The URL can be used to link to this page

C MN Storm Water Regulations CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax 952.2271110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone 952.2271160 Fax 952.227.1170 Finance Phone 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone 952.2271120 Fax 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.2271400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.227.1130 Fax 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.2271300 Fax 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax 952.227.1110 Web Site VNlw.ci .chanhassen. mn. us c MEMORANDUM To: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager From: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator ~ Don Asleson, Environmental Resources Intern Date: April 18, 2005 Re: Existing and Proposed Minnesota Storm Water Regulations BACKGROUND There are three large, storm water-related initiatives/requirements underway in the State of Minnesota. They are: 1) NPDES Phase II MS4 Permit: Permit in force; however, significant changes are proposed, primarily with respect to non degradation (MR 7050). 2) Impaired WaterstrMDL: In force. Actual ramifications to be determined. 3) Clean Water Legacy Act: Pending at the state legislature. These programs are loosely related. However, each of these programs is coming to a critical point. Deliberations and decisions made in the next few months may complicate water resources management (e.g., its financing, planning, implementation). It is important that the Council be aware of existing requirements, proposed changes and possible effects on City operations. This is all in addition to the existing framework of comprehensive planning, watershed planning and metro surface water planning activities. NPDESPHASEIIMS4PERNUT In 2003, the City of Chanhassen applied for and received coverage under the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) NPDES Phase IT MS4 permit. Since the issuance of the original permit, a lawsuit was filed against the MPCA. As a result of that lawsuit, the MPCA must revise the permit in accordance with the court's decision. A draft of the revised permit has been issued. Comments were due on April 15, 2005. The draft revised permit is available upon request. The City's comments are included as Attachment 1. The City of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Minnesota Storm Water Regulations April 18, 2005 Page 2 of 5 (The summary below assumes that the permit that is adopted is substantially similar to the draft permit.) General Permit The proposed NPDES Phase II General Permit is generally the same as the original permit issued in 2003. It requires MS4s to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) that involves the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) in six minimum control measures (MCMs). There are three appendices (Appendices C, D and E) that have been modified in a significant fashion (summarized below). The major changes to the general permit include: a. The annual report is due on or before June 30 of each year (changed from March 10); b. An annual inspection of stockpiles, storage and material handling areas is required; and c. The MS4 must submit the entire SWPPP to receive permit coverage, not just a summary document. Outstanding Resource Value Waters (ORVWs) Appendix C addresses discharges to ORVWs. The City contains one Water with Restricted Discharges (Seminary Fen) and one Trout Water (Assumption Creek). The major changes to this part of the permit include: a. The proposed permit requires far more specificity with regard to Waters with Prohibited Discharges; however, these requirements do not apply to Chanhassen's MS4 permit because the City does not contain Waters with Prohibited Discharges. b. The proposed permit requires MS4s to have administrative procedures to assure the requirements of other agencies (DNR, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Environmental Quality Board, etc.) are met. Nondegradation Nondegradation is a concept that was introduced with the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1987. Its implementation in Minnesota is outlined in Minn. R. 7050.0180 (ORVWs) and Minn. R. 7050.0185 (all waters). The goal is to preserve (or return) all waters to the water "quality consistently attained by January 1, 1988" through the regulation of new and expanded discharges. Appendices D and E establish a procedure for implementing the non degradation requirements for all waters in Minn. R. 7050.0185. Prior to the lawsuit against MPCA regarding the original MS4 permit, Minn. R. 7050.0185 was only interpreted to apply to traditional point sources of pollution (wastewater treatment plants, etc.). The decision resulting from the lawsuit requires the MPCA to address nondegradation for storm water systems. Minnesota Storm Water Regulations April 18, 2005 Page 3 of 5 The MPCA, the League of Minnesota Cities and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy were the three main parties involved in the development of the nondegradation component of the revised permit. A part of that process was an agreement to use 30 of the fastest-growing, most populated cities (called "Selected MS4s") as the first step in implementing nondegradation requirements during this permit term (until September 30, 2010). The City of Chanhassen is a selected MS4. Other MS4s will most likely be required to meet the nondegradation standard at some point, presumably under the next MS4 permit in 2010. Under the revised permit, selected MS4s will be required to demonstrate nondegradation for three parameters: volume, total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS). If waters have degraded since January 1, 1988, MS4s must develop a nondegradation plan that proposes "reasonable and practical" actions to mitigate the degradation. The revised permit proposes selected MS4s develop a work plan, model their MS4 to determine whether or not degradation has occurred, develop a nondegradation plan, and revise their SWPPP to reflect their nondegradation plan. At that point, the SWPPP will be put on statewide public notice. Barring any substantive comments on or issues with the nondegradation plan, the MS4 general permit would be issued by the MPCA for that MS4. If the City is found to need to take additional actions to meet (or approach) nondegradation standards, it will be an expensive and time consuming process. (Mitigation of storm water volumes will be the most difficult task to undertake.) Also, according to the MPCA, an MS4 could meet all nondegradation standards, but still have impaired waters. IMPAIRED WATERS PROGRAM trOT AL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD Impaired Waters: Lakes and streams that fail to meet water quality standards designed to protect them from pollution. The federal Clean Water Act requires states to assess all their waters for impairments and publish updated lists of them every two years. It also requires states to prepare plans called Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies for each impairment on the list. An MPCA fact sheet entitled "Assessing and listing impaired waters" is included as Attachment 2. Chanhassen' s listed waters are: Water Affected Use Pollutant Yr. Listed Tar et Yr. Action Christmas Lake A uatic consum tion Mercur FCA 1998 2011 None Lake Ann A uatic consum tion Mercur FCA 2002 2015 None Lake Luc A uatic cons urn tion Mercur FCA 2002 2015 None Lake Minnewashta A uatic consum tion Mercu FCA 2004 2017 None Lake Riley A uatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008 TMDL Lake Rile A uatic consum tion Mercur FCA 2002 2015 None Lake Susan A uatic consum tion Mercur FCA 1998 2011 None Lotus Lake A uatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008 TMDL Minnesota Storm Water Regulations April 18, 2005 Page 4 of 5 Lotus Lake Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 2002 2015 None Bluff Creek Aquatic life Fish rnI 2002 2009 TMDL Bluff Creek Aquatic life Turbidity 2004 2009 TMDL Purgatory Creek Aquatic life Fish IBI 2004 2009 TMDL Riley Creek Aquatic life Turbidity 2002 2009 TMDL *FCA = Fish Consumption Advisory *IBI = Index of Biotic Integrity Mercury is a pollutant that makes its way into our lakes through atmospheric deposition. It is a byproduct of air pollution caused in large part by coal burning power plants. At this point, the MPCA anticipates mercury impairments will be handled at the regional or national level. The table above will be explained in greater detail at the work session. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): This is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that may be introduced into a surface water and still assure that applicable water quality standards for that water are achieved and maintained. A TMDL is the sum of the pollutant load allocations for all sources of the pollutant. TMDLs take seasonal variations and a margin of safety into account. In 2003, the MPCA approached the Minnesota Environmental Initiative (MEI) to develop a stakeholder process for beginning an impaired waters program. MEI was asked to: 1) Recommend a design for the program; 2) Identify possible partnerships between the MPCA and other entities; 3) Identify funding opportunities; 4) Engage in priority setting; and 5) Develop strategies for identifying and restoring impaired waters. Three layers of stakeholder groups were created to assist in ME!' s process: I. Policy Workgroup (Group of 16): Individuals with experience in drafting environmental policy legislation; II. Partners Workgroup (Group of 40): Individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds who review and comment on policy framework; and III. Public Stakeholder Input Group: All parties who could be affected in some way by the impaired waters program. The final recommendation of the group was to establish a water protection fee of $36 a year for residential service connections to sanitary systems and $150 a year for all other service connections to sanitary systems. The group proposed that 20% of the fund should be used for assessments, 20% for TMDL activities and 60% for restoration projects. The fees would be deposited into a water protection account within the State's environmental fund. This fee has been written into a bill and is currently undergoing discussion at the Minnesota State Legislature as the "Clean Water Legacy Act." Minnesota Storm Water Regulations April 18, 2005 Page 5 of 5 The process recommended by the group for the identification and restoration of impaired waters is included as Attachment 3. CLEAN WATER LEGACY ACT (H.F. 826/ S.F. 762) As indicated above, the proposal for the water protection fee originated in MEI's stakeholder process. The initial proposal was $36 per year for residential service connections to sanitary systems and $150 per year for all other service connections to sanitary systems. The Clean Water Legacy Act (CWLA) seeks to establish a Clean Water Council (CWC) in order to advise on the administration and implementation of the Act; foster coordination and cooperation; and advise on the development of appropriate processes for expert scientific review. The CWC would be comprised of 18 representatives from various agencies, organizations, municipalities, townships and districts. The CWC would also recommend appropriations to the governor. The current proposal before the legislature would adopt the following fee structure: a $36 annual fee charged to residential sewer bills, a $36 annual fee on septic tanks, and a three-tiered fee for industrial and commercial hook-ups at $120, $300 or $600 based on usage. Septic systems would account for about $19 million per year (about 22%) of the fee revenue. A hardship exemption would be available for low-income residential customers. A breakdown of the proposed CWLA appropriations is included as Attachment 4. Concerns regarding the CWLA and its recommended appropriations will be discussed further at the work session. ATTACHMENTS 1) Comments on NPDES Phase II Draft Revised General Permit, L. Haak, April 15, 2005 2) "Assessing and listing impaired waters," MPCA, January 2004. 3) "TMDL Process Steps" 4) Clean Water Legacy Act Appropriation Summary, April 18, 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us April 15, 2005 Louis Flynn, P.E. Municipal Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Re: Comments on Revised Draft Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) General Storm water Permit for Small Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) Statement of Interest The City of Cliahhassen has been identified as a small municipal separate stormwater sewer system (small MS4) and is therefore required to obtain coverage under the general permit. The City of ChaIihasseriisalso a selected MS4 and contains a water with restricted discharge (Seminary Fen) and ,a trout water (Assumption Creek). ' , Revised Draft (JenetalPennitCom111:ent~ Comment 1: .' ':.,-, <- --..-,:."":",. , : _' '.'-. ." . ,,;, '". -:'. '" .' ,:'_','-.. _·:,~·.:·.:i·,·,:.·.-.:'.::·_' .' ,',' :._ .. " ····c:.'..,:·...· .: ...... ,'-',' .... .......... .........,", ,'.,. -............-. ". ......... ......... Vulne~able Source Water Protection Areas are. not undpr the'. jµril)diction of the Clean Wate!: Act. V\}lnerable 's(jm-ce w~ter ' , pröt~cti()n is specifically addressed in Minn.'R 4720:5100:, " 4720;5590. This includes requirements forwellhéad and " source water protection plans, vulnerability assessments; protection goals, action plans and evaluations. . Page 4, Part IT B 4 h. Any reference to discharges affecting Vulnerable Source Water Protection Areas should be removed from this permit. Vulnerable Source Water Protection Areas are not regulated by the Clean Water Act. Protection measures already exist in Minnesota Rule. Location: Action: Rationale: The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. City of Chanhassen Comments PenrrlltNo.~040000 29 SR 1024 Page 2 of 11 Comment 2: Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 3: Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 4: Location: Action: Rationale: The permit will not provide coverage for selected MS4s until after the nondegradation plan and revised SWPPP are approved. For Chanhassen, this will be no earlier than June 1,2007. Page 4, Part II C 3. The permit should be revised to require selected MS4s to include a BMP to complete the non degradation plan by the date set forth in Appendix E. As the permit is currently written, selected MS4s will not have immediate coverage under the revised permit, leaving them at risk for third party lawsuits. The revision of the permit as recommended will allow the Commissioner to grant permit coverage to all MS4s that meet the permit requirements, including selected MS4s. Under the current plan, selected MS4s will be required to submit three permit applications in five years (September 30,2005, by the date in Appendix E and presumably September 30, 2010). This is unduly burdensome, especially in consideration of the additional requirements of the non degradation work plan and nondegradation plan. Page 5, Part III A. The permit should be revised to allow the non degradation plan to occur as a SWPPP amendment instead of a separate SWPPP requirement. The revision of the permit as recommended will make the nondegradation plan submittal requirements more consistent with the SWPPP amendment procedures throughout the rest of the permit. In addition, if the number and frequency of submittals are reduced, selected MS4s could use the time and energy consumed by these plans and revisions to implement more BMPs in a shorter amount of time, thus achieving the goals of the permit in a more efficient manner. The revised permit states, "You must select and implement a program of appropriate BMPs and measurable goals for this minimum control measure by June 30, 2008." These programs will be selected when the NOI and SWPPP are submitted on or before September 30, 2005. The expiration date of the permit is September 30, 2010. It stands to reason that the BMPs will be implemented and the measurable goals attained by September 30,2010. Page 8, Part V G 1-6. The June 30, 2008 date is an additional, more stringent requirement that should be removed. There is no legal requirement for the June 30, 2008 deadline. City of Chanhassen Comments Permit No. MNR040000 29 SR 1024 Page 3 of 11 Comment 5: Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 6: Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 7: Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 8: Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 9: Location: Action: Rationale: The current permit requires the annual public meeting to address the annual report. This section has been revised to require the annual public meeting to address the entire SWPPP. This revision is not recommended. Page 8, Part V G 1 e. The wording of this requirement in the existing permit should be carried through to the revised permit (i.e., no change). A number of cities hold their public meeting in the context of a City Council meeting. Addressing the entire SWPPP instead of the annual report will be cumbersome and time consuming. Summarizing the annual report is a more effective tool for public education in that it communicates the actual BMPs that were accomplished and the measurable goals that were met during the course of the year. The phrase "upon application" is vague. Page 10, Part V G 4. This phrase should be revised to read: "Upon application, you must begin to develop...". The phrase is unclear. The phrase "controls. on storm water discharges" is vague. Page 10, Part V G 4. This phrase should be defined to distinguish these controls from BMPs, mentioned later in the sentence. The phrase is unclear. This section still contains the word "minimize." Page 12, Part V G 6 b 1. This should be changed to "reduce" to be consistent with the rest of the permit. The words "to the maximum extent practicable" should also be added. The verbiage appears to be inconsistent with the rest of the permit. The requirement to inspect exposed stockpile, storage and material handling areas is unsubstantiated. Page 12, Part V G 6 b 4. The addition of this requirement should be substantiated by the MPCA. This requirement will increase the workload for all MS4s. City of Chanhassen Comments PermitNo.MNR040000 29 SR 1024 Page 4 of 11 Comment 10: The requirement for inspecting exposed stockpile, storage and material handling areas is unclear. Page 12, Part V G 6 b 4. The definition of "exposed stockpile, storage and material handling areas" should be added to the permit. This clarification should include verbiage to indicate that the MS4 is only responsible for the stockpiles and storage and material handling areas owned and/or operated by the MS4. Rationale: The phrase is unclear. Location: Action: Comment 11: The phrase "sediment storage and capacity remaining" does not apply to inspection of outfalls and stockpiles. Page 12, Part VG 6 b 7. The phrase "where applicable" should be added to that clause. The phrase is inappropriate in the case of some infrastructure. Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 12: Paragraphs 2 and 3 appear to be contradictory. Location: Page 13, Part V H 2 & 3. Action: The verbiage should be examined to clarify when and by whom modifications to the SWPPP may be requested and/or made. Rationale: These paragraphs are unclear. Comment 13: The 1988 date is unclear. Location: Page 17, Part rn. Action: The date January 1 should be added before "1988" in 2 places. Rationale: Maintain consistency throughout the document. Comment 14: The phrase "maximum extent practicable" is not in bold. Location: Page 19, Part vrn, Appendix B, "Reduce." Action: The phrase "maximum extent practicable" should be revised to appear in bold. Rationale: Maintain consistency throughout the document. Comment 15: The terms "all waters," "designated MS4" and "selected MS4" lack definitions. Page 19, Part VIII, Appendix B. Definitions should be provided for "all waters," "designated MS4" and "selected MS4." Rationale: The terms are presently undefined. Location: Action: City of Chanhassen Comments PermitNo.MNR040000 29 SR 1024 Page 5 of 11 Comment 16: It appears that this part of the permit also regulates "new or expanded discharges" to certain waters as defined in Appendix B (since January 1, 1988). However, MPCA staff has indicated that "new or expanded discharges" will be determined from the issuance date of the proposed permit (after September 30, 2005). Additionally, the draft guidance (page 42 of 116) indicates that new or expanded discharges are determined according to the date·of designation of the ORVW. These dates are not widely available. Page 21, Part IX, Appendix C, A-D. This section should be revised to indicate that, in this section, "new or expanded discharges" will be determined from the issuance date of the proposed permit (those new or expanded discharges that occur after September 30, 2005). Rationale: The definition of "new or expanded discharges" in Appendix C is unclear. Location: Action: Comment 17: The mapping and narrative requirements are new and have not been substantiated by the MPCA. Page 21-22, Part IX, Appendix C, A-B. These requirements should be eliminated. These requirements have not been justified and will increase the workload for MS4s with waters with prohibited discharges and waters with restricted discharges. Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 18: If the MPCA has gathered or authored (or gathers or authors) additional information about waters with prohibited or restricted discharges or alternatives to existing or proposed discharges, this information should be made available immediately to affected MS4s. The rationale behind the statement that "The MPCA reserves the right to incorporate as much available information as possible in the decision making process, including the right to independently develop and evaluate potential reasonable and practical alternatives" is unclear. Page 22, Part IX, Appendix C, A-B. The purpose of this assertion should be evaluated and it should be revised to more clearly articulate that purpose. Rationale: The purpose of the statement is unclear. Location: Action: Comment 19: The body of the general permit already requires the implementation of the SWPPP and its BMPs. Page 23, Part IX, Appendix C, A-B. These sections should be eliminated. These sections are redundant. Location: Action: Rationale: City of Chanhassen Comments Permit No. MNR040000 29 SR 1024 Page 6 of 11 Comment 20: These issues should not be regulated by a permit that regulates discharge. In addition, existing agencies adequately address these issues at present, making duplicate procedures that would be established by MS4s redundant. Page 23, Part IX, Appendix C, C-H. These items should be eliminated. This will ensure resources (including time and finances) are employed in a responsible manner. Municipalities already cooperate extensively with these agencies, when necessary. In addition, any procedures adopted by MS4s would likely be less effective than the procedures presently used by the state agencies. Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 21: This requirement is onerous. Location: Page 25, Part IX, Appendix C, H. Action: If this requirement is not removed, as suggested in Comment 1, it should be revised to apply only to Vulnerable Source Water Protection Areas owned by the permitted MS4. 'Rationale: Mapping all the Vulnerable Source Water Protection Areas within MS4s will be difficult and time consuming, if not unfeasible, considering that the definition of a "public" well includes any well that serves more than 25 people. In addition, wellhead and source water protection plans should already address these issues. Comment 22: The MPCA has not demonstrated that new or expanded discharges for selected MS4s meet the significance test in Minn. R. 7050.0185. The MPCA is responsible for making this determination in a defensible manner. Page 26, Part X, Appendix D. The permit should be revised to include a process for making determinations of significance consistent with Minn. R. 7050.0185. Rationale: If the new or expanded discharges for selected MS4s are not significant, the requirements of Appendix D do not apply. This could have profound implications on the potential future obligations of the selected MS4s currently listed in Appendix E. Location: Action : Comment 23: The requirement for a work plan is onerous. Location: Page 26, Part X, Appendix D, B. Action: The requirement for a work plan should be removed. City of Chanhassen Comments PermitNo.MNR040000 29 SR 1024 Page 7 of 11 Rationale: A work plan requirement will add another level of review. This means that the selected MS4s and the MPCA will be required to spend more time and effort that could be used in completing the loading assessment and nondegradation plan. Comment 24: No timeline is provided for MPCA review of work plans. Action: If the work plan requirement is not removed, as suggested in Comment 23, this section should be revised to provide the MPCA with 60 days to review the work plans. Location: Page 26, Part X, Appendix D, B. Rationale: In order to meet the submittal deadlines set forth in Appendix E, the selected MS4s will need to receive feedback from the MPCA on their work plans in a timely fashion. It is unclear whether the work plan will be reviewed by the MPCA in a timely fashion. Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 25: The phrase "change in storm water runoff loading" is unclear. The phrase should be further explained. Page 27, Part X, Appendix D, C. The phrase should be further explained. It is unclear what precisely is required in each selected MS4's assessment of "the change in storm water runoff loading." Comment 26: The loading assessment requirements are unclear. Additionally, it is arguable whether or not a loading assessment is necessary for future (i.e., 2020) conditions. Page 27, Part X, Appendix D, C. Please provide additional direction with regard to the loading assessment. This should include a revision of the loading assessment requirement to only be performed for conditions from January 1, 1988 through the end of the permit term (September 30, 2010). Rationale: The loading assessments will require a significant investment of time and energy, but may not be accurate or useable if an MS4's loading assessment inadvertently misses the mark with respect to the MPCA's general direction. In addition, subsequent permits may have unique requirements making this portion of the loading assessment obsolete. Location: Action: Comment 27: The loading assessment section does not specify whether or not improvements (both prior to 1988 and existing) should be included in the modeling. Location: Page 27, Part X, Appendix D, C. City of Chanhassen Comments PermitNo.MNR040000 29 SR 1024 Page 8 of 11 Action: The permit should be changed to specify that the loading assessment includes storm water infrastructure (including, but not limited to, storm water ponds, swirl concentration devices, sump catch basins, etc.) within the MS4 Rationale: The loading assessment should reflect existing conditions (including storm water infrastructure) in a fashion similar to loading assessments in the other areas administered by the MPCA (wastewater, etc.). With the storm water infrastructure improvements in place, it is possible that a number of the selected MS4s would not meet the significant discharge criteria and would therefore not be required to complete nondegradation plans. This would ease the burden on both the MPCA and MS4s. Comment 28: Volume in and of itself is not a pollutant. Location: Page 27, Part X, Appendix D, D. Action: Volume reduction should not be included as part of this permit. Rationale: Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP) are the primary pollutants that result from volume increases and are already proposed to be regulated by the revised permit. The science for retrofitting to achieve volume reduction is in its very early stages. Infiltration is, for all intents and purposes, the only method for volume reduction currently available in retrofit situations. In addition, infiltration is not possible, or even practical, in many cases. Location: Action: Comment 29: It is unclear how "reasonable and practical" will be determined with regard to nondegradation plans. Page 27, Part X, Appendix D, D. A procedure for determining "reasonable and practical" with regard to nondegradation plans should be written into the permit. Rationale: Selected MS4s need to know what criteria will be used so they can provide a meaningful framework through which the MPCA may evaluate reasonableness and practicality. Such criteria are already outlined in Minn. R. 7050.0185 subp. 4. Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 30: The term "future development" is ambiguous. In other sections, the permit references the year 2020 or ultimate development, whichever will occur first. Page 27, Part X, Appendix D, D. This term should be clarified. It is unclear how far into the future the non degraded levels must be maintained. City of Chanhassen Comments Permit1'l0.MNR040000 29 SR 1024 Page 9 of 11 Comment 31: It is unclear what is meant by "1988 levels means approximately average conditions of rainfall." Page 27, Part X, Appendix D, D. This should be clarified. Without clarification, it will be difficult for MS4s to be consistent in their approaches to the nondegradation plan and SWPPP update. Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 32: Would surface water management plans and capital improvement plans, incorporated by reference, be sufficient in lieu of a special "implementation schedule that addresses new development and retrofit BMPs it proposes to implement?" Page 27, Part X, Appendix D, D. This should be clarified. These schedules and plans already exist. It is much more efficient if they can be incorporated by reference instead of repackaged specifically for the nondegradation plan and revised~WPPP. Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 33: Due to circumstances beyond MS4 control, it is often difficult to address retrofit BMPs within a set timeline. It may not be possible to implement all necessary BMPs prior to September 30,2010. Page 27, Part X, Appendix D, D. This paragraph should address the potential need for improvements beyond the term of the permit. Often the greatest obstacle in retrofitting storm water infrastructure is obtaining all necessary land and/or easements for BMPs and construction in a timely and cost-effective manner. This is not something over which MS4s have complete control. Location: Action: Rationale: Comment 34: The selection process for the selected 30 MS4s employed only population data. This ignores the storm water impacts of MS4s with a high percentage of commercial and industrial land uses. Page 29, Part XI, Appendix E. The selection process should be revised to provide a truer representation of actual degradation potential. Rationale: The percentage of impervious surface in commercial and industrial areas far exceeds the percentage of impervious surface in residential areas; therefore, the amount of impact to all waters is greater in commercial and industrial areas. In addition, there is potential for a greater number and type of toxic non point source pollutants in commercial and industrial areas. Location: Action: City of Chanhassen Comments PermitNo.~040000 29 SR 1024 Page 10 of 11 Comment 35: The list of 30 selected MS4s does not include any non-traditional MS4s (airports, counties, road authorities, watershed districts, etc.). Page 29, Part XI, Appendix E. Appendix E should be revised to include non-traditional MS4s, as appropriate, in addition to the 30 selected MS4s. Rationale: Non-traditional MS4s should not be exempted from this requirement. Some of the non-traditional MS4s have likely had a greater impact on the degradation of waters than some of the selected MS4s. In addition, non- traditional MS4s often discharge water into other MS4s, which could cause an exceedance of the municipal MS4's nondegradation standards. Location: Action: Comment 36: The implications of the proposed permit on municipal operations (especially for selected MS4s) are far-reaching; however, the MPCA proposes no funding mechanism or other means of assistance (providing a clearinghouse for educational materials, technical assistance, workshops, etc.). In addition, it is doubtful that the goals of this permit (especially the nondegradation provisions) can be achieved within the costs ($9.50 per household per year) estimated by the EPA. Comment 37: A Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) or other explanatory document has not been provided for the proposed permit. Action: Regulated MS4s should be provided with a resource that explains what is regulated, how it is regulated and why the regulations exist as they do. Rationale: Each time this permit has been reissued, its requirements have become markedly more stringent, and therefore more demanding of permittees. Comment 38: The permit as proposed does not reflect the decades of storm water management planning and projects that have been undertaken by communities like Chanhassen. Action: The proposed permit should be revised to recognize and employ existing efforts of MS4s under the myriad of other water planning requirements instead of creating redundancies between the planning efforts. Rationale: A number of other state regulations require water resource protection and related planning. These include, but are not limited to, Minn. Stat. 103B, Minn. Stat. 103D and the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. It is unnecessary to duplicate the efforts already expended by communities in the course of meeting these requirements. City of Chanhassen Comments Permit No. MNR040000 29 SR 1024 Page 11 of 11 The City of Chanhassen appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft General Permit. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by phone at 952.227.1135 or bye-mail atlhaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Thank you~ Sincerely, ¿;r:ø-flr Lori Haak Water Resources Coordinator - ~ --- -- -.~ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Assessing and listing impaired waters Introduction The assessment of Minnesota's rivers, streams and lakes is tied to the 1972 Clean Water Act goals for restoring and protecting the ecological integrity of America's waters to benefit fish and wildlife, while providing for recreation wherever possible. These goals are commonly referred to as the "swimmable and fishable" goals of the CW A. One CW A strategy used to meet these goals involves identifying, listing and restoring "impaired waters." Section 303(d) of the CWArequires states to identify and list impaired waters for which a plan will be developed to remedy the pollution problem(s). The concept of impairment is important because it identifies which waters are in need of restoration. This fact sheet describes the process of assessing and listing impaired waters in Minnesota. What are "impaired waters?" Impaired waters are lakes and streams that fail to meet water-quality standards designed to protect them ITom pollution. The federal CW A requires states to assess all their waters for impairments and publish updated lists of them every two years. It also requires states to prepare plans called Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies for each impairment on the list. I I A TMDL defines the maximum amount of a pollutant a water body can receive and still meet and maintain water-quality standards. TMDLs January 2004 Examples of pollutants causing impairments include bacteria, mercury, sediment and excess nutrients, for example phosphorus or nitrogen. A lake or stream may also be impaired if its dissolved oxygen is too low or its temperature too high, conditions that can harm aquatic life. Determining impairments The amount of data required to determine impairment status varies by pollutant, but the following general requirements apply: · Data must be ITom within the last 10 years. · At least five values, and often more, are required. · Combinations of measurements may be required for some types of impairments. For example, listing a lake as impaired due to nutrients (which. can impact aquatic life, aesthetics, and oftèn swimming and boating) requires 12 total phosphorus and 12 chlorophyll-a or 12 Secchi disk measurements. The data are limited to the most recent 10- year period and must be ITom June through September of each year. This ensures that no sip.gle year will excessively affect the assessment determination. also set limits and reduction goals to bring impaired waters back within applicable standards. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Rd. N., St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 (651) 296-6300, toll-free (800) 657-3864, TTY (651) 282-5332 or (800) 657-3864 This material can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities. _Minnesota Pollution Control Agency __.... ...r Current status The MPCA relies on data it collects, along with data from other sources such as sister agencies, local government, and volunteers, to assess a lake or stream. The data must meet rigorous quality assurance protocols before it is used. Some sources of data, such as Secchi disk monitoring by citizens, are used only in association with other data. Determinations of impairment are based on MPCA- established water-quality standards2 and the agency's Guidance Manual for Assessing the Quality of Minnesota Surface Waters. 3 The Guidance contains information on the standards, data collection (including quality assurance/quality control recommendations), data assessment requirements, and minimum data needs to conduct assessment determinations. The MPCA makes assessment determinations using professional judgment teams to provide local insight. These teams consist ofMPCA staff, the collectors of the data under review, and other local and regional scientific experts. Public process There are numerous opportunities for the public to provide input into the process of determining impairments. About 18 months before the list is sent to EP A for their review and approval, a State Register notice plus several hundred individual letters are mailed seeking water-quality data. A series of informational public meetings throughout the state is scheduled two months before the draft list is due. At the same time, notice of the availability ofa draft list for review and comment is placed in the State Register (scheduled for Jan. 12 this year), plus letters are again mailed to more than 300 individuals and groups. Pollutant # impairments Ammonia 13 Bioaccum. toxics 1367 Chlorides 3 Excess nutrients 153 Fecal coliform 102 2 www.pca.state.mn.us/water/standards/index.htrnl 3 Available at www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl.htrnl#publications The draft 2004 list of impaired waters, plus maps, are available online at www.pca.state.mn.us/water/TMDL.html. Compared to the 2002 list, the MPCA has identified 211 additional impairments, bringing the total for the 2004 draft list to 1,916 impairments on 1,123 water bodies. (A single lake or stream may have multiple impairments.) The impairments affect 920 lakes and 203 streams. The table below contains the pollutants listed in the MPCA's draft 2004 list and the number of impairments in streams and lakes caused by each. Only five percent of river miles and 12 percent of lakes in Minnesota have sufficient data for the MPCA to determine whether they're impaired. Bioaccumulative toxics include mercury, PCBs, DDT, dieldrin, dioxin and toxaphene. Impairments due to mercury in water and fish tissues account for 92 percent of the bioaccumulative total and 65 percent of all the impairments on the 2004 draft impaired waters list. For more information For information about the impaired waters list, please contact Howard Markus, 651-296-7295 or bye-mail at howard.markus@pca.state.mn.us. , Pollutant # impairments Impaired biota 112 Low dissolved oxygen 45 pH 2 Temperature 1 Turbidity 118 TMDL PROCESS STEPS (PCA lead staff in parentheses) 1. Stakeholder Involvement: (Basin Coordinator, PCA Watershed Project Manager) 1:1 Outline water quality problem; answer questions, in regional meetings/presentations. 1:1 Establish local team (or use existing one) to stay with the project 1:1 Invite local ideas on approaches to solving the problem 1:1 Involve local people in data collection, plan development and review. 2. Data Collection (PCA Watershed Project Manager, Consultant*, in consultation with TMDL Modeling Coordinator) 1:1 Use TMDL "grid" or other appropriate format 1:1 Develop Source inventories 1:1 Conduct water quality monitoring to identify contributing areas 1:1 Other data - geologic, land use, etc. 3. Analyze and Interpret Data (TMDL Modeling Coordinator, PCA Watershed Project Manager, and/or Consultant*) 1:1 Identify sub-watersheds contributing disproportionately to problem 1:1 Estimate "loads" or relative contributions by sector 4. Show Initial Results to Local Team (PCA Watershed Project Manager and others as needed) 5. Show high-loading watersheds/sectors 1:1 Discuss broad load-reduction scenarios 1:1 Discuss specific site issues (unsewered communities, unpermitted feedlots, poor manure management sites, etc.) 6. Run Scenarios on different approaches to achieving designated uses (PCA Watershed Project Manager, Consultant* TMDL Modeling Coordinator) 7. Show Scenario Results to Team (PCA Watershed Project Manager and others as needed) 1:1 Show Scenario Results/Discuss Alternatives 8. Develop Implementation Strategy (All, with Team) 1:1 State Load-Reduction Goals by Sector 1:1 Describe Strategies for Reaching Goals 9. Send TMDL and Implementation Strategy to EPA (TMDL Coordinator) 1:1 EPA Review 1:1 Revisions if any 1:1 EPA Approval 10. Implement Strategy 1:1 Focus MPCA programs on target areas/sites 1:1 Seek funding 11. Monitor Progress 1:1 Track progress on the land (BMP implementation, permits, etc.) 1:1 Monitor water quality to determine when goals are achieved. 1:1 If not achieved on schedule, return to #2 and repeat process 12. If data support, de-list the impaired reach *Use of consultants for data collection, data analysis and interpretation, or public meeting facilitation is at the discretion of the PCA Watershed Project Manager and local watershed team members. ~ "- co E §N CI)~ s::: . ou. ;(1) co .- ....... "-CD c.N eco c.. c.u. «~ « ..J == o 0 0 (J) q 0 CD 0 0 () 0 0 +:: q C\I () I"- 00 CD CD as () () ... (J) (J) ..... It) 0 (J) (J) c C 0. CD CD fh .,¡ 0 - - +:: +:: q c c as as c .;;: .;;: , fh CD CD - in ,Q - - , C") (J) +:: +:: C") C") E E ëñ ëñ -æ () () l"- I"- ~ C") >. >. (J) (J) as as 0 0 -.:t. as as as as ~ <C <C I"- C\I C C - - 0 0. 0. 0> 0> CD g 0 c c <C C\I 0 ~ CD C C (J) +:: CD CD «) «) fh 0 > '~ '~ c () () E E -.:t -.:t «) , ó (J) (J) +:: +:: CD CD 0 CD CD (J) -.:t -.:t -.:t () ... ... F::' fh CD CD c c CD CD - - - ëa ëa en en -.:t 0 0 (J) (J) () () CD CD C C ... ... ... () (J) (J) 0 , 'C 'C ''¡::; +:: () () '5> '5> CD 0. 0. ,~ 'C 'C 0. 0. 6 6 en <C Lõ - ,~ .~ 6 () () ,!: ,!: as 0 c c c c as as c c CD CD «) I"- CD CD ~ ... CD CD 'C 'C CD ... ... ... ... 'C 'C CD CD () () 0. ... ... õ - c C -.:t 0 III - - 0. 0. C C 'C ... ... - - 0 'C -.:t <C 'C 'C ::J ::J C ::J .a c ~ 'C 'C 0> 0> as as c c c 0 0 0 'C 'C C C - C C (J) (J) as as ~ CD as as as (J) (J) ,- c c ,Q 0 (J) ~ .a en «) as as ... ... -æ as as - 6 -.:t ... CD CD Õ Õ ... (ij (ij - ë ë +:: c c ë -.:t ::J >. ª' () () as as 'õ c ... >. >. c D. (J) ~ ::J ::J g ..c ..c ,S:2 ,S:2 (J) (J) 'õ 'õ .8 .'!:: ~ ~ CD CD CD CD 'C en CD 0> E E (J) (J) 2 as as 'C 'C C (J) (J) c C 'C E 0. 0. (J) (ij (ij > E c 6 CD CD (J) (J) 0 0 , , CD ~ CD CD CD CD CD ::J ::J .~ '~ - - ..c ..c .~ as c c ::J ::J ... -æ ::J 0 t:T t:T C C ... ... (J) (J) () () ... 0 0 ... t:T t:T 0. 0. > > - - - as as 0. 0. .8 0 0 0 c.. 0> 0 0 CD (J) - CD $ c C 'C 0> - - (¡; ... .Q .Q 0 0 'ë ~ () () - 0 ... ... ... ... ~ - 0 0 - CD C 0. C CD CD f!? (J) 0. 0. C C () - - ... ... ... -æ - 0 0 c c c c as 0. .E 0 as - -æ ... ,~ ,~ ... ';;: as c c CD - - CD CD as ~ ~ (J) (J) CD CD E E 0 .Q ,Q 0 - as CD ë5 ... g 0 E ~ ~ CD CD () () +:: +:: - en c ~ ~ ~ - - 0> +:: -æ -æ 0 (J) (J) 0 as (ij I§ as > ::J ... ... c C 'C 'C as as I-- ë - ~ 'C as as - - -.:t -.:t CD CD as as ... ... ... ... c c +:: - - - ~ CD ... ... (J) 0 0 0 0 - - - - c c 0 0 0 0 ,Q en as as () 0 0 ï5.. ï5.. CD ... as ~ ]2 (J) - - 0 0 .!: c (J) (J) as as - in in - ... ... CD - ë 'C 'C in ë5 .Q c c c C\I C\I ~ .... ëñ ëñ (J) (J) -æ ... 0> 0> - C ~ CD as as ,!: ,!: 0 CD CD ~ C C CD CD CD CD .E 0 CD CD ... () () as ... ~ ... ... (J) (J) 0 0 ... ... ... ... ::J CD CD ... ë¡¡ ëa ~ ë E E f!? E E 0 .E .Q .Q as as +:: ~ - - - - (ij 0> 0> 0. E E 0. >. >. ï:¡¡ (J) 0. () () 0 'C 'C CD (J) (J) - (ij (ij as c c c c > CD C C ... (J) (J) ,~ ,~ ~ as >. () 'C as as 0. (J) (J) (J) (J) a.. a.. ::J ::J 'õ 'õ 'õ 'õ CD +:: ~ ~ 0 (J) (J) ,,!:: CD CD ...J ...J :::ã: :::ã: .S:2 () (ij (ij - CD CD 0> C c E 'C 'C - (J) (J) 'ë 0. 0. 0. 0. 'C C (ij (ij (J) (J) (J) õ - ~ ~ ::J 0 0 0 0 II) II) c > > c c c C ::J 0 ::J C C (J) (J) ..c ..c c ..c ..c - (J) (J) E +:: as as - as as :::ã: :::ã: CD CD 0 0 0 0 as 0 c as as ... ... E (J) (ij (ij () () c c c c () () () as c c CD CD ::J C C - CD CD I-- I-- ... ... CD CD ..c ..c 0> 'C 'C ... CD CD 0 0 - -æ E ë5 'x 0 .Q 'C 'C ::J ::J - - () 'C 'C 'C 'C C .8 0> 'C 'C +:: ~ as 0 as 0. 0. 0. - 'C 'C ~ CD CD CD CD C C ~ ~ ~ 0. +:: Ü 0 .~ .~ 0 0 'S ~ ... 1:: as as 0 .~ '~ ... () E () ::J C C as as - Q) - ~ (J) ... ~ Q) Q) CD CD ë 0 0 c c = ~ ~ CD CD () () as as CD CD e> 0> 0> 0 CD CD () CD CD - - as as as CD (ij -æ -æ > > '~ '~ 0. 0. (J) (J) 0. as (J) (J) -æ -æ (J) (J) - ë5 ë5 ... ... ~ CD CD E as - CD CD CD 0> 0> X X CD CD as as as as CD ... as as CD CD 0 () () 0 ü5 ü5 0 0 « « w w a: a: I-- I-- I-- I-- a: ø II) II) en ü5 ü5 a: a: ë3 ë3 en ~ I-- ... «) I"- «) «) I"- «) I"- «) I"- «) I"- «) I"- «) I"- «) l"- I"- I"- «) l"- I"- «) I"- «) I"- «) I"- «I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 .... ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó 0 ó 0 ó ó ó 0 ó ó 0 ó ó 0 0 ó ó 0 ó ò c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::J 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 0 q 0 0 q 00· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LÔ 0 ..... It) 0 0 C\I 0 0 ... E C") C") 0 «) C\I 0 m It) 0 It) 0 0 0 It) It) ..... It) 0 0 0 0 0 00 C") 0 It) 0 ..... co q ~ ..... Ol C\t C\I C") C") 00 ..... 00 -.:t I"- -.:t -.:t. C\I -.:t. C") Lq ~ C\I -.:t ..- 0 -.:t q en <C ..- ..... .,¡ ..... C") C\I LÔ C") C\I ..- C\I .,¡ .,¡ -.:t uS -.:t co ~ ..J >. >. >. >. >. (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) <C (J) (J) .... () () () () () CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (J) (J) (J) (J) 0 c c c c c ~ ~ () () ~ ~ () ~ ~ CD ~ CD CD CD ... ... ... CD CD CD CD .... 0> 0> 0> 0> ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J () ~ ~ () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... « « « « « ::J ::J ::J ::J (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) 0 0 0 0 ë5 ë5 ë5 e ë5 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (J) (J) (J) (J) ... ... ... ... CD CD CD CD CD ~ a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: CD CD CD CD - - - - - >. ~ c c c c c ... ... ... ... ... a: a: a: a: ~ CD CD ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J 'õ 'õ 'õ 'õ 'õ 'õ 'õ 'õ 'õ - ::J ::J 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - (ij .~ .~ c c () () () () () 'S 'S 'S 'S 'S 'S en en en en en en en en en (ij ëa ëa 0 0 c CD CD () () () () () () ... ... ... ... ..c ..c ~ c c c c C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C ::J ::J ::J ::J - - > > 0 0 0 0 0 .~ .~ '~ .~ .~ .~ c c c c c c c c c - - -æ -æ ::J ::J CD CD 0> 0> 0> 0> as as « « <C a: a: +:: :¡:; :¡:; :¡:; :¡:; « « « « « « as as as as as as as as as Z Z Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (J) (J) - - ë5 ë5 ë5 ë5 ë5 - - - - - - CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD - - - - CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -æ - -æ -æ - - -æ -æ - 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ - - a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. - - - - - - as as as as - - - - c c as as as as as c c c c c c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c c c c '(3 '(3 CD CD - - õ - - CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD as as E E 0 0 0 0 E E E E E E - Õ - - - - - - Õ E E E E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL LL t:: t:: (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) t:: t:: t:: t:: t:: t:: t:: t:: t:: t:: CD CD CD CD CD 'E 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'E 'C ,S:2 ,S:2 as as c c c c c as as as as as as ... ... ... ... ... ... ... as as as as :ë :ë 0. 0. c .!: .!: c c 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. as as as as as as as as as 0. 0. 0. 0. CD CD ~ ~ ~ CD CD CD CD CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD CD CD ::J ::J 0 0 :::ã: :::ã: 0 0 0 0 0 0 II) II) II) II) II) II) II) II) II) 0 0 0 0 a.. a.. It) o o ~ ..... ...... -.:t CD 0> as a.. ~ as as I .~ o ...J