cc) For areas with runofffrom industrial, commercial and institutional
parking lots and roads where there is less than 5 feet separation from the bottom of the
infiltration system to the elevation of the seasonal high groundwater,
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 24
( J
,
(dd) Areas within a wellhead protection zone, within 400 feet of a
community water system well or within 100 feet of a private well, or in areas of medium
or high groundwater susceptibility shown on Map 5 of the Scott WMO Comprehensive
Water Resource Management Plan, as amended; for runoff infiltrated from commercial,
industrial and institutional land uses; and
(ee) On areas with Type D soils.
(v) The following credits will be allowed toward the Yz-inch volume control
requirement, and may be used as corrective actions for downstream impacts if required under
Paragraph 3(d). To receive credit applicants must request the credits, and provide calculations
and documentation showing that the following criteria are met;
(aa) Natural Area Conservation Credit. A volume control credit will be
given when natural areas are conserved at development or redevelopment sites, thereby
retaining or improving their pre-development hydrologic and water quality
characteristics. To the extent practicable, these natural areas should be delineated to
maximize contiguous land and avoid fragmentation. Credit will be given for a runoff
volume based on what the conserved area could have been developed as under the
current Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the LGU without conservation. To receive the
credit:
(aaa) The area must not be part of a density transfer where
impervious area is transferred to another part of the site, but must represent a net
reduction in impervious area that can be constructed as part of the project;
(bbb) The area must be maintained in a natural vegetative state
in an outlot and protected with a conservation easement (See Rule G for
prohibited and allowed uses in Conservation Easements). Up to 50 percent of the
area may be used as a back-up site for community soil absorption type of sewage
treatment systems provided vegetation is maintained according to Paragraph 3(i)
Rule G, and buffers are maintained around wetlands in the natural area in
accordance with Rule G;
(ccc) Mowed grass will not be considered a natural vegetative
state;
(ddd) The area cannot be disturbed during the project
. construction (i.e., cleared or graded, except for temporary disturbances for utility
construction); and
(eee) The area must be protected by limits of disturbance clearly
shown on all construction drawings.
(bb) Disconnection of Rooftop Runoff Credit. A credit will be given
when rooftop runoff is "disconnected" and directed to a pervious area where it can either
infiltrate or transpire. If a rooftop is disconnected, the disconnected impervious area can
be deducted from the total impervious area thereby reducing the volume control
requirement. To receive the credit:
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 25
( ,
,
(aaa) Projects involving the subdivision of land must include
the maintenance and preservation of the disconnection as part of a recorded
restrictive covenant;
(bbb) The disconnection must be designed to adequately address
the issue of basement seepage;
(ccc) The contributing length of rooftop to a discharge location
shall be 75 feet or less;
(ddd) The rooftop contributing area to anyone discharge location
cannot exceed 1,000 square feet;
(eee) Disconnections will only be credited for residential lots
sizes greater than 6,000 square feet;
(fff) The entire vegetative "disconnection" shall be on a slope
less than or equal to 5.0%, and must not channelize flow;
(ggg) Where provided, downspouts must be at least 10 feet away
from the nearest impervious surface to discourage "re-connections";
(hhh) Where a subsurface drain is used the drain cannot be
directly connected to the stonn drainage network;
(iii) No soil evaluation is required for disconnections that drain
to hydrologic soil groups A and B;
(jjj) Disconnections draining to hydrologic soil groups C and D
shall have a soil evaluation to demonstrate that additional flows will not create
nuisance conditions;
(kkk) For those rooftops draining to a stream buffer, the
applicant may only use either the rooftop disconnection credit or the buffer
credit, not both; and
(Ill) Rooftop disconnects are only allowed for vehicle fueling
and maintenance areas if the rooftop runoff does not co-mingle with runoff from
the paved vehicular surfaces.
(cc) Disconnection of non-rooftop runoff credit. A credit will be given
for practices that disconnect impervious surfaces by directing runoff as sheet flow from
to pervious areas where it is either infiltrated or transpired. These "disconnected" areas
can be subtracted from the site impervious area when calculating the volume control
requirement. To receive the credit:
(aaa) The site must be graded to promote the flow ofrunoffto
pervIous areas;
(bbb) Maximum impervious flow path length shall be 75 feet;
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 26
( ,
y
(ccc) The length of disconnected pervious area must be equal to
or greater than the contributing length;
(ddd) The vegetated pervious area must be on a slope less than
or equal to 5.0% and must not channelize flow;
(eee) No soil evaluation is required for disconnections that drain
to hydrologic soil groups A and B;
(fff) Disconnections draining to hydrologic soil groups C and D
shall have a soil evaluation to demonstrate that directing additional flows will
not create nuisance conditions;
(ggg) For impervious surfaces draining to a stream buffer, the
applicant may only use either the non-rooftop disconnection credit or the buffer
credit, not both; and
(hhh) Projects involving the subdivision of land must include
the maintenance and preservation of the disconnection(s) as part of recorded
restrictive covenant.
(dd) Buffer Credit. This credit is given when a buffer is effectively used
to disconnect and control runoff volumes by directing runoff from impervious areas to
sheet flow across pervious areas within the buffer where it is either infiltrated or
transpired. These "disconnected" areas may be subtracted from the site impervious area
when calculating the volume control requirement. To receive the credit:
(aaa) The site must be graded to promote the flow of runoff to
pervious areas in the buffer;
(bbb) Minimum buffer widths must be consistent with buffer
requirements of Rule G;
(ccc) The depth to the seasonally high water table or top of
bedrock must be 3 feet or more;
(ddd) Maximum impervious flow path length shall be 75 feet
for impervious surface; ,
(eee) The length of disconnected pervious area must be equal to
or greater than the contributing length;
(fff) The vegetated pervious area must be on a slope less than or
equal to 5.0%, and must not channelize flow;
(ggg) Runoff shall enter the buffer as sheet flow. A level
spreading device shall be utilized where local site conditions prevent sheet flow
from bein~ maintained;
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 27
t ,
,
(hhh) The credit is not applicable if rooftop (paragraph
3(m)(v)(bb), or non-rooftop (paragraph 3(m)(v)(cc) are already allowed for the
same disconnection;
(Hi) Buffers must be protected by conservation easement and
maintained in a natural condition in accordance with Rule G; and
(jjj) Projects involving a subdivision ofland must include the
maintenance and preservation of the disconnection(s) as part of a recorded
restrictive covenant. '
4. WAIVERS.
(a) The LGU may waive the volume control requirement for environmentally sensitive
developments. Developments will be considered environmentally sensitive when:
(i) The total impervious surface footprint is less than 8% of the development;
(ii) A minimum of25% of the site is protected in natural conservation areas that
are protected with conservation easements (see Rule G for allowed and prohibited uses in
conservation easements);
(iii) Buffers and wetlands are protected in accordance with Rule G;
(iv) Rooftop runoff is disconnected in accordance with Paragraph 3(m)(v)(bb) of
this Rule;
(v) Runoff rate control is provided in accordance with Paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c)
of this Rule;
(vi) Stormwater runoff has been treated in accordance with Paragraph 3(g) or
3(k) of this Rule;
(vii) Downstream impacts have been assessed and corrective actions have been
incorporated in accordance with Paragraph 3(d) of this rule;
(viii) Buffers are recorded as conservation easements on outlots (see Rule G for
allowed and prohibited uses in conservation easements); and
(vi) The maintenance and preservation of the disconnection(s) and
environmental features are made part of a recorded restrictive covenant.
b. The Scott WMO or applicable LGU may waive the on-site runoff rate and water
quality control design criteria in Paragraphs 3(b), 3(c), 3(k), and 3(m) if an LGU has an approved local
water management plan which provides for off-site stormwater facilities capable of meeting the
requirements of Paragraphs 3 (b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(k), and 3(m).
c. Design for the 100-year actual storm event for criteria 3( e) of this Rule may be waived
for limited use, low maintenance road crossings.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 28
( ,
, ,
5. EXHIBITS. LGDs shall require the submittal of exhibits with an application necessary for
review and determination of compliance with this rule.
6. MAINTENANCE. All stormwater management structures and facilities shall be maintained
in perpetuity to assure that the structures and facilities function as originally designed. The responsibility
for maintenance shall be assumed either by the city, township or county with jurisdiction over the
structures and facilities, or by the applicant entering into a compliance agreement with the LGD.
",
7. EASEMENTS. The applicant shall establish, in a fonn acceptable to the LGU, temporary and
perpetual easements for ponding, flowage and drainage purposes over hydrologic features such as
waterbodies and stormwater basins. The easements shall include the right of reasonable access for
inspection, monitoring, maintenance and enforcement purposes.
8. COVENANTS. The LGU may require that the land be subjected to restrictive covenants or a
conservation easement, in form acceptable to the LGU, to prevent the future expansion of impervious
surface and the loss of infiltration capacity.
9. EXCEPTIONS. No permit or stormwater management plan shall be required under this Rule
for the following land disturbing activities:
(a) Minor land disturbing activities such as home gardens, repairs and maintenance work.
(b) Construction, installation and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems.
(c) Construction, installation and maintenance of public utility lines or individual service
connections unless the activity disturbs more than one acre.
(d) Construction of any structure on an individual parcel in a subdivision with a
stormwater management plan approved by the LGU, so long as any land disturbing activity complies
with the approved plan.
(e) Development or redevelopment of, or construction of a structure on, an individual
parcel with a land disturbing activity that does not cause off-site erosion, sedimentation, flooding or other
damage, and creates less than I acre of cumulative impervious surface:
(f) Installation of any fence, sign, telephone or electric poles, or other kinds of posts or
poles.
(g) Emergency activity necessary to protect life or prevent substantial harm to persons or
property.
(h) Redevelopment projects are exempt from criteria in Paragraphs 3(b)(i.e., rate control
in cities), 3(c)(i.e., rate control in unincorporated areas), and 3(m)(Le., runoff volume controls). Note:
for the purposes of this Rule if an activity creates more than I acre of new or additional impervious
surface the activity is considered new development and the exception does not apply to the increased
(new) impervious surface.
(i) All land disturbing activities not required by this Rule to obtain a permit or have an
approved stormwater management plan shall nevertheless be conducted in full compliance with Rule C.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 29
r ,
. ,
RULE E - EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Scott WMO to require the preparation and implementation of
erosion and sediment control plans to control runoff and erosion and to retain or control sediment on land
during land disturbing activities.
2. REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall commence a land disturbing
activity, unless specifically exempted by Paragraph 7 below, without first obtaining a pennit from a
Local Unit of Government (LGU) that incorporates and approves an erosion and sediment control plan
for the activity, development or redevelopment.
3. CRITERIA. Erosion and sediment control plans and the land disturbing activity shall comply
with the following criteria:
(a) Natural site topography and soil conditions shall be used to control runoff and reduce
erosion and sedimentation during construction and after completion of the land disturbing activity.
(b) Erosion and sediment control measures shall be consistent with Best Management
Practices (BMPs), and shall be sufficient to retain sediment on-site.
(c) All erosion and sediment controls shall be installed on all down gradient perimeters
before commencing the land disturbing activity, and shall not be removed without LGU approval or
approval of a Certificate of Completion pursuant to Paragraph 13 of Rule B.
(d) Erosion and sediment control measures shall meet the standard for the General Permit
Authorization to Discharge Storm Water Associated With Construction Activity Under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Permit Program Permit MN RI 00001
(NPDES General Construction Permit) issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, August 1
2003, as amendend; except where more specific requirements are provided in paragraphs 3(d) and3(e)
below.
(e) If the activity is taking place on a site where the soils are currently disturbed (e.g. a
tilled agricultural site that is being developed), areas that will not be disturbed as part of the development
and areas that will not be disturbed according to the time frames and slopes specified in the NPDES
General Construction permit Part N.B.2, shall be seeded with temporary or permanent cover before
commencing the proposed land disturbing activity.
(f) Where five (5) or more acres of disturbed soil drain to a common location, a
temporary (or permanent} sediment basin must be provided prior to the runoff leaving the site or entering
surface waters. The basins must be designed and constructed according to the standards in the NPDES
General Construction Permit Part m.B.
(g) The permittee or applicant must ensure fmal stabilization of the site in accordance
with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements. The site will be considered as having
achieved final stabilization following submission of Certificate of Completion by the permittee or
applicant, and inspection and approval by the LGU as specified in Rule B paragraph 13.
(h) All on-site stormwater conveyance channels (permanent or temporary) shall be
designed and constructed to withstand the expected velocity of flow from a 10-year frequency storm
without erosion.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 30
(
4. ExmBITS. LGDs shall require the submittal of exhibits with an application necessary for
review and detennination of compliance with this rule.
5. MAINTENANCE. The pennittee shall be responsible for proper operation and
maintenance of all erosion and sediment controls, and soil stabilization measures, in confonnance with
best management practices, and in confonnance with the maintenance requirements in the NPDES
General Construction Pennit. The pennittee or applicant is responsible for the operation and
maintenance of temporary erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs for the duration of the,
construction work at the site. The pennittee or applicant is responsible until another pennittee or
applicant has assumed control according to the LGU over all areas of the site that have not been finally
stabilized or the site has undergone final stabilization, and has received an approved Certificate of
Completion in accordance with Rule B paragraph 13.
6. SECURITY. Any bond or other security required in accordance with Rule K shall be
maintained until final soil stabilization and removal of erosion and sediment controls, and the payment of
all fees and other amounts due the LGD.
7. EXCEPTIONS. No pennit or erosion control plan shall be required under this Rule for the
following land disturbing activities:
(a) Minor land disturbing activities such as home gardens, repairs and maintenance work.
(b) Construction, installation and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems
other than those on steep slopes, on riparian lots within a Shoreland District or in a bluff impact zone.
(c) Construction, installation and maintenance of public utility lines or individual service
connections unless the activity disturbs more than 1 acre, in which event Paragraph 7(e) below shall
apply.
(d) A land disturbing activity that does not cause off-site erosion, sedimentation,
flooding or other damage, and disturbs:
(i) In the Shoreland District, an area less than lO,OOO square feet or less than 100
linear feet of shoreline; provided that the LGU has adopted an ordinance or procedure for
requiring erosion prevention and'sediment control BMPs with building permits in a manner
consistent with this Rule E; or
(ii) Outside of the Shoreland District, an areaofIess than 1 acre provided that
the LGU has adopted an ordinance or procedure for requiring erosion prevention and sediment
control BMPs with building pennits in a manner consistent with this Rule E.
(e) Installation of any fence, sign, telephone or electric poles, or other kinds of posts or
poles.
(f) Emergency activity necessary to protect life or prevent substantial hann to persons or
property.
(g) Minor wetland impacts that have received a "certificate of exemption or no loss"
determination by the LGU administering the Wetland Conservation Act, as amended.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 31
(
.
(h) All maintenance, repair, resurfacing and reconditioning activities of existing road,
bridge, and highway systems which do not involve land disturbing activities outside of the existing
surfaced roadway.
(i) Land disturbing activities associated with the construction of conservation practices
by the SWCD or the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provided that erosion prevention
and sediment control practices are used in a manner consistent with this Rule E. -,
G) All land disturbing activities not required by this Rule to obtain apennit or have an
approved erosion and sediment control plan shall nevertheless be conducted in full compliance with Rule
C.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 32
\' )
I
RULE F - FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Scott WMO to:
(a) Manage local floodplain areas to maintain critical100-year flood storage volumes.
(b) Assure that new structures are constructed above the flood-prone areas to avoid
causing an increase in the critical flood levels that could affect both the new construction and nearby
structures.
2. REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall alter or fill land, or build a structure,
below the IOO-year critical flood elevation of any public waters, public waters wetland or other wetland
without first obtaining a pennit from the appropriate LGD.
3. CRlTERlA.
(a) Floodplain alteration or filling shall not cause a net decrease in flood storage capacity
below the projected 100-year critical flood elevation unless it is shown that the proposed alteration or
filling, together with the alteration or filling of all other land on the affected reach of the waterbody to
the same degree of encroachment as proposed by the applicant, will not cause high water or aggravate
flooding on other land and will not unduly restrict flood flows.
(b) Where lOO-year flood evaluation have been established all new structures shall be
constructed with the low floor consistent with the minimum elevations the low floor of structures in Rule
D 3(1).
(c) A land disturbing activity within a floodplain may require a penn it under Rules D and
E.
(d) An activity that alters or fills a wetland within a floodplain may require a pennit
under Rule G.
4. EXHIBITS~ LGDs shall require the submittal of exhibits with an application necessary for
review and detennination of compliance with this rule.
5. EXCEPTIONS. Ifa municipality or county has adopted a floodplain ordinance, which
prescribes an allowable degree of floodplain encroachment, the applicable ordinance shall govern the
allowable degree of encroachment and no pennit will be required under this Rule F.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff V ersionl 0/13/04 33
<<' )
.
RULE G - WETLANDS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Scott WMO to:
(a) Achieve no net loss of wetlands in Scott WMO, in conformance with the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and associated rules (Minnesota Rules 8420).
(b) Encourage wetland avoidance for all new developments and land disturbing
activities.
(c ) Require mitigation of unavoidable wetland disturbance by replacing the lost wetland
functions and values in the same major subwatershed with a wetland of equal or greater value.
(d) Require transportation projects to pursue wetland mitigation projects to the extent
practical along the transportation corridor.
(e) Require all identified wetland habitat impacts to be mitigated through wetland
enhancement, restoration, or creation.
(f) Manage changes in volume and quality of local stormwater systems to minimize
negative impacts to existing wetland functions, value, or biological diversity.
(g) Replace affected wetlands where avoidance is not feasible and prudent.
2. REGULATION.
(a) No person or political subdivision shall drain, fill, excavate or otherwise alter a
wetland without first obtaining the approval of a wetland replacement plan from the local government
unit with jurisdiction over the activity.
(b) For any parcel created or redeveloped after the effective date of this Rule G, a buffer
shall be maintained around the perimeter of all wetlands. The buffer provisions of this Rule shall not
apply to any parcel of record as of the date of this Rule until such parcel is subdivided or developed.
(c) The buffer portions of this Rule (paragraph 2(b)) do not apply 0 any wetland with a
surface area equal to or less than the area of wetland impact allowed without replacement as de minimus
under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and to wetlands with approved wetland replacement plans
per the WCA.
3. CRITERIA.
(a) Any drainage, filling, excavation or other alteration ofa wetland shall be conducted
in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 1 03G.245, the WCA, and regulations adopted thereunder.
(b) A wetland may be used for stormwater storage and treatment only if the use will not
adversely affect the function and public value of the wetland as determined by the local government unit.
(c) All public waters shall have a 65-foot buffer from the Ordinary High Water level,
and a 1 O-foot building setback from the buffer.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 34
( )
I
Buffer Exceptional High Moderate Low Stormwater
Reauirement Ponds
Average Buffer 65 feet 50 feet 35 feet 25 feet 0
Width
Minimum 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 0*
Buffer Width
*Must have a building setback of 10 feet from delineated edge of wetland and elevated as necessary
to meet provisions of paragraph 3(1) of Rule 3. '
A wetlands functions and values analysis for vegetative diversity will be completed with each wetland
delineated for a project. The functions and values assessment and wetland rankings. will be determined
using the Minnesota Rapid Assessment Method version 3.0 (MnRAM 3.0, as amended). Rankings are
summarized as follows.
"Exceptional" Wetland - are wetlands assigned the exceptional rating using MnRAM 3.0 for for
evaluating wetland functions. These wetlands are most susceptible to human impacts, are most unique,
have the highest community resources significance such as rare species habitats, and similar
characteristics.
"High" Wetland - are wetlands assigned the high rating using MnRAM 3.0 for evaluating wetland
functions. These wetlands are relatively undisturbed but exhibit evidence of more disturbance or
degradation than Exceptional wetlands. High wetlands have conditions and functions that are susceptible
to human impacts, are connected to other wetlands or watercourses, and may contain locally significant
or rare wetland types.
"Moderate" Wetlands - are wetlands assigned a moderate rating using MnRAM 3.0 for evaluating
wetland functions. These wetlands typically provide a diversity of habitats, and are connected to other
wetland or upland habitats to provide wildlife habitat.
"Low" Wetlands - are wetlands assigned a low rating using the MnRAM 3.0 for evaluating wetland
functions. These wetlands tend to be less susceptible to further impacts than the other wetland
management classifications. They also have low diversity and connectivity to other wetlands and
watercourses.
Stormwater Pond - are jurisdictional wetlands designated strictly for treating and retaining stormwater.
(d) All structures shall have a minimum set-back of 35 feet from the delineated edge of
wetlands and public waters wetlands.
(e) The first 25 feet of buffer as measured from the wetland cannot be disturbed during
project construction (i.e., cleared or graded, except for temporary disturbances for utility construction)
and must be protected from disturbance with temporary fencing prior to construction.. Vegetation can be
replaced and site soils preparation work completed within this first 25 feet if necessary to establish
acceptable vegetation in accordance with Paragraph 3(i) of this Rule, and
(f) Buffers shall apply whether or not the wetland or public waters wetland is on the
same parcel as a proposed development. An applicant is required to delineate the boundary for any
wetland or public waters wetland on the project land. An applicant shall not be required to delineate
wetlands on adjacent property, but must review available information to estimate the wetland boundary.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 35
( ,
,
(g) Buffer vegetation shall be established and maintained as follows:
(i) Where acceptable natural vegetation exists in buffer areas, the retention of
such vegetation in an undisturbed state is required unless an applicant receives approval to
replace such vegetation. A buffer has acceptable natural vegetation if it:
(aa) Has a continuous, dense layer of perennial grasses tliat has been
uncultivated or unbroken for at least 5 consecutive years; or
(bb) Has an overstory of trees and/or shrubs that has been uncultivated
or unbroken for at least 5 consecutive years; or
(cc) Contains a mixture of the plant communities described in
Subparagraphs 3(g)(i)(aa) and 3(g)(i)(bb) above that has been uncultivated or unbroken
for at least 5 years.
(ii) Notwithstanding the perfonnance standards set forth in Paragraph 3(g)(i),
and LGU may detennine existing buffer vegetation unacceptable if:
(aa) It is composed of undesirable plant species including but not limited
to common buckthorn, purple loosestrife, leafy spurge or noxious weeds; or
(bb) It has topography that tends to channelize the flow of runoff; or
(cc) For some other reason it is unlikely to retain nutrients and sediment.
(iii) Where buffers are not vegetated or have been cultivated or otherwise
disturbed within 5 years of the pennit application, such areas shall be replanted and maintained.
The buffer plantings must be identified on the pennit application. The buffer landscaping shall
comply with the following standards:
(aa) Buffers shall be planted with a seed mix approved by MnDOT,
NRCS or SWCD, with the exception of a one-time planting with an annual nurse or
cover crop such as oats or rye.
(bb) The seed mix shall be broadcast according to MnDOT, NRCS or
SWCD specifications of the selected mix. The annual nurse cover crop shall be applied
at a minimum rate of 30 pounds per acre. The MnDOT or NRCS seed mix selected for
pennanent cover shall be appropriate for the soil site conditions and free of invasive
species.
(cc) Native shrubs may be substituted for native forbs. All substitutions
must be approved by the LOU. Such shrubs may be bare root seedlings and shall be
planted at a minimum rate of 60 plants per acre. Shrubs shall be distributed so as to
provide a natural appearance and shall not be planted in rows.
e dd) Any groundcover or shrub plantings installed within the buffer are
independent of any landscaping required elsewhere by the LOU.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 36
1 .
.
(ee) Grasses and forbs shall be seeded pr planted by a qualified
contractor. The method of application shall be approved by the LGU prior to planting or .
seeding.
(ff) No fertilizer shall be used in establishing new buffers, except on
highly disturbed sites when necessary to establish acceptable buffer vegetation and then
limited to amounts indicated by an accredited soil testing laboratory.
(gg) All seeded areas shall be mulched immediately with clean straw at
a rate of 1.5 tons per acre. Mulch shall be anchored with a disk or tackifier.
(hh) Buffers (both natural and created) shall be protected by erosion and
sediment control measures during construction in accordance with Rule E. The erosion
and sediment control measures shall remain in place until the area crop is established.
(iv) Buffer vegetation shall be established and maintained in accordance with the
requirements found in this Paragraph 3(i). During the first 2 full growing seasons, the owner
must replant any buffer vegetation that does not survive. The owner shall be responsible for
reseeding/or replanting if the buffer changes at any time through human intervention or activities.
At a minimum the buffer must be maintained as a "no mow' area.
(h) When a buffer is required the applicant shall, as a condition to issuance of a pennit:
(i) Submit to the LGU for its approval a conservation easement for protection of
approved buffers. The easement shall describe the boundaries of the wetland or public waters
wetland and buffer, identify the monuments and monument locations, and prohibit any the
alterations set forth in Paragraph 3(i) below and the removal of the buffer monuments within the
buffer, wetland, or public waters wetland.
(ii) File the approved easement for record and submit evidence thereof to the
LGU; and
(iii) Install the monumentation required by paragraph 3(1) below.
(i) Subject to paragraph 3(j) below, alterations including building, storage, paving,
mowing, plowing, introduction of noxious vegetation, cutting, dredging, filling, mining, dumping,
grazing livestock, agricultural production, yard waste disposal or fertilizer application, are prohibited
within any buffer. Noxious vegetation, such as European buckthorn, purple loosestrife and reed canary
grass, may be removed. Alterations would not include plantings that enhance the natural vegetation or
selective clearing or pruning of trees or vegetation that are dead, diseased or pose similar hazards.
(j) The following activities shall be pennitted with any buffer, and shall not constitute
prohibited alterations under Paragraph 3(i) above:
(i) Use and maintenance of an unimproved access strip through the buffer, not
more than 20 feet in width, for recreational access to the watercourse or wetland and the exercise
of riparian rights;
(ii) Placement, maintenance, repair or replacement of utility and drainage
systems that e,xist on creation of the buffer or are required to comply with any subdivision
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 37
I ..
,
approval or building permit obtained from the municipality or county, so long as any adverse
impacts of utility and drainage systems on the function of the buffer have been avoided or
minimized to the extent possible;
(iii) Construction, maintenance, repair, reconstruction or replacement of existing
and future public roads crossing the buffer, so long as any adverse impacts of the road on the
function of the buffer have been avoided or minimized to the extent possible.
(iv) Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) may be constructed within a
buffer but outside the 35 foot structure setback as long as the vegetation growing on the. system is
maintained in accordance with Paragraph 3(h) of this Rule, and the system otherwise meets
County and State rules for ISTS systems.
(1) Buffers shall be monumented to clearly designate the boundaries of all buffers within
new residential developments. A monument shall be required at each parcel line where it crosses a
buffer strip and shall have a maximum spacing of 200 feet along the edge of the buffer. Additional
monuments shall be placed as necessary to accurately define the edge of the buffer. A monument shall
consist of a post and a buffer sign. The signs shall be obtained from the LGU and includes warnings
about fines for disturbing and/or developing buffers. The signs shall be a minimum of 5 inches wide by 7
inches vertical, have a brown field with white lettering, and shall be securely mounted on a post to a
minimum height of 4 feet above grade.
(m) Other activities which would change the character of a wetland shall not diminish
the quantity, quality or biological diversity of the wetland.
(n) A land disturbing activity within a wetland may require a permit under Rules D and
E.
(0) An activity within a wetland that alters or fills a floodplain may require a permit
under Rule F.
4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT. The Scott WMO intends to serve as the local government
unit for administration of the wetland conservation act, unless a particular city, township or county has
elected to assume that role in its jurisdictional area.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 38
{ ..
,
RULE H - BRIDGE AND CULVERT CROSSINGS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Scott WMO to regulate crossings of watercourses for
driveways, roads and utilities to maintain channel profile stability and conveyance capacity.
2. REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall construct, improve, repair or alter a
driveway, road or utility across a watercourse with a tributary area in excess of 100 acres without first
obtaining a permit from the appropriate LGD.
3. CRITERIA. Crossings shall:
(a) Retain adequate hydraulic capacity.
(b) Retain adequate navigational capacity.
(c) Not adversely affect water quality.
(d) Represent the "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect to all
reasonable alternatives.
(e) Allow for future erosion, scour, and sedimentation considerations.
(f) For new arterial road construction the low point in the roadway adjacent to or
crossing public waters and public waters wetlands. must be 5 feet above the ordinary high water (OWH),
or 3 feet above the 1 OO-year flood level, whichever is greater.
(g) For new arterial road construction the low point in the roadway adjacent to or
crossing watercourses other than public waters and public water wetlands must be 5 feet above the
highest known water level or. 3 feet about the I OO-year flood level, whichever is greater.
(h) Require a permit under Rules D and E if part of a land disturbing activity or
subdivision.
4. EXHIBITS. LGUs shall require the submittal of exhibits with an application necessary for
review and determination of compliance with this rule.
5. MAINTENANCE.
(a) The maintenance, reconstruction and stabilization of any public crossing shall be the
responsibility of the political subdivision with jurisdiction over the crossing.
(b) The maintenance, reconstruction and stabilization of any private crossing shall be the
responsibility of the owner of the crossing.
(c) As a condition to the approval of a permit under this Rule H, the LGU may require
the applicant and owner to enter into a compliance agreement with the LGU.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 39
( -'
-'
RULE I - DRAINAGE ALTERATIONS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Scott WMO that surface water may be drained only in a
manner which does not unreasonably burden upstream or downstream land.
2. REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall artificially drain surface water, nor
obstruct or redirect the natural flow of runoff, so as to affect a drainage system established under
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter l03E, or harm the public health, safety and general welfare of the Scott
WMO, without first obtaining a permit from the appropriate LGU.
3. CRITERIA. The applicant for a drainage alteration shall:
(a) Describe the overall environmental impact of the proposed drainage alteration and
demonstrate that:
(i) There is a reasonable necessity for such drainage alteration;
(ii) Reasonable care has been taken to avoid unnecessary injury to upstream and
downstream land;
(iii) The utility or benefit accruing to the land on which the drainage will be
altered reasonably outweighs the gravity of the harm resulting to the land receiving the burden;
(iv) That downstream impacts have been controlled or mitigated according to
Rule D paragraph 3(d);
(v) The drainage alteration is being accomplished by reasonably improving and
aiding the normal and natural system of drainage according to its reasonable carrying capacity, or
in the absence of a practicable natural drain, a reasonable and feasible artificial drainage system
is being adopted.
(b) Provide a hydraulic design which complies with Rules F and G, and if the alteration
involves a landlocked basin, the alteration must comply with Rule D paragraph 3(i) for outlets from
landlocked basins.
(c) Provide a stable channel and outfall.
(d) Obtain a permit under Rules D and E if the drainage alteration is part of a land
disturbing activity or a development or redevelopment of land.
4. EXHIBITS. LGUs shall require the submittal of exhibits with an application necessary for
review and determination of compliance with this rule.
5. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) No permit shall be required under this Rule for the alteration of drainage in
connection with the use of land for agricultural activities.
(b) The LGU may waive. the requirement of Paragraph 3(a)(iv) above ifthe applicant
submits easements or other documentation in form acceptable to the LGU evidencing the consent of the
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 40
i }
~ \
owner of any burdened land to the proposed alteration. Such easements or other documentation shall be
filed for record and evidence thereof submitted to the LGU.
(c) All drainage alterations not required by this Rule to obtain a permit shall nevertheless
be conducted in full compliance with Rule C.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 41
( J
r. ,
RULE J. GROUNDWATER
1. POLICY. Groundwater is the primary source of potable water for the residents of the Scott
WMO. It is the policy of the Scott WMO to:
(a) Support identification and reduction of groundwater contamination from both point
and nonpoint sources.
(b) Support enforcement of County ISTS and community septic system ordinances.
(c ) Continue to support programs that promote efficient administration of groundwater
pollution programs.
(d) To target high priority water bodies for water quality projects: including working
with those waters listed as "impaired" by the MPCA for listing under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water
Act. These include waters listed for excess nutrients and fecal coliform bacteria where failing ISTS
systems and contaminated groundwater contribute to the impairment.
2. REGULATION. LGDs shall require all non-compliant ISTS in Wellhead Protection Areas
(WHPA) to be upgraded to conform with Minnesota Rule 7080 within 3 years of establishment of this
Rule, or within 3 years of establishment of a WHP A.
3. EXCEPTIONS. An exception may be granted by the LGU where non-compliant systems will
be provided with municipal sewer service within 1 year. However, in no case should noncompliant
systems remain in violation for more than 4 years from the date of establishment of this Rule or 4 years
of establishment of a WHP A.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 42
( "
L
RULE K - SECURITY
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Scott WMO to protect and conserve water resources by
requiring a financial security to assure compliance with these Rules.
2. REQUIREMENT. The LGU may require a deposit of cash, an irrevocable letter of credit or
other security with theLGU as a condition to the issuance of a permit under these Rules.
3. AMOUNT. The amount of the security shall be set annually by the LGU as the amount the
LGU deems necessary to cover the following potential liabilities to the resources of the Scott WMO:
(a) Post permit field inspection, monitoring and related fees;
(b) The cost of maintaining and implementing erosion and sediment control required by
the permit;
(c) The cost of completing buffer strip landscaping in accordance with Rule G;' and
(d) The cost of remedying damage resulting from noncompliance with the permit or these
Rules or for which the permittee is otherwise responsible.
4. FORM AND CONDITIONS.
(a) The security or letter of credit must be in a form acceptable to the LGU and from a
bank or surety licensed to do business in Minnesota.
(b) The security shall be in favor of the LGU and conditioned upon the applicant's
performance of the authorized activity in compliance with the permit and applicable laws, including these
Rules, and the payment when due of any fees or other charges authorized or required by the permit, and
these Rules.
(c) The security shall be issued for a minimum term of 1 year. Security with a shorter
term may be deposited with the LGU provided it is replaced at least 30 days before its expiration.
(d) The LGU shall be authorized to make a claim or draw against the security after any
default by the permittee under the permit or these Rules, or if the permittee fails to replace any security at
least 30 days before its expiration.
5. POLITICAL SUBDMSIONS. The general contractor for activities of a political subdivision
shall provide any security required by the permit and these Rules.
6. RELEASE. Any security may be released by the LGU pursuant to Paragraph 13 of Rule B.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 43
{ )
.
RULE L - VARIANCES
1. WHEN AUTHORIZED. The LGU may grant variances from the literal provisions of these
Rules. A variance shall only be granted when in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Rules in cases where strict enforcement of the Rules will cause undue hardship, and when the terms of
the variance are consistent with the Scott WMO Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan and
Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103B.
2. HARDSHIP: "Hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the
land in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by these Rules;
the plight of the applicant is due to circumstances unique to the land and not created by the applicant; and
the variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the essential character of the locality and other adjacent
land. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use for the land exists
under the terms of these Rules. Conditions may be imposed in the granting of a variance to insure
compliance and to protect adjacent land and the public health and general welfare of the Scott WMO.
3. PROCEDURE: An application for a variance shall describe the practical difficulty or
particular hardship claimed as the basis for the variance. The application shall be accompanied with such
surveys, plans, data and other information as may be required by the LOU to consider the application.
4. TERM. A variance shall expire 1 year after it is granted, unless used by the applicant within
the I-year period.
S. VIOLATION: A violation of any condition imposed in the granting of a variance shall bea
violation of these Rules and shall automatically terminate the variance.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 44
{ >
, ,
RULE M - APPEALS
1. INTERESTED PARTY. For the purposes of this Rule M, "interested party" means a person
or political subdivision with an interest in the pending subject matter.
2. APPEALS. An interested party may appeal a rule, permit decision or order made by the Scott
WMO or applicable LGU by a declaratory judgment action brought under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
555.
3. PROCEDURES. The decision on appeal must be based on the record made in the proceeding
before the Scott WMO Board of Managers or the LGU governing body. An appeal of a permit decision
or order must be filed within 30 days of the Board of Commissioners or LGU governing body decision.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 45
1 J
, ,
RULE N - ENFORCEMENT
1. ADWNISTRATION. These Rules shall be administered by the Scott WMO.
2. JJvIPLE11ENTATION BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS (LGUs). It shall be
the duty of each LGU within the Scott WMO to enforce and implement the various permitting processes
and requirements of these Rules through the development and implementation of Local Water Plans and
applicable ordinances. Each LGU shall make such amendments to its official controls, regulations, and
permitting processes as are necessary to provide it with the authority to enforce and implement these
Rules.
3. MISDE11EANOR. A violation of these Rules, a stipulation agreement made, permit, or order
issued by the Scott WMO or applicable LGU pursuant to these Rules, is a misdemeanor subject to a
penalty as provided by law.
4. ACTIONS. The Scott WMO and the applicable LGU may exercise all powers conferred upon
them by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter I03B and other enabling legislation applicable to municipalities
and counties, in enforcing these Rules, or a stipulation agreement made, permit, or order issued by the
Board of Managers or the LGU governing body under these Rules, including criminal prosecution,
injunction, use of financial securities provided under Rule K, or an action to compel performance,
restoration or abatement, or other appropriate actions.
5. ADMINISTRA TNE ORDER. The Scott WMOor the applicable LGU may issue a cease and
desist order when it finds that a proposed or initiated activity or project presents a serious threat of
flooding, erosion, sedimentation, an adverse effect upon water quality, or otherwise violates these Rules.
6. FAILURE BY LGU TO JJvIPLE11ENT. Upon a determination by the Scott WMO that an
LGU has not enforced or implemented these Rules, or a decision by the Scott WMO Commissioners in
the administration of these Rules, the Scott WMO shall notify the LGU of such determination and direct
that appropriate action be taken by the LGU. If the LGU does not take such action, the Scott WMO may
take such legal steps as are available to it to effect such enforcement or implementation.
7. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. In any civil action arising from or related to these
Rules, an order, a stipulation agreement made or a permit issued or denied by the Board of Managers or
the LGU governing body under these Rules, the court may award the prevailing party reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 46
i "
, )
RULE 0 - FEES
1. POLICY. The Scott WMO finds that it is in the public interest to require applicants to pay
the cost of administering and reviewing project applications, and inspecting approved activities to assure
compliance with these Rules, rather than using the Scott WMOs annual administrative levy for such
purpose, or thelevies ofLOUs. The ScottWMO and LOUs shall establish a schedule of fees that may
be amended from time to time to reflect the cost of providing each service.
2. APPLICATION. Each application for the issuance, transfer or renewal of a project review
recommendation under these Rules shall be accompanied by an application fee to the LGU, or Scott
WMO if appropriate, to defray the cost of processing the application.
3. REVIEW. A project review applicant under these Rules shall pay a fee for the cost of the
review and analysis of the proposed activity, including services of engineering, legal, and other
consultants. The Scott WMO or LOU may require a deposit to cover the cost of review at the time of
filing. The Scott WMO or LOU will provide a statement of review charges. In all cases the review fee
shall be payable before a pennit may be issued.
4. INSPECTION. The Scott WMO or LOU may require a pennittee to pay a field inspection fee
equal to the actual cost of the field inspection and subsequent monitoring of the permitted activity,
including services of engineering, legal and other consultants. The Scott WMO or LOU may require a
deposit to cover the cost to inspect and monitor a proposed activity at the time the application is filed.
Additional field inspection fees shall be payable after issuance of a statement if continued inspection and
monitoring of the activity is required. A permit may be revoked, or a Certificate of Completion withheld,
if the field inspection fee is not fully paid.
6. FAILURE TO OBTAIN PERMIT. Any person or political subdivision perfonning any
activity for which a permit is required under these Rules without having first obtained a permit from the
appropriate LOU, shall pay, in addition to such fines, court costs or other amounts as may be payable by
law as a result of such violation, a field inspection fee equal to the actual cost of the LOU for field
inspections, monitoring and investigation of such activity, including services of engineering, legal and
other consultants. The inspection fee shall be payable following the issuance of a statement by the LOU.
No permit shall be issued for the activity if there are any unpaid field inspection fees or other outstanding
violations of these Rules.
7. RECOVERY. The fees provided for in these Rules may be recovered by the Scott WMO or
LOU by any legal proceeding authorized by law.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 47
\ ;r
>' .
SCOTT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
RULES
APPENDIX A
WET POND DESIGN STANDARDS
Permanent Pool Depth 4 to 10 feet
Pennanent Pond Surface Area Greater of2% ofwatershed's impervious area
and 1 % of the watershed
Permanent Pool Length to Width Ratio 3: 1 or greater with an irregularly shaped
shoreline
Side Slopes 10: 1 for 10 foot bench centered on the normal
water elevation and between 3:1 and 20:1
elsewhere
Floatable Removal Skimming device discharging at no greater than
0.5 fps during the I-year event or a submerged
outlet with a minimum 0.5 feet from the normal
water level to the crown of the outlet pipe
Sediment Accumulation Area Provide maintenance pads to remove sediment
deltas at inlets
Permanent Pool Volume A 4-foot mean depth and equal to 2.S-inch rain
over the watershed
Source Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas
(MPCA, 2000), as amended, revised or
supplemented.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 48
1 J
" !
APPENDIX B: SIMPLIFIED HYDROLOGIC YIELD METHOD
Determining Flood Elevations of Landlocked Basins
Control of building decisions is a major responsibility of local governments. One of the most difficult
aspects of this responsibility is making decisions regarding building adjacent to landlocked lakes and
ponds.
fu the first phases of rural development, development occurs preferentially in higher, well-drained areas.
The last-developed areas with many wetlands typically have to maximize land use to be economically
feasible, and applicants are often reluctant to keep homes above the run-out elevation of a landlocked
area. Because local governments do not have the time or resources to analyze the flood level of each
landlocked ponding area, they need a conservative, approximate method that is easy to use.
The following sections describe some examples of approaches to this problem and suggest a method that
is based on hydrologic principles but is simple enough to use for day-to-day development reviews.
Full Watershed Yield and Groundwater Simulation
The most complete and scientific approach to the problem is to prepare a long-term watershed yield and
groundwater model. Such a model requires the input of meteorological and watershed information,
which is then used to determine the total amount of water produced by the watershed (yield). The
predicted yield is then input to a groundwater model that simulates the pond's seepage as a function of
lake level and climate. If sufficient data on lake levels are available for calibration, this approach can be
reasonably accurate. Such models were used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
determine flood levels of Great Salt Lake, Utah and Devils Lake, North Dakota. fu Minnesota this type
of model was used by FEMA for Big Marine Lake and Prior Lake. The use of a full yield model is
warranted when damages could be high, the water body is large, etc. Since this is generally not the case
for most landlocked basins, other methods have been used.
The model described above can be simplified by using "representative" nmoffyears and by simplifying
the land use and groundwater yield models but even at this level, a customized model is too expensive
and time-consuming for development review purposes.
Back-to- Back 100- Year 24- Hour Rainfall Events
This method is sometimes used because it is simple and does not require calculation of all the other
parameters such as seepage to groundwater. It acknowledges the fact that the critica.l rainfall amount for
flooding of landlocked basins is greater than the rainfall from a single one-day storm; a longer-duration
event will almost always be critical for a landlocked basin. However, simply doubling the storm rainfall
is not a statistically valid way to analyze the problem since the probability of this event occurring is much
less than 1 percent. A simple doubling of the rainfall amount may be difficult to defend if challenged.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 49
t .
. I
Ten-Day and Thirty-Day Snowmelt Event or a Thirty-Day Combined RainfallJRunoffEvent
These methods are an improvement over using the one-day stonn because they are statistically based and
are more representative of long-term flood events. The problem with these methods is that the critical
event could be of much longer duration than either ten or thirty days. The critical event could be months
or years long. Data on 3 a-day runoff are relatively scarce, as well.
DNR's Ordinary High Water (OHW) Elevation
The OHW is the elevation at which aquatic vegetation transitions to upland vegetation. \Vhile the OHW
is used as a management tool by the MDNR (e.g., for shoreland setbacks), even the MDNR does not
believe that it should be used for setting building elevations. MDNR staff acknowledge that the OHW is
only an indication of past high water; they believe that the OHW is often equivalent to approximately the
IS-year flood level.
No Building Below the Runout Elevation
This approach to setting building elevations is certainly conservative and will produce safe building
decisions but it may result in very large amounts of land being unbuildable. \Vhen this method is used,
some freeboard should be reserved above the runout because overflow, if it occurs, will require some
additional driving head before the water level stabilizes. \Vhere flow paths are poorly defined, this may
be well over a foot of flow depth.
In some urbanizing communities this policy is viewed as a temporary situation until an outlet can be
constructed. However, many basins will have low housing density and relatively high runout elevations.
Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that outlets will ever be provided for most landlocked basins.
Nonetheless, this may be an acceptable approach for some communities, especially if land values are
low.
The Simplified Hydrologic Yield Method
The simplified method is derived from watershed yield models completed in the Minneapolis-St. Paul
metro region. It uses those study to make an estimate of the amount of runoff generated during the
lOa-year annual runoff event. Hence, it is a single-event model, but based on a longer-duration event
than the methods discussed earlier. The simplified method calculates the laO-year annual inflow from all
parts of the watershed, including the water surface, as follows:
100- Year Annual Inflow
Impervious Surfaces 32 inches
Turfed Surfaces 18 inches
Water Surfaces 12 inches
Note that these amounts are taken from the Washington County flood insurance study data. Numbers for
other communities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area might be slightly different. The "turfed"
classification includes vegetated areas that have evapotranspiration and soil storage that is available to
plant roots; the value shown is for till (heavier) soils; outwash soils would be slightly different.
In calculating the flood level, the most conservative assumption would be to neglect outflow and simply
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 50
'. '1'
t i
use the 100-year inflow from the watershed and assume that it has to be stored in the basin. This
produces very high flood levels. However, water does leave the basin. Evaporation from the pond and
land surfaces are included in the inflow figures; the greatest missing component is seepage or infiltration
from the pond. For a landlocked pond which normally contains water, the inflow and seepage are in
long-term equilibrium. Therefore, we know that the long-term average infiltration equals the average
inflow from the watershed. According to the simplified method, the average inflow from the watershed
to the pond is as follows:
Average Annual Inflow
(equals asswned average outflow)
Impervious Surfaces 16 inches
Turfed Surfaces 8 inches
Water Surfaces -6 inches
The runoff from water surfaces is negative because, in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, precipitation is
less than average water surface evaporation on an annual basis, so water surfaces cause a reduction in
total watershed yield (this is not the case in northern Minnesota).
From a theoretical standpoint, the 100-year storage should be calculated by subtracting the 100-year
seepage from the I OO-year watershed yield. Of course, we don't know the seepage under the 100-year
high water condition, but we can conservatively substitute the average seepage, which we just noted is
equal to the average inflow. The net 100-year annual storage amounts ar~ then as follows:
Net 100-Year
Annual Excess
Impervious Surfaces (32-16) = 16 inches
Turfed Surfaces (18-8) = 10 inches
Water Surfaces (12-(-6)) = 18 inches
The resulting net runoff volume must be stored above the normal water level of the landlocked water
body. It is important to exercise care in setting the assumed normal water level. This is true for any of
the methods discussed. Since the water level can fluctuate greatly, it is difficult to determine the correct
"normaJ1f water elevation. It is especially difficult for water bodies for which there is little or no water
level data. The established normal water level of a landlocked basin must be based on available water
level records and topographic maps and should be carefully reviewed by the perrnittingjurisdiction. If
the OHW is available, it can be used as a guide to the upper level of the "normal" water level.
The typical strategy for use of this method is to apply it unless the applicant is willing to pay for a more
detailed analysis. A more detailed analysis would require calculation of many years of watershed yield
numbers. It would also require the placement of observation wells to determine groundwater flow
patterns. Based on the groundwater system, a transient groundwater model would be prepared that would
be linked to the watershed yield model. Because of the additional expense, permit applicants almost
always use the approximate method to determine flood elevations.
The method is based on results of hydrologic models. For example, the 1 OO-year runoff amounts for
water and turfed areas are similar to results from the Big Marine Lake Flood Level study for years 1965
and 1975, which had 44.44 inches and 41.68 inches of precipitation, respectively. The average runoff
amounts are similar to the average yiel<is determined in the Prior Lake, Big Marine Lake, Minneapolis
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 51
~ "#'
~ J
Chain of Lakes and the Lake Minnetonka watershed yield studies.
The simplified method results in flood elevations which are higher than the lOO-year 10-day snowmelt
event (assuming the basin does not overflow in the 100-year 10-day snowmelt event), but possibly lower
than the runout elevation.
There are benefits to using the simplified method. Using this method, the pennittingjurisdiction has
reasonable assurance that buildings will be constructed outside of flood plains without resorting to
requiring that buildings be above the runout elevation. The method is simple; only future land use data
and stage/area/storage infonnation is required to detennine the 100-year flood elevation. Although data
collection is not required, any infonnation about historical water levels is useful.
There are also limitations to the use of the simplified method. It works best with single watersheds that
hold water. Dry depressions almost certainly experience seepage that is greater than what is built into the
method. . Another drawback is that the simplified method uses only the one year event; the critical event
could be of longer duration than one year. In areas with many landlocked ponds, the method can predict
overflow from one pond to another; in this case the conservatism of the method can multiply as more
upstream areas become tributary. If some of these upstream watersheds contain dry depressions, it could
add to the inaccuracy in the flood level detennination. Another problem is high seepage areas, especially
those with karst hydrology. In one case the observed flood level was 20 feet below the predicted flood
level. High seepage areas contain water but exhibit excessive seepage; the simplified method does not
take this additional seepage into account. Bank storage is not taken into account in the simplified
method. It is possible that a basin's effective storage volume could be much greater at a particular
elevation if bank storage was included in the storage volume computation.
Example Problem and Comparison with Other Methods
Given a landlocked watershed with a 20-acre pond at about Elevation 1000. The tributary area is 400
acres and the runout (overflow) level is Elevation 1030. The water surface area increases from 20 acres
at Elevation 1000 to 50 acres at 1030. The stage-storage curve is zero storage at Elevation 1000 to about
1000 acre-feet at 1030.
The proposed land use in the watershed is low density residential one-acre lots with approximately 20%
impervious surface. Based on average soil conditions and including the pond and impervious areas, the
weighted Curve Number would be about 75.
The land use for the simplified method is:
Water surface 20 acres x 18 inches of excess runoff = 30 acre-feet
Impervious surface 80 acres x 16 inches of excess runoff = 107 acre-feet
Turfed surface 300 acres x 10 inches of excess runoff = 250 acre feet
Total runoff to be stored (yield less assumed seepage) = 387 acre-feet
Results of different runoff calculation methods are described in Table 1.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 52
". i -'
'" r
Table 1
Comparison of Flood Level Calculations
For Sample Landlocked Pond
Minimum Acres of
Building Unbuildable
Method Runoff Flood Level Itlevation Land*
No building below runout level Not required to be calculated. 1030+ 1031+ 30+
Flood level would require about
1054 acre-feet or 31.6 inches of
runoff.
100-year one-day rainstorm (6 3.4 inches or 112 acre-feet 1005 1006 5
inches)
100-year 10-day rainstorm (10.8 5.27 inches or 176 acre-feet 1007.5 1008.5 7
inches) .
100-year 10-day runoff 7.2 inches or 240 acre-feet 1010 1011 9.2
30-day runoff event 9 inches or 300 acre-feet 1012 1013 11
Two 100-year I-day rainstorms 8.76 inches or 291 acre-feet 1012 1013 11
(12 inches)
Simplified method 387 acre-feet 1015 1016 14
* Area of basin below minimum building elevation minus normal lake area.
Draft Proposed Rules Bluff Version 10/13/04 53
Ie
'. , "
'"1, , "'_', '_'_. ., -
r
"'" ....- ,~
~...- ..... ..,'~ -' ~"ll
-.,-..-~~
n . ~-, ....... ~
-i, .
~ ~ · ~..." r-"
~ 6'a, I .. ! 'l;. .. I
I". ,...... , /=, """
.' t.., ." '. ~ [11 ";~": .
..l !.v.}1(AJen1e}J~ ., .~.~iFro~n :, ,~,:,t :/~':_ I-~~:~:f" .~!-,~ ~<. ~ . __~~
· ~. <4. . ,7. ~ I . .. \ _...,. ~ ,,"_.
~. J. ~/'" ~". . ' ",....ei fACKSON'JJ .~ I-: ,;" G""" ", ,,~.f~r!:..... tf""f1.'f;.-
':.:"3:1 . '.' . Pi:, -' ~""-<l;')- . ~ -;;
,'" 9 --rl11r .. _. 'I.;, .... _ . I., . ,J., ~ ;. . . ,"'~ : ~',
r-; ........ -- - ::=:"'..::.- - '. . . ", ;.:. . . .' rl~ (i!
' ~ ":...L ......... __, .___ ~. . .~.) '''~ ~" . &.
,.-' 7 · '. ".:' , ----:, _."f _ __ =. . '" "::. ;.:, . " :i:c.-: . I .:tffi,.,.. t._..
, K, " I ~ ~Ij.... d.r~ -, . t' ::,~;, : .J..., . J ,'"j ,
~ , .Jf ~ " II r I! ~. ) c:~':fI;"~l{r'i;)i,.t,;~.. ''''';Ui''I' i 'i~ , .. I
~ ~ ~ t J I . . S~LL~ r~ ~ . ,< , ,::, -~':( .', rii-itN;i:f/ti1' i':~(',::: ,f,~);,\
~.~.' - ,. ........ " .~ < ~~p .' ". l"'.......~....~. ..1" C". ' . .;' "'.l<1""")
Q . '. '" ~ ~~ .~.. ", ~ Gi i"" i",...;t~,~f ijJ:-.';,,,,,i';;,,/..;;;'d~'A': Iiit,: ~",.:
" :! .. ~,~ \"1 l==~ ""t" ".:<'';';'':>'',,;f.}..;. k. !",. ",I ~~' ~
" , , ...... ,-- "."l~ =s:"'f;;;;,.ii!Tlf'ri:t'~. " ... "~
~ ".-- II 1 .-- '1''''''-' ,..' .'. ",;;.~ -' I" '"'-''' .
- ..-' ,1'1 ~ ""'I"' . ~' ,-,
'.; " h J .. ' . ~~ .;.:{."jij,/ '1;(;~~ ... -,' .' "':.
..... "'. . .," ... .'., ..".... ". '" ' V' " ",H. ~,.'" . ";'~""... d' ....1I~t ~ i."
, ,."; '," .,~, ,:-':~i';"'~;~.I' ~~~""',,''''I .
;'S. C'.oit' ! ~ ~ "t" ,'''', "~"."Il:" '\:"f'? .. ::
t . . -' 11 .-... ~ ~ , I IU
. ',"" I .' ~ ;iT. .' ""r~ ;~!":-- l ::
,..:;.. . I " *i.\~' .. ,
....... "'i,... ":1~ .- .,' 11";' .'" ~~~" ~ ;.' ,,~"ll'I'" :-j'" ',"'_=::- tit
.'.'. ' ;.; <., " .. I I'i I' -, i\
:' \ \. #' ~ I" c.J;, ':;~ .'"., I' ~ "'Jr..::. . j
." ~ 11-. I .", i A . .. u ':", , , ... I lr-=fl'!'~~~
../ '~,L' ,; ','" ..!: f.',;~ I!!III> ">'"" " j I - T'l"l," "'::'''"
"; , .' .. SAND CREEK ! r2"1"'7' , .~ti =. g' I,. ".i~ ~~ /~~~ !~:1!:_
/ ' ~ . !'liOiIj JV~. '. 1" J" i}tl ~...... bL ll:1'7"" . v.... :~.::'
. / .1,1" .;1. ":" ~ 1 t ~ ,f-' ~~ jl'::'~ m ilK........ ~~:
.' ./'" ~- ,........~ .... I ,'} ~.v-:: "="
~. -: "....... ~~J.,~ ,:) I I I~ t}~i:, 'J~. W.. 'I~~ fwE ~'=---,i...JJ'1 'i~. E~:
.... , ~ ~ ,......,. "" ~I ~ ..... " . :.,?:~ t,.: l':~.' "J '.' ~ '. .' I '!":o.i'" },~~CR.E[DITRIVER ~(. ~ . t-""
., ~"~r.IJt,~ ~' ~ I .l~ ~
' . ,",: " =,,:". ~",::.' (~.' ":: .'l"l1I> . ,....... (;'1 d ~ I ".... ~,1 .......
' I f.AlJJ ~_~ ' "', ~.. i'7":" U -,~ _ '" ~l:li!f[_
" ';....,.,:. ., .. Ii "f'" ~..~ .::,:: ;fie ~ ." I s..:~ ~ -----c "1:;..... &1.__ "I~' ......:..
,"",;..,",,,- " "" , '~- - :::t::f.;-
"""',<" t(J . ~ ,NCE _:'f ..... '. '''f''''l...~, _.. _.'!;,.). _~_, , . ; "
"...'" "~ ",.,. ,'..... ~, ,
".. "\.j"...~.:.......~"\;t~'~ ~...:..G .( - j N!' I- l~.~'~=f ",
i /~'$~:,~~,' ~ ., ',- ' ..:::; j' - .",~ 'l ~:-." '. ,'j~ ;,_
,'/""",:",;.' ~' r;~~.~~, :. ~'I ~ I ~.'l ~.J 1 ~ ~ i\J; , .~r=-
"', . -. . ;""'''~.'>'''~~: . ". ;;;,: · ~! 1:- ,t! ~ . '.. f i~ .~ ~~~;;-:\,..... r--,' ..' '. ." ....,.~
...'.., ~.< ,'-'L, f ~ I" " :Il~ II t"iI1l~'1rCIL I ,L1..I..; .." ",',
' 'II . '\. "'~ ~ btl\:.I'=" !lII,;"" ').....~ .,...... - , " " .'
., ,. c' I .P- !l j '. , .~'"
o ' ..... Ii " , , .; -:-;^ ~, ... .,' ..i ' ,. j i1i\
· ~ - .." r '-. ( ,., . '" '. . . ~ "." f:r' ~ i II...... ~ ~ . il ~ ' n -i' !C;i
! 'F' ----" do 1 . \.:, HELENA .. "" .,:; l LI ,.." "','"
,. -.." , . ,I -.:,:. "":1 '.-.,~~- .1 ~'l '. 1 ~. '. I
., ie' ~.~ '- ~u- r I ~ 'I" _ CE7ARi ~,illil11!!" t". i~...
BLAKELEY ", ." L~. .~ .... .. ~'~ ..:,1 ~ lAI\E I . ",
,:if.' I. ~",; f. ~ I , BELLEPLAINE f~~~' 'I, ,"':.'J. ~~ ..'~ I, I .~ t., :: ....... "....
"Wi! , ~ - 11"... II i,. M\ . ';M"
..,;;,t~ ''1,,' I ) " I ~,. , , IJ, I ' }C · "\ '.' ~;Il .". ',f "'..
. -- . '... IV "., "". rnr"'!!i ,
.:,~,;"l:!oo.. ,r t.. ! i II; I! N. \ j.- ;1"" n -. Ir} ~~ ~/ . ~,f,~;;;}i"
. .... 3 . I \r: II' I ]t I '.' II 'f I \.......;.. I 1_. . ~ 11.'0 ".... '''.. .' ,
\,; ."..... '., ~ ' . ,".: ' " - I -', "....;....: ! i' ., 'Or.
I ..... , ". _ : .' _ \~Il. ~ ..:1;. J}, _ II ..~ I .
. , l ~ ~ ...~ ..~.. L.-...l I f.' """'Ij ~. ' . f):..J, ~... "T j
f'I I - ~. Prague i f. '...: \j r-"O , . 'I ,.~
' ." ~ " r ,.l' 'l~ - . _ ". _...
/)'~;~..;... li~ r I' 'I l' I~ , \ l~~' r.:. .~ ...11- , J\ " I ~ il ...""... ,f.L -~'1! .j i ~
fi.: ;:,1 \, .) I I , ~ ..J \;'>'''', . ....( \ :~ ,''P';''cc;w. ~r.~". , .. '~. '\.. J _
~'~\~' " , .. ~ .) f ~ 11:
Legend: DRAFT
IAliMO BLUFF DISTRICTS e
Map 1: BLUFF DISTRICTS OF THE SCOTT VIfJ Cl SCoUWalorshedManagome ntOrganization ". 7 I ~ 7 Miles ~=;;::~~;';':.:"~'~::::"~:~~::';':'~~';;;=,~~~;';.~~\~
III Black Dog Watershed In vaneua city county and state ofl"tCB! and other sour~ affectIng the lSrea a.ho1m.
LOYfer MiMesat. River Watershed o;,(rid Management Organization and I. to be";od roo ;"'"ence .",,,,..~ onl, :;00, CoU""';' "'" re.pons;b~ any
Scott County Vermillion InaculaCl&s h&rein ecntamed If discrepancies are found, pleaM conUtct !.he
prior Lake. Spring Lake Watershed District :. ,... . Joinl Powers Organization CDI.I"Ity surveyol'$ Office _.___
.' . /5 C. 3
~
\
I
I
J
Memorandum
To: Bruce Loney, P.E., City of Shakopee
From: Todd Hubmer, P.E., WSB
Date: December 21, 2004
Reo' Scott County Water Resource Plan
WSB Project No. 1281-31
We have reviewed the July 2003 Scott County WMO Plan with respect to Minnesota Rules
8410.0110 "Impact on Local Government". This rule states that the WMO plan shall review the
impact of the WMO policies on the local governments and provide an analysis ofthe financial
impact of implementation of the plan on the local governments. Our review is outlined below:
. Section 2 of the Plan is entitled "Coordination with other Units of Government." This
section states that the WMO will regulate the use and development of land if a city does not
have an approved local water management plan or is found not to be implementing the plan.
This also states that the WMO will set the standards for all LGU's policies. This is a
requirement under Minnesota Rules. There is no other discussion in this section as to the
impact on the local governments.
. Section 50f the Plan addresses Administration. This portion of the Plan states that the WMO
will playa direct role in projects and permit activities as appropriate until the LGU has an
adopted local plan. This section also states that the County is the land use authority within
the townships and the cities are the land use authority within their city boundaries. This
section seems in conflict with the WMO's rules on Page 3, where it seems the WMO wants
more authority within the cities.
. Appendix F of the Plan provides a listing of the WMO programs, estimated costs, and
identifies the potential funding sources. The programs that list the LGU's include the
following:
. Enforcing erosion and sediment control per NPDES Phase II. A total cost of
$70,000 per year for the WMO is listed.
. Developing a Wetland Management Plan. It is unclearfrom the Plan, the Rules,
and the WMO's responses to comments how the Wetland Management Plans will be
developed and who will be responsible for developing these Plans. Approximately
$30,000 per year is listed as WMO costs.
. "
<;. December 21,2004
Page 2 of2
There is no other discussion related to the impact of this Plan on the local governments.
Additionally, the WMO did respond to City comments on August 8, 2003. Some of these
responses are not reflected in the proposed Rules. A brief review of the responses with the Rules
is outlined below:
. The WMO indicated that they did not intend to take on permitting and plan review
responsibility within the City's boundaries if a local plan had been adopted. This is
inconsistent with the proposed rules (Page 3) that state that the WMO will review
City projects.
. The WMO indicated in the past that infiltration would not be a requirement for the
cities. However, Page 23 ofthe Rules appears to be requiring infiltration.
. The Plan stated that buffers would be required. These requirements have not changed
from the Plan, although the City has objected to these rules.
. Discharge rates within the city would be limited to existing conditions, not pre-
settlement rates. On Page 15 of the rules, this may be an issue for reconstruction of
existing roads in annexed areas.
. The policy relating to flood elevations near roads was not addressed. The policies
that the City commented on in the Plan are still in the rules (page 39).
. Chapter 6 County Zoning Ordinance: Initially, the WMO indicated that the County's
stormwater zoning ordinance (Chapter 6) would be used as a guide, but would not
have to be adopted for areas within the City boundaries. However, the final draft
rules of the WMO have incorporated portions ofthe County's stormwater zoning
ordinance into the water resource planning rules that will now be required within the
City's boundaries.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to call us at (763)541-
4800.
C:\DocllfIleIlIS alld SellillgslBLolleylLocal SettillgslTemporm)' III/ernet Files\OLK4D3\MEMO-122104-bl.doc