Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

2007-2017

Wenck File #0185-4315

Prepared for:

MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT

Prepared by: February 2007

WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction...... 1 1.1 Introduction and Purpose...... 1 1.2 Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act ...... 1 1.3 Membership of Board of Managers ...... 2 1.4 General Boundaries...... 2 1.4.1 Governmental Units Within District Boundaries ...... 3 1.5 History of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ...... 4 1.6 Context of Plan...... 5 1.7 Summary of Problems, Goals, and Solutions...... 6 1.7.1 General Problems and Goals ...... 6 1.7.2 General Solutions...... 8 1.8 General Content Required of Local Plans...... 11 1.9 Plan Organization...... 11 2.0 Land and Natural Resources Inventory...... 13 2.1 Introduction...... 13 2.2 Physical Environment ...... 13 2.2.1 Climate ...... 13 2.2.2 Topography and Drainage ...... 15 2.2.3 Geology ...... 17 2.2.4 Soils...... 17 2.2.5 Unique Features and Scenic Areas ...... 19 2.3 Biological Environment ...... 19 2.3.1 Vegetation...... 19 2.3.2 Fish and Wildlife ...... 20 2.4 Human Environment ...... 24 2.4.1 History ...... 24 2.4.2 Demography ...... 25 2.4.3 Present Land Use & Land Cover...... 26 2.4.4 2020 and 2030 Land Use Planning...... 26 2.4.5 Metropolitan Systems...... 27 2.4.6 Open Space and Recreation...... 27 2.4.7 Potential Environmental Hazards ...... 28 3.0 Hydrologic Systems ...... 30 3.1 Introduction...... 30 3.1.1 Precipitation...... 30 3.1.2 Design Storms...... 30 3.2 Water Resources...... 30 3.2.1 Public Waters...... 30 3.2.2 Lakes ...... 31 3.2.3 Streams ...... 33 3.2.4 Ditches...... 34 3.2.5 Wetlands...... 35 3.2.6 Floodplain...... 37 3.3 Water Quantity...... 38 3.4 Water Quality...... 39 3.4.1 Water Quality...... 39

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District i February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

3.4.2 Impacts from Historical Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges ..39 3.4.3 Impaired Waters...... 41 3.5 Groundwater...... 42 3.5.1 Aquifers ...... 42 3.5.2 Groundwater Quality...... 42 3.5.3 Surface-Groundwater Interface ...... 43 3.5.4 Infiltration Capacity...... 43 3.5.5 Wellhead Protection...... 44 4.0 Issues Identification ...... 45 4.1 Integration of Past Planning Efforts...... 45 4.1.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Pollutant Loading Study ...... 45 4.1.2 Functional Assessment of Wetlands...... 46 4.1.3 Stream Assessments ...... 46 4.1.4 Creek Visioning...... 46 4.1.5 Hydrologic Data Program...... 47 4.2 Basic Plan Assumptions...... 48 4.2.1 What is Water Quality? ...... 48 4.2.2 Integrated Resource Management ...... 49 4.2.3 Ultimate Land Use...... 49 4.3 Regulatory Issues ...... 50 4.3.1 Rules and Standards ...... 50 4.3.2 TMDLs/NPDES/Nondegradation...... 50 4.4 Water Quality Issues ...... 51 4.5 Water Quantity Issues ...... 51 4.6 Ditch Issues ...... 52 4.7 Wetland Issues ...... 52 4.8 Ecological Integrity Issues ...... 53 4.9 Groundwater...... 53 4.10 General Solutions...... 53 5.0 Goals and Policies...... 55 6.0 Implementation Program...... 61 6.1 Regulatory Program ...... 62 6.1.1 Regulation for Water Quality ...... 62 6.1.2 Regulation for Ecological Integrity ...... 64 6.1.3 Regulation for Groundwater Protection ...... 64 6.1.4 Regulation for Wetland Management...... 65 6.1.5 Boundary Changes...... 66 6.2 Land Conservation Program ...... 69 6.2.1 Relationship to District Goals ...... 75 6.3 Education Program...... 77 6.4 Monitoring and Data Collection...... 79 6.5 Operations and Maintenance...... 80 6.6 LGU requirements...... 80 6.7 Water Quality Goals...... 82 6.8 Capital Improvement Program...... 85 7.0 Impact on Local Government ...... 99 7.1 Local Plan Content...... 99 7.1.1 Use of Local Land Use and Land Acquisition Authorities...... 100 7.1.2 Permit Program for Water Resource Protection ...... 102 7.1.3 Housekeeping Requirements...... 104 7.2 Lgu Annual Report...... 104

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ii February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

7.3 Impact on Other Units of Government...... 105 8.0 Amendments ...... 108 8.1 Amendment Procedures...... 108 8.2 General Amendment Procedure ...... 108 8.3 Minor Amendments to Capital Improvements...... 108 8.4 Form of Amendments ...... 109 8.5 Distribution of Amendments...... 109 8.6 Future Amendments...... 109

TABLES Table 1. Membership of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers, 2006...... 2 Table 2. Governmental units within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District...... 3 Table 3. Seventeen key problem areas identified by the Board of Managers in the Minnehaha Creek watershed, and general goals and solutions...... 6 Table 4. 1971-2000 temperature normals for the Minneapolis-St. Paul and Maple Plain areas...... 13 Table 5. 1971-2000 precipitation totals for the Minneapolis-St. Paul and Maple Plain areas (inches)...... 14 Table 6. Lake Minnetonka ice out dates, 1855-2005...... 14 Table 7. Natural Resources Conservation Service soil hydrologic group interpretation...... 18 Table 8. Rare plant species observed in the MCWD...... 20 Table 9. Native plant community types observed in the MCWD...... 20 Table 10. DNR fish stocking of lakes in the MCWD, 1998-2004...... 20 Table 11. Results of the most recent DNR fish surveys in MCWD lakes...... 22 Table 12. Rare animal species observed in the MCWD...... 24 Table 13. Population projections for the portions of cities within the MCWD...... 25 Table 14. Land use in 2000...... 26 Table 15. Land Use in 2000 Compared to Planned Land Use in 2020...... 27 Table 16. Physical characteristics of basins over 10 acres in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). . 31 Table 17. Physical characteristics of the bays of Lake Minnetonka...... 32 Table 18. Circular 39 and Cowardin classification of wetland type of the National Wetlands Inventory wetlands in the MCWD...... 35 Table 19. Dominant wetland type in the MCWD as assessed in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands...... 36 Table 20. Wetland management classifications of wetlands in the MCWD as determined in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands...... 36 Table 21. Status of flood mapping for communities in the MCWD participating in the National Flood Insurance Program...... 37 Table 22. Comparison of the current actual water quality of MCWD receiving waters historically impacted by wastewater treatment plants to current modeled water quality assuming continuation of historic wastewater discharges...... 40 Table 23. MCWD subwatershed performance management basis...... 61 Table 24. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources recommended wetland management standards...... 67 Table 25. MCWD Land Conservation Program current ranking criteria...... 71 Table 26. MCWD Land Conservation Program potential partners...... 74 Table 27. Minnesota state lake water quality standards...... 82 Table 28. MCWD water quality goals and current conditions, Upper Watershed lakes...... 82 Table 29. MCWD water quality goals and current conditions: Lake Minnetonka...... 83 Table 30. MCWD water quality goals and current conditions: Lower Watershed lakes ...... 84 Table 31. 2007-2016 Capital Improvement Program...... 87 Table 32. Implementation Plan activities and relationship to the 17 general District goals...... 93 Table 33. Local regulatory controls...... 106 Table 34. Potential future amendments to this Plan...... 110

FIGURES Figure 1. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Figure 2. Subwatersheds in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Figure 3. Geomorphic Units in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District iii February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Figure 4. Bedrock Geology of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 5. Soil Hydrologic Groups of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 6. Soil Infiltration Potential as Determined in the MCWD 2003 HHPLS Figure 7. Unique Features and Scenic Areas in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 8. Presettlement Vegetation of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 9. High Quality Natural Areas in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 10. 2000 Land Use in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 11a. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System: Imperviousness Figure 11b. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System: Land Cover Types in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 12. 2020 Land Use Planned in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 13. 2030 Metropolitan Regional Development Framework Geographic Planning Areas Figure 14. Metropolitan Urban Service Areas from Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Composite Figure 15. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sanitary Sewer Interceptors in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 16. 2020 Regional Transportation Corridors Serving the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 17. Water-Based and Other Recreation Areas in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 18. Known Potential Environmental Hazards in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 19. Known Feedlots and Horse Facilities in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 20. Wells in the County Well Index in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 21. Lakes and Watercourses on the Public Waters Inventory in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 22. DNR-Identified Lakes in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 23. DNR-Identified Streams in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 24. County and Judicial Ditches Under the Jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Figure 25. Wetlands on the National Wetlands Inventory in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed, by Type Figure 26. Wetlands Evaluated in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands, by Dominant Wetland Type Figure 27. Wetlands Evaluated in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands, by Management Classification Figure 28. Wetlands Evaluated in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands, by High Habitat Value Figure 29. Wetlands Evaluated in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands, by Restoration Potential Figure 30. Floodplain Identified in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 31. Aquifer Sensitivity in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 32. Identified Wellhead Protection and Drinking Water Surface Management Areas in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 33. 2007-2017 Management Plan Key Conservation Areas in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Figure 34. 2007-2017 Capital Improvements Program

SUBWATERSHED PLANS Christmas Lake Subwatershed Dutch Lake Subwatershed Gleason Lake Creek Subwatershed Lake Virginia Subwatershed Lake Minnetonka Subwatershed Langdon Lake Subwatershed Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Minnehaha Creek Subwatershed Painter Creek Subwatershed Schutz Lake Subwatershed Six Mile Marsh Subwatershed

APPENDICES Appendix A Technical Appendix Appendix B Plan Development Process

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District iv February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Acronyms

µg/L Micrograms per liter 100 Year Event Event that has a 1 percent chance of occurring in a given year BMP Best Management Practice BWSR Board of Water and Soil Resources CAC Citizen Advisory Committee CD County Ditch cfs Cubic feet per second Chl-a Chlorophyll-a CIP Capital Improvement Program COE or USACOE US Army Corps of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act DNR or MDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DO Dissolved Oxygen DWSMA Drinking Water Source Management Area EPA or USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency FAW Functional Assessment of Wetlands FCA Fish Consumption Advisory FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHBM Flood Hazard Boundary Map FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FIS Flood Insurance Study HHPLS Hydrologic, Hydrologic, and Pollutant Loading Study HWL High Water Level (100 year) ISTS Individual Sewage Treatment System JD Judicial Ditch KCA Key Conservation Area LGU Local Governmental Unit LID Low Impact Development LMCD Lake Minnetonka Conservation District MCBS Minnesota County Biological Survey MCWD Minnehaha Creek Watershed District MDH Minnesota Department of Health Met Council Metropolitan Council mg/L milligrams per liter MLCCS Minnesota Land Cover Classification System MLPA Metropolitan Land Planning Act MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation MnRAM Minnesota Routine Assessment Method MNRRA Mississippi National River and Recreation Area MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MPRB Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES) NEMO Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA NSFHA No Special Flood Hazard Area

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District v February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

NURP Nationwide Urban Runoff Program NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWL Normal Water Level OHWL Ordinary High Water Level P Phosphorus PWI Public Waters Inventory SCS Soil Conservation Service, USDA (replaced by NRCS) SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act Secchi Secchi disk visual clarity depth (usually in meters) SNA Scientific and Natural Area SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan/Program TAC Technical Advisory Committee TDS Total Dissolved Solids TMDL Total Daily Maximum Load TN Total Nitrogen TP Total Phosphorus TRPD Three Rivers Park District TSI Trophic State Index TSS Total Suspended Solids USDA US Department of Agriculture USGS US Geological Survey WCA Wetland Conservation Act WD Watershed District WMO Watershed Management Organization WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District vi February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

1.0 Introduction

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District conserves the natural resources of the Minnehaha Creek watershed principally through analysis of the causes of harmful impacts on the water resources, public information and education, regulation of land use, regulation of the use of waterbodies and their beds, and capital improvement projects. Through its extensive analysis of the watershed, the District has been able to effectively identify the root causes of water quality degradation and flooding. The District has then successfully used this knowledge to develop and implement solutions that address these causes. The District’s management plans have included both nonstructural solutions to the problems such as public information and education and regulation of land and water use and structural solutions, including construction of wet detention basins/wetlands, a headwaters outlet control structure and restoration of degraded wetlands.

1.2 METROPOLITAN SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ACT

The Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act (Chapter 509, Laws of 1982, Minnesota Statute Section 103B.201 to 103B.255 as amended) establishes requirements for preparing watershed management plans within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The law requires the plan to focus on preserving and using natural water storage and retention systems to:

• Improve water quality. • Prevent flooding and erosion from surface flows. • Promote groundwater recharge. • Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreation facilities. • Reduce, to the greatest practical extent, the public capital expenditures necessary to control excessive volumes and rate of runoff and to improve water quality. • Secure other benefits associated with proper management of surface water.

To ensure these objectives are realized the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act further specified the basic content of watershed management plans. The plans must:

• Describe the existing physical environment, land use, and development in the area, and the environment, land use, and development proposed in existing local and metropolitan comprehensive plans. • Present information on the hydrologic system and its components, including the drainage systems previously constructed under chapter 103E, and existing and potential problems related thereto.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 1 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

• State objectives and policies including management principles, alternatives and modifications, water quality, and protection of natural characteristics. • Set forth a management plan including the hydrologic and water quality conditions that will be sought and significant opportunities for improvement. • Describe the effect of the plan on existing drainage systems. • Identify high priority areas for wetland conservation, enhancement, restoration, and establishment and describe conflicts with wetlands and land use in those areas. • Describe conflicts between the watershed plan and existing plans of Local Governmental Units (LGUs). • Set forth an implementation program consistent with the management plan that includes a capital improvement program, standards, and schedules for amending the comprehensive plan and official controls of LGUs in the watershed to bring conformance with the plan. • Set out procedures and timelines for amending the plan.

1.3 MEMBERSHIP OF BOARD OF MANAGERS The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is governed by a seven member Board of Managers, six of whom are appointed by Hennepin County and one by Carver County. Table 1. Membership of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers, 2006. Member County Appointed By Term Expires Pamela Blixt, Vice President Hennepin 3/08 Minneapolis Jeff Casale Hennepin 3/09 Shorewood Jim Calkins, President Hennepin 3/07 Minnetonka Lance Fisher Carver 3/07 Minnetrista Lee Keeley, Secretary Hennepin 3/09 Plymouth Richard Miller, Treasurer Hennepin 3/08 Edina Ethel Smith Hennepin 3/07 Wayzata

Former Managers who were instrumental in developing the policy and technical background for this Plan are: C. Scott Thomas, Susan Goetz, Robert Schroeder, and Monica Gross.

1.4 GENERAL BOUNDARIES The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District spans approximately 178 square miles on the western edge of the Twin Cities Area. Most of the watershed - 148 square miles - is in Hennepin County while the remaining 29 square miles are in Carver County. The District drains an area

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 2 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

approximately 29 miles from east to west and 15 miles from north to south. Two distinct hydrologic basins exist within the watershed. The “Upper Basin” or “Upper Watershed” drains through 104 square miles of agricultural land and suburbs west of Minneapolis to Lake Minnetonka. As Minnesota's 10th largest water body, this lake covers an additional 22 square miles before discharging to Minnehaha Creek. The “Lower Basin” or “Lower Watershed” consists of the area east of Lake Minnetonka that is drained by Minnehaha Creek and extends to the Mississippi River. As the creek winds toward Minnehaha Falls, it accepts runoff from 52 square miles of the lower watershed, including Minneapolis. Figure 1 shows the District’s hydrologic and legal boundaries and the governmental units located within the district.

1.4.1 Governmental Units Within District Boundaries Local government within the District includes two counties, two townships and 27 cities. Twelve of these cities are located totally within the District. The various governmental units in the District are listed below: Table 2. Governmental units within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Hennepin County Deephaven *Minnetonka Beach Edina Minnetrista *Excelsior *Mound Golden Valley *Orono *Greenwood Plymouth Hopkins Richfield Independence *St. Bonifacius *Long Lake St. Louis Park Maple Plain Shorewood Medina *Spring Park Minneapolis *Tonka Bay Minnetonka *Wayzata *Woodland Carver County Chanhassen *Victoria Laketown Township Watertown Township *Entirely in District Two regional park authorities exist within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) and the Three Rivers Park District (TRPD).

The MPRB was established in 1883 by an act of the State Legislature. That act granted the MPRB the authority to operate, maintain, and administer a system of parks in and adjacent to the City of Minneapolis. Over its history, the MPRB has acquired a significant amount of acreage along Minnehaha Creek and other water bodies in and adjacent to the City of Minneapolis including two golf courses that abut Minnehaha Creek.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 3 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

The TRPD was established in 1957 by the State Legislature. As a special park district, Three Rivers Park District is charged with the responsibilities of acquisition, development and maintenance of large park reserves, regional parks and regional trails for the benefit and use of the citizens of suburban Hennepin County, Scott County, the metropolitan areas, and the State of Minnesota.

The MPRB and TRPD work cooperatively with the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, Metropolitan Council and State Legislature as two of ten implementing agencies of the Metropolitan Regional Park System to provide education/recreation facilities, services and programs.

The MCWD Comprehensive Plan recognizes the unique roles of the MPRB and the TRPD and their mission to provide the public with access to its land and water resources, and recreational facilities. The MCWD also recognizes the past work of the MPRB and TRPD to maintain and improve water quality in lakes and streams within their jurisdictions. Any efforts of the MPRB, TRPD and MCWD to improve water quality and manage load allocations for storm water runoff presents unique challenges in the context of their location within the watershed, surrounding land use, and downstream waterbodies. For example, the role that urban lakes play as part of the Minneapolis storm water system and the natural resource role that lakes in the TRPD play may require special consideration in the rules adopted by the MCWD. In addition, these efforts must give careful consideration to the effect on the invaluable recreational system built around the water bodies in the Watershed District and the near 27 million annual user visits that occur in the TRPD, the chain of lakes in Minneapolis, Minnehaha Creek and Minnehaha Regional Park. The intent of the MCWD is to work cooperatively with the MPRB and TRPD to improve water quality while acknowledging the importance of recreational access to the MPRB’s and TRPD’s land in rules promulgated by the MCWD. Moreover, the MCWD Comprehensive Plan recognizes the role that the MPRB and TRPD has and continues to play in conserving its land and water resources.

1.5 HISTORY OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is a special purpose unit of local government created to carry out watershed management and to protect the water resources of the Minnehaha Creek watershed. The Minnesota Water Resources Board (MWRB) established the District on March 9, 1967 under the authority of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D (formerly Chapter 112), the Watershed Act. The Hennepin County Commissioners asked the MWRB to form the District on April 12, 1966. They sought to form the District to conserve the watershed’s waters and natural resources. Their goals included improving lakes, marshes and channels for water storage, drainage, recreation and other public purposes. The County also wanted projects to reduce flooding, to keep silt out of streams and to control erosion of land. Other goals were reclaiming wetlands, controlling stormwater and preserving water quality in the District’s lakes and streams. The District has implemented numerous programs, policies and projects to advance its goals. It started a permit program in 1967. Through this program the District has approved stormwater

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 4 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

management plans and shaped projects in floodplains and wetlands. The program has also covered dredging, stream and lake crossings and projects to improve shoreline. In 1972 the District accepted authority over the eight county and judicial ditches located within the watershed. The District completed its first Water Resources Management Plan in 1969 and its second Water Resources Management Plan in 1997. The focus of those plans was on identifying problems and solutions relating to water quality degradation resulting from urbanization and on preventing further degradation from future development. The District has successfully completed the items identified in its 1997 implementation plan, as well as additional items to further progress towards District goals. • The District has completed a number of construction projects to address water quality and flooding issues. These include major projects to improve regional resources, including the award-winning Chain of Lakes Clean Water Partnership projects to improve water quality and biological integrity in five lakes. The District also completed projects to improve Long Lake, Landon Lake, and various bays of Lake Minnetonka. • An extensive resource analysis and data gathering program was undertaken, including a number of special studies that serve as the basis for this Plan. These include the Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and Pollutant Loading Study, which established numerical water quality goals for the lakes in the watershed; detailed assessments of the condition of Minnehaha Creek and five upper watershed streams; a Functional Assessment of Wetlands to assess current conditions of the wetland resources in the watershed; and several specialized studies such as the Painter Creek Feasibility Study, Minnehaha Creek Visioning, and floodplain evaluations for Minnehaha Creek and other major streams. • The hydrologic data gathering program was expanded, and easy-to-read summaries in the form of lake and stream report cards are published each year to keep the public informed about conditions of the water resources in the watershed. • A five-year Strategic Education and Communications Plan was developed to fine-tune and focus the education and communication program and to identify strategies for improvement and expansion of those efforts. • While not specifically identified as an activity in the 1997 implementation plan, the District has embarked on an ambitious Land Conservation Program intended to protect and conserve high-quality natural resources in the watershed through a variety of means.

1.6 CONTEXT OF PLAN The District has completed a number of specialized studies within the last three years, including detailed analyses of the condition of lakes, streams, and wetlands in the watershed, and an extensive Hydrologic and Hydraulic analysis of existing and expected future hydrologic and water quality conditions. This Plan consolidates the findings and recommendations of those studies. The focus of this Plan is on the Water Resource. The individual Subwatershed Plans that make up the heart of this management effort set forth comprehensive and holistic hydrologic, water quality and ecological integrity goals for the lakes, streams, and wetlands within the watershed. Structural and nonstructural approaches to attaining those goals are detailed by subwatershed.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 5 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Within the Upper Watershed, an important factor in the achievement of these goals is the land planning and future land uses within an area that is now vacant, agricultural, or rural-density. This Plan Revision is specifically intended to coincide with the development of city Comprehensive Plan updates required of Twin Cities Metro Area communities by 2008, reflecting the philosophy that water resources and natural resources planning should be an integral part of land use planning. These required local plans must be consistent with this Plan, including not only an assessment of problems and identification of solutions, but also an evaluation of how the local government intends on an ongoing basis to meet the performance standards set forth here.

1.7 SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS, GOALS, AND SOLUTIONS

1.7.1 General Problems and Goals The Board of Managers has identified 17 key problem areas impacting resources in the watershed and has developed general goals to address them through implementation of this Plan as well as other planning and management activities. Table 3 summarizes these problems and goals, which are presented in more detail in each of the eleven subwatershed plans, along with specific policies and actions to address the problems and achieve the District’s goals.

Table 3. Seventeen key problem areas identified by the Board of Managers in the Minnehaha Creek watershed, and general goals and solutions. Problem Goal 1 Development and the creation of impervious surface Abstraction. Promote abstraction, such as infiltration degrades water quality if proper treatment is not of surface water, capture and reuse of stormwater, provided, increases the quantity of stormwater runoff, and increased evapotranspiration, where feasible for reduces the quantity of groundwater recharge which the purposes of improving water quality and creates a potential deficit within groundwater aquifers increasing groundwater recharge throughout the and decreases water quality within surface waters. watershed.

2 Human activity can degrade existing habitat and Ecological Integrity. Promote activities which contribute to the loss of wildlife habitat quantity and maintain, support and enhance floral, faunal quantity quality affecting the overall ecological integrity of the and ecological integrity of upland and aquatic resources within the MCWD. resources throughout the watershed. 3 Urbanization, increase in impervious surface, Water Quality. Conserve, maintain and improve reduction in the quantity of wetland area, and aesthetic, physical, chemical and biological increases in conveyance efficiency can adversely composition of surface waters and groundwater affect the quality of surface waters. within the District. 4 Non-point and point source discharges of pollutants Public Health. Minimize the risks of threats to public into surface waters can inhibit human use of water health through the development of programs, plans resources as well as negatively affect public health and policies that improve the quality of surface and and the environment. groundwater resources 5 Changes in land use, development, and increases in Water Quantity. Maintain or reduce existing flows impervious surface can negatively affect surface from drainage within the watershed to decrease the water runoff through reduction in infiltration, negative effects of stormwater runoff and bounce increasing in peak values of runoff hydrographs, and from existing and proposed development as well as increasing volumes of stormwater runoff; each of provide low flow augmentation to surface waters which can aggravate and create problems related to flooding, erosion and degradation.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 6 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Problem Goal 6 Eroding shorelines and streambanks contribute to the Shorelines and Streambanks. Conserve the natural degradation of water quality and can contribute appearance of shoreline areas and minimize adverse effects downstream; furthermore, improperly degradation of surface water quality which can result implemented and/or inappropriate stabilization from dredging operations. practices reduce the natural function and qualities of streambanks and shorelines, and may potentially contribute adverse effects downstream. 7 MCWD contains water resources with which the Navigation. Maintain the hydraulic capacity of and recreational value of the resource is highly dependent minimize obstruction to navigation without on the opportunity for people to enjoy boating and compromising wildlife habitat in water courses and canoeing; the recreational value of these resources is preserve water quality and navigation appearance in reduced by impedances to navigation. shoreland areas. 8 Development and creation of impervious surface Best Management Practices. Improve water quality contribute to the degradation of water quality and by promoting best management practices (BMP's) increase the quantity and rate of stormwater runoff requiring their adoption in local plans and their which affect downstream receiving waters when not implementation on development sites designed properly. 9 Common activities conducted by citizens, developers, Education and Communications. Enhance public and public entities within MCWD have the potential participation and knowledge regarding District to have an adverse effect on the quality and ecology activities and provide informational and educational of surface and ground waters; a need exists to material to municipalities, community groups, promote stewardship and appreciation for the benefits businesses, schools, developers, contractors and of watersheds. individuals.

10 Public ditches historically function as conveyances of Public Ditches. Maintain public ditch systems within drainage for private property and local communities the District as required under Statutory jurisdiction. and also serve to prevent flooding, however, pubic ditches have substantially changed in form and function as the watershed has developed and maintenance of such features may run contrary to other District goals. 11 Wetlands are diminishing in quantity and quality Wetlands. Conserve, create and restore wetland throughout the watershed; wetlands serve essential resources and maximize the benefits and functionality functions in watershed management by maintaining of wetlands to the watershed. water quality, providing wildlife habitat, recharging groundwater, creating recreational opportunities, complementing stormwater runoff management and augmenting low flows in drought periods. 12 Issues related to groundwater flow, quality and Groundwater. Protect and maintain existing quantity are affected by surface land use; groundwater flow, promote groundwater recharge and groundwater is a significant source of drinking water improve groundwater quality and aquifer protection for private wells and municipalities and aquifers must be protected for their value to communities; groundwater also serves to augment surface water levels through inflow and export which serves as a significant tool to mediate climatic fluctuations. 13 Reduction of floodplain volume as a result of Floodplains. Reduce the severity and frequency of development and/or improper management contribute flooding and high water by preserving and increasing to increasingly higher critical water levels as well as the existing water storage capacity below 100-year risk to property and public safety; floodplains serve to flood elevations on all waterbodies within MCWD. reduce the frequency and severity of high water periods within the watershed.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 7 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Problem Goal 14 Impaired waters, poor water quality, ecosystem Recreation. Promote the recreational use, where degradation, and water quantity all influence the appropriate, of surface waters within MCWD by viability of waters as recreational resources; providing recreation opportunities for citizens by recreational enjoyment of water resources fosters a promoting the use and enjoyment of water resources sense of stewardship over the resource and concern with the intent of increasing the livability and quality for its quality. of life within the watershed. 15 Erosion of soil and sediment transport have a Erosion Control. Control temporary sources of detrimental effect on the quality of water, the quality sediment resulting from land disturbance and identify, of habitat, detention time within basins, and capacity minimize and correct the effects of sedimentation of stormwater conveyances. from erosion-prone and sediment source areas. 16 Local municipal regulation alone oftentimes is unable Regulation. Promote effective planning to minimize to provide an acceptable standard of protection to the impact of development and land use change on regional natural resources that span multiple political water resources as well as achieve Watershed District boundaries Goals. 17 Citizens become disenfranchised with government Public Input. Solicit input from the general public when it is perceived that the opinion of individuals is with the intent that policies, projects and programs insignificant; MCWD requires a structural forum for will address local community values and goals as citizens within the Watershed District to provide well as protect historic and cultural values regarding constructive input to the MCWD Board of Managers water resources; strive to manage expectations; base for the Board to thoughtfully consider during decision decisions on an educated public; foster an educated making. and informed public within the watershed.

1.7.2 General Solutions Achieving the goals set forth in the subwatershed plans will require an integrated set of programs and projects oriented toward the conservation and improvement of water resources within the watershed. This Plan places an emphasis on the duty and responsibility for the ownership and management of runoff from both private and public property. Where possible, land use changes will require regulatory controls to limit and manage runoff. In areas where regulatory controls will not sufficiently address water resource concerns, this Plan will provide for public investment to address shared resource issues. Each subwatershed plan includes an Implementation Plan that sets forth in detail the activities that will be undertaken by various parties and identifies parties responsible for each activity. In general, those Implementation Plans include the following activities.

Regulatory Program. The District has operated a regulatory program since 1967. This permitting program includes requirements on development and redevelopment projects to implement water quantity and water quality controls to reduce impacts on downstream resources. Nonetheless, many of the lakes and streams in the watershed do not meet water quality or biotic integrity standards, and a majority of the wetlands exhibit degraded functions and values. Development in the watershed is expected to contribute additional stormwater volume and pollutant loads to downstream resources, further impacting those sensitive resources. The current regulatory program will not be sufficient to control these impacts. To mitigate these future impacts and to address other goals such as increased infiltration, wetland management, and improved ecological integrity, additional regulation will be necessary.

Additional regulatory controls on permitted development and redevelopment will be considered for most subwatersheds to increase pollutant load reduction requirements, add volume management and infiltration requirements, conserve natural resources, and implement wetland

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 8 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

management in accordance with management classification. Regulations providing an incentive such as a volume reduction credit to developers to maintain undisturbed areas, to reforest, or to plant native vegetation will be considered.

Land Conservation Program. Conservation of high-value resources provides an opportunity to improve the characteristics of aquatic ecosystems, and can help address water quality, infiltration, volume management, and ecological integrity needs. Prior to the encroachment of additional development, the opportunity exists to conserve high value resources, maintain corridor connections between ecosystems in the watershed to improve water resources, conserve natural conveyances, and facilitate the movement and proliferation of native species as well as enhance recreational opportunities.

The District currently operates a Land Conservation Program that undertakes conservation activities ranging from assisting property owners in enrolling property in conservation programs to acquiring conservation easements or fee title over high value resources. This Plan identifies Key Conservation Areas in each subwatershed that contain valuable natural resources such as high-quality wetlands, minimally disturbed upland vegetation, and rare resources. Within these areas LGUs will be required to identify in their Local Plans strategies for conserving those high- value resources. Some of those areas have been identified as District Priority Areas where the District will continue to proactively investigate and implement opportunities to conserve key resources and to work cooperatively with other agencies and groups to accomplish conservation goals. District staff will provide technical assistance to the LGUs to support their accomplishment of program goals.

Wetlands Management. The District has undertaken a Functional Assessment of Wetlands to assess the current status of wetlands in the watershed. The functions and values of the wetlands were evaluated and each wetland has been assigned a Management Classification based on its current condition. This Plan proposes to regulate future impacts to wetlands based on those management classifications.

Education Program. The District operates a watershed-wide Strategic Education and Communications program that provides general watershed education and outreach activities as well as targeted information to key stakeholder groups. These activities will be continued as a part of this Plan. To supplement these general activities, each subwatershed plan identifies targeted education and public involvement activities specific to meeting subwatershed goals. The Implementation Plan includes a mid-course opinion survey and stakeholder focus groups to update the Strategic Education and Communications Program as well as to fine-tune specific messages.

Monitoring and Data Collection. To monitor progress toward meeting water quality and quantity goals, routine monitoring of water quality and water quantity in lakes and streams in the watershed will continue to be a part of the District’s annual Hydrologic Data Program. The District’s efforts will be supplemented with data from the Metropolitan Council’s Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program (CAMP), macroinvertebrate monitoring performed by volunteers through the Hennepin County RiverWatch program, and wetland monitoring through the Hennepin County Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP). In addition, the District

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 9 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

will continue to undertake specialized or research-based monitoring intended to address special needs, diagnose specific problems, or explore research questions.

Operations and Maintenance. The District has undertaken a number of improvements in the watershed to date that require ongoing operations and maintenance to sustain their benefits. A number of new activities detailed in the subwatershed plans will require new operations and maintenance activities. These include:

• Annual inspection of erosion-prone reaches of streams to maintain conveyance capacity and identify erosion that could contribute sediment downstream or impede proper function of the channel. • Routine inspection of ditches over which the District has jurisdictional responsibility. • Inspection of wetlands with exceptional vegetative diversity for signs of invasive species encroachment. • Routine inspection of ponds, outfalls, fish barriers, grade control devices, and outlet structures. • Monitoring of sediment buildup in detention ponds. • Vegetation management of wetland and other native plant restorations. • Repair of any facilities found to need correction.

LGU Requirements. The ambitious goals and actions identified in this Plan will require the District to partner with other entities, including the Local Government Units (LGUs) within its jurisdiction.

Phosphorus Load Reduction. A number of the lakes within the watershed do not meet their water quality goals. The primary strategy for attaining those goals is to reduce phosphorus contributions to the lake from internal and external sources through a phosphorus load reduction plan. Some of that load reduction is expected to occur through the regulatory program and part from capital projects. However, the District expects the LGUs to participate in this by implementing actions to reduce part of the phosphorus load contributed by existing land uses. The LGU requirement in this Plan is a 15 percent reduction in loading from existing residential land use; 25 percent from agricultural land use; and 10 percent from other developed land use. This reduction can be accomplished through: application of BMPs such as additional street sweeping, local water quality ponds, rain gardens and infiltration swales, and agricultural BMPs that reduce erosion or treat runoff or drain tile discharge; prevention of future load increases through the conservation of lands previously identified for development; or achieving load removals in excess of the minimum required.

As another example, a key element in achieving overall ecological integrity goals in the watershed is the conservation of high value natural resources, including high-value wetlands and uplands. This Plan requires LGUs to identify the Key Conservation Areas identified in this Plan in their local water management plans, and must also identify strategies they will undertake to protect the ecological and hydrological values of resources in those areas. These may include such strategies as land use regulation; tree or natural resource conservation ordinances or policies; acquisition and management of land and/or conservation easements; and property owner education.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 10 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

The HHPLS identified a number of issues related to management of landlocked basins, modeled high water locations, and areas with known or potential flow velocity or erosion issues. Local plans must identify strategies for addressing these concerns.

Capital Improvement Program. Each subwatershed plan sets forth a set of potential improvement projects that address the unique issues and needs of the subwatershed. In general, these projects include:

• Stormwater detention pond projects to treat runoff and reduce downstream pollutant loading. • Lake internal load management projects, such as biomanipulation, hypolimnetic withdrawal, chemical treatment, and aquatic plant management to improve water quality and clarity and biologic integrity. • Wetland restoration projects to increase wetland diversity and functions and values, to replace area lost in the past to filling and draining, and to achieve water quality goals. • Land Conservation Program activities such as acquisition of conservation easements or fee title on key lands to conserve or restore their ecological values and proactively address ecologic integrity, water quality, and other goals of this Plan. • Stream restoration projects to stabilize streambanks, improve buffers, and increase aquatic habitat. • Regional infiltration projects to maintain surficial groundwater recharge patterns and maintain or improve stream baseflow. • Maintenance projects such as the replacement of structures or pond dredging.

1.8 GENERAL CONTENT REQUIRED OF LOCAL PLANS Local water management plans shall be adopted within two years of the approval of the District’s plan. Local plans shall be developed as required by rules and policies promulgated by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410). Section 7.0 of this Plan specifies both statutory requirements for local plans as well as requirements established in this Plan. To have local plans approved by the District, local plans must protect the District’s water resources at least as well as the rules in the District’s plan. Local plans may be more stringent than District rules. Municipalities have the option of taking over much of the District permitting program or, based on community specific needs, interests and resources, they may choose to have permitting authority remain with the District.

1.9 PLAN ORGANIZATION While this Plan includes, for the watershed as a whole, all the elements required by Minnesota statute and administrative rule, the heart of this Plan is eleven subwatershed plans that set forth problems, issues, and solutions in detail. The eleven subwatersheds are illustrated on Figure 2. The Plan is divided into the following sections:

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 11 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

1 – Introduction: Provides a general overview of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the purpose of the Surface Water Management Act and the components of this watershed management plan. 2 – Land and Natural Resources Inventory: A physical inventory of the watershed, it includes a profile of the watersheds’ existing environmental conditions. This profile contains descriptions of the area's geology, topography, soils, biological and human environment, and current land use and projected land use to the year 2020. 3 - Hydrologic Systems: Contains information necessary to understand the hydrologic system. Information includes historic precipitation, the drainage system and watershed and subwatershed boundaries, wetlands, waterbodies, conveyance systems, and floodplains. Surface water quality information and groundwater characteristics are included in this section. 4 – Issues Identification: Provides an overview of priority issues identified in the planning process. These generalized watershed issues are developed in more subwatershed- specific detail in each of the subwatershed plans. 5 – Goals and Policies: Presents an overview of the 17 goals and associated policies developed by the Board of Managers to guide this plan. These 17 goals provide the framework for the development of performance goals and standards in each of the subwatershed plans. 6 – Implementation Program: Sets forth a plan of action for managing water resources in the watershed that includes proposed amendments to the regulatory program; expansion of operating programs including the Land Conservation Program; and a Capital Improvement Program. 7 – Impact on Local Government: Discusses requirements of Local Surface Water Management Plans, annual reporting, and impact of this Plan on local governments. 8 – Amendments: Identifies the procedures for amending this plan.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 12 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

2.0 Land and Natural Resources Inventory

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This section contains detailed information regarding the District’s land and water resources. The first part looks at the watershed’s physical environment and includes information on climate, topography and drainage, geology and soils. The second part looks at the watershed’s biological environment and includes information on vegetation and wildlife. The third part discusses the watershed’s human environment and includes information on land use and growth patterns, population dynamics, recreation and potential environmental hazards.

2.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

2.2.1 Climate The climate is predominately continental. Sitting close to the middle of North America, the weather in the watershed can vary widely and rapidly. Both temperature and precipitation can change abruptly. The watershed’s climate is shaped by two well-defined systems. Strong southerly winds from the Gulf of Mexico are the main source of moisture. A diffuse secondary system from the Pacific Ocean also adds to annual rain and snowfall. Air masses carrying the moisture that eventually falls in the watershed may travel nearly 1,500 miles. A minor change in the wind system can, therefore, result in the watershed getting well above or below normal annual amounts of rain or snow. The watershed’s seasons generally vary along continental patterns. Spring, summer and fall are normally very pleasant (see Table 4 for historic temperature data). The watershed’s sub-humid summers have ample rain for garden and farm crops. Long spells of hot and humid weather do not visit the area very often. The area’s 160-day growing season allows most crops to mature before the autumn freeze.

Table 4. 1971-2000 temperature normals for the Minneapolis-St. Paul and Maple Plain areas. (Degrees Fahrenheit.) Minneapolis/St. Paul Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Maximum 21.9 28.4 40.6 57.0 70.1 79.0 83.3 80.4 71.1 58.4 40.1 26.4 54.7 Minimum 4.3 11.8 23.5 36.2 48.5 57.8 63.0 60.8 50.8 38.9 24.8 10.9 35.9 Mean 13.1 20.1 32.1 46.6 59.3 68.4 73.2 70.6 61.0 48.7 32.5 18.7 45.4

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 13 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Maple Plain Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Maximum 23.1 28.7 41.0 57.4 70.7 78.1 82.8 80.3 71.7 58.9 40.9 27.5 55.1 Minimum 2.8 9.6 21.7 34.4 47.4 56.0 60.0 57.6 49.1 37.0 23.7 10.0 34.1 Mean 13.0 19.2 31.4 45.9 59.1 67.1 71.4 69.0 60.4 48.0 32.3 18.8 44.6 Source: Minnesota State Climatology Office and Midwestern Regional Climate Center.

In a normal year, around 30 inches of precipitation falls on the watershed. Table 5 shows the watershed’s historic annual precipitation. Winter snowfall averages about 56 inches in the lower subwatershed, with a little less falling in the western areas. Snow generally stays on the ground from mid-December to early March.

Table 5. 1971-2000 precipitation totals for the Minneapolis-St. Paul and Maple Plain areas (inches). Minneapolis/St. Paul Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Precipitation 1.0 0.8 1.9 2.3 3.2 4.3 4.0 4.0 2.7 2.1 1.9 1.0 29.4 Snow 13.7 8.2 10.5 3.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.6 10.0 10.1 56.3 Maple Plain Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Precipitation 0.9 0.7 1.7 2.4 3.5 4.7 4.2 4.0 3.4 2.5 1.6 0.9 30.5 Snow 11.8 7.1 9.5 2.8 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.3 6.6 10.7 48.9 Source: Minnesota State Climatology Office and Midwestern Regional Climate Center.

Ice covers Lake Minnetonka for about five months a year. The average date of ice-out is April 15. Table 6 lists the ice-out dates for Lake Minnetonka from 1918 to 2005.

Table 6. Lake Minnetonka ice out dates, 1855-2005. Date of Ice Out Date of Ice Out Date of Ice Out Date of Ice Out 1855 - April 18 1910 - March 27 1943 - April 12 1976 - April 3 1856 - May 8 1911 - April 1 1944 - April 23 1977 - April 10 1857 - May 5 1912 - April 13 1945 - March 30 1978 - April 17 1858 - March 30 1913 - April 18 1946 - April 2 1979 - April 23 1859 - May 4 1914 - April 17 1947 - April 19 1980 - April 19 1860 - April 4 1915 - April 17 1948 - April 11 1981 - March 27 1861 - 1876 - Unknown 1916 - April 19 1949 - April 13 1982 - April 19 1877 - April 14 1917 - April 18 1950 - May 2 1983 - April 22 1878 - March 11 1918 - April 14 1951 - April 28 1984 - April 13 1879 - 1886 - Unknown 1919 - April 6 1952 - April 22 1985 - April 13 1887 - April 14 1920 - April 17 1953 - April 8 1986 - April 8

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 14 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Date of Ice Out Date of Ice Out Date of Ice Out Date of Ice Out 1888 - April 25 1921 - April 3 1954 - April 12 1987 - March 21 1889 - April 1 1922 - April 17 1955 - April 12 1988 - April 7 1890 - April 16 1923 - April 23 1956 - April 21 1989 - April 17 1891 - April 21 1924 - April 24 1957 - April 20 1990 - April 4 1892 - April 11 1925 - April 7 1958 - April 11 1991 - April 8 1893 - April 28 1926 - April 18 1959 - April 10 1992 - April 10 1894 - April 9 1927 - April 12 1960 - April 16 1993 - April 19 1895 - April 5 1928 - April 18 1961 - April 14 1994 - April 11 1896 - April 5 1929 - April 7 1962 - April 25 1995 - April 3 1897 - April 18 1930 - April 5 1963 - April 10 1996 - April 24 1898 - April 18 1931 - April 6 1964 - April 13 1997 - April 18 1899 - April 24 1932 - April 14 1965 - May 1 1998 - April 3 1900 - April 16 1933 - April 18 1966 - April 4 1999 - April 2 1901 - April 23 1934 - April 10 1967 - April 9 2000 - March 18 1902 - April 1 1935 - April 7 1968 - April 1 2001 - April 19 1903 - April 13 1936 - April 20 1969 - April 17 2002 - April 16 1904 - April 25 1937 - April 19 1970 - April 19 2003 - April 12 1905 - April 2 1938 - April 9 1971 - April 17 2004 - April 6 1906 - April 16 1939 - April 17 1972 - April 26 2005 - April 9 1907 - April 8 1940 - April 25 1973 - April 4 1908 - April 12 1941 - April 14 1974 - April 19 1909 - April 26 1942 - April 4 1975 - April 28 Source: The Freshwater Society.

2.2.2 Topography and Drainage Topography. The shape of the watershed’s surface formed during the period of the last glacial age, the Wisconsin, about 13,000 years ago. As the last ice sheet retreated it dumped unsorted glacial debris of all sizes and shapes called “drift” in various patterns. Five such patterns or geomorphic units dominate the District’s topography. Figure 3 gives the names and sites of the watershed’s five major geomorphic units. Varying patterns of glacial drift distinguish each major landform. Thinly spread drift formed till plains. This pattern occurs in a semi-circular belt in the watershed’s western region. Called the Lonsdale-Lerdal Till Region, the area is characterized by circular level topped hills with smooth side slopes. Lacking a uniform drainage pattern, many small streams end in lakes or depressions. Low lying areas find closed basins with numerous lakes and peat bogs common. Water table levels normally occur within 3 to 10 feet of the surface but vary seasonally. Glacial till dumped at the edges of glaciers formed belts of hills called moraines. Numerous rugged hills or “knobs” and deep irregular depressions called “kettles” dominate morainic landforms. Kettles are formed when isolated blocks of ice melted, often creating lakes and

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 15 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

ponds. Three distinct areas show these traits in the watershed: the Emmons-Faribault Moraine, including Lake Minnetonka; a small part of the Eastern St. Croix Moraine visible along the south central watershed boundary; and the Waconia-Waseca Moraine found in the watershed's far western area. Gently rolling to steep hilly landscapes marked by an abundance of lakes and ponds mark the Emmons-Faribault Moraine. Elevations are similar to the Lonsdale-Lerdal Region although irregularities in surface contours are much more pronounced. The maximum surface relief is 150 feet. Many lakes dot the area with Lake Minnetonka as the prominent landform. Partly submerged knobs and kettles made its many bays, points and islands. Groundwater levels in lower areas run from above the surface to a depth of about 6 feet. In hilly areas water tables are generally greater than 10 feet deep. One of the sharpest moraines to occur in Minnesota, the Eastern St. Croix Moraine, ends along Lake Minnetonka's southeastern shore. Steep, rugged hills dotted with deep basins give this geomorphic unit its character. Its erratic surface relief varies from 50 to 200 feet from hill base to hilltop. Water normally fills depressed areas, forming numerous wetlands, ponds and small lakes. Its closed low areas limit drainage. Groundwater levels vary with relief, normally at or near the surface in low lying areas and at depths greater than 10 feet in hilly regions. Circular, level-topped hills with smooth side slopes define the Waconia-Waseca Moraine. Located in the far western watershed, this landform unit has numerous lakes and wetland areas formed when glacial ice fell apart. Other forms include nearly uniform summit elevations and contour lines, broad lower levels and variable water tables. Groundwater levels range from 3 to 10 feet in upland and slope areas while in low lying areas water tables run from above the surface to depths of about 6 feet. The Mississippi Valley Outwash Plain runs from Hopkins east to the Mississippi River. An outwash plain forms when glacial meltwater dropped sorted and stratified materials. When blocks of glacial ice melt they may form small shallow lakes. These forces have shaped the Mississippi Valley Outwash Plain. Landforms undulate and roll in gentle terraces and bottom lands along the Mississippi River. Scattered about the landscape, many dry hollows with short, steeper slopes often border the deeper basin areas. Usually however, elevations in this nearly level relief differ less than 30 feet between high and low areas. Surface water runoff collects in closed shallow basins due to the area's poorly developed natural drainage. Water table levels are generally greater than 10 feet deep on the terraces. In bottom land areas groundwater lies within 6 feet of the surface. Drainage. The watershed is divided into eleven principle subwatersheds (see Figure 2). The lower watershed, which drains to Minnehaha Creek, comprises one subwatershed. Some land area within the lower subwatershed does not drain directly or indirectly to Minnehaha Creek, but drains directly or indirectly to the Mississippi River. The central portion of the subwatershed drains to the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes, which in turn discharge to Minnehaha Creek. The upper watershed is divided into one subwatershed comprised of Lake Minnetonka, the areas that drain directly into it, and some other small drainage areas; and nine other subwatersheds draining to principle watershed resources. These subwatersheds are drained by streams, channels, and stormsewer to Lake Minnetonka. Lake Minnetonka discharges by a control structure, the Grays Bay dam, into Minnehaha Creek. The dam is managed to discharge water

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 16 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

from Lake Minnetonka into Minnehaha Creek when the DNR-established runout elevation of the lake is exceeded.

2.2.3 Geology Two major areas typify District geology. The uppermost area, called the surficial geologic zone, contains materials deposited by glaciers. Precambrian, Cambrian and Ordovician rock formations make up the lower or bedrock geology. This section describes each major geologic area. Glaciers crafted the watershed's surface geology when they retreated and dropped "drift" on the land. The glacial drift refers to any of the unconsolidated sand, clay and gravel materials deposited by glaciers. This material forms Lake Minnetonka's morainic hills and lake basins, and the sand and gravel deposits next to Minnehaha Creek and the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes. It generally covers and obscures the underlying bedrock. All of the known glacial drift came from "the Pleistocene Epoch's Wisconsin Age". The Superior glacial lobe that flowed into the area from the Lake Superior basin to the northeast dumped the sandy glacial drift that lies under the entire District. Crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks primarily make up the glacial drift's sandy matrix. In the western watershed, the sandy drift lies buried beneath a veneer of gray, clay-like glacial drift, laid down by the Grantsburg sublobe which moved northeastward through the area as an offshoot of the Des Moines glacial lobe. The Des Moines lobe came from the Keewatin District west of Hudson Bay in Canada. This highly calcareous glacial drift contains limestone and shale fragments typical of northwestern Minnesota and Manitoba rock types. The glacial deposits run up to 300 feet thick in the buried bedrock valley under the area near Lakes Calhoun and Harriet. At Minnehaha Falls and along the Mississippi River, the glacial drift has completely eroded away exposing the bedrock. Figure 4 shows bedrock geology. Although all of the major geologic units shown in Figure 4 underlie the watershed, only the Platteville limestone and St. Peter sandstones outcrop in this area. At Minnehaha Falls, the Platteville limestone unit forms the resistant rock layer that slows weathering of the underlying St. Peter sandstone. This geologic form creates an escarpment at the Mississippi River gorge. Basin structure and a buried erosion surface or disconformity helped distribute various bedrock formations throughout the area. Preglacial and glacial streams deeply cut the bedrock and, in the eastern or lower watershed, completely removed all rock down to the top of the Jordan sandstone in several north-south valleys. The glacial drift has buried these valleys. From Grays Bay to the watershed’s western limit, the disconformity has leveled the bedrock formations and successively older rocks directly contact the glacial drift. Such contact areas serve as major recharge points to exposed bedrock aquifers.

2.2.4 Soils Following the glacial ice’s retreat, physical, chemical and biological processes turned the upper 2 to 4 feet of drift material into the soil layer that today covers the watershed. This relatively thin soil mantle largely controls how people may use the land.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 17 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Because traits of the soil directly influence runoff, they affect total water volumes generated in the watershed. Urbanizing undeveloped drainage basins can subsequently increase stormwater runoff rates and volumes. To estimate and help manage this runoff, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service) has indexed over 4,000 soil systems into four major hydrologic soil groups. This classification relies on two major processes: infiltration rate and transmission rate. Table 7 lists the four major hydrologic soil groups defined by the NRCS, and Figure 5 illustrates their distribution across the watershed.

Table 7. Natural Resources Conservation Service soil hydrologic group interpretation. Hydrologic Depth to Water Dominant Slope Hazard of Sheet Group Table (ft) (%) Erosion A >6 0-6 Slight B >2 2-18 Moderate C >2 0-2 Slight D <2 0-2 Slight

Soil Group Description A Soils with low runoff potential. These soils have a high rate of infiltration even when thoroughly wet. They are deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels. These soils also have a high rate of water transmission. B Soils with a moderate infiltration and transmission rate when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well- to well-drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. Water movement through these soils is moderately rapid. C Soils with a slow rate of infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. Water movement through these soils is moderate or moderately slow and they generally have a restrictive layer that impedes the downward movement of water. D Group D consists of soils with a high runoff potential (soils having very slow infiltration rates). These soils have a slow infiltration rate because of clay content, high water table, or claypan or clay layer at or near the surface. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. A/D Dual hydrologic soil groups are given for certain wet soils that could be adequately drained. The first B/D letter applies to the drained and the second to the undrained condition. Soils are assigned to dual groups if C/D the depth to a permanent water table is the sole criteria for assigning a soil to hydrologic group D. Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Surface conditions control the infiltration rate, or the rate at which water enters the soil. How fast water moves through the soil, the transmission rate, depends upon soil structure and composition. Soil type, plant cover, surface retention and the percentage of impervious surfaces also affect runoff volumes. The District’s 2003 Hydraulic, Hydrologic, and Pollutant Loading Study (HHPLS) used soil and other features to assess infiltration potential within the watershed. Each subwatershed plan includes a figure detailing infiltration potential within the subwatershed; Figure 6 shows infiltration potential across the entire watershed. The upper watershed has generally a medium potential for infiltration, with significant areas of variable or low potential associated with organic soils. The lower subwatershed is largely of medium to high potential, due mainly to the surficial till deposits that overlay the bedrock in that area.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

2.2.5 Unique Features and Scenic Areas Each of the eleven subwatershed plans details the unique features and scenic areas found within. Many of these features can be found in the many regional parks and protected areas within the watershed (see Figure 7). These include the 3,445 acre Carver Park Reserve, about half the 2,670 acre Baker Park Reserve, and all or part of Gale Woods Regional Park, Big Island Regional Park, Lake Minnetonka Regional Park, and Noerenberg Gardens, all managed by the Three Rivers Park District. Lake Minnewashta Regional Park is managed by Carver County. Three regional parks are managed by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board: Chain of Lakes, Nokomis-Hiawatha, and Minnehaha. A portion of the watershed is within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRAA). Finally, the DNR manages two Scientific and Natural Areas in the watershed: Wolsfeld Woods and Wood-Rill, both in the Long Lake Creek subwatershed. Minnehaha Falls is an internationally known and recognized feature within this watershed. Located upstream of the confluence of Minnehaha Creek with the Mississippi River, the 53 foot Falls is formed by erosion of the soft St. Peter sandstone underlying harder Platteville limestone. The Mississippi River Gorge contains numerous unique and scenic features, including springs and seeps. The most notable of these is Camp Coldwater Spring, thought to be at least 10,000 years old and the largest limestone spring in the Twin Cities Metro Area. It is a site rich in Native American history, and the location of a military encampment founded in 1820 that preceded the construction of Fort Snelling.

2.3 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

2.3.1 Vegetation Figure 8 shows pre-settlement vegetation in the watershed. The lower subwatershed was primarily oak savannah (oak openings and barrens) with patches of wet and dry prairie and a big woods community in the Chain of Lakes area. The upper watershed was located in the big woods region, an area of maple-basswood and oak forest punctuated by wet prairie in the low lying areas. Most of the subwatershed has been converted to developed or agricultural use, and only a few patches of undisturbed vegetation remain. The largest of these have been conserved in the DNR’s Wolsfeld Woods and Wood-Rill Scientific and Natural Areas in the Long Lake Creek subwatershed. Other, smaller patches have been conserved in the Carver and Baker Regional Park Reserves managed by the Three Rivers Park District. The Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) has identified those locations in the watershed with intact native plant communities, and those with biodiversity significance (see Figure 9). Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species. The DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program maintains a database of observations of rare plant and animal species compiled from historical records from museum collections and published information supplemented with data from years of field work. Table 8 shows the rare plant species listed in that database as being observed recently or at some time in the past within the watershed.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 19 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Table 8. Rare plant species observed in the MCWD. Last Scientific Name Name Observed Federal Status State Status Gaura Biennis Biennial Gaura 1971 Not listed but rare Valeriana Edulis var. Valerian 1891 Threatened Ciliata Panax Quinquefolius American Ginseng 1995 Special concern Huperzia Porophila Rock Clubmoss 1902 Threatened Note: Current as of 2005. Not based on a comprehensive survey of the state or watershed. Absence of observation does not mean other species are not present. Source: Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program of the Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

The MCBS identifies native plant communities, which are a group of native plants that interact with each other and the surrounding environment in ways not greatly altered by humans or by introduced plant or animal species. Table 9 indicates the native plant community types that have been identified in the watershed.

Table 9. Native plant community types observed in the MCWD. Community Type Black ash swamp seepage subtype Tamarack swamp minerotrophic subtype Moist cliff (southeast) Rich fen (transition) floating-mat subtype Maple-basswood forest (big woods) Note: Current as of 2005. Not based on a comprehensive survey of the state or watershed. Absence of observation does not mean other species or community types are not present. Source: Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program of the Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

2.3.2 Fish and Wildlife There are several high-quality fisheries in the watershed. Lake Minnetonka, and many lakes are stocked by the DNR. Lake Minnetonka is nationally known for its bass and northern pike fishing, while the Chain of Lakes and Lake Nokomis are known for their tiger muskellunge fishing. Lakes Pierson, Zumbra and Steiger are also known for their bass fisheries. Stocked with rainbow trout, Christmas Lake is managed as both a warm and cool water fishery.

Table 10. DNR fish stocking of lakes in the MCWD, 1998-2004. Lake Fish Stocked Academy Marsh Walleye Calhoun Walleye, tiger muskellunge, muskellunge Cedar Tiger muskellunge, muskellunge Christmas Rainbow trout Dutch Largemouth bass Harriet Muskellunge, walleye Lake of the Isles Tiger muskellunge Minnetonka Walleye, muskellunge

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 20 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Lake Fish Stocked Long Walleye Nokomis Walleye, tiger muskellunge Parley Walleye Piersons Tiger muskellunge Powderhorn Black crappie, bluegill sunfish, largemouth bass Taft Channel catfish, walleye Wasserman Tiger muskellunge Source: Minnesota DNR.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 21 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

opeesv ae eore aaeetPn Comprehensive WaterManagement Resources Pan MinnehahaWatershed District Creek Table 11. Results of the most recent DNR fish surveys in MCWD lakes. Rainbow Trout Trout Rainbow Northern Pike Muskellunge Black Crappie White Crappie Largemouth Bass Perch Bluegill Sunfish Bowfin Black Bullhead Yellow Bullhead Brown Bullhead Sucker Shiner Carp Catfish Channel Lake Name Year Survey Lake DNR Classification Walleye Auburn 2000 24 X X X X X X X X X X X X

22 February Bass 2007 1991 X X X X X X X X X X X X Brownie 1993 30 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Calhoun 2003 24 X X X X X X X X X X X Cedar 2003 24 X X X X X X X X X X X X Christmas 2001 23 X X X X X X X X X X X Church 1994 30 X X X X X X X X Diamond 1992 40 X Dutch 2003 24 X X X X X X X X X X X X Forest 1992 30 X X X X X X X X Gleason 1996 42 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Harriet 2003 24 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Hiawatha 2001 30 X X X X X X X X X X Holy Name 1994 40 X Lake of the 2003 38 X X X X X X X X X X X Isles Langdon 1993 38 X X X X X X Libbs 1992 40 X X X X X X X X X Long 2001 24 X X X X X X X X X X X Lydiard 1994 30 X X X X X Minnetonka 1997 22 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Minnewashta 2001 24 X X X X X X X X X X X Mooney 1992 43 X X X X X X X X

opeesv ae eore aaeetPn Comprehensive WaterManagement Resources Pan MinnehahaWatershed District Creek Northern Pike Muskellunge Black Crappie White Crappie Largemouth Bass Perch Bluegill Sunfish Bowfin Black Bullhead Yellow Bullhead Brown Bullhead Sucker Shiner Carp Catfish Channel Trout Rainbow Lake Name Year Survey Lake DNR Classification Walleye Nokomis 2001 24 X X X X X X X X X X X X Parley 1998 38 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 23 February 2007 Piersons 2001 24 X X X X X X X X X X X Powderhorn 2003 40 X X X X X X St. Joe 1994 30 X X X X X X X X Schutz 1991 24 X X X X X X X X X X X Stieger 2003 24 X X X X X X X X X X X Stone 1996 30 X X X X X Taft 2001 30 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Tamarack 1994 30 X X X X X X X Tanager 1992 30 X X X X X X X X X X Turbid 1992 30 X X X X Virginia 2003 24 X X X X X X X X X X X X Wasserman 1999 24 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Wolsfeld 1993 30 X X X X X X X Zumbra 1998 24 X X X X X X X X X X X

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species. The DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program maintains a database of observations of rare plant and animal species compiled from historical records from museum collections and published information supplemented with data from years of field work. Table 12 shows the rare fish and wildlife species listed in that database as being observed recently or at some time in the past within the watershed. The DNR has also identified two locations in the watershed that are colonial waterbird nesting sites, or where there are concentrations of waterbirds that occur during part or all the species life cycle and are highly vulnerable to disturbance.

Table 12. Rare animal species observed in the MCWD. Last Scientific Name Name Observed Federal Status State Status Empidonax virescens Acadian Flycatcher 1983, 1997 Special concern 1993, 1994, Buteo lineatus Red-Shouldered Hawk 1997 Special concern Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler 1982, 2002 Special concern Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle 1998, 2003 Listed threatened Special concern Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan 2000, 2002 Threatened 1962, 1992, Etheostoma microperca Least Darter 1997 Special concern 1941, 1948, Notropis anogenus Pugnose Shiner 1969, 1991 Special concern Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon 1998 Special concern Microtus ochrogaster Prairie Vole 1917 Special concern Spilogale putorius Eastern Spotted Skunk 1992 Threatened 1986, 1987, Emydoidea blandingii Blanding's Turtle 1989, 1994 Threatened Elaphe vulpina Fox Snake 1939 Not listed but rare Note: Current as of 2005. Not based on a comprehensive survey of the state or the watershed. Absence of observation does not mean other species are not present. Source: Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program of the Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

2.4 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

2.4.1 History Four historic districts are listed on the National Register of Historic Places: the Minnehaha District in the vicinity of Minnehaha Falls; the Nokomis Knolls District, a residential district at the southwest corner of Lake Nokomis; the Country Club District in Edina, an area of over 500 historic residences, commercial buildings, and other properties, including the Minnehaha Grange; and the Crane Island Historic District in Minnetrista that conserves 14 buildings that exemplify the type of seasonal residential lake cottages that served as retreats from city life in the early 20th century. Camp Coldwater Spring is within the following areas: (1) Fort Snelling National Register District; (2) Ford Snelling National Historic Landmark; (3) Old Fort Snelling State Historic District, and (4) the U.S. Bureau of Mines Twin Cities Research Center Historic District Camp. See Figure 7 for locations.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 24 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

2.4.2 Demography The District’s urban population has continued to shift outward from the fully developed eastern part of the watershed to outlying western suburbs. The watershed’s population lives in 27 cities and two townships. Twelve of those communities lie completely within the watershed. Population within the District was estimated by multiplying the percentage of each city’s area within the District by the city’s total population. Summing these numbers produced an estimate of the total District population.

Table 13 lists the District’s population by city based on the 2000 census. The current population living within the District is estimated at just over 300,000 people. Based on Metropolitan Council demographic forecasts for 2010, 2020 and 2030, it is projected that the overall population within the District will increase about 24 percent to over 378,000. This growth is projected to include not only residential development of areas in the upper watershed now vacant or agricultural, such as in the growing areas of Victoria, Minnetrista and Chanhassen, but also higher density redevelopment within the existing urbanized areas.

Table 13. Population projections for the portions of cities within the MCWD. For Area Within the MCWD Expected Area within change MCWD 2000 2010 2020 2030 Census Projected Projected Projected 2000-2030 Hennepin County Deephaven 82% 3,167 3,206 3,206 3,206 1% Edina 27% 12,990 13,422 13,696 14,107 9% Excelsior 100% 2,393 2,500 2,700 2,800 17% Golden Valley 1% 264 295 299 312 18% Greenwood 100% 729 760 770 780 7% Hopkins 52% 9,074 9,352 9,718 9,875 9% Independence 14% 450 556 623 681 51% Long Lake 100% 1,842 2,100 2,250 2,450 33% Maple Plain 25% 530 647 652 659 24% Medina 37% 1,500 2,173 3,446 4,757 217% Minneapolis 36% 136,767 143,647 151,151 155,439 14% Minnetonka 45% 23,083 23,263 23,263 24,166 5% Minnetonka Beach 100% 614 640 660 660 7% Minnetrista 65% 2,839 3,648 6,123 8,663 205% Mound 100% 9,435 10,400 11,000 11,400 21% Orono 100% 7,538 8,300 9,500 9,800 30% Plymouth 16% 10,808 11,974 12,466 12,876 19% Richfield 32% 11,016 12,104 13,260 14,448 31% St. Bonifacius 100% 1,873 2,850 2,750 2,900 55% St. Louis Park 88% 38,968 41,529 43,561 45,505 17% Shorewood 90% 6,692 7,099 7,234 7,325 9% Spring Park 100% 1,717 1,850 2,000 2,100 22% Tonka Bay 100% 1,547 1,800 1,800 1,800 16% Wayzata 100% 4,113 4,300 4,500 4,700 14% Woodland 100% 480 500 530 510 6% Carver County Chanhassen 23% 4,616 6,246 7,836 8,631 87% Laketown Township 52% 1,218 940 434 - -100%* Victoria 100% 4,021 10,690 19,582 27,974 596%

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 25 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

For Area Within the MCWD Expected Area within change MCWD 2000 2010 2020 2030 Census Projected Projected Projected 2000-2030 Watertown Township 2% 24 25 27 30 25% TOTAL 300,308 326,816 355,037 378,554 26% Note: Population of area within MCWD was calculated as total population times the percent of area within MCWD. *Laketown Township has a -100% population projection due to annexation agreements. Source: Metropolitan Council 2030 Regional Framework Revised Population Forecasts.

2.4.3 Present Land Use & Land Cover The upper and lower watersheds are distinctly different in land use and land cover. The lower watershed is almost completely developed, and the dominant land use is single family residential with scattered commercial and industrial zones and corridors. Parks and open space are well distributed, and vary in size from neighborhood parks to larger nature preserves. Figure 10 illustrates land use as of 2000. Land cover according to the MLCCS (see Figure 11) is primarily artificial surface and associated areas, dominated by the categories 26-50 percent and 51-75 percent impervious surface.

Table 14. Land use in 2000. Area % of Land Use Category (acres) Watershed Single Family Residential 36,520.1 32.1% Multi-Family Residential 1,501.3 1.3 Commercial 2,185.3 1.9 Industrial 1,202.0 1.1 Institutional 2,863.1 2.5 Parks and Open Space 13,621.3 12.0 Agricultural 9,507.8 8.4 Transportation 2,447.7 2.2 Water 21,977.1 19.3 Vacant or Undetermined 21,945.0 19.3 TOTAL 113,770.7 Source: Cities as reported to the Metropolitan Council

The upper watershed consists of mainly single family residential in the communities immediately adjacent to Lake Minnetonka, and undeveloped or agricultural uses in the western watershed. Several large regional parks dominate the upper watershed, including the 4000+ acre Carver Park Reserve in the southwestern area. Land cover follows land use closely, with the suburban, single-family areas generally 26-50 percent impervious surface. The undeveloped areas are a mosaic of forest and woodland or wetland, with scattered grasslands and low-impervious artificial surfaces in the areas of clustered low-density housing.

2.4.4 2020 and 2030 Land Use Planning Within the lower watershed, land use is not expected to change significantly between 2000 and 2020 (see Figure 12 for 2020 planned land use). Communities within this area expect some

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 26 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

redevelopment to occur, replacing older obsolete residential and commercial uses with new, mixed-use developments. Some change in impervious surface may result from this redevelopment, but the magnitude of the change is expected to be small compared to the overall area. Communities have begun planning for 2030, utilizing the 2030 Framework developed by the Metropolitan Council (see Figure 13). The Metropolitan Council identifies the entire lower watershed in the 2030 Framework as Developed Area, and the strategies and policies for growth in this area are for redevelopment, reclamation, and infill. Within the upper watershed, land use change between 2000 and 2020 is expected to continue the pattern of conversion of agricultural lands and woodland to low-density residential development. The 2030 Framework designates much of the area around Lake Minnetonka as Developing Area, reflecting the continued growth and infill in that area. The outer fringes of the watershed are classified by the Metropolitan Council as Diversified Rural, sparsely developed areas that include “…a mix of a limited amount of large-lot residential and clustered housing, agriculture, and facilities and services requiring a rural location.” (Metropolitan Council 2004)

Table 15. Land Use in 2000 Compared to Planned Land Use in 2020. Area in 2000 Area in 2020 Land Use Category (acres) (acres) Single Family Residential 36,520.1 47,926.3 Multi-Family Residential 1,501.3 1,992.5 Commercial 2,185.3 2,366.4 Industrial 1,202.0 926.8 Institutional 2,863.1 3,325.3 Parks and Open Space 13,621.3 14,976.2 Agriculture 9,507.8 5,737.2 Transportation* 2,447.7 13,383.2 Water 21,977.1 20,468.8 Vacant or Undetermined** 21,945.0 2,668.1 Note: *In 2000 Land Use, “Transportation” included only highways, railroads, and airports, while in 2020 “Transportation” also includes local road right of way. ** In 2000 all of Victoria was classified as Undetermined Source: Cities as reported to the Metropolitan Council

2.4.5 Metropolitan Systems Much of the District is located within the Municipal Urban Services Area (see Figure 14), and is served by Metropolitan systems. Figure 15 shows the locations of existing Metropolitan Council Environmental Services sanitary sewer interceptors. Figure 16 shows existing and proposed metropolitan transportation facilities, including highways, trails, and airports.

2.4.6 Open Space and Recreation The Minnehaha Creek watershed is rich in natural features and opportunities for recreation (see Figure 17). Public access is available to many of the lakes, where boating, fishing, canoeing, swimming, and other aquatic recreation is supported. There are seventeen canoe landings on Minnehaha Creek. Most of these have parking available, and several have picnic areas and restrooms. Lake Minnetonka is one of the premier boating and fishing resources in the state.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 27 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

The District encompasses parts of eleven federal, state, or regional parks or dedicated open space, including:

ƒ Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (National Park Service) ƒ Baker Park Reserve (Three Rivers Park District) ƒ Noerenberg Memorial Park (Three Rivers Park District) ƒ Gale Woods (Three Rivers Park District) ƒ Lake Minnetonka Regional Park (Three Rivers Park District) ƒ Carver Park Reserve (Three Rivers Park District) ƒ Big Island, Wawatasso Island, Wild Goose Chase Island (Three Rivers Park District) ƒ Lake Minnewashta Park (Carver County) ƒ Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area (Minnesota DNR) ƒ Wood-Rill Scientific and Natural Area (Minnesota DNR) ƒ Minnesota Landscape Arboretum (University of Minnesota)

Cities within the watershed also own and operate numerous parks and open spaces, including some beaches, fishing areas, and water accesses. Informal accesses may also be known locally, and may not be reflected on Figure 17.

2.4.7 Potential Environmental Hazards While this section discusses some of the potential environmental hazards within the watershed, there are many more subtle potential hazards. Some of these include non-point source pollution, urban and agricultural runoff, as well as nutrients in surface water and groundwater. Permitted Point Sources. In Minnesota, point source discharges of regulated pollutants are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Figure 18 identifies permitted point sources in the watershed. Landfills, Dumps, Storage Tanks, and Hazardous Waste Sites. Solid waste may contain harmful chemicals or toxic substances that have the potential to contaminate water resources. Hazardous waste and leaking above and below-ground tanks can be sources of both groundwater and surface water contamination. Hazardous waste generator and MPCA leak sites are shown in Figure 18, which locates known current and abandoned landfills, dumps, and hazardous waste sites in the watershed. Feedlots. Feedlots have been defined by the MPCA “A lot or building or combination of lots and buildings intended for the confined feeding, breeding, raising, or holding of animals and specifically designed as a confinement area in which manure may accumulate. Or, where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the enclosure. Open lots used for the feeding and rearing of poultry (poultry ranges) shall be considered to be animal feedlots. Pastures shall not be considered animal feedlots.” (MPCA 1997). Because of the high density of animals and lack of vegetation common to feedlots, these areas can contaminate water resources with animal waste, sediment, and other pollutants.

Limited data is available on feedlots and other sources of animal waste in the watershed. Figure 19 shows the locations in the watershed of known feedlots, although the data for both counties is

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 28 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

several years old. The Hennepin Conservation District in the 1990s compiled a windshield survey of feedlot and horse facilities. Figure 19 illustrates that data.

Wells. Groundwater connections can be a potential source of groundwater contamination. Known wells from the County Well Index are shown in Figure 20. Some of these wells may have been properly abandoned and sealed, but those still in operation and those abandoned but not sealed may provide a pathway for contamination of surficial or deeper aquifers.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 29 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

3.0 Hydrologic Systems

3.1 INTRODUCTION

3.1.1 Precipitation Snow and rainfall data for the watershed is obtained at various locations in both the Upper and Lower watershed. The District maintains tipping bucket precipitation stations at five locations in the watershed. Precipitation data from five locations in and near the watershed are compiled from the State Climatologist’s web site. Six Citizen Precipitation Recorders at locations in and near the watershed, record precipitation data and submit it to the District.

3.1.2 Design Storms Rainfall frequency and duration information from the metropolitan area is commonly taken from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Weather Bureau Technical Paper No. 40 (TP-40); however, another more recent source of data is the Illinois State Water Survey’s Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the Midwest (1992). The statistically derived data are used for determining critical storms that represent varying design conditions or levels of service. Additional references include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Technical Memorandum NWS Hydro-35: 5- to 60-Minute Precipitation Frequency for the Eastern and Central United States (June 1977) and the Metropolitan Council's Precipitation Frequency Analysis for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (January 1989). For regulatory purposes, the District has derived from these sources critical event rainfall depths of 2.4” in 24 hours for a one-year event, 4.1” in 24 hours for a 10-year event, and 5.9” in 24 hours for a 100-year event. These critical events are used to calculate stormwater quantity and quality impacts of new development and redevelopment.

3.2 WATER RESOURCES

3.2.1 Public Waters The Department of Natural Resources’ Public Waters Inventory identifies 333 basins within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed as under the jurisdiction of the DNR (see Figure 21), including 104 protected waters and 229 protected waters wetlands. In addition, 21 protected watercourses within the District are included in the Inventory and are depicted on Figure 21. Each of the eleven subwatershed plans includes a list and map of public waters within the subwatershed.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 30 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

3.2.2 Lakes The lake inventory for the District includes 65 basins over 10 acres in size. Figure 22 shows the lakes within the District as well as other smaller basins identified by the DNR. Table 16 summarizes this information and includes information on lake size and depth.

Table 16. Physical characteristics of basins over 10 acres in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Maximum Mean DNR Surface Lake Name Subwatershed Depth Depth ShorelandClassification Area (ac) (ft) (ft) Upper Watershed: Carver County Auburn East Six Mile Marsh Recreational Development 45 116 Auburn West Six Mile Marsh Recreational Development 84 17 140 Carl Krey Six Mile Marsh Natural Environment 41 Church Six Mile Marsh Recreational Development 13 Lunsten Six Mile Marsh Natural Environment 153 Marsh Six Mile Marsh Natural Environment 139 Parley Six Mile Marsh Recreational Development 20 247 Piersons Six Mile Marsh Recreational Development 40 277 Steiger Six Mile Marsh Recreational Development 37 11 164 Stone Six Mile Marsh Natural Environment 30 7 100 Turbid Six Mile Marsh Natural Environment 31 Wassermann Six Mile Marsh Recreational Development 41 7 153 Zumbra-Sunny Six Mile Marsh Recreational Development 58 14 162 Minnewashta Virginia Recreational Development 70 15 656 St. Joe Virginia Natural Environment 18 Tamarack Virginia Natural Environment 82 24 Virginia Virginia Recreational Development 99 Schutz Schutz Recreational Development 49 105 Upper Watershed: Hennepin County Christmas Christmas Recreational Development 87 33 276 Como Christmas Recreational Development 10 Dutch Dutch Recreational Development 45 15 160 Gleason Gleason Recreational Development 16 8 156 Hadley Gleason Recreational Development 33 Snyder Gleason Recreational Development 10 Mud Six Mile Marsh Natural Environment 70 Classen Lake Minnetonka Natural Environment 43 Forest Lake Minnetonka General Development 42 84 French Marsh Lake Minnetonka Natural Environment 30 Galpin Lake Minnetonka Recreational Development 44 Louise Lake Minnetonka Not in Shoreland Program 7 Marion Lake Minnetonka Recreational Development 12 Minnetonka Lake Minnetonka General Development 113 14,004 Shaver Lake Minnetonka Recreational Development 17 William Lake Minnetonka Not in Shoreland Program 15 Langdon Langdon Recreational Development 38 8 144

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 31 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Maximum Mean DNR Surface Lake Name Subwatershed Depth Depth ShorelandClassification Area (ac) (ft) (ft) Saunders Langdon Natural Environment 53 Katrina Painter Natural Environment 202 Thies Painter Natural Environment 11 Dickeys Long Lake Natural Environment 26 Holy Name Long Lake Recreational Development 65 Long Long Lake Recreational Development 38 8 144 Lydiard Long Lake Natural Environment 19 Mooney Long Lake Recreational Development 19 60 School Lake Long Lake Natural Environment 10 Tanager Long Lake Recreational Development 74 Wolsfeld Long Lake Natural Environment 33 Lower Watershed Bass Minnehaha Creek Not in Shoreland Program 49 Brownie Minnehaha Creek Natural Environment 20 12 Calhoun Minnehaha Creek Recreational Development 90 35 408 Cedar Minnehaha Creek Recreational Development 51 20 170 Diamond Minnehaha Creek General Development 6 54 Edina Mill Pond Minnehaha Creek General Development 14 Hannan Minnehaha Creek Recreational Development 20 Harriet Minnehaha Creek Recreational Development 82 29 353 Hiawatha Minnehaha Creek Natural Environment 30 15 54 Lake of the Isles Minnehaha Creek Recreational Development 31 9 103 Legion Minnehaha Creek Recreational Development 50 Libbs Minnehaha Creek General Development 8 17 Meadowbrook Minnehaha Creek Natural Environment 20 Mother Minnehaha Creek Natural Environment 20 Nokomis Minnehaha Creek Natural Environment 33 14 204 Powderhorn Minnehaha Creek Natural Environment 20 11 Taft Minnehaha Creek Not in Shoreland Program 17 Twin Minnehaha Creek Not in Shoreland Program 13 Windsor Minnehaha Creek Recreational Development 13 Note: Where no data is shown, that information is unknown.

Lake Minnetonka, the largest and deepest lake in the watershed, is the tenth largest lake in Minnesota. It covers an area of 14,004 acres (22.6 square miles), has 131 miles of shoreline and a maximum depth of 113 feet. It is comprised of numerous interconnected bays and central basins.

Table 17. Physical characteristics of the bays of Lake Minnetonka. Maximum Mean Surface Lake Minnetonka Depth Depth Area Bay Name (ft) (ft) (ac) Black Lake 25 25 Browns Bay

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 32 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Maximum Mean Surface Lake Minnetonka Depth Depth Area Bay Name (ft) (ft) (ac) Carman Bay 20 Carsons Bay 29 Cooks Bay 43 362 Crystal Bay 113 28 900 East Upper Lake 48 1956 Gideon Bay 57 Grays Bay 28 207 Halsted Bay 36 13 544 Harrisons Bay 46 9 211 Jennings Bay 26 11 290 Lafayette Bay Lower Lake South 77 1069 Maxwell Bay 44 14 300 North Arm 64 14 307 Phelps Bay Priests Bay 46 Robinsons Bay Seton Bay Smiths Bay 80 Smithtown Bay Spring Park Bay 36 408 St. Albans Bay 44 14 164 St. Louis Bay Stubbs Bay 37 13 195 Wayzata Bay 63 751 West Arm 44 11 580 West Upper Lake 84 879 Note: Where no data is shown, that information is unknown.

3.2.3 Streams Numerous streams drain the watershed. Minnehaha Creek, for which the watershed is named, is formed at the outlet of Gray’s Bay of Lake Minnetonka and flows 22 miles east to the Mississippi River. In the upper watershed, the primary streams include Long Lake Creek, Gleason Creek, Classen Creek, Painter Creek, and Six Mile Creek, although there are many other small streams and channels, named and unnamed. Figure 23 shows the primary streams within the watershed as well as other streams identified by the DNR. Some of those streams may be intermittent or no longer active, while other channels may exist that have not been mapped. In 2004 the District undertook assessments of Minnehaha Creek and the five primary upper watershed streams. The Minnehaha Creek Stream Assessment included an inventory of stream and streambank conditions, a biologic assessment of macroinvertebrate communities, and a geomorphologic assessment of channel stability. That study identified the need for repairs and stabilization of erosion sites and damaged infrastructure, and the restoration of a free-flowing channel and improved habitat conditions.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 33 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

The five primary streams in the upper watershed were also assessed in 2004, and the results were detailed in the Upper Watershed Stream Assessment. That assessment included an inventory of stream and streambank conditions and a biologic assessment of macroinvertebrate communities, but did not include geomorphologic assessments of those streams. The assessment identified a number of locations where spot repairs or restoration would be necessary to repair erosion and to help improve water quality and restore ecologic integrity. More detail on the results of these assessments may be found in the individual subwatershed plan in which the stream is located.

3.2.4 Ditches Historically, counties were responsible for establishing and maintaining public drainage systems including ditches. Most ditches were established in the early 1900’s to promote agricultural activities on lands that were marginally productive because of wet conditions or to enable other uses. These areas were ditched and tiled, through establishment of a public drainage system under Minnesota Statute Chapter 103E, so more land would be in agricultural production or in other use. In areas that have since become urbanized, the need for agricultural productivity and drainage disappeared. Open ditches in urban areas were replaced with subsurface storm sewers. Often times the storm sewers were constructed in different locations and alignment than that of the ditch they replaced and the old channels were filled in. In the more rural areas of the District, the ditches remain, for the most part, open channels. The District petitioned Hennepin County to transfer responsibility for the ditches to MCWD in 1971. The petition states that MCWD intended to define the function of the ditches. The authority for Judicial Ditch 2 (Six-Mile Creek) was transferred by court order on March 27, 1972 (a judicial ditch is located in more than one county). The authority for the seven Hennepin County Ditches was transferred by Hennepin County Board resolution on March 28, 1972. The eight public ditches for which the District is responsible are:

1. Judicial Ditch 2 – Six Mile Creek (mainly open channel) 2. County Ditch 10 – Painter Creek (mainly open channel) 3. County Ditch 14 – from St. Louis Park into Lake Calhoun (storm sewer) 4. County Ditch 15 – into Gleason Lake (open channel/sewer) 5. County Ditch 17 – from Edina to Lake Calhoun (storm sewer) 6. County Ditch 27 – part of Long Lake Creek (mainly open channel) 7. County Ditch 29 – from St. Louis Park into Lake Calhoun (storm sewer) 8. County Ditch 32 – out of Gleason Lake in Wayzata (open channel/sewer)

Figure 24 shows the general locations of County/Judicial Ditches within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The term “ditch” as used here generally refers to a public drainage system established under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E. The District’s ditches fall into three general categories: stormsewer, open ditch, and streams.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 34 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

• The stormsewer category includes those ditches that have been converted to stormsewer along most if not all of their length and stormsewer now serves to drain the area. These ditches are County Ditch 14, County Ditch 17, and County Ditch 29. • The open ditch category includes those ditches that are still open channels and maintain originally constructed form. These are County Ditch 10, County Ditch 15, and County Ditch 32. The third category is streams. • The streams category includes those public ditches that were established to improve the drainage of the natural stream system that was present at the time of establishment. These ditches have generally maintained some of their natural stream qualities. These are Judicial Ditch 2 (Six Mile Creek) and County Ditch 27 (Long Lake Creek). In addition, the ditches could also be classified by primary current land use as those that remain mostly agricultural and those that are not agricultural. The agricultural ditches are Judicial Ditch 2, County Ditch 10, and County Ditch 27. All of the other ditches are in areas that that have become primarily residential and commercial and no longer have agricultural land uses. In 2003 the District compiled and organized records available from Hennepin and Carver Counties, including construction documentation, surveys and benefited parcel information. The District has performed a limited amount of maintenance on these conveyances. The Upper Watershed Stream Assessment completed in 2004 included detailed inspections of Six Mile Creek (JD 2), Painter Creek (CD 10), Long Lake Creek (includes part of CD 27), and Gleason Creek (includes part of CD 32). A detailed physical inventory was completed and problem areas and recommendations for improvement identified.

3.2.5 Wetlands Approximately 29 percent of the land area within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed is shown on the National Wetland Inventory as wetland (see Figure 25 and Table 18). Wetland scientists use two common classification schemes to identify wetland type – the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Circular 39” system, and a replacement classification system developed by Cowardin et al. for the Fish and Wildlife Service, commonly referred to as the Cowardin system. The Circular 39 system was originally developed as a means for classifying wetlands for waterfowl habitat purposes. Eight of the Circular 39 freshwater wetland types are found in Minnesota. The Cowardin scheme is a hierarchical classification based on landscape position, substrate, flooding regime, and vegetation. While the Cowardin scheme has been officially adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies, the Circular 39 system is still commonly used because of its simplicity and ease of use.

Table 18. Circular 39 and Cowardin classification of wetland type of the National Wetlands Inventory wetlands in the MCWD. Circular 39 Type Area (acres) Cowardin Class Area (acres) Type 1 - Seasonal 366.17 Aquatic Bed 2.84 Type 2 - Wet Meadow 77.03 Emergent 10,236.36 Type 3 - Shallow Marsh 9,771.61 Forested 933.93 Type 4 - Deep Marsh 347.95 Scrub Shrub 874.10 Type 5 - Open Water 20,804.46 Unconsolidated Bottom 21,186.87 Type 6 - Scrub Shrub 874.10 Unconsolidated Shore 5.52

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 35 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Circular 39 Type Area (acres) Cowardin Class Area (acres) Type 7 - Forested 906.78 Type 8 - Bog 0.53 Industrial Activity 26.56 Riverine 64.43 TOTAL 33,239.62 33,239.62 Source: Minnesota DNR. See Figure 25.

In 2001-2003 the District undertook a Functional Assessment of Wetlands (FAW) on all wetlands greater than one-quarter acre in size. This assessment used a variant of the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method. In contrast to Table 18 above, which shows wetland acreage and type from the National Wetlands Inventory completed in the 1980s, Table 19 below shows the acreage and type as assessed in the field. Using the results of that analysis, individual wetlands were assigned to one of four categories – Preserve, and Manage 1, 2, or 3 (see Figure 26). Wetlands that were evaluated as Exceptional or High on certain ecological or hydrologic values were assigned to the Preserve category. The balance of evaluated wetlands were assigned to a category based on this assessment of current functions and values, with Manage 1 wetlands exhibiting higher values and Manage 2 and 3 moderate or lower values. Refer to the Functional Assessment of Wetlands (2003) for details of methodology, classification, and management recommendations.

Table 19. Dominant wetland type in the MCWD as assessed in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands. Circular 39 Type Area (acres) Seasonal 1,301.8 Wet Meadow 2,364.9 Shallow Marsh 6,706.4 Deep Marsh 1,250.1 Open Water 2,201.6 Scrub Shrub 1,533.1 Forested 1,124.6 Bog 208.5 Lakes 5,688.8 Not typed 219.9 TOTAL 22,599.7 Note: Based on field assessment. Excludes those areas determined in the field not to be wetlands, and stormwater ponds clearly excavated out of upland. Does not include all lake acreage. Includes some small areas that were not field assessed. Source: MCWD 2003 Functional Assessment of Wetlands. See Figure 26.

Table 20. Wetland management classifications of wetlands in the MCWD as determined in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands. Area Classification Number % of total (acres) Preserve 569 7,751.36 48.9% Manage 1 972 3,058.34 19.3% Manage 2 1,058 2,901.50 18.3% Manage 3 683 2,144.12 13.5% TOTAL 3,282 15,855.32 Note: The FAW excluded large lakes and wetlands less than ¼ acre in size; those areas are included in the NWI, so total will not match Tables 18 or 19. Source: MCWD 2003 Functional Assessment of Wetlands. See Figure 27.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 36 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

The assessments included evaluation of functions and values such as vegetative diversity, wildlife and fish habitat, the wetland’s ability to protect downstream resources, opportunity to protect shoreline, and sensitivity to stormwater and urban development. A number of wetlands, especially in the developing upper watershed, scored highly on vegetative diversity, fish and wildlife habitat, or aesthetics (see Figure 28). Some of the wetlands were also evaluated for restoration potential. Factors considered were the ease with which the wetland could be restored, the number of landowners within the historic basin, the size of the potential restoration area, the potential for establishing buffer areas or water quality ponding, and the extent and type of hydrologic alteration. Restoration potential was characterized as high, moderate, or low, and is illustrated in Figure 29.

3.2.6 Floodplain Flooding effects may range from personal nuisance to property damage or loss to injury or death. Floodplain areas flood most often and severely. Land use regulations define the floodplain as the area covered by the flood that has a one percent chance of occurring each year, also known as the 100-year flood. The floodplain is divided into two zoning districts: the floodway and flood fringe. The floodway includes the river channel and nearby land areas which must remain open to discharge the 100-year flood. The flood fringe, while in the flood plain, lies outside the floodway. Regulations usually allow development in the flood fringe but require flood-proofing or raising to the legal flood protection elevation.

In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to make flood insurance available to property owners at federally subsidized rates. The NFIP required communities to adopt local laws to protect lives and future development from flooding. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) first must formally notify a community that it has special flood hazard areas (SFHA) before it can join the NFIP. FEMA notifies communities by issuing a Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM). This map shows the approximate boundaries of the community’s 100-year flood plain. Each participating community has a special conversion study or a Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The FIS includes a flood plain map depicting the community’s flood hazard areas. Flood mapping was recently updated for all communities in Hennepin County.

Table 21. Status of flood mapping for communities in the MCWD participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. Community Initial FIRM Current Effective Map Deephaven 9/2/04 9/2/04 Edina 5/1/80 9/2/04 Excelsior 12/1/77 9/2/04 Golden Valley 2/4/81 9/2/04 Greenwood 9/2/04 9/2/04 Hopkins 5/5/81 9/2/04 Independence 1/6/83 9/2/04 Long Lake 9/2/04 9/2/04 Maple Plain 9/2/04 9/2/04 Medina 9/3/80 9/2/04 Minneapolis 1/18/81 9/2/04

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 37 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Community Initial FIRM Current Effective Map Minnetonka 5/19/81 9/2/04 Minnetonka Beach 9/2/04 9/2/04 Minnetrista 9/27/85 9/2/04 Mound 9/29/78 9/2/04 Orono 10/17/78 9/2/04 Plymouth 5/15/78 9/2/04 Richfield 9/2/04 9/2/04 St. Bonifacius 9/2/04 9/2/04 St. Louis Park 6/1/77 9/2/04 Shorewood 12/4/79 9/2/04 Spring Park 5/1/79 9/2/04 Tonka Bay 5/1/79 9/2/04 Wayzata 11/1/79 9/2/04 Woodland 8/1/79 9/2/04 Chanhassen 11/9/73 (FHBM) NSFHA Laketown Township 2/1/78* 1/6/88* Victoria 6/7/74 (FHBM) NSFHA Watertown Township 2/1/78* 1/6/88* *Carver County. FIRM = Flood Insurance Rate Map; FHBM = Flood Hazard Boundary Map; NSFHA = No Special Flood Hazard Area – all Zone C Source: FEMA Community Status Book Report.

In 2005 the District completed an evaluation of flood elevations on Minnehaha Creek, and four upper watershed streams: Gleason Creek, Long Lake Creek, Painter Creek, and Six Mile Creek. The results of those evaluations are indicated on floodplain maps in the respective subwatershed plan. See Figure 30 for floodplain locations in the watershed.

3.3 WATER QUANTITY The District has operated a Hydrologic Data Program since 1968; the program was significantly expanded in 1997. Water quantity is monitored at numerous locations throughout the watershed, including flow gauging at eight locations along Minnehaha Creek and 15 sites along major tributaries to Lake Minnetonka.

Continuous water level monitoring is conducted on Minnehaha Creek at Grays Bay Dam (Lake Minnetonka Outlet) in Minnetonka, at the I-494 crossing, and Browndale Dam in Edina. Continuous water level monitoring was conducted on Painter Creek and Long Lake Creek in the Upper Watershed. In addition, thirty-three lake level recording stations are routinely monitored by MCWD staff or volunteers. The District maintains an XPSWMM hydrologic and hydraulic model of the watershed to aid in analysis and decision making. The 2003 Hydraulic, Hydrologic, and Pollutant Loading Study (HHPLS) included detailed XPSWMM and P-load modeling of the current and 2020 hydraulic and hydrologic conditions in the subwatershed. That modeling includes the following results for modeled locations (lakes, ponds, channels, and crossings) within the subwatershed: ƒ Existing Normal Water Level; ƒ Existing High Water Level for the 1.5 year, 24-hour and 100-year, 24-hour events; ƒ 2020 predicted HWL for the 100-year, 24-hour event; and the ƒ Existing High Water Level for the 100-year, 10-day snowmelt event.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 38 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

3.4 WATER QUALITY

3.4.1 Water Quality The District’s Hydrologic Data Program monitors and collects data on water quality in many of the lakes and streams in the watershed. Each year about 25 lakes are monitored, and 20-25 bays of Lake Minnetonka. Some lakes have been monitored for a sufficient period of time that water quality trends can be determined. For some of the lakes, however, insufficient data are available to draw statistically significant conclusions, and continued monitoring is necessary to better understand lake conditions. Water quality grab samples are collected at eight locations on Minnehaha Creek, and at 15 locations on 10 Lake Minnetonka tributaries in the Upper Watershed. Automated flow records and flow weighted samples are collected at 3 locations on Minnehaha Creek and at several locations in the Upper Watershed. Data for both lakes and streams is compiled on annual Report Cards that present water quality and quantity data in a highly readable format for the general public. Detailed data is published in an Annual Hydrodata report. The HHPLS included extensive pollutant loading and water quality modeling for major water resources in the watershed for both year 2000 and 2020 projected conditions, and serves as the basis for this Plan.

In 2005-2006, MCWD conducted an assessment of lake sediment cores to determine relative historical levels of nutrients within several lakes within the watershed including Carsons Bay, Gleason Lake, Halsteds Bay, Jennings Bay, Langdon Lake, Parley Lake, Spring Park Bay, St. Albans Bay, Stubbs Bay, and Wasserman Lake. At the time of writing of this plan, only preliminary results of the study were available. Analysis of the diatom testing shows that with the exception of Langdon Lake and Gleason Lake (with greater historic clarity), water quality goals identified by the regional teams through the HHPLS process are generally consistent with the historic attainability of the lakes evaluated. Diatom testing and paleoecology will be used further to both assess additional lakes and inform the Impaired Waters evaluations throughout the watershed.

3.4.2 Impacts from Historical Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges Several lakes and bays of Lake Minnetonka continue to exhibit impacts from historical discharges from municipal wastewater treatment plants. Eight municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) operated and discharged effluent to Lake Minnetonka between 1927 and 1986. The WWTPs were systematically decommissioned between 1971 and 1986 as sanitary sewer interceptors were constructed around the lake. The interceptors now collect the sewage flow and transport it to central plants, for treatment and discharge to the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. In the years prior to the decommissioning of these plants, water quality in Lake Minnetonka was at an all time low. The degraded water quality, demonstrated by floating algae scums on main parts of the lake, became a highly charged political issue and there was concern for declining property values. During the early 1970’s, when all the WWTPs were still in operation, an estimated 50,000 lbs of phosphorus was discharged annually, with high dissolved phosphorus content. The fate and

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 39 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

transport of the phosphorus varied from plant to plant before reaching Lake Minnetonka. For example, the Excelsior WWTP discharge was nearly 100% efficient in delivery of phosphorus because of the short and direct travel path. In contrast, the Maple Plain WWTP discharge was far away and much less efficient. An estimated 70% of the phosphorus discharged from the Maple Plain WWTP was retained in multiple receiving wetlands upstream and along Painter Creek, delivering only about 30% of the total load discharged to Jennings Bay. Together these point discharges represented an external load to Lake Minnetonka about twice as big as all the non-point sources, mainly from runoff, combined. Decommissioning the plants and constructing the interceptor sewer system required a significant public investment, but upon completion of the projects there was an immediate and noticeable improvement in water quality in Lake Minnetonka and other receiving waters. To quantify the impact of that change, existing water quality was compared to what it might have been if the waters were still receiving treatment effluent. The table below shows that the continued operation of the WWTPs would have resulted in continued degradation of water quality and use in all cases except Halsteds Bay, where the loading from the Victoria plant reaching the bay is inconsequential and did not change predicted in-lake concentrations of nutrients. These historic discharges may continue to have an impact on water quality in the receiving waters through sediment storage. The Langdon Lake internal load diagnostic study proposed in this plan would investigate what role those historic loads may play on existing water quality in the lake.

Table 22. Comparison of the current actual water quality of MCWD receiving waters historically impacted by wastewater treatment plants to current modeled water quality assuming continuation of historic wastewater discharges. 2000 2000 With (1997-2003 Avg) WWTP Discharges Avg In- Watershed Avg In- Primary Secondary Watershed Lake Trophic & WWTP Lake Trophic WWTP Receiving Receiving Load TP Conc. Status Load TP Conc. Status Location Water Water (lbs) (ug/l) Index (lbs) (ug/l) Index Excelsior Gideon Bay 1,750 21 47 10,400 56 62 Long Lake Tanager Lake Browns Bay 315 101 71 3,570 221 82 Long Lake Browns Bay 5,650 21 48 7,420 25 51 Wayzata Peavey Pond Browns Bay 190 56 62 13,990 960 100 Wayzata Browns Bay 5,650 21 48 7,420 25 51 Maple Wetlands, Plain Painter Creek Jennings Bay (30% Export Efficiency Through Interim Wetland Systems) Maple Plain Jennings Bay 1,780 68 65 3,020 117 73 Langdon Mound Lake Cooks Bay 150 87 69 18,050 568 96 Mound Cooks Bay 860 28 52 3,460 64 64 Orono Crystal Bay 2,340 28 52 3,950 41 58 Lakes, Victoria Wetlands Halsteds Bay (10% Export Efficiency Through Interim Wetland Systems) Victoria Halsteds Bay 1,800 99 70 1,900 99 70 Source: MCWD.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 40 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

3.4.3 Impaired Waters The federal Clean Water Act requires states to adopt water quality standards to protect the nation’s waters. These standards define how much of a pollutant can be in a surface and/or ground water while still allowing it to meet its designated uses, such as for drinking water, fishing, swimming, irrigation or industrial purposes. The Clean Water Act requires states to publish, every two years, an updated list of streams and lakes that are not meeting their designated uses because of excess pollutants. The list, known as the 303(d) list or the list of Impaired Waters, is based on known violations of water quality standards. Waters that are Impaired must undergo a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process. This process involves the following phases:

1. Assessment and listing; 2. TMDL study to determine the source or sources of the pollutant or stressor, a determination of the maximum amount of that pollutant or stressor that can be allowed, and an allocation of that maximum amount to the various sources; 3. An implementation plan that sets forth strategies for reducing pollutant loading or alleviation of the stressor; and 4. Monitoring the effectiveness of implementation efforts.

A number of waterbodies in the watershed have been designated Impaired Waters. The District is in the process of completing TMDLs for nine lakes that are nutrient impaired.

Table 16. Impaired Waters in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. Waterbody Affected Use Pollutant or Stressor Year of Listing Minnehaha Creek Aquatic life Fish IBI 2004 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2004 Virginia Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA* 2006 Zumbra-Sunny Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 1998 Parley Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 Steiger Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 1998 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 Wasserman Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 1998 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 Powderhorn Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 2006 Harriet Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 1998 Hiawatha Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 Nokomis Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 1998 Aquatic consumption PCB FCA 2002 Diamond Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 Calhoun Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 1998 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2004 Brownie Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 1998 Cedar Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 1998 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 Lake of the Isles Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 1998 Minnetonka Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 1998

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 41 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Waterbody Affected Use Pollutant or Stressor Year of Listing Christmas Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 1998 Long Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA 1998 Twin Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2006 Grass Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2006 *FCA = Fish consumption advisory. Impacts of mercury are mainly regional in expression, so the initial approach by the MPCA will be to complete regional or statewide mercury TMDL reports. Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

According to monitoring data, the following resources do not currently meet state nutrient standards and may be in the future designated as impaired waters:

• Dutch Lake • Mooney Lake • Jennings Bay • Gleason Lake • Stone Lake • West Arm • Langdon Lake • Lake Auburn East • Long Lake • Lunsten Lake • Tanager Lake • Halsted Bay

3.5 GROUNDWATER

3.5.1 Aquifers The surficial geology of the watershed is composed of primarily sand and gravel outwash and glacial till. These glacial deposits vary in both permeability and thickness to bedrock. Within these deposits are unconfined (water table) aquifers of sufficient waterbearing capacity to provide municipal and private water. These water table aquifers are vulnerable to contamination since they are relatively close to the land surface. Contaminants have a relatively direct access to these aquifers through minimal infiltration. Recharge areas for drift aquifers are those locations where water can reach the water table through percolation of water through soil and drift materials. The sequence of major aquifers underlying the District include: 1. Glacial sand and gravel deposits. 2. St. Peter sandstones. 3. Shakopee-Oneota dolomites (Prairie du Chien). 4. Jordan sandstones. 5. Franconia and Galesville sandstones. 6. Mt. Simon-Hinckley sandstones.

3.5.2 Groundwater Quality Groundwater originates as precipitation that soaks into the ground and eventually reaches the water table and deeper aquifers. The water table is the boundary below which geologic materials are completely saturate with water. Depth to the water table is dependant on the gradient of the water table and surface topography. Where the water table is exposed at the surface, wetlands, lakes, and streams are formed. These water resources can also be perched above the water table by relatively impermeable layers.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 42 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Groundwater quality and quantity data are limited for this watershed. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)’s Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment Program (GWMAP) developed baseline groundwater quality data from 1992-1996 for the Metro area, but the program has been scaled back and minimal follow up work has been completed. Eight of the wells used to assess groundwater quality in the Metro area were located in the watershed. None of the constituents that were of specific concern in the Metro area (nitrate, chloride, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and arsenic) exceeded standards in the program’s wells in the District. The Hennepin County Groundwater Protection Plan was completed in 1994 and approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), but has not been adopted by the Hennepin County Board.

3.5.3 Surface-Groundwater Interface The surface-groundwater interface is a transitional region between surface water and adjacent aquifers. This zone plays a vital role in controlling exchange of water, chemical constituents and contaminants between surface and groundwater. These zones are spatially fluctuating, and influenced by a number of processes at various scales. These zones are often functionally important to biotic integrity of water resources, such as providing for nutrient and dissolved oxygen exchange and refuge for certain organisms during drought conditions. The hyporheic zone between a stream and groundwater can extend hundreds of feet from a stream, and processes within this zone can significantly influence streamflow, water quality, and biotic integrity.

The surface-groundwater interface has only recently been the focus of research and policy discussion. Findings to date emphasize that groundwater and surface water are not functionally separate but rather are components of dynamic, connected systems that require a holistic management approach.

3.5.4 Infiltration Capacity Recharge to the water table occurs when surface water from rain or snow fall infiltrates into the groundwater system. The groundwater recharge rate depends on many different factors. Less water seeps through areas of relatively impervious surface material such as tight clayey glacial till than areas of highly permeable soils such as loose sandy or gravely glacial outwash. In some areas, such as buried bedrock valleys, bedrock aquifers are directly exposed to surficial drift materials. The HHPLS used soils, geology, and topographic information to assess infiltration and recharge potential within the watershed. Figure 6 shows that this potential ranges widely across the watershed, with some highly permeable areas capable of high infiltration rates to areas of variability where the soils are organic in nature and less permeable. The Lake Minnetonka vicinity provides an important recharge area for the Jordan aquifer. Water tables in the glacial drift near Lake Minnetonka for all practical purposes equal the lake level, which normally ranges from elevation 928.5 to 930.0 feet above mean sea level. A study performed in 1971 prepared a water budget for Lake Minnetonka that included seepage losses through lake bottom sediment. This water budget succeeded a similar analysis completed by the Watershed District in 1969. Study results reported an annual seepage loss (recharge) of about 3

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 43 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

to 4 inches in Lake Minnetonka. Based on these estimates, Lake Minnetonka contributes about 4,700 acre-feet of water annually as recharge to underlying aquifers. Areas where the drift material is relatively thin, transmissivity is high, and water table depth is minimal are critical recharge areas. Areas with these characteristics have a greater potential to transport contaminants to the drift aquifers than other areas. Figure 31 classifies aquifer sensitivity from the Hennepin County Geologic Atlas and the Carver County Environmental Services data. Recharge can also occur from surface water bodies. Wetlands and floodplains can function as recharge, discharge, or flow-through areas depending on the level of the water within the wetland or floodplain relative to the water table. Discharge can occur naturally through springs, seeps, and directly into streams and lakes. Percolation into underlying aquifers is also a form of discharge from drift aquifers. The configuration of these subsurface aquifers and the position of the water table are highly variable and complex. More information will become available as cities complete their wellhead protection plans.

3.5.5 Wellhead Protection Most of the communities in the watershed depend on groundwater sources for drinking water. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act requires states to implement Source Water Protection Programs to help prevent contaminants from entering public drinking water sources. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) requires public water suppliers to develop Wellhead Protection Studies to delineate and manage the area surrounding a public water source such as a groundwater well. A number of the communities in the watershed have completed those studies and have designated Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMA) and Wellhead Protection Areas for their public wells. The risks and vulnerability to contamination of the drinking water supply have been identified for each area and management plans for minimizing that risk have been developed and approved by the MDH. Figure 32 shows the Wellhead Protection Areas and associated DWSMA by vulnerability risk. Each subwatershed plan includes a figure with more localized detail.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 44 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

4.0 Issues Identification

4.1 INTEGRATION OF PAST PLANNING EFFORTS

The District has invested in a significant planning effort since 2000, completing systematic analyses of all its major hydrologic systems, including surface water quantity and quality modeling; water quality goal setting; stream assessments for Minnehaha Creek and the primary streams of the upper watershed; functions and values assessments of the wetland resources of the District; and a Visioning process to identify options and public preferences for the future management of Minnehaha Creek. In addition, specialized studies on specific water resources have been conducted, including the Painter Creek Feasibility Study, the Stubbs Bay Feasibility Study, and the Gleason Lake Management Plan. Most of these past planning efforts included an extensive public participation process. This Plan integrates these past planning efforts into a long-range Management Plan for the watershed and the eleven subwatershed planning units.

4.1.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Pollutant Loading Study In 2003 the District completed a two year effort to compile existing and new information on the water resources in the District, to identify existing water management issues, define the impact of future land changes, and recommend how the District could address those changes. The most ambitious watershed study ever undertaken by a watershed district in Minnesota, the Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Pollutant Loading Study, or HHPLS, was initiated to:

ƒ Document the nature of the physical and biological characteristics of the watershed; ƒ Quantify the amount of water moving through the watershed, and the quantity of that water as it moved an as it gathered in various receiving waters; ƒ Gather public input to assist in problem identification and solution definition; ƒ Formalize management programs on a subwatershed basis; and ƒ Provide the study results to implementation partners in an easily understood manner.

The overarching goal of the HHPLS was to improve and maintain the surface water, groundwater, and associated natural resources of the District. The study included detailed modeling of the current and 2020 hydraulic and hydrologic conditions in the subwatershed as well as the current and projected future water quality expected to result from those conditions and future land use change. The extensive public input process used nearly 100 public meetings across the watershed to share these results, identify problems and gain input on appropriate approaches to addressing

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 45 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

problems. Most significantly, these public input sessions resulted in the development of new or refinement of existing water quality goals for 62 lakes or bays within the District. The findings of the HHPLS serve as the basis for this Management Plan. Some of the results have been refined or further developed; for example, the 2020 modeling has been extrapolated to hypothetical Ultimate Development conditions. The Implementation Plan in this Plan extends from the problem identification and public input gained through the HHPLS development.

4.1.2 Functional Assessment of Wetlands In 2001-2003 the District undertook a Functional Assessment of Wetlands (FAW) on all wetlands greater than one-quarter acre in size. This assessment used a variant of the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method developed in partnership with the Hennepin Conservation District to assess wetland functions and values. The intent of completing this analysis was to provide a comprehensive inventory and assessment of existing wetland functions and values, both for District management purposes and to assist the municipalities within the District by providing consistent, comprehensive wetland resources data. Using the results of that analysis, individual wetlands were assigned to one of four categories – Preserve, and Manage 1, 2, or 3. Wetlands that were evaluated as Exceptional or High on certain ecological or hydrologic values were assigned to the Preserve category. The balance of evaluated wetlands were assigned to a category based on this assessment of current functions and values, with Manage 1 wetlands exhibiting higher values and Manage 2 and 3 moderate or lower values. These management classifications will be used in regulating and protecting wetlands based on their function and existing condition.

4.1.3 Stream Assessments In 2003 the District assessed the physical and biological condition of Minnehaha Creek and five principle upper watershed streams – Long Lake Creek, Gleason Creek, Classen Creek, Painter Creek, and Six Mile Creek. The Minnehaha Creek stream assessment included a fluvial geomorphic investigation to evaluate the stability of the creek as well as evaluation of creek conditions using the standard assessment tools Stream Visual Assessment Protocol and Pfankuch Channel Stability. Both the upper and lower watershed stream assessments included a channel inventory, identification of erosion problem areas, and evaluation of the macroinvertebrate and fish communities. The assessments were intended to characterize the general conditions of these streams and to provide baseline information to assist the District in developing management strategies to improve and protect these streams. Stream assessment findings are reported in the respective subwatershed plan and form the basis for Implementation Plan activities.

4.1.4 Creek Visioning The District in 2005 undertook a joint partnership with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to develop a large-scale, long-term Vision for Minnehaha Creek to serve as guidance for organizations that share Creek corridor management responsibilities. A Citizen Advisory

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 46 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Committee of community representatives and a Technical Advisory Committee of agency representatives through a lengthy community input process developed a common vision and management recommendations. The 2005 MCWD Minnehaha Creek Visioning Partnership Final Report presents the results of that process and summarizes the Partnership’s recommendations for future Creek management. Erosion control and support of aquatic life were overall the highest ranked priorities for improvement. However, when considered reach by reach, support and maintenance of recreation were the highest priority for the reaches upstream of the Browndale dam, followed by improvement of aquatic life and erosion control. Erosion control and streambank stabilization was the highest priority for the reach downstream of the Browndale dam. The Partnership recommended specific management options for the District and its partners. An important part of the Visioning process was the discussion of several streamflow management scenarios developed by the Corps to model what would happen with changes to the operation of the Grays Bay dam. The dam is managed to discharge water from Lake Minnetonka into the Creek only when the DNR-established runout elevation of the lake is exceeded. During dry periods lake level falls and there is minimal discharge; flow in the creek falls to minimal flow-related aquatic habitat conditions and canoeing is not possible. The Corps developed a number of scenarios that would provide targeted releases for recreation or habitat purposes, and then modeled the resulting impact on water level in Lake Minnetonka; the percent of time creek flow fell within optimal conditions for aquatic habitat and recreation; the percent of time potentially erosive flows could be expected; and resulting estimated water quality. Each scenario attempted to balance these often competing interests; in the end the Partnership recommended that further study be completed to find a way to optimize and balance year round minimum flows and moderated extreme flows with recreational and lake uses.

4.1.5 Hydrologic Data Program The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s (MCWD) annual Hydrologic Data Program is designed for the collection of background water quality and quantity data. The program is a collaborative effort between the Three Rivers Park District (TRPD), the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB), the Metropolitan Council (Met Council), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Data collected is used to identify water quality trends, track progress, and analyze water related problems. The program began in 1968. The District undertook an expanded monitoring program in 1997 to provide a comprehensive view of water quality and to focus improvement projects in the areas with the most need. The annual program includes precipitation monitoring; lake water quality and lake level monitoring; streamflow and stream water quality monitoring; and groundwater well level tracking. Lake and stream data are summarized on easy to understand Report Cards for the general public, while the complete report is published annually. Data is uploaded to the national water quality database STORET where it is available for public use. The Hydrologic Data Program also includes special studies undertaken by the District including lake bottom core sampling and diatom analysis.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 47 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

4.2 BASIC PLAN ASSUMPTIONS

4.2.1 What is Water Quality? Individuals have different opinions about how good surface water quality is defined. Some focus on water clarity; some on whether there are obvious signs on pollution such as trash or oil sheen; some on the presence or absence of algae. Most water resource plans focus primarily on the concentration of Total Phosphorus (TP) in lakes, although the MPCA has adopted numeric limits for 126 EPA Clean Water Act priority pollutants. Very few water bodies are monitored for these priority pollutants because:

ƒ Most are rarely detected in lakes; ƒ When detected, it is even more rare to find concentrations that pose a health risk by ingestion; ƒ Even if one is detected at a concentration above standard, it rarely affects use (contact recreation and aesthetics); and ƒ One priority pollutant sample scan is about $1000.

For regulatory purposes, the EPA and the MPCA define acceptable water quality as that which supports the designated use of the water resource. For lakes, those designated uses are recreation and aesthetics; for wetlands it is aquatic life. Eutrophic conditions are the most common and likely problems impacting use of lakes, and excess nutrients are usually the cause. The EPA and MPCA regulatory focus is therefore on nutrients, specifically Total Phosphorus (TP) concentration, as a means to classify lakes relative to support of their designated use. Lakes are determined to be Impaired Waters if their TP concentration exceeds a certain average concentration; in the North Central Hardwood Forest ecoregion in which the District is located, that threshold is 40 µg/L. Phosphorus impacts algal and macrophyte productivity, water clarity, fish habitat, aquatic life support, odor, and appearance (aesthetics). All these factors may be part of an individual lake user’s perception or definition of water quality. By cost-effective statistical assessments of TP, the “health” of the lake can be measured in terms of nutrient and sediment loads, internal cycling of nutrients, oxygen depletion, macrophyte types and support, aquatic life habitat and aesthetic conditions such as clarity, odor and frequency and types of algal blooms. In other words, TP is an indicator of water quality as well as a driver of water quality. This Plan assumes that good water quality is achieved when the physical, chemical, biological and aesthetic characteristics of a waterbody support its full designated use (recreation, aesthetics and/or aquatic life) and when the ecological integrity of the environment is supported. Because water quality in lakes is regulated mainly by the TP concentration, the water quality focus of the Plan is on reducing phosphorus loads to the lakes to achieve regulatory TP standards. However, each subwatershed plan sets forth an integrated set of goals, policies, and actions intended to address other aspects of water quality such as aquatic vegetation, buffer management, biological management, water clarity, and public information and education.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 48 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

4.2.2 Integrated Resource Management A guiding principle of this Plan is Integrated Resource Management. Integrated Resource Management is an interdisciplinary approach to water resources management that focuses on specific water resource, subwatershed, or watershed outcomes rather than on processes such as wetland regulation, runoff rate control, or BMP selection. This approach recognizes that water resources are complex, dynamic systems that require integrated decisions about water quality, water quantity, ecologic integrity, and land use and regulation to achieve complex and multi- dimensional end goals. Thus, for example, rather than simply focus on a numerical water quality objective for a lake, the end goal would be a lake that meets water quality and clarity objectives intended to sustain an appropriate fishery and associated aquatic vegetation and support swimming and other recreational uses. Accomplishing those end goals might require managing internal and external phosphorus and sediment loads, improving upstream water resources such as streams and wetlands, conserving upstream upland resources that serve to buffer human- induced impacts, and restoring degraded resources. An integrated program of capital projects, operations and maintenance, education, conservation, public and private property improvements, and regulation of land use and land use change may be required to achieve those objectives. Integrated Resource Management recognizes that actions taken can have multiple consequences – such as the impact of new development on runoff volumes, pollutant loading, infiltration and groundwater recharge - but also can make multiple impacts. Strategies and actions detailed in the subwatershed plans are intended to accomplish multiple objectives where possible and appropriate. For example, stream restoration projects are intended not only to correct erosion and stabilize streambanks, but also to provide an opportunity to improve in-stream habitat and restore where possible more natural stream form and function; to improve stream buffers and riparian zone management to reduce direct runoff, provide near-stream habitat, and protect the surface water-groundwater interface within the hyporheic zone adjacent to the stream; and provide an opportunity to enhance or create wildlife corridors along streams to link high-value natural resources. A regulatory requirement for new development to abstract some portion of new stormwater volumes generated would not only reduce downstream pollutant loading and water volumes, but would also minimize changes to local surficial groundwater recharge patterns, protecting wetland hydrology and stream baseflows.

4.2.3 Ultimate Land Use This Plan provides management strategies both for the period of the Plan – 2007-2017 – and also for the long term. Impacts to water resources accumulate over long periods of time, and improvements may take long periods to achieve. This Plan takes a long term vision that takes into account long-term change. To that end, the modeling and resource planning in the subwatershed plans uses Ultimate Land Use as the planning condition, considering that Ultimate development could be considered the “worst-case scenario” for predicting impacts of development on water resources. Land use change impacts downstream water quality by increasing the volume of runoff and the concentration and load of nutrients and sediment transported to receiving waters. Each subwatershed plan includes a table predicting how land use change such as the expected conversion of vacant land to other uses could be expected to ultimately impact water quality in

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 49 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

the watershed’s lakes. The table also illustrates the role of the regulatory program managing these impacts. “Ultimate Development” for this planning and modeling purpose is defined as the conversion to development of all agricultural lands and one-half of the other upland area that remains undeveloped in the 2020 local government land use plans. This conversion may take place by 2030 or require significantly more time; but it is assumed that at some point in the future these conversions will occur. This fully developed condition would be expected to generate the greatest downstream water quality impacts. Each subwatershed plan then includes a plan for reducing the impacts of that Ultimate Development condition through regulation, LGU requirements, operating programs, and capital projects.

4.3 REGULATORY ISSUES

4.3.1 Rules and Standards The District maintains a regulatory program that requires development and some redevelopment projects that meet certain conditions to treat and control the rate of stormwater discharge, using a variety of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These rules require development to meet standards that are not linked to specific outcomes, such as meeting a particular water quality goal in a downstream water body. Because of this lack of a direct linkage, the cumulative impact of these standards is unpredictable.

4.3.2 TMDLs/NPDES/Nondegradation Water resources are regulated at the federal, state, regional, and local levels. These regulations are intended to accomplish the same goal - the protection and improvement of water resources - but compliance with the various standards can be difficult, especially when they overlap. Most of the cities in the watershed are subject to the stormwater permitting regulations of the State of Minnesota’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for discharge, which requires cities to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Some of these cities are subject to a more stringent SWPPP requiring them to demonstrate that they have not degraded water quality, or if they have, to identify how they will mitigate that degradation. There are several Impaired Waters in the watershed, for which the District is partnering with the MPCA to prepare Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies. Cities must also include in their SWPPPs activities demonstrating that they are not contributing to the further degradation of an Impaired Water. After a TMDL is approved, cities have 18 months to amend their SWPPP to include TMDL implementation activities and demonstrate that they are in compliance with the TMDL Implementation Plan. To help reduce this regulatory burden, this Plan establishes water quality goals and an Implementation Plan that will be consistent with TMDL, NPDES, and nondegradation requirements. LGU requirements of this Plan can be integrated into a city’s SWPPP to help meet the city’s obligations under NPDES.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 50 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

4.4 WATER QUALITY ISSUES Lake Issues. The Hydrologic and Hydraulic and Pollutant Loading Study (HHPLS) through an extensive public participation process established water quality goals for 62 lakes and Lake Minnetonka bays in the District. Eleven of those lakes and most of the bays currently meet, nearly meet, or exceed their water quality goal. In addition, nine lakes in the watershed are listed on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s 303(d) list of Impaired Waters for excessive nutrient concentrations that impair full recreational use of the lake. According to monitoring data, the following resources do not currently meet state nutrient standards and may be in the future designated as impaired waters:

• Dutch Lake • Tanager Lake • Lunsten Lake • Gleason Lake • Mooney Lake • Halsted Bay • Langdon Lake • Stone Lake • Jennings Bay • Long Lake • Lake Auburn East • West Arm

Stream Issues. The streams in the upper watershed convey significant phosphorus and sediment loads to Lake Minnetonka and other lakes and wetlands in the watershed. In some of those streams, summer dissolved oxygen levels fall below the levels necessary to sustain aquatic life. Impact of Future Development. Development and redevelopment on the watershed is expected to increase nutrient and sediment loads, continuing to further degrade water quality and ecological integrity in lakes, streams, and wetlands. Lack of Data. Even with the extensive amount of study and analysis completed in the watershed and a significant annual hydrologic data collection program, much is still unknown about the water resources in the watershed. In some lakes little or no data is available to assess water quality. Lake Minnetonka is comprised of a series of interconnected bays that interact in complex ways. A whole-lake model is needed to better understand the dynamic and complex relationship between the many bays and open-lake areas of Lake Minnetonka. Shallow Lakes Issues. Many of the lakes in the watershed are shallow lakes or exhibit some shallow lake characteristics. Shallow lakes are different than deep lakes. Internal lake processes tend to be more important to their water quality than external sources such as pollutant loading from the lakeshed, and management strategies may differ.

4.5 WATER QUANTITY ISSUES Stormwater Conveyance Issues. Drainage is conveyed through the upper watershed through streams and channels to Lake Minnetonka and other intervening waters. The Upper Watershed Stream Assessment identified numerous locations on those streams where erosion and bank failure were evident. In addition, there are numerous other streams and channels that drain the upper watershed that have not been identified and assessed that may also experience erosion that could be a source of downstream sediment and nutrient loading. Additional stormwater volume generated by new development may cause new erosion, and stabilization may be necessary to reduce the need for future repairs.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 51 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Impact of Future Development. Development and redevelopment in the watershed is predicted to increase the volume of stormwater runoff conveying pollutant loadings from the watershed. Landlocked Basins. Several of the subwatersheds contain landlocked basins that have no natural outlet, or that outlet only under certain conditions.

4.6 DITCH ISSUES As detailed in section 3.2.4 above, there are eight jurisdictional ditches in the watershed; the District assumed responsibility for those ditches in 1971. A detailed review of the eight ditches in was completed in 2003 to obtain a history of ditch constructions, benefiting properties, and current use. The Board has considered several options for managing these ditches, including continuing as ditch authority, or abandoning or transferring some or all of the conveyances. A key consideration in determining the most appropriate management strategy is whether the ditch continues to provide a valuable stormwater conveyance function for the watershed or whether it has become primarily of local function. Four ditches continue to provide valuable subwatershed drainage conveyance. Both Judicial Ditch #2 (Six Mile Creek) and County Ditch #10 (Painter Creek), convey drainage from an entire subwatershed to Lake Minnetonka. County Ditch #27 (part of Long Lake Creek) and County Ditch #32 (part of Gleason Creek) are integral to the outlet of the Long Lake and Gleason Lake subwatersheds. Four ditches have been replaced by storm sewers or some combination of storm sewers and open channels: ƒ CD #14 (Bass Lake area into Lake Calhoun) ƒ CD #17 (Edina into Lake Calhoun) ƒ CD #29 (St. Louis Park into Lake Calhoun) ƒ CD #15 (Plymouth into Gleason Lake)

These ditches no longer serve their original function, which in most cases was to drain wetlands and other lands to provide for agriculture. These ditches or storm sewers provide localized stormwater conveyance, and in many cases maintenance has been provided by the city through which they run.

4.7 WETLAND ISSUES Wetland Conservation. The watershed includes numerous wetlands with high to exceptional vegetative diversity, fish and wildlife habitat and aesthetic values. High-value wetlands should be conserved from future alteration or degradation, and all other wetlands should be protected based on their classification. Wetland Restoration. Degraded wetlands with restoration potential may provide opportunities to increase overall functions and values of wetlands in the watershed, or to increase acreage through the restoration of drained or partially drained wetlands.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 52 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

4.8 ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ISSUES Impact of Future Development. Sensitive resources in the watershed, including high-quality wetlands and uplands, natural communities, and rare species habitat face varying threats from degradation as a result of development pressure, rapid urbanization, and subsequent channelization of stream conveyances that go beyond impacts to water quality and hydrology. Development can directly or indirectly degrade and fragment habitat, and reduce or eliminate the opportunities for natural stormwater management provided by minimally disturbed grasslands, forests, woodlands, and wetlands. Maintaining the connectivity between ecosystems is becoming increasingly difficult as development increases in the upper watershed. Conversions of open areas to large-lot development will likely create a patchwork of remnant woodland, grassland, and wetland. Many species require significant contiguous areas of habitat in which to hunt or brood. The fragmentation that would result from development will limit the ecological integrity of the entire area. Lower Watershed Issues. The lower watershed is almost entirely developed, and urbanization has eliminated, fragmented, and degraded the ecological integrity of its natural resources. Nonetheless, some resources remain in moderate condition, and the Minnehaha Creek corridor has the potential to be a primary wildlife corridor for the area. Upper Watershed Issues. While the area immediately surrounding Lake Minnetonka is developed at typical urban and suburban intensities, many parts of the upper watershed are characterized by large open areas of forest, grasslands, and wetlands punctuated by low density development. Several regional park reserves are present, including Carver Park Reserve and baker Park reserve, two of the largest open spaces in the Three Rivers Park system. Two Scientific and Natural Areas preserving Big Woods remnants are present in the watershed, as are large areas designated as Regionally Significant Ecological Areas. Invasive and Exotic Species. Invasive and exotic species are present in the watershed, including Eurasian water milfoil and curlyleaf pondweed in many lakes. Many of the wetlands in the watershed exhibit low vegetative diversity, including cattail and reed canary grass monocultures and invasive exotic species.

4.9 GROUNDWATER As development has occurred in the watershed, groundwater patterns have been fundamentally altered. Increased impervious surface has reduced the amount of naturally-occurring infiltration and surficial groundwater recharge. Urbanization and storm sewers channel stormwater away from where it fell to some other location. As a result, sensitive groundwater resources such as wetlands, tamarack swamps, springs and seeps may be forever altered. Baseflow in streams has been reduced; many streams in the watershed, including Minnehaha Creek, have periods of little or no flow in summer.

4.10 GENERAL SOLUTIONS The plan revision sets forth a Performance Management Plan that integrates the regulatory program, management programs, and capital improvement program. The Performance

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 53 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Management Plan is intended to comprehensively and systematically undertake activities that are oriented toward the achievement of performance goals by subwatershed. Each of the subwatershed plans includes a detailed discussion of specific solutions within that area. However, those strategies can be classified into the following general categories:

1. Performance-based regulation should be focused on outcome rather than process, and be an integral strategy to meeting water resource goals. 2. The Land Conservation Program should be expanded to proactively target opportunities where land conservation activities (such as differential regulation, local government requirements, conservation education, or acquisitions of conservation easements or land with high ecological value) could improve ecologic integrity, surface and groundwater quantity and quality, wetlands integrity, and streambank stability. 3. Education and outreach programs should be continued and supplemented with targeted messages to achieve specific goals and target populations. 4. Additional technical assistance to developers and LGUs within the watershed is necessary to encourage creativity and integration of water resource planning early in the planning and development process. 5. Abstraction and infiltration should be encouraged to reduce downstream pollutant loading conveyed by new stormwater volumes. 6. The data collection program should be expanded to provide for the targeted collection of data to monitor the effectiveness of improvements made. 7. Local governments within the watershed should be partners in maintaining and improving water resources and ecologic integrity within the District. 8. Management focus in the Upper Watershed should be on minimizing degradation from development, while in the Lower Watershed focus should be on improving water quality through retrofitting or capital projects. 9. A balance needs to be struck between maintaining a reasonable level on Lake Minnetonka and a flow of water in Minnehaha Creek sufficient to maintain ecological integrity, water quality, and recreational opportunities

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 54 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

5.0 Goals and Policies

The Board of Managers has developed the following general goals and policies to guide development and implementation of this Plan revision as well as other planning and management activities. The eleven subwatershed plans include an evaluation of these goal areas specific to the unique conditions within these management areas. These general goals and policies are developed in more detail in each of the eleven subwatershed plans.

Goal 1: Abstraction/Filtration. Promote abstraction and filtration of surface water where feasible for the purposes of improving water quality and increasing groundwater recharge throughout the watershed. 1. Promote abstraction as the preferred method of stormwater management wherever feasible and appropriate. 2. Develop methods to facilitate abstraction and infiltration, minimize risk and create awareness of its benefits. 3. Discourage the creation of impervious surface adjacent to surface waters or in areas where infiltration is particularly ideal. 4. Encourage the conservation of green space within development and creation of green space within redevelopment.

Goal 2: Ecological Integrity. Promote activities which maintain, support and enhance floral, faunal quantity and ecological integrity of upland and aquatic resources throughout the watershed. 1. Increase the ecological integrity of the environmental resources within MCWD. 2. Incorporate considerations of ecological integrity into decision making and land use planning. 3. Manage water quality and quantity to meet the needs of the ecosystems and water resources of MCWD. 4. Utilize the best available scientific data to conserve high quality habitat and improve degraded habitat through projects and programs.

Goal 3. Water Quality. Conserve, maintain and improve aesthetic, physical, chemical and biological composition of surface waters and groundwater within the District.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 55 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

1. Establish individual water quality goals for water resources based on both the realistic potential for the individual resource as well as its historic use to meet human and natural resource needs. 2. Evaluate water resources using appropriate parameters to gauge progress towards meeting the established goals. 3. Manage the impacts from land use, development and stormwater runoff to meet the established goals.

Goal 4. Public Health. Minimize the risks of threats to public health through the development of programs, plans and policies that improve the quality of surface and groundwater resources. 1. Manage water resources to meet the requirements of their designated use. 2. Incorporate considerations of public safety and health into decision making.

Goal 5. Water Quantity. Maintain or reduce existing flows from drainage within the watershed to decrease the negative effects of stormwater runoff and bounce from existing and proposed development as well as provide low flow augmentation to surface waters. 1. Establish individual hydrograph and water quality goals for subwatersheds based on both the realistic potential for that resource as well as its historic use in order to meet both the human and natural resource needs of the waterbody. 2. Manage resources to achieve balance between excessive flow and insufficient flow volumes. 3. Maintain vigilance with regard to flooding, minimizing impacts to low flow while protecting the public from dangers of flooding.

Goal 6. Shorelines and Streambanks. Preserve the natural appearance of shoreline areas and minimize degradation of surface water quality which can result from dredging operations. 1. Preserve and enhance the natural appearance and function of shorelines and streambanks. 2. Preserve and enhance wildlife, fisheries, and recreational resources of surface waters. 3. Surface water quality and ecological integrity of the riparian environment should not be compromised as a result of stabilization practices. 4. Assure that improvement of shoreline and streambank areas to prevent erosion complies with accepted engineering principles in conformity with Department of Natural Resources construction guidelines. 5. Encourage and foster the use of bioengineering, lakescaping and conservation of natural vegetation as preferred means of stabilizing shorelines and streambanks. 6. Discourage the use of beds and banks of waterbodies for the placement of roads, highways, and utilities.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 56 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Goal 7. Navigation. Maintain the hydraulic capacity of and minimize obstruction to navigation without compromising wildlife habitat in water courses and preserve water quality and navigation appearance in shoreland areas. 1. Encourage the coordination of various government agencies in maintaining the minimal required capacity for historical and safe use of watercraft on priority resources. 2. Regulate the application of dredging as a tool for navigation to minimize impacts to the environment and consider alternatives to dredging wherever possible.

.Goal 8. Best Management Practices. Improve water quality by promoting best management practices (BMPs) requiring their adoption in local plans and their implementation on development sites. 1. Promote site design associated with land disturbing activities which minimizes impacts to water resources. 2. Require stormwater management facilities to be included in land development projects where practical and effective. 3. Manage stormwater and snowmelt runoff on a regional or subwatershed basis throughout the watershed to: a) promote effective water quality treatment, where feasible, prior to discharge to surface waters; b) limit developed peak rates of runoff into major surface waters to less than or equal to existing peak rates; and c) promote infiltration of both precipitation and runoff.

Goal 9. Education and Communications. Enhance public participation and knowledge regarding District activities and provide informational and educational material to municipalities, community groups, businesses, schools, developers, contractors and individuals. 1. MCWD will develop, approve and maintain a strategic education and communications plan which will be reviewed and evaluated annually. 2. Effectively inform the general public, legislators, County Commissioners, and City officials in the eleven subwatersheds of MCWD about water resources management issues as well as MCWD projects, programs and rules using the most effective communications tools and tactics available. 3. Target groups in which education can change behavior and positively affect the habits and activities of individuals in the watershed community. 4. Use science-based information for discussions with communities about water resource issues and MCWD programs, projects and rules. 5. Promote the most appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for use within each subwatershed and communicate strategically about how to put them into practice. 6. Continue to inform the general and community news media about programs, capital projects, issues, rules, controversies and crises with appropriate news releases, graphics and media relations.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 57 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Goal 10. Public Ditches. Maintain public ditch systems within the District as required under Statutory jurisdiction. 1. Regularly inspect the public ditches of MCWD and maintain as needed to adjust for changes within the regulatory scope and authority under Statute. 2. Evaluate, consider, and where feasible incorporate ecological benefits into the improvement of public drainage systems. 3. Upstream storage, detention and infiltration will be preferred to and evaluated in comparison to restoring drainage capacity relative to drainage maintenance or repairs. 4. Drainage improvements and maintenance with localized benefits will be funded through assessment to the benefited properties and in most cases require a petition signed by the majority of the benefiting property owners. 5. MCWD will seek to abandon ditches where appropriate and redefine ditches within the watershed as streams where natural conditions dominate in the context of State Law.

Goal 11. Wetlands. Preserve, create and restore wetland resources and maximize the benefits and functionality of wetlands to the watershed. 1. Achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of existing wetlands in the watershed. 2. Increase the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of MCWD wetlands by restoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands. 3. Avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, or biological diversity of wetlands. 4. Mitigate historical impacts to wetlands by replacing or providing substitute wetland resources or environments as feasible. 5. Promote competent administration of the Wetland Conservation Act within the watershed.

Goal 12. Groundwater. Protect and maintain existing groundwater flow, promote groundwater recharge and improve groundwater quality and aquifer protection. 1. Protect groundwater resources through coordinated efforts among appropriate agencies. 2. Encourage infiltration as a preferred method of stormwater management in a manner consistent with source well protection areas; and avoid infiltration where such action may pose a threat to public health. 3. Protect groundwater flow regimes and their relationships to surface water resources. 4. MCWD will take groundwater quality impacts into consideration in its decision making.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 58 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Goal 13. Floodplains. Reduce the severity and frequency of flooding and high water by preserving and increasing the existing water storage capacity below 100-year flood elevations on all waterbodies within MCWD. 1. Preserve existing water storage capacity below 100-year high water elevations on all waterbodies in the watershed to minimize the frequency and severity of high water. 2. Minimize development below 100-year high water elevations that will unduly restrict flood flows or aggravate known high water problems. 3. Mitigate historical losses in floodplain volume and promote the conservation and restoration of floodplain habitat where feasible. 4. Promote uniform and consistent application of floodplain regulation throughout the watershed. 5. Promote the natural functions and benefits of floodplains.

Goal 14. Recreation. Promote the recreational use, where appropriate, of surface waters within MCWD by providing recreation opportunities for citizens by promoting the use and enjoyment of water resources with the intent of increasing the livability and quality of life within the watershed. 1. Coordinate with entities that manage parks and recreation to facilitate environmentally appropriate use of surface waters within MCWD. 2. Sponsor activities, where appropriate, that promote the awareness and use of surface waters. 3. Cooperate with other agencies in minimizing the spread of harmful exotic species.

Goal 15. Erosion Control. Control temporary sources of sediment resulting from land disturbance and identify, minimize and correct the effects of sedimentation from erosion-prone and sediment source areas. 1. Minimize, in area and duration, exposed soil and unstable soil conditions. 2. Minimize disturbance of natural soil cover and vegetation. 3. Protect receiving waterbodies and wetlands by retaining sediment at its source. 4. Retain sediments from disturbed areas on site. 5. Minimize off-site sediment transport related to land use. 6. Minimize work in and adjacent to waterbodies and wetlands. 7. Maintain stable slopes. 8. Avoid steep slopes and the need for high cuts and fills. 9. Minimize disturbance to surrounding soils, root systems and trunks of trees and shrubs adjacent to site activity that are intended to be left standing. 10. Minimize the compaction of soils.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 59 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Goal 16. Regulation. Promote effective planning to minimize the impact of development and land use change on water resources as well as achieve watershed District Goals. 1. Conserve the water resources of the District by assuring compliance with District Rules in the performance of activities which affect water resources. 2. Develop and apply regulatory standards that focus on results that assist MCWD in fulfilling its mission, goals and defined objectives. 3. Require land use and development methods that minimize impacts to the environment and water resources.

Goal 17. Public Input. Solicit input from the general public with the intent that policies, projects and programs will address local community values and goals as well as protect historic and cultural values regarding water resources; strive to manage expectations; base decisions on an educated public; foster an educated and informed public within the watershed. 1. Allow citizens to voice their opinions or concerns for the record within the context of a public hearing or meeting; the MCWD Board of Managers will consider these opinions and concerns in its decision making. 2. Appoint and utilize the MCWD Citizens Advisory Committee as a body representative of the general populace and sensitive to the desires and needs of the citizens within the MCWD. 3. Take measures to engage communities and seek participation in District activities.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 60 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

6.0 Implementation Program

This Plan adopts a performance-based management strategy that encompasses a revised regulatory program, other District programs and projects, LGU requirements and capital projects, and is focused on achieving specific water resources goals. The District’s implementation plan and individual subwatershed plans list programs that will advance the goals and policies of the Plan. Over the life of the plan, the District may undertake other programs not listed in the present implementation plan. The basis for any such program will be the District’s determination that it will further progress toward the goals and be consistent with the policies of this Plan. Where a waterbody has been designated by the MPCA and EPA as an Impaired Water, the regulatory requirements required by the Clean Water Act will govern, and the associated TMDL and TMDL Implementation Plan is the driver of key aspects of the performance-based strategy for the waterbody. Where a waterbody does not meet District water quality goals but has not been designated an Impaired Water, then the Implementation Plan for that waterbody and its subwatershed is oriented toward achieving the District goals. Where a waterbody does not have a numeric goal, or where the resource meets its water quality goals, the Implementation Plan is focused on minimizing future degradation or change.

Table 23. MCWD subwatershed performance management basis. Subwatersheds Resources That Do Not Resources That Meet or With Impaired Waters Meet MCWD Goals But Do Not Have an MCWD Are Not Impaired Goal Regulatory basis TMDL, Performance Performance Minimal volume increases/ Requirements Requirements no reduction in quality Source of goal TMDL goal, MCWD goal MCWD goal MCWD goal or current conditions Tools • Regulatory program • Regulatory program • Regulatory program • Management • Management • Management programs programs programs • TMDL • Performance • Performance implementation plan implementation plan implementation plan • CIPs • CIPs • CIPs Compliance • Annual report to • Annual report to Annual report to MCWD MCWD MCWD • Monitoring • Monitoring • NPDES permits • External litigation

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 61 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

6.1 REGULATORY PROGRAM Future development in the watershed is expected to impact water and other natural resources in the watershed. Land use change when not done properly impacts downstream water quality by increasing the volume of runoff and the concentration and load of nutrients and sediment transported to receiving waters. Each subwatershed plan contains an analysis of the expected impact of future development on the water quality of lakes within the subwatershed, assessing both the expected 2020 conditions and potential Ultimate Development conditions. While the current regulatory program requires developers to pretreat runoff to reduce of some of that new nutrient load, that amount of nutrient removal will not be sufficient to prevent future degradation of water quality. Development has other impacts as well. New impervious surface such as roads, driveways, roofs, and parking lots increases the volume of stormwater that runs off the land. This volume flows to lakes, streams, and wetlands, carrying with it nutrients and sediment. The increased volume can impact peak flows in streams and channels, and increase the duration of peak flows, potentially causing erosion. Additional volume discharged to wetlands can change water levels and the amount of time vegetation in wetlands is inundated, altering vegetation and impacting ecological integrity of those resources. Groundwater can be impacted by development as well. Changing stormwater runoff patterns can reduce the amount of stormwater that natural percolates into the soil, altering local surficial aquifers and impacting wetlands, baseflow in streams, and in time the deeper aquifers. To mitigate these future impacts, the District will consider additional regulatory controls on permitted development and redevelopment. These controls are part of the District’s integrated, performance-based strategy that links regulation, programming, and capital improvements to the achievement of specific management goals by subwatershed.

6.1.1 Regulation for Water Quality Where lakes do not currently meet water quality goals, two key strategies for the achievement of load reductions are rules that are more stringent than those requiring removal of at least 50 percent of new phosphorus loads generated by new development on new permitted development and redevelopment, and management of volumes generated by that new development. A third strategy is a requirement for stormwater plan approval earlier in the development process. This Plan recommends the following options for consideration in regards to future regulatory requirements:

1. Require more than 50 percent phosphorus removal of new phosphorus loads on new development and redevelopment, or allow no net increase. 2. Require abstraction of the first one inch of rainfall on new development and redevelopment. 3. Require MCWD Staff review of concept plans to identify regulatory requirements, stormwater management alternatives, and critical natural resources to efficiently expedite review so the District may comment on proposals and how they relate to District water quality goals. MCWD intends to work cooperatively with developers in early stages of project development in order to identify opportunities and obstacles to permitting early in the process.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 62 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

4. Require developers to identify existing drain tile lines on property proposed for development.

Achieving improvement in lakes that are degraded from excess nutrient loading will require the combined efforts of the regulatory program, capital projects, and local initiatives. A majority of the lakes and major streams in the District have experienced some measure of degradation from development in the watershed. Development and the associated creation of new impervious surface changes hydrology and pollutant loading in the watershed in fundamental ways. Most notably, more stormwater runs off the site, and carries with it pollutants and sediment. These pollutants negatively affect water quality, decreasing water clarity, increasing algae blooms, and inhibiting ecological function. Development also decreases the amount of stormwater that naturally percolates into the soil to recharge groundwater, thus reducing baseflow in streams, changing hydrology in groundwater- fed wetlands, and decreasing water availability in drinking water aquifers. The current regulatory program requires development and redevelopment that meets certain size thresholds to provide pretreatment of stormwater before being discharged to water resources, whether on site or through some regional treatment method. Smaller developments are required to utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the extent possible to reduce pollutant loading. Increased phosphorus removal. This Plan includes for each subwatershed an analysis of the impacts of future development and redevelopment on water quality, and the impact of the current regulatory program. For each lake that does not currently meet its water quality goal, a phosphorus load reduction plan sets forth a plan of actions to achieve the water quality goals in that lake, and to prevent further degradation of the other lakes, streams, and wetlands. In many instances, the load reduction required is so great that all potential means of reducing phosphorus loading must be considered to find the most cost-effective balance of strategies. These plans assume that permitted new development and redevelopment will be required to achieve a much higher rate of phosphorus load removal than can be achieved through traditional stormwater management such as detention ponds. The HHPLS assumed that rather than specifying a more stringent removal rate of new phosphorus loading, new development would be limited to no net increase in phosphorus load, and the phosphorus load reduction plans reflect that standard. Another key strategy to mitigate the effects of development is the adoption of an abstraction or infiltration standard for new development and redevelopment. Such a standard would require the abstraction (retention on site through infiltration, evapotranspiration, or capture and reuse) of one inch of rainfall. A common method of abstraction is infiltration. Infiltration of stormwater onsite reduces the amount of runoff from the site as well as helps to recharge groundwater. Requiring new development and redevelopment to abstract some of the new stormwater generated and encouraging retrofitting to increase abstraction on existing sites would minimize new pollutant loading that would have been conveyed by that stormwater. Abstraction would be one of the primary tools new development would use to meet the proposed more stringent phosphorus load requirement. An abstraction requirement would also reduce runoff volumes and help reduce future downstream erosion in streams and channels or flooding in landlocked basins. Approximately 70 percent of annual runoff volume in Minnesota results from precipitation events of 1” or less (MPCA, 2000). Controlling this volume on site reduces the downstream impact of new volume, minimizing the impact of this new volume on streamflow, potentially preventing new erosion

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 63 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

problems and sediment transport. Increased infiltration would also help maintain groundwater levels, preserving wetland hydrology and stream baseflows. Early review of concept plans. The proposed rule revisions requiring abstraction and greater than 50 percent phosphorus removals will require developers to consider stormwater planning earlier in the development process than is traditional. In many cases meeting rule requirements will take careful up-front planning to incorporate site design characteristics, traditional and nontraditional BMPs, native vegetation and tree conservation, and other Better Site Design and Low Impact Development techniques into the site plan. District staff can assist cities in providing technical assistance and advice early in the development process to help assure that both developer and public goals are balanced.

6.1.2 Regulation for Ecological Integrity The District’s Land Conservation Program is a major initiative intended to conserve remaining high-value natural resources in the watershed though both active conservation efforts and technical assistance and advice to other agencies and private property owners. To complement this initiative, the regulatory program could be amended to require new development and redevelopment to consider conservation of those resources early in the development process. Through this conservation could better be integrated into the overall site plan and other regulatory requirements. This Plan recommends the following options for consideration in regards to future regulatory requirements:

1. Provide regulatory incentives for the conservation of undisturbed native vegetation as sites develop. 2. Require MCWD Staff review of concept plans to identify regulatory requirements, stormwater management alternatives, and critical natural resources to efficiently expedite review so the District may comment on proposals and how they relate to District ecological integrity goals. MCWD intends to work cooperatively with developers in early stages of project development in order to identify opportunities and obstacles to permitting early in the process. 3. Require submittal of a Natural Resources Inventory and Conservation Plan as a condition of permit approval. 4. MCWD will collaborate with other organizations involved in lake management, governmental and non-governmental (such as the LMCD, LMA, MPRB, and Three Rivers Park District), to jointly fund and implement projects and programs that educate the public, improve water quality and increase the ecological integrity of resources throughout the District. This may include public service messages, promotional efforts, joint-policy development and capital projects to manage lakes and satisfy mutual interests.

6.1.3 Regulation for Groundwater Protection The District contains high-value groundwater or groundwater-dependant resources such as springs, seeps, wetlands as well as areas where the groundwater-surface water interface may provide vulnerability for groundwater impacts. The District will consider a rule requiring an

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 64 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

additional level of analysis and review of permitted development and redevelopment where there is a potential to adversely impact groundwater connected to a surface water feature.

6.1.4 Regulation for Wetland Management In 2003 the District completed a Functional Assessment of Wetlands that assigned wetlands in the watershed to a management classification based on existing conditions. The District will consider amending the wetland regulatory program to manage wetlands on the basis of that classification. In such a scenario, the level of regulatory protection would be commensurate with the quality of the wetland as determined by the Management Classifications identified in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands Report. One of the values of linking regulation to wetland classification is that there is recognition of the varying functions and values of wetlands within a landscape. Some wetlands within the District are minimally disturbed, exhibit exceptional habitat and diversity functions and values, and should be protected as much as possible from further impacts from development. Other wetlands play a vital role in providing stormwater storage and treatment to help preserve water quality in a downstream resource such as a lake, stream, or another wetland, and over time this function may have led to a lower diversity of vegetation, or other characteristics of stressed or degraded wetlands. These wetlands should be protected from further degradation as much as possible, while at the same time preserving their function. Wetland regulation based on management classification links the management standard to the characteristics of the resource. Wetlands that exhibit the highest level of functions and values would be protected at a much higher level to conserve those functions and values. Wetlands that exhibit lower functions and values would still be protected, but at a lesser level, allowing some flexibility where impacts to a degraded wetland may protect a downstream resource. This Plan recommends the following options for consideration in regards to future regulatory requirements:

1. Amend existing or establish new District rules requiring submittal of a functions and values assessment for all proposed wetland impacts requiring a permit; mitigation of all fill in Preserve category wetlands; and specifying by management classification stormwater discharge pretreatment, buffer, hydroperiod, and other wetland standards for future development, redevelopment, or wetland-impacting activities. 2. Require pretreatment of stormwater discharged to wetlands or infiltration areas in the areas of high aquifer sensitivity.

Table 20 below details the recommended management standards for wetlands based on management classification as developed by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR 2004) in the development of the wetland functions and values instrument, the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) Version 3.0. The District will consider these standards and all other reputable sources when considering Rules and Standards related to wetland management.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 65 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

6.1.5 Boundary Changes

The District will undertake a boundary assessment to accomplish the following objectives: 1. Conform the legal boundary more closely to the actual hydrologic boundary. 2. Work cooperatively with adjacent watershed management organizations to resolve boundary issues including the vicinity of Southdale Shopping Center and portions of the Minneapolis- St. Paul airport. 3. Evaluate the feasibility of determining and incorporating the groundwatersheds for high- value groundwater resources including Camp Coldwater Spring.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 66 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Table 24. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources recommended wetland management standards. ( Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions, Version 3.0.) Management Management Strategy Stormwater Treatment Buffer1 Mitigation Standard Hydrologic Guidelines Class A—Preserve Maintain wetland and Avoid conveyed flows ≥50 feet for WCA minimum or greater replacement ratio Bounce (10 yr): Existing existing functions, values where prudent and water with documented replacement of Inundation (1 & 2 yr): and wildlife habitat. feasible. Upstream quality functions/values. Consider requiring buffer Existing Possible need for active sediment and nutrient ≥100 feet replacement. (10 yr): Existing management of wetland to pretreatment required to for wildlife Runout Control:3 No Change protect unique features. maintain background habitat.2 Maintain existing hydrology. Apply strict avoidance loading rates. Maintain Require Encourage infiltration and standards. May be existing hydrology— monuments reduced impervious BMPs. appropriate to develop a divert increased flows. to mark Conduct water budget conservation easement. Avoid concentrating buffer edge. analysis. flows. B—Manage 1 Maintain wetland without Pretreat conveyed flows to WCA minimum or greater replacement ratio. Bounce (10 yr): Existing + degrading existing maintain background 35-50 feet Replacement of functions and values on site or 0.5 ft functions, values and loading rates. in location specified in plan for Inundation (1 & 2 yr): wildlife habitat. Apply Require drain/fill/excavation impacts. Existing plus 1 day WCA sequencing process. monuments (10 yr): Existing + 7 days to mark In compliance with Ch. 7050 the entire area Runout Control:2 No Change buffer edge. affected by storm water or other wastewater Maintain existing hydrology. flows must be avoided, minimized and Encourage infiltration and replaced at a replacement ratio of 1:1 for all reduced impervious BMPs. changes in wetland type. C—Manage 2 Maintain wetland Pretreat all conveyed WCA minimum replacement of acreage and Bounce (10 yr): Existing + footprint. Improve discharges to remove all 25-35 feet functions/values on site or in location specified 1.0 ft wetland biological and heavy particles and Require in plan for drain/fill/excavation impacts Inundation (1& 2 yr): plant community maximize removal of fine monuments Existing plus 2 days diversity/integrity or grained sediment prior to to mark In compliance with Ch. 7050 the entire area (10 yr): Existing enhance other functions if discharging to the wetland buffer edge. affected by storm water or other wastewater + 14 days possible. Apply WCA flows must be avoided, minimized and Runout Control: 2 0 to 1.0 ft sequencing process. replaced at a replacement ratio of 1:1 for all above existing runout Consider for restoration. changes in wetland type.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 67 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Management Management Strategy Stormwater Treatment Buffer1 Mitigation Standard Hydrologic Guidelines Class D—Manage 3 Allow for relaxed Pretreat all conveyed WCA allows mitigation flexibility with Bounce (10 yr): sequencing and flows to remove all 25 feet minimum standards required in the plan area, No Limit replacement plan medium grained and see M.R. 8420.0650. Inundation (1 & 2 yr): flexibility. Consider for larger sediments. Existing plus 7 days restoration/enhancement. In compliance with Ch. 7050 the entire area (10 yr): Existing + 21 days affected by storm water or other wastewater Runout Control:2 0 to 4.0 ft flows must be avoided, minimized and above existing runout replaced at a replacement ratio of 1:1 for all changes in wetland type. Source: Board of Water and Soil Resources. Recommended Wetland Management Classification System To Accompany the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions, Version 3.0 1 Buffers are unmowed, naturalized strips of vegetation around the wetland perimeter. Buffers would be provided during development or redevelopment 2 Where possible, use 300-foot buffers as per MnRAM (Question #23). If currently landlocked, new outlet should be above delineated wetland elevation

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 68 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

6.2 LAND CONSERVATION PROGRAM The District operates a Land Conservation Program that is focused on conserving key natural resource areas where conservation could be used to protect water resources and ecological integrity, or where conservation of key land cover types could be beneficial to preserving high- infiltration areas, reducing impacts of new volumes of runoff, or restoring disturbed or drained wetlands. A primary purpose of the Land Conservation Program is to conserve, maintain and enhance green infrastructure for stormwater, runoff management, habitat, and other water resources benefits. Inherent water resource benefits are provided though proactively conserving and restoring existing systems of streams, lakes, wetlands, associated buffer areas, and other wildlife habitat and natural resource corridors throughout the watershed. The Land Conservation Program is an integral strategy in achieving the goals set forth in this Plan. This Plan significantly expands the program to include Key Conservation Areas (Figure 33) across the watershed where implementing land conservation activities (such as differential regulation, local government requirements, conservation education, or acquisitions of easements or land with high ecological value) could improve ecologic integrity, surface and groundwater quantity and quality, wetlands integrity, and streambank stability. The program focuses in large part on the use of conservation easements and assisting landowners and affected cities in exploring the wide variety of conservation options that are available. The program also includes, to a lesser extent and often by facilitating partnerships, the fee acquisition of very high priority natural resource lands. The program also focuses on encouraging natural resource based land management options and ecological restoration, where appropriate. Other tools include conservation development planning, technical assistance to area municipalities on issues such as ordinance development and conservation planning, and education and outreach. The program leverages funding by taking advantage of numerous cost-share, partnership, and tax incentive opportunities. Many District Cities are developing Natural Resource Inventories and Open Space Plans that highlight the role of green corridors in protecting wetlands, water quality, and wildlife. These plans are in keeping with the Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Regional Development Framework (January 2004) which highlights natural resource protection as one of the four policies the Council will pursue to guide the achievement of regional goals. Nonetheless, many District Cities need assistance in implementing their open space plans and require additional landowner options and incentives to make these plans a reality. District natural resource protection and restoration goals can best be met by coordinating with the Cities and providing additional incentives for landowners. Working collaboratively and utilizing an array of tools, we can help promote growth and development that conserves and restores our best natural resources, enhances the value of our developed areas, and is consistent with sound landowner financial and investment principles. The goal of the Land Conservation Program is to conserve and/or restore the District’s best remaining natural resources. We plan to accomplish this through the following four objectives: 1. Providing technical assistance to municipalities, landowners, and others on land conservation and restoration options;

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 69 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

2. Facilitating multi-agency cost-share agreements with landowners interested in restoring natural areas on their properties; 3. Acquiring conservation easements and property from willing sellers to protect natural resources; and 4. Restoring conserved areas to improve water resources.

MCWD takes action and provides services that facilitate conservation throughout the District by providing technical assistance, offering educational opportunities, and serving as a clearinghouse for land conservation and restoration options. However, an emphasis of the educational and technical assistance work will be combined with District land conservation financial resources to focus on Key Conservation Areas identified in this plan (Figure 33). The Key Conservation Areas contain resources that are protective of surface water and groundwater quality and quantity; demonstrate high-value habitat characteristics; are protective of aquatic habitat; or provide a variety of habitats supportive of aquatic-based species abundance. These Key Conservation Areas:

ƒ Create corridors along streams and channels to provide buffers for water quality and stream stability as well as to create linkages and wildlife corridors. ƒ Include wetlands that were identified in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands as having exceptional or high vegetative diversity or wildlife habitat or are wetlands with moderate to high restoration potential. ƒ Include high-value upland areas, such as forested areas that provide connected habitat as well as high potential infiltration or evapotranspiration. ƒ Incorporate land cover types identified in the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) survey conducted by Hennepin County as being minimally disturbed, with potential high-value habitat. ƒ Contain areas that have multiple natural resource values, such as Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) sites of biodiversity significance; Metro regionally significant ecological areas; or areas where rare or threatened species have been documented by the DNR. ƒ Incorporate green and natural resource corridors as designated by the DNR, Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, and local communities.

The Key Conservation Areas identified in Figure 33 represent focus areas for the District’s Land Conservation efforts. The map is a beginning point to help prioritize outreach and focus conservation efforts. The Land Conservation Program is a voluntary, opportunity-based program to conserve lands within the District priority areas. The areas identified as Key Conservation Areas are where the District will primarily devote its efforts with this program. Similarly, properties not on the map may be considered for conservation action on a case-by-case basis. Where possible, acquisitions will be used integrally or to supplement other activities and projects

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 70 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

in this plan. For example, a stream restoration project may include Land Conservation Program activities to conserve the riparian buffers. Areas have been identified as Key Conservation Area on the basis of landscape-scale considerations identifying where land conservation activities can effectively serve watershed goals, in part because of their strategic locations and in part because the opportunity exists to coordinate land acquisition and other land conservation program efforts at multiple sites within an identified subwatershed. However, conservation opportunities may occasionally arise outside the Key Conservation Area that, in a given case, also offer the opportunity to attain significant water resource benefits equivalent to those offered within a Key Conservation Area. The criteria used to evaluate potential acquisitions give more emphasis to acquisitions within a Key Conservation Area, but that does not preclude an acquisition outside of a Key Conservation Area that otherwise offers significant water resource benefits. The District recognizes that the identification of Key Conservation Areas is meaningful for planning purposes, and intends that the designation of such areas communicate its intention to prioritize efforts and resources. At the same time, the land conservation program, and the capital project for land acquisition and restoration, encompasses the acquisition and restoration of sites not within such areas. Whether or not a potential acquisition is within a Key Conservation Areas, the key will be to follow the process and apply the listed criteria to ensure that the acquisition in question cost-effectively fulfills the goals and strategies discussed here in the plan. At the same time, if the District finds that the identification of Key Conservation Areas no longer accurately represents the focus of the District’s land conservation efforts, it will undertake a plan amendment to revise the areas so identified. Building on Figure 33, the District follows a detailed selection process and set of guidance criteria for prioritizing expenditures and opportunities related to the program. As potential acquisitions are identified, they are reviewed by District staff and ranked according to 24 criteria. The ranking system helps prioritize individual properties and is an important part of the decision making consideration. It is, however, a tool to evaluate, and not the final word on, a property’s conservation merits. Table 25 below summarizes the criteria currently used in the ranking system which may be updated in the future by the Board of Managers without a formal amendment to this plan, provided that they still advance the goals and strategies of this plan.

Table 25. MCWD Land Conservation Program current ranking criteria. Topic Criteria District Planning Priorities Within MCWD Conservation Plan Area

Benefits a Planned or Existing MCWD Project Area (e.g. Stubbs Bay, Painters Creek, Minnehaha Creek, Six Mile Creek, etc.) Water Resources Wetland Management Class Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Protection Creek Frontage Lakeshore Buffer Width

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 71 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Topic Criteria Creates opportunity to fix erosion problems Steep slopes Infiltration potential Wellhead protection area Habitat DNR Site of Biodiversity Significance Unique or significant ecological resource per MLCCS, MCBS, Etc. - consider type of habitat, size, condition, landscape context Habitat restoration potential (biological potential and well as feasibility (cost and partnerships)) Regionally Significant Natural Area Leverage Connectivity with/proximity to other conservation lands Creates opportunities to leverage conservation on additional proximate or adjacent lands Potential cost and opportunities for cost- share/recovery Other Public/Planning Parcel size Considerations Degree of threat Provides public access/ educational/demonstration opportunities Consistency with municipal plans Located within Metro Wildlife Corridor Focus Area

Properties meriting further consideration are then reviewed by a Technical Advisory Team which includes staff from several natural resource agencies. The Advisory Team’s recommendations are forwarded to the Board of Managers to make case-by-case decisions on potential acquisitions. The specific steps in the District’s decision making on individual transactions are as follows. These steps may be updated from time to time by the Board of Managers without a formal amendment to this plan, provided that they continue to advance a detailed and thorough case-by-case review of each potential transaction, have an appropriate level of legal review, and continue to require final approval of all transactions by the Board of Managers.

1. Exploration A. Investigate property and options and decide whether or not to advance to Technical Advisory Team for review – Land Conservation Specialist B. Evaluate against other possible projects and decide whether or not to proceed with negotiations subject to Board approval – Technical Advisory Team C. Order appraisal – Land Conservation Specialist (Board approval required if greater than $5,000)

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 72 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

2. Commitment A. Develop draft contract and/or easement – Land Conservation Specialist in consultation with Legal Counsel B. Internal sign-off on contract and/or easement – District Administrator and Legal Counsel C. Internal review - Board of Managers in Closed Session consistent with Minn Stat 13D.05, subd. 3(c) and other relevant laws as may exist or be promulgated D. Secure landowner agreement subject to final Board approval – Land Conservation Specialist E. Final approval of agreement – Board of Manager in Open Meeting, signed by Board President

As noted in the listing of criteria above, when the District evaluates a potential acquisition of easement or other land rights, that evaluation will consider the opportunities the property will offer to advance water resource goals through the restoration of hydrology and habitat. When an acquisition occurs, the District will prepare a management plan for the parcel that will evaluate restoration opportunities and costs in more detail. Proposed restoration work will be presented to the Board of Managers for evaluation and approval. When the proposed work constitutes a capital improvement, it will be considered and authorized pursuant to the formal process specified at Minnesota Statutes §103B.251. If the proposed work is a capital improvement beyond the scope of restoring the natural features and function of the acquired property, or otherwise directed toward more regional water resource purposes, it does not fall within this project area and will require a plan amendment before it is pursued. Otherwise, if a land acquisition occurs pursuant to the process and criteria outlined here and restoration activities are fully considered in that process, the District will not require a plan amendment before proceeding with the identified restoration work.

The types of activities that the District may include in parcel restoration work include the following and those similar:

a. Regrading for natural system restoration; b. Excavating to enlarge or improve wetland functions and values; c. Remeandering of a small section of creek, ditch or other watercourse; d. Removing drainage tiles, placing ditch plugs and other steps to restore natural hydrology; e. Installing erosion control and stabilizing banks with engineered and bioengineered features; f. Installing local stormwater conveyance/control structures such as culverts and weirs; g. Installing stormwater treatment best management practices; h. Planting native vegetation; and i. Managing existing vegetation and invasive species via cutting, herbicides, prescribed burning and other techniques.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 73 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Estimated expenditures and acreage goals based on the Key Conservation Areas have been provided in both the Capital Improvements Program and Subwatershed Plans for budgeting purposes. It is the intent of the District to provide flexibility over financial resources to leverage opportunities when they arise. For instance, it is expected that occasionally the District will acquire an existing lot and resell either the lot with a conservation easement or a subdivided portion on non-conservation portions of the lot. For these types of acquisitions, the District will consider gross expenditures related to cash-flow position and risk management, but will be further looking at long-term financial implications for such transactions relative to the net, not gross budget.

The District intends to work cooperatively with private landowners, government agencies, and non-profit organizations to provide an integrated set of land conservation, restoration, and management tools for landowners. The table below shows some of the agencies active in the District and partnership roles the District envisions:

Table 26. MCWD Land Conservation Program potential partners. Organization/Agency Role MCWD Acquisition of conservation easements and fee title; restoration of conserved lands; cost-share on private land restoration Cities Varies by city. Some have active land and easement acquisition programs (ex. Minnetonka). Others use park dedication through the development process to help secure greenway areas (ex. Minnetrista). Also see LGU requirements below. Minneapolis Park and Park and trail acquisition and management Recreation Board Hennepin County Dept. of Acquisition of donated conservation easements; cost-share and technical Environmental Services assistance for restoration and best management practices Hennepin County Regional Trail acquisition and maintenance Rail Authority Carver County Parks Park and trail acquisition and management Three Rivers Park District Park and trail acquisition and management Metropolitan Council Partial funding for regional parks and trails State of Minnesota DNR Owns and manages Wolsfeld Woods and Woodrill Scientific and Natural Areas. DNR provides grants to cities for acquisition. Funding for state and regional parks and trails. US Department of Cost-share and technical assistance for restoration and best management Agriculture/Natural practices Resources Conservation Service and Farm Services Agency US Fish and Wildlife Cost-share and technical assistance for restoration Service The Trust for Public Land Assists government agencies and non-profit organizations with acquisitions, financing for acquisitions, and prioritizing lands to conserve in urban and developing areas. MN Land Trust Acquires and monitors conservation easements, primarily through donation or as part of conservation development projects. Works with individual landowners and developers.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 74 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Organization/Agency Role The Nature Conservancy Owns and manages two nature reserves in the District – Hardscrabble Woods (Minnetrista), Ferndale Marsh (Wayzata) Embrace Open Space Education, technical assistance, and communications on open space issues for local communities. Wildlife Organizations (e.g. Cost-share and technical assistance for restoration Minnesota Waterfowl Association)

6.2.1 Relationship to District Goals Conservation activities within the Key Conservation areas would address the 17 goals established by the MCWD Board in the following general ways:

1. Abstraction: Promote infiltration through the conservation of minimally-disturbed uplands to preserve existing infiltration rates, especially in areas adjacent to discharge wetlands. 2. Ecological Integrity: Protect and improve overall ecological integrity by conserving high- value natural resources in the subwatershed, such as wetlands identified in the FAW as having exceptional or high values, or areas identified by the Minnesota County Biological Survey as high value. While small patches of high value are important especially if they connect other high value resources, the focus is on conserving large tracts of minimally- disturbed land with corridors providing connected habitat and protected places for wildlife movement. 3. Water Quality: Protect water quality in lakes by limiting increases in runoff volumes and associated pollutant loading through the conservation of minimally-disturbed uplands to preserve existing infiltration and evapotranspiration rates. Protect water quality in streams by promoting stream buffers to reduce direct runoff and protect the hyporheic zone adjacent to the stream. Protect water quality in wetlands through differential regulation requiring a higher regulatory standard for wetlands in Key Conservation Areas. 4. Public Health: Assist in maintaining vegetated shorelines and streambanks by providing for the creation or preservation of stream buffers that reduce direct runoff, minimize waterfowl impacts, and provide opportunities for improved riparian zone management. 5. Water Quantity: Minimize increases in runoff volumes by preserving infiltration and evapotranspiration through the conservation of large tracts of wooded areas and other minimally disturbed native vegetation. 6. Shorelines and Streambanks: Assist in the protection and stabilization of streambanks by providing for the creation or preservation of stream buffers that reduce direct runoff and provide opportunities for improved riparian zone management. 7. Navigation: Assist in the protection and stabilization of streambanks by providing for the creation or preservation of stream buffers that reduce direct runoff and provide opportunities for improved riparian zone management. protecting existing stream passages; and 8. BMPs: Land conservation in itself is a BMP that could preserve existing infiltration rates and limit increases in runoff volumes and associated pollutant loading. Conservation activities

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 75 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

such as native vegetation conservation or reestablishment, tree ordinances limiting tree removals or requiring reforestation, and buffer requirements are all examples of how development and redevelopment can incorporate natural resources conservation in ways that help reduce downstream impacts of land-altering activities. 9. Education & Communication: Land conservation activities provide an opportunity to educate the public, elected and appointed officials, developers, LGU staff, and other stakeholders regarding the linkage between land use and status of water and ecological resources. 10. Ditches: Assist in the protection and stabilization of streambanks by providing for the creation or preservation of stream buffers that reduce direct runoff and provide opportunities for improved riparian zone management. 11. Wetlands: Protect and conserve the functions and values of the highest-quality wetlands; conserve and restore wetlands with high restoration potential to minimize further degradation; conserve high-value uplands adjacent to wetlands to serve as buffers and to preserve infiltration and hydrologic regime; and conserve flow-through wetlands to assist in buffering streams and to provide connected habitat. 12. Groundwater: Protect sensitive aquifer areas by requiring a higher standard of wetland management in those areas. Promote surficial groundwater recharge through conservation of existing infiltration areas. 13. Floodplains: Preserve stormwater storage through the conservation of wetlands and floodplain in buffer areas adjacent to streams. 14. Recreation: Enhance recreation opportunities by creating connected corridors and conserving wetlands with high aesthetic value. By potentially reducing downstream pollutant loading and new stormwater volumes, prevent further degradation of downstream water resources. 15. Erosion control: Assist in the protection and stabilization of streambanks by providing for the creation or preservation of stream buffers that reduce direct runoff and provide opportunities for improved riparian zone management. 16. Regulation: District rules would be used to regulate certain impacts, such as wetland regulation by management classification, requiring natural resource plans as part of stormwater planning, and early consultation in the development process to assure that natural resource planning is considered in the selection of BMPs. 17. Public input: No specific impact.

District efforts in priority areas will be complemented by local conservation efforts in all Key areas. As a requirement of this Plan, LGUs must identify in their local water management plans the Key Conservation Areas identified in each subwatershed plan and on Figure 33. The local plan must also identify strategies the LGU will undertake to protect the ecological and hydrological values of those areas. These may include such strategies as land use regulation; acquisition and management; and property owner education regarding land management strategies to maintain ecological integrity. The District will provide technical assistance to the LGUs to support their efforts to accomplish conservation to help attain the District’s and their own local conservation and natural resources management goals.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 76 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

6.3 EDUCATION PROGRAM The District operates a watershed-wide Strategic Education and Communications program that provides general watershed education and outreach as well as targeted information. The program philosophy is that an informed and well-educated public and public base will better understand the benefits that water quality protection and improvement offers throughout the MCWD. These same groups will also better understand how their tax dollars are spent to ensure a more sustainable and valuable watershed for future generations. An Education and Communications Task Force developed the following goals and outcomes for the Strategic program:

Strategic Program: Education Goals and Outcomes 1. Public will become more knowledgeable about the value of buffers in the general watershed but also more specifically within the localized communities of the MCWD’s 11 subwatersheds. 2. Public will reduce runoff volume on their properties, both commercial and residential. 3. Permitee public from the general homeowner and the builder, developer, and contractor areas will better understand the MCWD regulatory process and benefits through permitting and other MCWD education and communications activities. 4. The CAC should consist of private, diverse citizens representing the geographical area of the District who have stake in the District to provide direct, open, independent guidance and input to the Board of Managers about plans, policies, regulation and other issues that may arise from time to time.

Strategic Program: Communications Goals and Outcomes 1. Effectively inform the general public, legislators, county commissioners, elected state and city officials and the localized communities in the MCWD’s 12 [sic] subwatersheds about the MCWD and its projects, programs and rules, using the available communications tools and tactics targeted to current and newly identified MCWD public. 2. Use science-based community relations for discussions about specific MCWD issues, programs, projects and rules. 3. Determine the most appropriate Best Management Practice (BMP) for each subwatershed within the MCWD and communicate strategically about how to put them into practice. 4. Continue to inform the general and community news media about programs, capital projects, issues, rules, controversies and crises with appropriate news releases, graphics, and media relations.

To accomplish these general education and communications goals, the District will continue to operate its Education Program in accordance with the Strategic Plan, as supplemented by specific targeted messages included in the subwatershed plans. Activities that would be undertaken include but are not limited to:

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 77 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Non-Point Source Pollution Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO). NEMO is an effective tool to help city staff, elected and appointed officials, citizen commission members, and others learn more about District goals and priorities, the ways that land use affects water resources, and applications of new technologies and practices. This Plan includes significant LGU requirements to reduce pollutant loading, protect wetlands, conserve high-value natural resources, and minimize future impacts from new development. NEMO will be an integral tool in assisting cities in their planning to meet these requirements. Events and Workshops. The District’s role is evolving from strictly regulation to technical advisor and facilitator. District staff maintain currency on new technologies and practices, and can be an important resource for LGUs, whether providing one-on-one advice or facilitating the sharing of information between LGUs and other professionals in specialized fields such as Low Impact Development. Target stakeholders include not only LGU representatives but also developers and developers’ representatives, contractors, building tradespeople, and the general public. WaterPro Newsletter/District Website. The newsletter is a useful means of providing a wide variety of stakeholders with general information about the District and its programs. The District’s website is another opportunity to provide a variety of useful information that can be accessed at the user’s convenience. Cynthia Krieg Memorial Stewardship Fund. This grant program encourages and supports community service initiatives to protect water quality and promote public awareness of nonpoint source pollution abatement. The District partners with local community groups, schools, and government agencies to engage citizens in water quality protection through this memorial fund. Funded activities must result in water quality improvement and/or greater public awareness of ways to improve water quality. Applicants are strongly encouraged to include a community service component, promoting civic involvement by youth, families, and other citizens. Citizen Advisory Committee. The Board maintains a Citizen Advisory Committee to provide advice and counsel on watershed issues. This CAC meets frequently, assisting the Board and staff with focusing the education and communications program and reviewing and providing input on issues to the Board as requested. Media Relations. District staff regularly submit press releases to the media on District initiatives and items of interest, and actively seek out opportunities to “tell the District’s story.”

To evaluate progress toward achieving education and communication goals, the Implementation Plan provides for implementation of a professional public opinion survey to measure public knowledge and awareness on these and other issues of concern to the District, as well as focus groups with key stakeholders. The results of this opinion survey will be used to update the Strategic Education and Communication Plan and to refine general and targeted messages.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 78 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

6.4 MONITORING AND DATA COLLECTION Monitoring and data collection will be crucial to determining the effectiveness of the District’s ongoing management and improvement strategies. Each subwatershed plan includes individualized goals for its resources, and metrics against which the Managers will evaluate progress. Meeting many of the in-lake total phosphorus goals will require aggressive nutrient reductions, and implementation will be conducted using adaptive management principles. Adaptive management is appropriate because it is difficult to predict the lake response that will occur. Future technological advances may alter the course of actions detailed in this plan. Continued monitoring and “course corrections” responding to monitoring results are the most appropriate strategy for attaining the various goals established in this Plan. Hydrologic Data Program. Routine monitoring of water quality and water quantity will continue to be a part of the District’s annual Hydrologic Data program. Subwatershed plans indicate where additional baseline or other water quality data is required. For the most part, additional data would be obtained through the Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) or through satellite assessments of water quality. Additional analysis is required for some lakes to determine or to refine lake bathymetry. The District’s annual Hydrologic Data Report was reformatted in 2006 and will continue to be refined to more closely link goals, monitoring results, and District actions and to evaluate progress toward those goals through individual Lake and Stream Management Plans. Aquatic Vegetation. Lake aquatic plant monitoring provides information needed to manage aquatic plants, evaluate control measures, and plan for future actions. This monitoring is especially useful as water quality management activities are implemented and plant communities change in response to changing water quality. In some lakes with significant internal phosphorus load issues, aquatic vegetation may be a contributor to excessive phosphorus loads. Prior to implementing internal load management projects, an aquatic plant survey would be conducted as an essential part of a diagnostic and feasibility study. In other lakes, especially shallow lakes, aquatic vegetation surveys may be conducted and an aquatic vegetation management plan developed to assist in overall lake and fishery management. Initial surveys may be conducted by staff or professionals; ongoing monitoring may be conducted by trained volunteers. Macroinvertebrate Monitoring. The stream assessments conducted on Minnehaha Creek and the upper watershed streams in 2004 included macroinvertebrate collection to help assess the ecological integrity of the streams. Some reaches of Minnehaha Creek have also been monitored as part of the Hennepin County RiverWatch program. A healthy macroinvertebrate community, as measured by the Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (M-IBI), may indicate that water quality, water flow, and habitat is sufficiently available to sustain aquatic life. The Hydrologic Data Program will continue to rely on annual volunteer monitoring in Minnehaha Creek, while updating all streams every three years. The long-term goal for Minnehaha Creek and the upper watershed streams is to provide conditions necessary to support an M-IBI above the state’s threshold for biotic impairment. Wetland Monitoring. Wetlands with exceptional value vegetation are present in almost every subwatershed. Because of the importance to overall ecological integrity of preserving these values, these wetlands will be regularly monitored for invasive species by staff or trained volunteers.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 79 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Groundwater Monitoring. To evaluate the impact of development as well as regulation intended to protect groundwater resources, a small network of surficial groundwater monitoring wells would be utilized to evaluate trends in surficial groundwater aquifer levels over time. Periodic inspection of groundwater-sensitive resources such as tamarack swamps may be useful provided they are easily accessible and are located in the vicinity of where impacts might be expected to occur. It is not known what long-term impact on groundwater quality could result from increased localized infiltration from impervious surfaces. Baseline and periodic groundwater water quality sampling would be conducted on this surficial well network to monitor for trends. The USGS or other agencies may be interested in partnering with the District on this monitoring. Special Studies. The Capital Improvement Program includes funding to update the suite of special studies that serve as the basis for the District’s management planning. It also includes additional special studies to enhance the Manager’s understanding of problems and issues in the watershed and to refine management planning. These special studies include: • Updating the Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and Pollutant Loading Study (HHPLS). • Updating the Functional Assessment of Wetlands. • Updating the stream assessments for Minnehaha Creek, Long Lake Creek, Gleason Lake Creek, Classen Creek, Painter Creek, and Six Mile Creek. • Conducting a survey of first order streams and assessing their general condition. • Developing a Water Quality Index that includes such factors as water chemistry, clarity, ecological value, human use, and aesthetics. • Developing a Conservation Plan that identifies key species, evaluates habitat in the watershed, and develops conservation strategies to conserve and protect ecologic integrity. • Continuing to support academic-oriented research that complements District goals and/or advances the Managers’ understanding of problems and issues in the watershed.

6.5 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Activities detailed in this Implementation Plan will require both ongoing and new operations and maintenance activities in this subwatershed. Each subwatershed plan includes an assessment of the potential operations and maintenance impacts associated with these activities. The Capital Improvement Program includes a cost estimate for the ongoing O & M activities as part of its Lifecycle Cost Analysis.

6.6 LGU REQUIREMENTS (PER 103B.205 SUBD.7) This Plan includes a number of requirements of LGUs, as detailed in Section 7.1 below. In general, this Plan establishes performance goals and requirements but provides cities with flexibility to incorporate those requirements into their land use planning and operations and management programs to meet those subwatershed goals. Subwatershed Phosphorus Load Reductions. Each subwatershed plan includes a required reduction by the LGUs in the subwatershed of the phosphorus load contributed by existing land uses. These load reductions are incorporated into the phosphorus load reduction plans for each lake that does not meet water quality goals. Where the receiving water does meet goals, the reduction is part of the District’s strategy to minimize future degradation of the water resource.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 80 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

The requirement is a 15 percent reduction in loading from existing residential land use; 25 percent from agricultural land use; and 10 percent from other developed land use. This reduction can be accomplished through: application of BMPs such as additional street sweeping, local water quality ponds, rain gardens and infiltration swales, and agricultural BMPs that reduce erosion or treat runoff or drain tile discharge; prevention of future load increases through the conservation of lands previously identified for development; or achieving load removals in excess of the minimum required. The LGUs must identify in their local water management plans specific steps to accomplish these minimum reductions. Credits for existing BMPs in- place will be considered through the Local Surface Water Management Plan and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The LGUs must also annually report to the District their progress toward accomplishing this requirement. Land Conservation. As noted above, a key element in achieving ecological integrity and other goals in the watershed is the conservation of key conservation areas, including high-value wetlands and uplands. As a requirement of this Plan, LGUs must identify in their local water management plans the Key Conservation Areas identified in each subwatershed plan and on Figure 33. The local plan must also identify strategies the LGU will undertake to protect the ecological and hydrological values of those areas. These may include such strategies as land use regulation; acquisition and management; and property owner education regarding land management strategies to maintain ecological integrity. The District will provide technical assistance to the LGUs to support their efforts to accomplish conservation to help attain the District’s and their own local conservation and natural resources management goals. Wetland Management. The wetland management classification system and wetland classifications set forth in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands will be the basis of wetland regulation by the District. Each local plan must review local wetland management policies and practices for consistency with the FAW and proposed management standards by classification. Other Issues. Other issues include the management of landlocked basins in the watershed, groundwater protection, management of modeled or observed flooding locations, and stream velocity or erosion issues. This Plan generally prohibits new outlets to landlocked basins to preserve the quality of downstream water resources. Outletting landlocked basins would discharge new volumes of water and new pollutant loads to downstream resources. This Plan establishes a minimum water resource management goal of no further degradation of water resources. New volumes and loads would be contrary to that goal. LGUs should plan to manage existing landlocked basins as closed basins, and develop suitable strategies for managing stormwater volumes and pollutant loads within the basin. Outletting will generally be discouraged unless there is a demonstrated threat to property structures or public safety. Many of the LGUs in the District have completed Wellhead Protection Plans detailing how they will protect groundwater resources providing drinking water to their community. The District will work collaboratively with the LGUs to develop infiltration and filtration strategies appropriate to wellhead protection areas as well as areas of general groundwater sensitivity. The HHPLS identified locations throughout the watershed of observed or modeled flooding issues, potential erosive velocities, and observed or potential erosion. Each LGU is required by this Plan to identify those locations, evaluate impacts, and determine appropriate strategies for improving or mitigating impacts.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 81 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

6.7 WATER QUALITY GOALS The HHPLS used an extensive public process to identify water quality goals for the lakes within the watershed, and those goals are incorporated into this Plan. Where no specific numeric goal was established, then this Plan establishes a goal of no further degradation of water quality. As discussed in Section 4.2.1 above, the water quality goals in this Plan focus primarily on the Total Phosphorus concentration in the lakes, although for each lake chlorophyll-a (a measure of algal productivity) and Secchi depth (a measure of water clarity) goals are also established. One of the District’s goals is to manage water quality in lakes to meet state water quality standards to avoid the need to prepare future Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has established the following standards for lakes:

Table 27. Minnesota state lake water quality standards Ecoregions North Central Hardwood Forest Western Corn Belt Plains Parameters Shallow1 Deep Shallow1 Deep Total Phosphorus (µg/L) 60 40 90 65 Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) 20 14 30 22 Secchi transparency (meters) >1 >1.4 >0.7 >0.9 1 Proposed standards. Shallow lakes are defined as lakes with a maximum depth of 15 feet or less, or with 80% or more of the lake area shallow enough to support emergent and submerged rooted aquatic plants (littoral zone). Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

In some cases the HHPLS established a goal for a lake that is less stringent than the state’s goal. This was often the case where local conditions may make the state goal difficult to achieve. Where the HHPLS goal as set forth in the table below is less stringent than the state goal, the District will strive to achieve the HHPLS goal as an interim goal. When the interim goal is achieved, the District will work with the state agencies to determine a plan for Adaptive Management that takes into account appropriate and achievable long-term water quality goals for the lake. During the life of this Plan the Board may choose to review and amend these goals based on an Adaptive Management Plan or on new information developed through the Hydrologic Data Program or special studies such as the reconstruction of pre-development phosphorus concentrations through diatom studies. MCWD may also consider revising water quality goals based upon approval of a TMDL by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Progress toward achieving goals and the continued appropriateness of the goals will be reviewed in the annual Hydrologic Data Report.

Table 28. MCWD water quality goals and current conditions, Upper Watershed lakes. 1997 HHPLS 1997-2004 2004 Lake TP Goal TP Goal Average TP Chl-a Secchi TSI (µg/L) (µg/L) TP (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (m) Christmas 18 15 17 29 0.1 4.9 33 Dutch 50 40 67 88 44 1.1 65 Gleason 90 80 90 104 23 1.4 62 Hadley 27 * N/A N/A N/A 1-2** N/A Kreatz N/A * N/A N/A N/A <.5** N/A

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 82 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

1997 HHPLS 1997-2004 2004 Lake TP Goal TP Goal Average TP Chl-a Secchi TSI (µg/L) (µg/L) TP (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (m) Snyder N/A * N/A N/A N/A <.5** N/A Minnewashta 25 20 23 25 3 2.6 46 Virginia 49 40 48* 48* 25 1.5 61 Tamarack 50 None N/A 72*** 34 1.3 62 St. Joe 90 None N/A 22*** N/A 1-2** N/A Langdon 50 55-70* 136 138 99 0.4 74 Saunders N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <0.5** N/A Black N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2-4** N/A Long 50 40-50 59 76 40 1.2 64 Mooney N/A N/A 143* N/A N/A <0.5** N/A Holy Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <0.5** N/A Wolsfeld 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5-1.0** N/A Tanager 90 70 95 118 80 1.1 68 Katrina N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A .5-1* N/A Thies 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1-2* N/A Schutz 50 40 36 49 26 1.3 60 Pierson* 27 27 n/a 19 13 n/a 51 Wasserman 50 50 85 88 36 1.0 65 Steiger 50 30 39 41 18 1.5 57 Zumbra 35 25 28 32 12 3.1 51 Stone 90 36 57 47 15 1.9 56 Auburn East 50 50 N/A N/A N/A 0.5-1** N/A Auburn West 30 27 38 41 14 2.8 53 Lunsten 90 70 N/A N/A N/A 0.5-1** N/A Parley* 50 50 81 75 70 0.8 61 Carl Krey 90 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2-4 N/A Church 90 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5-1** N/A Turbid N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5-1** N/A Mud N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5-1** N/A Peavy Pond None * 66 76 17 2.1 58 Lake Marion None * N/A N/A N/A 2-4*** N/A Shavers Lake None * N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Louise Lake None * N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Libbs Lake None 30 30 21 2 1.8 46 Forest Lake None None 67 71 21 1.7 59 Lake Galpin None 60 40 30 18 2.1 54 Lost Lake None None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TP = Total phosphorus concentration *10% reduction from existing, provided it is greater than 25 µg/L ** Clarity as estimated by the University of Minnesota using satellite imagery *** Data from Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) Source: MCWD.

Table 29. MCWD water quality goals and current conditions: Lake Minnetonka 1997 HHPLS 1997-2004 2004 Bay TP Goal TP Goal Average TP Chl-a Secchi TSI (µg/L) (µg/L) TP (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (m) Black 50 45 - 40 10 7.7 54 Browns 30 20 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 83 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

1997 HHPLS 1997-2004 2004 Bay TP Goal TP Goal Average TP Chl-a Secchi TSI (µg/L) (µg/L) TP (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (m) Carmens 50 50 - 24 4 2.7 46 Carsons 50 50 - 21 1 3.1 42 Cooks 50 30 33 32 16 1.9 54 Crystal 30 25 - 30 28 26 9 3.0 49 East Upper none none - 29 4 2.7 47 Gideons none none - 22 2 3.3 42 Grays 50 20 - 21 1 3.3 40 Halsteds 50 50 - 60 119 128 41 1.6 65 Harrisons 50 50 63 58 32 1.2 61 Jennings 90 50 - 70 111 110 39 1.4 65 Lafayette 50 20 23 N/A N/A N/A N/A Lower Lake 30 20 21 20 6 3.3 46 South Maxwell 50 40 33 32 12 2.4 52 North Arm 50 30 32 31 11 2.4 52 Phelps 50 20 - N/A N/A N/A N/A Priest 50 30 - 55 28 1.0 62 Robinsons none 30 - N/A N/A N/A N/A Seton 50 100 - N/A N/A N/A N/A Smiths 50 50 - N/A N/A N/A N/A Smithtown none none - 23 5 2.3 48 Spring Park 50 20 23 20 7 2.9 47 St. Albans 50 20 22 16 4 3.9 43 St. Louis none 50 - N/A N/A N/A N/A Stubbs 50 50 - 55 59 63 30 1.6 60 Wayzata 42 20 20 17 6 3.4 45 West Arm 50 50 71 59 33 1.6 60 West Upper none 25 28 27 12 2.4 51 *10% reduction of the existing TP concentration provided it is above 25 µg/L; will require baseline data **2003 data *** Clarity as estimated by the University of Minnesota using satellite imagery

Table 30. MCWD water quality goals and current conditions: Lower Watershed lakes 1997 HHPLS 1997-2004 2004 Lake TP Goal TP Goal Average TP TP Chl-a Secchi TSI (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (m) Brownie 50 35 38 45 19 1.5 58 Cedar 50 25 22 25 7 3.7 47 Isles 50 40 40 50 28 1.8 58 Calhoun 30 25 24 15 3 5.2 40 Harriet 30 20 23 15 3 5.2 43 Nokomis 50 50 59 80 28 1.0 64 Hiawatha 50 50* 68 68 17 1.3 60 Diamond - 90 N/A 178 38 0.8 69 Powderhorn 90 120* N/A 118 37 0.7 68 *Hiawatha’s interim goal in the draft TMDL is 61 and Powderhorn’s is 90. Source: MCWD.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 84 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

6.8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The capital improvement program identified below includes projects that will progress the District toward achieving subwatershed goals, as well as some watershed-wide activities such as undertaking or updating special studies. This program is not a comprehensive list of all capital needs or potential projects within the subwatershed, and is limited by available financial resources and staff capacity to manage projects. Among the purposes of these priority projects are to: • Achieve nutrient load reductions in lakes to prevent future listing as Impaired Waters that require TMDL studies. • Stabilize and restore stream reaches with the highest concentration of erosion issues and to improve biotic integrity. • Conserve and enhance green infrastructure through Land Conservation and restoration efforts to proactively address water quality, runoff management, and other water resources issues. • Begin addressing the historic loss of wetlands in the watershed through restoration of degraded or drained wetlands. • Mitigate the impacts of future development on downstream resources.

These proposed projects emphasize the achievement of multiple objectives. For example, stream restorations would not only stabilize streambanks and prevent further erosion, they would provide an opportunity to improve in-stream and buffer habitat, conserve existing high-value resources, and reduce sediment and nutrient transport downstream. Wetland restorations would not only restore degraded or drained wetlands, they would provide an opportunity to increase infiltration, improve habitat, and conserve existing high-value resources. The District’s Capital Improvement Program includes a more detailed description and analysis of the top tier of highest priority projects. The ranking of priority projects reflects the District’s Citizen Advisory Committee recommendations, the status of projects initially developed in the District’s 1997 Plan, opportunities for project partnerships or collaboration, designation of impaired water bodies, and public recreational values. The inclusion of a project in the capital improvement program is not a determination that the project will be implemented. Before that occurs, the District will perform a feasibility study or assessment and the Board of Managers, after a public hearing, will determine whether the project should be ordered. In addition to requirements contained in MS 103B.251, prior to the watershed District ordering a major capital improvement project (projects greater than $300,000) it will: • Seek a resolution of support from the LGU(s) where the project is located. • Prior to approval of final design the MWCD will notice property owners within 600 feet of the proposed project and host at least one public information meeting at a location near the project site; • Provide a press release and hearing notice on the proposed project to a local newspaper • Provide a printed notice to property owners within 600 feet of the proposed project with the time and location of the public hearing and the name and contact information of the project manager.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 85 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Each year, as a part of its budgeting process, the District will review the status of all capital projects and their priority for budget and levy purposes and allocate funds for the following year accordingly. The District further intends to review its capital improvement program and its capital project priorities, on a District-wide and a sub-watershed basis, more comprehensively as needed on a two -year cycle. No later than the third Friday in June of each year, the MCWD will mail (or e-mail) revised copies of it 10 year CIP to Hennepin and Carver Counties and all of the cities within the District for a 30 day review and comment. No later than the third Friday in August of each year the MCWD will mail Hennepin and Carver Counties a copy of any comments from cities and the District response. At the County(ies’) pleasure, but no later than the first Friday in November, the MCWD will meet with the County Board(s) to discuss the District’s CIP and annual budget and levy. Any comments received from the County Board will be considered by the MCWD Board and any decreases or increases to the levy will be provided to the County Auditors prior to the date they certify the county levy to the State.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 86 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Comprehensive MinnehahaWatershed Creek Distri TableWater 31.Resources 2007-2016Management CapitalPlan Improvement Program. F/S, Design, Net Present Recurring Estimated Cost Estimated Legal, Value of Subwatershed Project Name Capital Cost Costs Total Cost 2005 $ Cost Future $ Admini- Thirty-Year (30-year Total) stration Cost 2007 District-Wide Land Conservation Program $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Gleason Lake Gleason Lake Pond at Lake Inlet $276,900 $287,100 $46,900 $240,200 $549,800 $837,000 $536,700 Lake Minnetonka Stubbs Bay Internal Load Management $500,000 $519,900 $15,300 $504,600 $2,278,900 $2,798,800 $1,434,400 Lake Minnetonka Classen Creek Management $90,000 $93,600 $0 $93,600 $0 $93,600 $93,600 ct 87 February 2007 Lake Minnetonka Stubbs Bay Swan Lake Pond Excavation $100,000 $104,000 $0 $104,000 $450,200 $554,200 $306,300 Lake Minnetonka Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Restoration $200,000 $208,100 $0 $208,100 $0 $208,100 $208,100 Lake Minnetonka Lost Lake/Langdon Lake/Cooks Bay $375,000 $390,200 $0 $390,200 $0 $390,200 $390,200 Mooney Lake Emergency Pumping Long Lake Creek Infrastructure $125,000 $129,600 $20,400 $109,200 $21,100 $150,800 $139,900 Reach 8 Channel Restoration and Minnehaha Creek Reconstruction $930,000 $967,600 $0 $967,600 $10,500 $978,100 $977,800 Minnehaha Creek Lake Nokomis Internal Load Management $300,000 $342,100 $30,600 $311,500 $0 $342,100 $310,100 Painter Creek Hwy 26 Pond $132,000 $137,300 $0 $137,300 $332,800 $470,100 $290,500 Painter Creek Painter Drive Culvert $100,000 $104,000 $0 $104,000 $3,200 $107,300 $107,100 2007 Total $5,128,900 $5,283,500 $113,200 $5,170,300 $3,646,500 $8,930,300 $6,794,700 2008 District-Wide Land Conservation Program $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 District-Wide MCWD Opinion Survey $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 District-Wide MCWD Water Quality Index $25,000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 Lake Minnetonka Big Island Wetland Restoration $103,000 $108,900 $19,800 $89,100 $22,200 $131,100 $119,200 Long Lake Creek Long Lake Wetland Restoration Project #1 $350,000 $434,200 $47,500 $386,700 $27,600 $461,800 $431,600 Minnehaha Creek Volume and Load Reduction Study $200,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Falls/Glen Restoration $1,693,750 $1,795,300 $104,000 $1,691,300 $11,500 $1,806,900 $1,796,900 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-129 $2,167,150 $2,299,800 $0 $2,299,800 $8,549,800 $10,849,600 $5,866,700 Six Mile Marsh Parley Tribuary Wetland Restoration $517,000 $547,600 $53,100 $494,500 $32,000 $579,600 $564,400 Wasserman Phase I Culvert/Stream/Wetland Six Mile Marsh Restoration $681,000 $721,300 $67,600 $653,700 $33,100 $754,500 $737,900 2008 Total $7,756,900 $8,152,100 $292,000 $7,860,100 $8,676,200 $16,828,500 $11,761,700 2009 District-Wide Land Conservation Program $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Update Wetlands Functions and Values District-Wide Assessment $100,000 $100,000 $0 $100,000 $0 $100,000 $100,000 Gleason Lake Gleason Lake Infiltration GL-4 $165,980 $179,700 $0 $179,700 $777,400 $957,100 $528,900 Lake Minnetonka Halsteds Bay Wetland Restoration $545,000 $588,900 $49,900 $539,100 $29,300 $618,300 $601,100 Lake Minnetonka Lake Minnetonka Direct Infiltration GB-LM $52,920 $57,300 $0 $57,300 $247,900 $305,100 $168,600

Comprehensive MinnehahaWatershed Creek Distri Water Resources Management Plan F/S, Design, Net Present Recurring Estimated Cost Estimated Legal, Value of Subwatershed Project Name Capital Cost Costs Total Cost 2005 $ Cost Future $ Admini- Thirty-Year (30-year Total) stration Cost Langdon Lake Langdon Lake Infiltration LL-2 $17,200 $18,600 $0 $18,600 $80,600 $99,200 $54,800 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-147 $3,263,960 $3,533,000 $0 $3,533,000 $13,134,400 $16,667,400 $9,012,500 Painter Creek Painter Marsh Improvements $995,000 $1,077,000 $0 $1,077,000 $306,300 $1,383,400 $1,366,300 Painter Creek Painter Marsh Outlet Structure $75,000 $81,200 $0 $81,200 $89,600 $170,800 $126,100 Painter Creek Painter Creek Infiltration PC-16 $201,750 $218,400 $0 $218,400 $935,300 $1,153,700 $639,000 2009 Total $7,416,810 $7,854,100 $49,900 $7,804,300 $15,600,800 $23,455,000 $14,597,300 ct 88 February 2007 2010 District-Wide Land Conservation Program $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 District-Wide Conservation Plan $300,000 $300,000 $0 $300,000 $0 $300,000 $300,000 Dutch Lake Dutch Lake Infiltration DL-3 $107,040 $118,200 $0 $118,200 $511,400 $629,600 $347,900 Gleason Lake Detention Pond Upstream of Gleason Lake CR 6 $536,000 $590,300 $76,900 $513,400 $1,128,700 $1,719,000 $1,091,600 Lake Minnetonka Grays Bay Hwy 101 Causeway $1,500,000 $1,656,100 $0 $1,656,100 $0 $1,656,100 $1,656,100 Lake Virginia Lake Virginia Infiltration LMC-10 $78,400 $86,600 $0 $86,600 $374,600 $461,100 $254,800 Long Lake Creek Long Lake Wetland Restoration Project #2 $350,000 $370,500 $43,700 $326,900 $23,500 $394,100 $379,900 Reach 19-21 Channel Restoration and Minnehaha Creek Reconstruction $1,090,000 $1,203,400 $0 $1,203,400 $13,100 $1,216,500 $1,216,200 Painter Creek Potato Farm Wetland $465,000 $513,400 $0 $513,400 $60,000 $573,400 $562,000 Painter Creek Painter Creek Wetland Corridor $360,000 $397,500 $0 $397,500 $40,200 $437,600 $426,800 Wasserman Phase II Stream/Wetland Six Mile Marsh Restoration $624,000 $687,500 $73,600 $613,900 $24,900 $712,400 $688,800 2010 Total $7,410,440 $7,923,500 $194,200 $7,729,400 $2,176,400 $10,099,800 $8,924,100 2011 District-Wide Land Conservation Program $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 District-Wide First-order Stream Inventory $150,000 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $150,000 Dutch Lake Dutch Lake Infiltration DL-5 $82,510 $92,900 $0 $92,900 $402,100 $495,000 $273,500 Gleason Lake Projects from Gleason Lake Mgmt Plan $503,000 $566,500 $0 $566,500 $1,241,600 $1,808,000 $989,000 Lake Minnetonka Lake Minnetonka Direct Infiltration HB-LM $173,880 $195,800 $0 $195,800 $847,300 $1,043,100 $576,500 Long Lake Creek Long Lake Creek Infiltration LLC-4 $104,300 $117,500 $0 $117,500 $508,300 $625,700 $345,800 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-170 $2,167,150 $2,440,600 $0 $2,440,600 $9,073,100 $11,513,700 $6,225,700 Painter Creek Painter Creek Infiltration PC-1 $174,850 $196,900 $0 $196,900 $843,300 $1,040,200 $576,200 Painter Creek Channel Restoration & Painter Creek Reconstruction $750,000 $844,600 $0 $844,600 $9,200 $853,900 $853,600 Schutz Lake Schutz Lake Corridor Wetland Restoration $318,000 $357,200 $46,400 $310,800 $34,700 $391,900 $370,900 Six Mile Marsh Turbid/Lunsten Hwy 5 Wetland Restoration $179,000 $200,800 $37,500 $163,300 $23,600 $224,400 $205,600 Six Mile Marsh Six Mile Marsh Infiltration SMC-1 $700,230 $788,600 $0 $788,600 $3,412,300 $4,200,800 $2,321,400 2011 Total $7,302,920 $7,951,400 $83,900 $7,867,500 $16,395,500 $24,346,700 $14,888,200

Comprehensive MinnehahaWatershed Creek Distri Water Resources Management Plan F/S, Design, Net Present Recurring Estimated Cost Estimated Legal, Value of Subwatershed Project Name Capital Cost Costs Total Cost 2005 $ Cost Future $ Admini- Thirty-Year (30-year Total) stration Cost 2012 District-Wide Land Conservation Program $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 District-Wide Update Stream Assessment Reports $200,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Lake Minnetonka Lake Minnetonka Direct Infiltration NA-LM $12,600 $14,500 $0 $14,500 $62,600 $77,100 $42,600 Lake Virginia Lake Virginia Infiltration LMC-9 $21,860 $25,100 $0 $25,100 $108,700 $133,800 $73,900 Langdon Lake Langdon Lake Infiltration LL-3 $87,720 $100,800 $0 $100,800 $436,000 $536,800 $296,600 ct 89 February 2007 Long Lake Creek Long Lake Internal Load Management $251,000 $288,000 $16,900 $271,100 $1,224,300 $1,512,300 $775,400 Long Lake Creek Channel Restoration & Long Lake Creek Reconstruction $250,000 $287,200 $0 $287,200 $3,100 $290,300 $290,200 Reach 7 Channel Restoration and Minnehaha Creek Reconstruction $570,000 $654,800 $0 $654,800 $7,100 $661,900 $661,700 Reach 14 Channel Restoration and Minnehaha Creek Reconstruction $780,000 $896,000 $0 $896,000 $9,700 $905,700 $905,500 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-134 $422,600 $485,400 $0 $485,400 $1,804,600 $2,290,000 $1,238,300 Painter Creek Ponds PC-13 $120,000 $137,800 $0 $137,800 $338,300 $476,200 $293,800 Painter Creek Channel Restoration & Painter Creek Reconstruction $500,000 $574,300 $0 $574,300 $6,200 $580,600 $580,400 Painter Creek Jennings Bay Internal Management Project $254,200 $291,700 $16,900 $274,800 $1,240,900 $1,532,600 $785,800 Turbid/Lunsten Laketown Rd Wetland Six Mile Marsh Restoration $433,000 $496,300 $54,100 $442,200 $31,100 $527,400 $502,700 Six Mile Marsh Steiger Lake Wet Detention Pond $703,000 $805,600 $96,800 $708,700 $1,542,600 $2,348,200 $1,484,200 2012 Total $6,605,980 $7,257,500 $184,700 $7,072,700 $6,815,200 $14,072,900 $10,131,100 2013 District-Wide Land Conservation Program $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 District-Wide Update HHPLS $300,000 $300,000 $0 $300,000 $0 $300,000 $300,000 Dutch Lake Dutch Lake Wetland Restoration $624,000 $730,100 $51,700 $678,400 $28,100 $758,200 $732,100 Lake Minnetonka Lake Minnetonka Direct Infiltration SL-LM $12,600 $14,800 $0 $14,800 $448,400 $463,100 $43,500 Langdon Lake Langdon Lake Alum Injection System* $531,000 $620,500 $82,700 $537,800 $199,800 $820,300 $675,600 Langdon Lake Langdon Lake Wet Detention Pond $686,000 $801,700 $103,400 $698,300 $1,521,600 $2,323,300 $1,239,700 New Pond at LLC-51 Outlet to Long Lake Long Lake Creek Creek Corridor $407,250 $475,800 $65,500 $410,400 $914,200 $1,390,000 $874,500 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-95 $1,896,000 $2,221,500 $0 $2,221,500 $8,258,600 $10,480,100 $5,666,800 Painter Creek Painter Creek Infiltration PC-2 $174,850 $204,900 $0 $204,900 $877,400 $1,082,300 $599,400 Six Mile Marsh Parley Lake Internal Load Management $198,000 $231,600 $17,200 $214,400 $968,400 $1,200,000 $615,600 2013 Total $6,829,700 $7,600,900 $320,500 $7,280,500 $13,216,500 $20,817,300 $12,747,200 2014 District-Wide Land Conservation Program $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Dutch Lake Dutch Lake Infiltration DL-7 $33,450 $40,000 $0 $40,000 $173,000 $213,000 $117,700

Comprehensive MinnehahaWatershed Creek Distri Water Resources Management Plan F/S, Design, Net Present Recurring Estimated Cost Estimated Legal, Value of Subwatershed Project Name Capital Cost Costs Total Cost 2005 $ Cost Future $ Admini- Thirty-Year (30-year Total) stration Cost Gleason Curly Leaf Pond Weed - Chemical Gleason Lake Application $30,000 $35,800 $2,300 $33,500 $387,000 $422,800 $264,700 Lake Minnetonka Lake Minnetonka Direct Infiltration CLC-2 $86,700 $103,600 $0 $103,600 $448,400 $552,000 $305,000 Lake Virginia Lake Virginia Infiltration LV-5 $39,290 $47,000 $0 $47,000 $203,200 $250,100 $138,200 Long Lake Creek Long Lake Creek Infiltration LLC-8 $178,800 $213,700 $0 $213,700 $924,600 $1,138,300 $629,000 Reach 4 Channel Restoration and

ct 90 February Minnehaha2007 Creek Reconstruction $790,000 $944,100 $0 $944,100 $10,300 $954,400 $954,100 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-97 $1,258,900 $1,504,500 $0 $1,504,500 $5,593,200 $7,097,700 $3,837,900 Painter Creek Ponds PC-6 & PC-7 $300,000 $358,500 $0 $358,500 $805,800 $1,164,300 $727,000 Painter Creek Painter Creek Infiltration PC-25 $282,450 $337,600 $0 $337,600 $1,445,700 $1,783,200 $987,700 Painter Creek Painter Creek Carp Gate $50,000 $59,800 $0 $59,800 $117,400 $177,100 $127,300 Schutz Lake Schutz Lake Wet Detention Pond $946,500 $1,128,600 $126,500 $1,002,100 $2,163,400 $3,292,000 $2,073,000 Schutz Lake Schutz Lake Infiltration SL-2 $112,200 $134,100 $0 $134,100 $580,200 $714,300 $347,100 Schutz Lake Schutz Lake Infiltration SL-3 $43,350 $51,800 $0 $51,800 $224,200 $276,000 $134,100 Six Mile Marsh Auburn East Internal Load Management $157,000 $187,300 $17,600 $169,700 $766,400 $953,700 $489,400 Six Mile Marsh Six Mile Marsh Infiltration SMC-11 $576,660 $689,200 $0 $689,200 $2,982,100 $3,671,300 $2,028,800 Six Mile Marsh Six Mile Marsh Infiltration SMC-55 $494,280 $590,700 $0 $590,700 $2,556,100 $3,146,800 $1,739,000 2014 Total $7,379,580 $8,426,300 $146,400 $8,279,900 $19,381,000 $27,807,000 $16,900,000 2015 District-Wide Land Conservation Program $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Dutch Lake Dutch Lake Wet Detention Pond $1,608,000 $1,956,100 $202,000 $1,754,100 $3,750,800 $5,706,900 $3,590,900 Gleason Lake Gleason Lake Infiltration GL-9 $27,020 $32,900 $0 $32,900 $142,500 $175,500 $97,000 Lake Minnetonka Halsteds Bay Internal Load Management $442,000 $538,400 $17,900 $520,500 $2,350,800 $2,889,200 $1,476,200 Long Lake Creek Long Lake Creek Infiltration LLC-10 $134,100 $163,500 $0 $163,500 $707,300 $870,800 $481,200 Reach 6 Channel Restoration and Minnehaha Creek Reconstruction $370,000 $451,000 $0 $451,000 $4,900 $455,900 $455,800 Reach 9 Channel Restoration and Minnehaha Creek Reconstruction $720,000 $877,700 $0 $877,700 $9,500 $887,200 $887,000 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-70-75 $400,000 $487,600 $0 $487,600 $1,812,700 $2,300,300 $1,243,800 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-146 $462,900 $564,300 $0 $564,300 $2,097,800 $2,662,100 $1,439,400 Painter Creek Pond PC-25 $176,000 $214,500 $0 $214,500 $503,000 $717,600 $445,500 Painter Creek Katrina Marsh Improvements $295,000 $359,600 $0 $359,600 $121,200 $480,800 $466,900 Painter Creek Katrina Marsh Outlet Structure $50,000 $60,900 $0 $60,900 $50,400 $111,400 $62,700 Painter Creek Painter Creek Infiltration PC-21 $242,100 $295,100 $0 $295,100 $1,263,900 $1,559,100 $863,500 Six Mile Marsh Six Mile Creek Stream Repairs $50,000 $60,900 $0 $60,900 $600 $61,600 $61,600 Six Mile Marsh Wasserman Lake Internal Load Management $174,000 $211,700 $17,900 $193,800 $875,400 $1,087,100 $556,900 2015 Total $7,151,120 $8,274,200 $237,800 $8,036,400 $13,690,800 $21,965,500 $14,128,400

Comprehensive MinnehahaWatershed Creek Distri Water Resources Management Plan F/S, Design, Net Present Recurring Estimated Cost Estimated Legal, Value of Subwatershed Project Name Capital Cost Costs Total Cost 2005 $ Cost Future $ Admini- Thirty-Year (30-year Total) stration Cost 2016 District-Wide Land Conservation Program $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Lake Virginia Lake Virginia Infiltration LV-1 $56,840 $70,700 $0 $70,700 $305,800 $376,500 $208,100 Langdon Lake Langdon Lake Infiltration LL-5 $67,080 $83,400 $0 $83,400 $360,900 $444,300 $245,500 New Pond at LLC-48 Outlet to Long Lake Long Lake Creek Creek Corridor $512,250 $635,300 $80,500 $554,900 $1,221,900 $1,857,200 $1,161,900

ct 91 February Long Lake2007 Creek Long Lake Creek Infiltration LLC-26 $149,000 $185,300 $0 $185,300 $801,700 $986,900 $545,400 Reach 12 Channel Restoration and Minnehaha Creek Reconstruction $1,110,000 $1,380,100 $0 $1,380,100 $15,000 $1,395,200 $1,394,800 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-58 $350,000 $435,200 $0 $435,200 $1,617,800 $2,053,000 $1,110,100 Painter Creek Jennings Bay Wet Detention Pond $1,608,000 $1,995,200 $206,000 $1,789,200 $3,825,800 $5,821,100 $3,656,400 Schutz Lake Schutz Lake Infiltration SL-1 $99,450 $123,700 $0 $123,700 $535,100 $658,700 $312,700 Six Mile Marsh Six Mile Marsh Infiltration SMC-66 $1,153,320 $1,434,000 $0 $1,434,000 $6,205,100 $7,639,100 $4,221,500 2016 Total $7,105,940 $8,342,900 $286,500 $8,056,500 $14,889,100 $23,232,000 $14,856,400

Total 2007-2016 $70,088,290 $77,066,400 $1,909,100 $75,157,600 $114,488,000 $191,555,000 $125,729,100

Additional Identified Projects, Unfunded in the 2007-2016 CIP Christmas Lake Christmas Lake Management Study $48,000 $60,900 $0 $60,900 $85,600 $146,500 $99,800 Dutch Lake Dutch Lake Internal Load Management $200,000 $253,300 $18,700 $234,600 $1,059,600 $1,312,900 $671,100 Halsteds Bay Tributary Alum Injection Lake Minnetonka System $2,565,000 $3,247,300 $288,500 $2,958,800 $24,796,400 $28,043,700 $15,554,500 Stubbs Bay Curly Leaf Pond Weed - Lake Minnetonka Chemical Application $27,000 $34,200 $2,500 $31,700 $366,700 $400,900 $250,800 Lake Minnetonka Lake Minnetonka Direct Infiltration CLC-3 $54,670 $69,300 $0 $69,300 $300,000 $369,400 $204,100 Lake Minnetonka Lake Minnetonka Direct Infiltration SB-2 $35,400 $44,900 $0 $44,900 $194,300 $239,200 $132,200 Long Lake Curly Leaf Pond Weed - Long Lake Creek Chemical Application $25,500 $32,300 $2,500 $29,800 $344,700 $377,000 $235,800 Long Lake Creek Long Lake Creek Infiltration LLC-29 $178,800 $226,800 $0 $226,800 $981,200 $1,208,000 $667,500 Minnehaha Creek Longfellow Lagoon Dredging $90,000 $114,100 $0 $114,100 $293,300 $407,400 $249,800 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek - Diagnostic/TMDL Study $150,000 $186,500 $186,500 $0 $0 $186,500 $109,000 Reach 2 Channel Restoration and Minnehaha Creek Reconstruction $150,000 $190,200 $0 $190,200 $2,100 $192,300 $192,300 Reach 11 Channel Restoration and Minnehaha Creek Reconstruction $930,000 $1,179,500 $0 $1,179,500 $12,800 $1,192,300 $1,192,000 Reach 18 Channel Restoration and Minnehaha Creek Reconstruction $350,000 $443,900 $0 $443,900 $4,800 $448,700 $448,600

Comprehensive MinnehahaWatershed Creek Distri Water Resources Management Plan F/S, Design, Net Present Recurring Estimated Cost Estimated Legal, Value of Subwatershed Project Name Capital Cost Costs Total Cost 2005 $ Cost Future $ Admini- Thirty-Year (30-year Total) stration Cost Reach 29 Channel Restoration and Minnehaha Creek Reconstruction $680,000 $862,400 $0 $862,400 $9,400 $871,800 $871,600 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-135 $1,056,700 $1,340,200 $0 $1,340,200 $4,982,200 $6,322,400 $3,418,600 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-139 $402,900 $511,000 $0 $1,899,600 $2,410,600 $4,310,200 $1,303,500 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-140 $1,177,500 $1,493,400 $0 $1,493,400 $5,551,700 $7,045,100 $3,809,500 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-150 $285,500 $362,100 $0 $362,100 $1,346,100 $1,708,200 $923,700

ct 92 February Minnehaha2007 Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-151 $413,700 $524,700 $0 $524,700 $1,950,500 $2,475,200 $1,338,400 Minnehaha Creek Minnehaha Creek Infiltration MC-152 $535,000 $678,500 $0 $678,500 $2,522,400 $3,200,900 $1,730,800 Painter Creek Painter Creek Infiltration PC-9 $201,750 $255,900 $0 $255,900 $1,095,800 $1,351,700 $748,700 Painter Creek Painter Creek Infiltration LM-JB $67,250 $85,300 $0 $85,300 $365,300 $450,600 $249,600 Jennings Bay Curly Leaf Pond Weed - Painter Creek Chemical Application $37,000 $46,900 $2,500 $44,400 $513,400 $560,200 $350,500 Parley Lake Curly Leaf Pond Weed - Six Mile Marsh Chemical Application $43,000 $54,500 $2,500 $52,000 $601,400 $655,900 $410,400 Wasserman Curly Leaf Pond Weed - Six Mile Marsh Chemical Application $33,200 $42,100 $2,500 $39,600 $457,600 $499,700 $312,600 Six Mile Marsh Stone Lake Internal Load Management $125,000 $158,200 $18,700 $139,500 $630,100 $788,200 $403,500 Stone Lake Curly Leaf Pond Weed - Six Mile Marsh Chemical Application $21,000 $26,600 $2,500 $24,100 $278,700 $305,300 $190,900 Auburn E. Curly Leaf Pond Weed - Chemical Six Mile Marsh Application $31,000 $39,300 $2,500 $36,800 $166,100 $205,400 $104,900 Six Mile Marsh Auburn West Internal Load Management $135,400 $171,400 $18,700 $152,700 $689,600 $861,000 $440,600 Auburn W. Curly Leaf Pond Weed - Six Mile Marsh Chemical Application $21,000 $26,600 $2,500 $24,100 $278,700 $305,300 $190,900 Six Mile Marsh Six Mile Marsh Infiltration SMC-7 $288,330 $365,700 $0 $365,700 $1,582,300 $1,948,000 $1,076,500 Six Mile Marsh Six Mile Marsh Infiltration SMC-49 $411,900 $522,400 $0 $522,400 $2,260,400 $2,782,800 $1,537,800 Six Mile Marsh Six Mile Marsh Infiltration SMC-56 $247,140 $313,400 $0 $313,400 $1,356,300 $1,669,700 $922,700 Six Mile Marsh Six Mile Marsh Infiltration SMC-61 $370,710 $470,100 $0 $470,100 $2,034,400 $2,504,500 $1,384,000 Six Mile Marsh Six Mile Marsh Infiltration HB-1 $123,570 $156,700 $0 $156,700 $678,100 $834,800 $461,300 Total Unfunded Projects $11,512,920 $14,590,600 $551,100 $15,428,100 $60,202,600 $76,181,700 $42,188,500

Comprehensive MinnehahaWatershed Creek Distri TableWater 32.Resources ImplementationManagement Plan Plan activities and relationship to the 17 general District goals.

Potential Cost (thousands $)

Proposed Implementation ct 93 February 2007 Abstraction Abstraction Integrity Ecological Water Quality Public Health Quantity Water and Shorelines Streambanks Navigation BMPs & Education Communications Ditches Wetlands Groundwater Floodplains Recreation Erosion Control Regulation Involvement Public Item Item Description Initial Annual Capital Year(s) Capital Projects 1 See Capital Improvement Program X X X X X X X X Data Acquisition/Study 1 Minnehaha Creek Biotic Integrity X X X X X X X X X X X X X 150 2006 TMDL/ diagnostic study 2 Catalog first order streams and X X X X X X X 150 2011 inventory erosion issues 3 Identify keystone, umbrella, and X X X X X X X X X X 300 2010 indicator species, evaluate habitat, X and develop conservation strategies 4 Update stream assessments X X X X X X X X X X X X 200 2012 5 Update Functional Assessment of X X X X X X 100 2009 Wetlands 6 Update HHPLS X X X X X X X X X X 300 2013 7 Develop Water Quality Index X X X X X X X X 25 2008 8 Support academic research advancing X X X X X X X X 25 Ongoing District goals and knowledge 9 Develop infiltration/filtration X X X X X 10 2008 strategies appropriate to wellhead protection areas and areas of groundwater sensitivity Land Conservation Program 1 Continue proactive efforts to conserve X X X X X X X X X X X 3000 Annually high-value natural resources

Comprehensive MinnehahaWatershed Creek Distri Water Resources Management Plan

Potential Cost (thousands $)

Proposed Implementation Abstraction Abstraction Integrity Ecological Water Quality Public Health Quantity Water and Shorelines Streambanks Navigation BMPs & Education Communications Ditches Wetlands Groundwater Floodplains Recreation Erosion Control Regulation Involvement Public Item Item Description Initial Annual Capital Year(s) ct 94 February 2007 2 Provide technical assistance and X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Ongoing advice to LGUs as they implement their conservation efforts Regulatory Program 1 Amend District Rules to increase X X X X X 2007-2009 stormwater requirements for new development 2 Amend District Rules to require X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2007-2009 abstraction of 1” of rainfall from new development and redevelopment 3 Amend District Rules to adopt X X X X X X X X X 2007-2009 wetland management rules based on wetland management classification 4 Amend District Rules to require X X X X X X 2007-2009 greater and earlier scrutiny of development plans for natural resource impacts 5 Amend District Rules to require X X X X X X X 2007-2009 greater and earlier scrutiny of development plans for groundwater impacts 6 Amend District Rules to require X X X X X X X X X X X 2007-2009 greater and earlier scrutiny of development plans for integration of BMPs Monitoring and Data Collection 1 Continue Hydrologic Data Program to X X X X X X X X Ongoing monitor streamflow and water quality, lake water quality and lake levels

Comprehensive MinnehahaWatershed Creek Distri Water Resources Management Plan

Potential Cost (thousands $)

Proposed Implementation Abstraction Abstraction Integrity Ecological Water Quality Public Health Quantity Water and Shorelines Streambanks Navigation BMPs & Education Communications Ditches Wetlands Groundwater Floodplains Recreation Erosion Control Regulation Involvement Public Item Item Description Initial Annual Capital Year(s) ct 95 February 2007 2 For lakes not part of the Hydrodata X X X X X X 8 Ongoing program, obtain CAMP monitoring where possible, or where not utilize satellite water quality data to monitor water quality 3 Aquatic and shoreline vegetation X X X X X X X 10 As necessary surveys and management plans (where not part of internal load management plan) 4 Obtain lake bathymetry where not X X 5 2009 and as available, and refine where necessary questionable 5 Monitor macroinvertebrates in X X X X X 15 2008, 2012 Minnehaha Creek every three years 6 Monitor macroinvertebrates in upper X X X X X X 15 2009, 2013 watershed streams every three years 7 Monitor wetlands with exceptional X X Ongoing value vegetation for invasive species. 8 Identify shallow wells network and X X X X X X 8 2008 and monitor groundwater levels and water ongoing quality Education/Communication Program 1 Continue education and X X X X X X X X Ongoing communication program 2 Conduct opinion survey to measure X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 2008 knowledge of and attitudes about District programming, goals, and other issues

Comprehensive MinnehahaWatershed Creek Distri Water Resources Management Plan

Potential Cost (thousands $)

Proposed Implementation Abstraction Abstraction Integrity Ecological Water Quality Public Health Quantity Water and Shorelines Streambanks Navigation BMPs & Education Communications Ditches Wetlands Groundwater Floodplains Recreation Erosion Control Regulation Involvement Public Item Item Description Initial Annual Capital Year(s) ct 96 February 2007 3 Provide targeted education materials X X X X X X X X X X X X Ongoing to key stakeholder groups to meet objectives of plan 4 Provide educational opportunities for X X X X X X X X X X X X X Ongoing LGU staff, developers, and other interested parties 5 Promote the development of lake X X Ongoing associations 6 Recruit and train volunteers to X X X X X X Ongoing monitor lake aquatic vegetation 7 Develop a small grant program to X X X X X X X X X X 25 2008 provide financial assistance to property owners desiring to implement BMPs on their property or to install demonstration projects on public property Operations and Maintenance 1 Inspect ditches under the jurisdiction X X X X X X X 10 2009, 2014 of MCWD every five years 2 Inspect erosion-prone reaches of X X X X X X X Ongoing Minnehaha Creek and upper watershed streams annually and as needed 3 Monitor high vegetative-diversity X X Ongoing wetlands for exotic species 4 Remove debris in streams that causes X X X X X X X 10 As necessary flooding or that is a hazard to navigation

Comprehensive MinnehahaWatershed Creek Distri Water Resources Management Plan

Potential Cost (thousands $)

Proposed Implementation Abstraction Abstraction Integrity Ecological Water Quality Public Health Quantity Water and Shorelines Streambanks Navigation BMPs & Education Communications Ditches Wetlands Groundwater Floodplains Recreation Erosion Control Regulation Involvement Public Item Item Description Initial Annual Capital Year(s) ct 97 February 2007 5 Manage Lake Minnetonka discharges X X X X X X X X Ongoing and Grays Bay dam operations according to the Headwaters Control Structure Management Policy and Operating Procedures 6 Conduct inspections and maintain and X X X X X X X X 10 Ongoing repair facilities constructed through capital improvement projects as required by cooperative agreements Collaborative Projects 1 Work cooperatively with riparian X X X X X X X X Ongoing – see cities and property owners to identify subwatershed and repair erosion on Minnehaha plans Creek and upper watershed streams 2 Work cooperatively with LGUs to X X X X X X X X X X X X Ongoing – see construct projects as detailed in the subwatershed subwatershed plans plans 3 Work cooperatively with the DNR, X X X X X X X X X X X Ongoing – see National Park Service, Three Rivers subwatershed Park District, Carver County, the plans MPRB, cities, and other agencies on management policies and potential improvements within federal, state, and regional parks and open space reserves

Comprehensive MinnehahaWatershed Creek Distri Water Resources Management Plan

Potential Cost (thousands $)

Proposed Implementation Abstraction Abstraction Integrity Ecological Water Quality Public Health Quantity Water and Shorelines Streambanks Navigation BMPs & Education Communications Ditches Wetlands Groundwater Floodplains Recreation Erosion Control Regulation Involvement Public Item Item Description Initial Annual Capital Year(s) ct 98 February 2007 4 Develop a cost share program to X X X X X X X X X 100 2008 and assist local governments with small ongoing projects such as erosion repairs, slope stabilization, and streambank stabilization LGU Requirements 1 Phosphorus load reductions X X X X X X Ongoing and as local plans are prepared 2 Identify strategies to maintain X X X X X X X X X X X X X As local plans hydrologic and ecologic values in are prepared Key Conservation Areas

7.0 Impact on Local Government

7.1 LOCAL PLAN CONTENT

Local water management plans are required to conform to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B.235, Minnesota Rules 8410, and this Plan. Minnesota Rules 8410.0160 establishes the structure the LWMP must follow; Section 8410.0170, not reproduced here, describes the required sections in more detail.

8410.0160 GENERAL STRUCTURE. Each local plan must, at a minimum, meet the requirements for local plans in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.235, except as provided by the watershed management organization plan under part 8410.0110, subpart 3. Each local plan must include sections containing a table of contents; purpose; water resource related agreements; executive summary; land and water resource inventory; establishment of goals and policies; relation of goals and policies to local, regional, state, and federal plans, goals, and programs; assessment of problems; corrective actions; financial considerations; implementation priorities; amendment procedures; implementation program; and an appendix. Each community should consider including its local plan as a chapter of its local comprehensive plan.

The policies and goals established by the local water management plan must be consistent with this Plan. The local water management plan must include in its assessment of problems those problems identified in this Plan that affect the community, as well as any problems identified in the HHPLS and not incorporated here. Each city participated in the development of the HHPLS and was provided a copy of the HHPLS findings. A copy of the study is available from the District. The assessment must also include an analysis of the maintenance and management issues identified in Minnesota Rules 8410.0100.

The general standards for local water management plan content incorporating the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103B.235, subdivision 2, and this Plan, are as follows:

1. Describe the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. 2. Define drainage areas and the volumes, rates, and paths of stormwater runoff, including a map of the stormwater system. 3. Include a stormwater system map that shows ponds, streams, lakes and wetlands that are part of your system; structural pollution control devices (grit chambers, separators, etc.) that are part of your system; pipes and pipe sizes and other conveyances in your system; and outfalls and all other points of discharge from your system that are outlets. 4. Identify areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance standards established in the subwatershed plans. 5. Identify areas of known flooding and areas identified in the HHPLS where modeling predicts that public roads, private roads, or private drives might overtop during infrequent events or there may be minimal freeboard above the flood level. Local plans must assess whether the risk of occasional

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 99 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

flooding is acceptable or should be addressed, and set forth a plan for making improvements as necessary. 6. Identify land-locked subwatershed units and basins and strategies to manage water volumes in those land-locked areas to minimize flooding. 7. Assess the condition of locations identified in the HHPLS where modeling predicts that under existing or future development conditions higher velocities than desired may result in erosion at outlets or culverts, potentially warranting erosion control or energy dissipation. The local plan must assess the need for such measures, and set forth a plan for making improvements as necessary to correct existing or prevent future erosion. 8. Define water quality and water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan. 9. Identify specific steps the LGU will take to achieve the annual phosphorus load reductions it is assigned in the subwatershed plans affecting their community. Credits for existing BMPs in-place will be considered through the Local Surface Water Management Plan and evaluated on a case-by- case basis. 10. Identify regulated areas, such as Outstanding Resource Value Waters. 11. Identify Key Conservation Areas in this Plan in their community, and assess the adequacy of local policies and regulatory controls in place to conserve hydrologic and ecologic values of the resources within those Areas. The plan must set forth a plan and schedule for the amendment of those policies and controls as necessary to meet performance standards established in the subwatershed plans. 12. Assess the consistency of the LGUs wetland regulation, including any wetland classification system and specific wetland classifications, with the management classifications, classification system and proposed regulation set forth in this Plan. 13. Set forth an implementation program, including a description of official controls and, as appropriate, a capital improvement program. 14. Describe the LGUs permitting process for land and wetland alteration work, including an assessment of the adequacy of current official controls and a plan and schedule for the amendment of those controls as necessary. 15. Describe the LGUs conformance with NPDES requirements for MS4s including TMDL and Nondegradation requirements. The local plan must include the LGU’s Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP) or a summary of its contents.

7.1.1 Use of Local Land Use and Land Acquisition Authorities Regulation of land use through zoning and subdivision codes traditionally has been the dominion of cities, towns and counties. Although watershed districts within the metropolitan area are authorized to “regulate the use and development of land,” the District has deferred to the local land use authority to regulate the uses to which land is put and how those uses are sited. The focus of the District rules is not on how the land is used, but on ensuring that however it is used, water resources are protected from the impacts of that use. The District recognizes the most efficient way to achieve measurable benefits to water resources is to collaborate with Cities and Townships, in the exercise of their land use planning and zoning authority There is overlap in District and local land use regulation in areas such as erosion control requirements during construction; limiting stormwater pollution or flow increases from

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 100 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

development; floodplain protection; and wetland setbacks or vegetated buffers. But there is a growing recognition that the most effective and least costly way to protect water resources is during land use planning and siting. This recognition can create a tendency for watershed districts to extend regulatory authority further into the land use realm. Rather than doing so, the District prefers to work with, and provide technical resources to, traditional land use authorities to assist in their integrating water resource considerations prominently into land use planning activities and development codes. Under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA), land use authorities within the watershed are required by December 31, 2008 to complete revisions of their local land use comprehensive plans. The law requires that once a comprehensive plan is approved by the Metropolitan Council and adopted by a land use authority, the land use authority must amend its development code to be consistent with its plan. Further, the MLPA requires that in order for the Metropolitan Council to approve a local comprehensive land use plan for a land use authority wholly or partly within the Minnehaha Creek watershed, the land use plan must contain a local water plan approved by the District. Accordingly, it is very timely for local government units (LGUs) within the watershed to carefully examine how water resource management and protection can be integrated into their land use planning and development functions. As a part of local water plan development, LGUs should engage in review of their land use activities from a water resource perspective and identify opportunities to enhance water resource protection without compromising other local development goals. The District will look for each local plan to do the following: Examine city- or township-wide land use needs, both within the planning period and beyond, in the context of resource maps and inventories; and describe how land use and regional water resource needs are being reconciled to secure the greatest degree of long-term water resource protection. 1. Describe efforts to integrate Safe Drinking Water Act and other wellhead protection plans, as well as the protection of sensitive surface- and groundwater resources, into the local zoning code. 2. Describe how water resource protection priorities have been integrated into local parks, open space, recreation and land acquisition plans; 3. Describe how local authority to require land or easement dedication or protective covenants as a part of subdivision regulation is being used for water resource protection purposes; 4. Consult with District staff on approaches to low-impact site design that preserve natural hydrological systems and capability to assimilate development impacts; examine how those approaches can be integrated into local land use regulations; describe constraints or competing concerns that prevent further integration; and describe how the LGU will integrate such approaches into its development code; 5. Identify how conflicts between (i) development code setbacks and (ii) water resource requirements in local ordinances or District rules will be reconciled to give due weight to water resource protection goals;

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 101 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

6. Show that the local development code requires stormwater facilities and wetlands in residential subdivisions that are subject to future maintenance obligations under local ordinance or District rule to be located entirely on outlots, and justify exceptions to this requirement; and 7. State that the local subdivision ordinance requires, or within 180 days will be amended to require, that a copy of each proposed preliminary plat, and iterations thereof, be provided to the District for informational purposes at the time it is submitted to the locality.

7.1.2 Permit Program for Water Resource Protection Application of the District’s rules and permit requirements is governed by Minnesota Statutes §103B.211, subdivision 1(a)(3), which authorizes the District to: regulate the use and development of land in the watershed when one or more of the following conditions exists: (i) the local government unit exercising planning and zoning authority over the land … does not have a local water management plan approved and adopted in accordance with the requirements of section 103B.235 or has not adopted the implementation program described in the plan; (ii) an application to the local government unit for a permit for the use and development of land requires an amendment to or variance from the adopted local water management plan or implementation program of the local unit; or (iii) the local government unit has authorized the organization to require permits for the use and development of land;

In accordance with this statute, on the request of a city or township, the District will cease to apply its rules and permit requirements within the boundaries of that LGU on its approval of the local water plan. To approve a local plan, however, the District must find that the local permit program is at least as protective of water resources as the District rules. An LGU may meet this standard, in accordance with §103B.211, subdivision 1(a)(3)(iii), by stating in the plan that it is authorizing the District to continue to apply its rules within the locality. Alternatively, if an LGU wishes to assume the sole regulatory role, the District will evaluate its plan according to the following: 1. The local plan must identify those District rules for which it wishes to assume sole regulatory authority. This includes some or all of District Rules B (Erosion Control), C (Floodplain Alteration), D (Wetland Protection), G (Waterbody Crossings) and N (Stormwater Management). The District in all cases will continue to apply Rules E (Dredging) and F (Shoreline and Streambank Improvements) within the locality as they concern interjurisdictional resources that cities and townships have limited authority to regulate. 2. For those District rules, the local plan must include existing or proposed ordinances for a District determination that they are at least as protective of water resources as the District

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 102 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

rules. District staff will provide checklists of substantive requirements and other guidance to LGUs for their use in understanding the standards that must be met. A proposed ordinance need not be submitted in final form provided there is adequate detail for a District determination. In its plan or its ordinances, the LGU must confirm that work of the LGU will be subject to the same substantive permitting standards as other work. 3. Procedural details of local ordinances (relating to, for example, permit processing, hearings or public notice) may differ from District rules provided they do not compromise water resource protection. 4. The local plan must describe a compliance monitoring and enforcement program in adequate detail, relating to (i) work without a permit; (ii) active work under permit; (iii) maintenance of vegetated waterbody buffer; and (iv) maintenance of stormwater basins and other stormwater facilities. 5. For those areas for which the LGU wishes to assume sole authority, it must describe the technical expertise it has or will acquire to implement its ordinances, describe how it will monitor and enforce compliance, and present an estimate of its annual cost to implement its program. 6. The local plan must state whether the LGU intends to assume the role of “local government unit” responsible to implement the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act within that part of the LGU that lies within the watershed, or whether it chooses for the District to assume that role. If the former, it must describe the technical expertise it has or will acquire to implement WCA, describe how it will monitor and enforce WCA compliance, and present an estimate of its annual cost to implement and enforce WCA. 7. The local plan must state that within one year after the District provides notice that it has significantly revised a District rule, the LGU will submit for District approval, adopt and put into effect a revised ordinance consistent with the District rule change (the LGU should allow 60 days for District review). If the LGU chooses not to make the revision, it can simply authorize the District to apply its revised rule within LGU boundaries. 8. If an LGU chooses to exercise sole regulatory authority with respect to one or more District rules, the District’s approval of the local plan will be given effect through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) executed by the District and the LGU. The MOU will: a. Describe the regulatory roles of each party; b. State, in accordance with §103B.211, subdivision 1(a)(3)(ii), that the District must approve the granting of any variance to a water resource ordinance by the LGU; c. Specify ongoing or periodic communication between the District and the LGU to allow for District awareness of the LGU’s water resource permitting activity; and d. Reserve the District’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority within LGU boundaries if the LGU is not implementing its regulatory program in accordance with its local plan.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 103 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

7.1.3 Housekeeping Requirements

The land management and housekeeping practices of the LGU include activities such as street sweeping, snow plowing, salt and snow storage, road and utility right-of-way maintenance, stormwater management facility maintenance, and public land and park maintenance. Unlike the District’s preceding plan, this Plan does not obligate LGUs to specific land management and housekeeping practices. Rather, an LGU is to consider changes in these practices as one set of tools to achieve the water resource performance goals established in this Plan and the local plan. The District will seek to assist LGUs by providing technical guidance on land management and housekeeping practices that are beneficial for water quality and other water resource performance objectives. The local plan should:

1. Describe current practices; 2. Examine potential improvements in these practices; 3. Identify any barriers to implementing these improvements; 4. Indicate what changes the LGU will make; and 5. Describe, with appropriate quantification, the impact these changes are expected to have toward achieving water quality and other water resource goals.

7.2 LGU ANNUAL REPORT Minnesota Statutes §103B.235, subdivision 4, states that once the District approves a local plan, the LGU must adopt and implement it within 120 days, and must accomplish any amendment of ordinances required by the local plan within 180 days. Thereafter, the LGU must annually report to the District activities it has undertaken in the previous year in implementing its plan and in progress toward meeting water quantity, water quality, and ecological integrity goals. The District will develop guidelines for the LGUs regarding the content of this annual report. The District will also consider adopting the Unified Sizing Criteria proposed in the 2005 Minnesota Stormwater Manual as the basis for BMP evaluation. This reporting may be incorporated into the LGU’s NPDES annual report. The District’s ability to implement the policies, programs, and projects of this Plan depends also on the LGUs’ implementation of local plans that are consistent with these policies, programs, and projects. The District’s approval of a local plan will be conditioned on the LGU’s reasonable and continuing efforts to implement its plan. If the District has concerns as to whether an LGU is implementing its plan, it will communicate those concerns to the LGU and pursue a collaborative effort to understand and assess the LGU’s implementation efforts. The District will use the process set forth in Minnesota Rule 8410.0180 as appropriate to resolve any ongoing issues concerning LGU and District Plan implementation, and will take other appropriate steps to minimize the impact of LGU non-implementation on achieving the goals of the District Plan.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 104 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

7.3 IMPACT ON OTHER UNITS OF GOVERNMENT It is anticipated that all LGUs will be required to update their Local Water Management Plans to bring them into conformance with this Plan Revision. Some of the implementation program elements reflect the goals, policies, and requirements of State and regional government agencies that local government units are required to address. Many of the local requirements of this Plan are consistent with the requirements of the State of Minnesota’s NPDES General Permit for MS4s. Many of the LGUs already have ordinances in place that address many of this Plan’s requirements, including ordinances that address shorelands, floodplains, wetland protection, stormwater management, erosion control and stormwater management. Some ordinance revision may be required as a result of this Plan. The overall goals of restoring impaired water resources and protecting water resources from further degradation require an active partnership between the District and LGUs. Through active engagement with LGUs through the development of the subwatershed plans and the other elements of this Plan, the District and the LGUs have arrived at a balanced approach that allocates responsibility to both LGUs and the District for pollutant load reduction and water resource protection. The performance standards set forth in the subwatershed plans may require LGUs to expend funds to construct capital improvement projects or change maintenance practices. For example, where a lake does not meet water quality goals, a phosphorus load reduction plan sets forth specific load reductions to be achieved by LGUs to reduce phosphorus load from existing land uses; the reduction plan does not specify how the LGU must achieve those reductions. The requirement is a 15 percent reduction in loading from existing residential land use and 10 percent from other developed land use. This reduction can be accomplished through: application of BMPs such as additional street sweeping, local water quality ponds, rain gardens and infiltration swales that reduce erosion or treat runoff; prevention of future load increases through the conservation of lands previously identified for development; or achieving load removals in excess of the minimum required. The LGUs must identify in their local water management plans specific steps to accomplish these minimum reductions. The LGUs must also annually report to the District their progress toward accomplishing this requirement. The District will provide the LGUs with the flexibility to determine the more efficient and cost-effective means of achieving the reduction.

The District will provide funding and other technical assistance to assure that LGUs may reasonably implement the performance standards of the subwatershed plans, and will continue to work with the LGUs so that this implementation is effectively integrated with other requirements such as NPDES.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 105 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Table 33. Local regulatory controls. Shoreland Wellhead Ordinance WCA Protection Tree Buffer City/Township Status1 Status Status Ordinance Ordinance Yes - 25 feet from Yes Mcwd Not Phased2 No Deephaven all wetlands Edina Yes Mcwd Completed Yes Excelsior Yes Mcwd Not Phased Yes Not A Water Yes LGU Yes Golden Valley Supplier No Yes - Just Yes LGU Not Phased Recently Greenwood Adopted Yes - 35ft setback No - No In Process of Mcwd No Hopkins Shoreline Completion Yes - 25 feet from Yes MCWD Not Phased No Independence all wetlands Yes - as part of Yes MCWD Completed Yes floodplain Long Lake management No-No Mcwd Not Phased Yes Maple Plain Shoreline no No - city does have a goal to protect Yes LGU Not Phased No natural areas even though there is no Medina ordinance Collaboration Yes MCWD with St. Paul Yes Within shoreland Minneapolis and St. Cloud district Yes - Revising tree removal Yes LGU Completed ordinance to tree Minnetonka conservation Yes Only as part of Only as part of Yes Not Phased Shoreland floodplain Minnetonka Beach Ordinance management Minnetrista Yes LGU Completed Yes Yes for wetlands Mound Yes LGU Not Phased No Yes No – has been Yes MCWD Not Phased Orono discussed Yes Yes - For Medicine Lgu Completed Yes And Parkers Plymouth Lake Yes In Process of No LGU No Richfield Completion No Shorewood Yes MCWD Not Phased Yes Yes Spring Park Yes LGU Not Phased No No No - only on a per Yes - as part of No LGU Completed development floodplain St. Bonifacius basis management St. Louis Park No MCWD Completed Yes No

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 106 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Shoreland Wellhead Ordinance WCA Protection Tree Buffer City/Township Status1 Status Status Ordinance Ordinance Tonka Bay Yes MCWD Not Phased No No Wayzata Yes LGU Not Phased Yes Yes Woodland Yes LGU Not Phased No Yes Chanhassen Yes LGU Completed Yes Yes Laketown Township No County No No Developing Yes MCWD Yes Victoria Plan Yes Watertown County Discussed but Lgu No Township Ordinance No Plan County Ordinance Carver County Yes MCWD No No 1 While these communities may have adopted their own shoreland ordinances, not all of those communities have ordinances that have been approved by the DNR as being substantially compliant with state standards for shoreland management. 2 Not part of the Minnesota Department of Health’s current phase of planning. Source: Cities and Minnesota Department of Health. Ordinance status current as of July 2005. Wellhead protection status current as of January 2007.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 107 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

8.0 Amendments

8.1 AMENDMENT PROCEDURES

This plan will extend through the year 2017. This plan shall remain in effect as revised and amended, until the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approves any future plans.

8.2 GENERAL AMENDMENT PROCEDURE

Only the District Board of Managers can initiate formal plan amendments. Other individuals or entities may petition the Board to imitate an amendment. All amendments to this must adhere to the review process provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.231, subdivision 11, except when the proposed amendments constitute minor amendments and:

1. The District has held a public meeting to explain the amendments and published a legal notice of the meeting twice, at least seven days and fourteen days before the date of the meeting; 2. The District has sent copies of the amendments to the affected local units of government, the counties (if the amendment Capital Improvement Program), the Metropolitan Council, and the state review agencies for review and comment; and 3. BWSR has either agreed that the amendments are minor or failed to act within 45 days of receipt of the amendments.

8.3 MINOR AMENDMENTS TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

Amendments to the approved capital improvement program may be considered to be minor plan amendments if the following conditions set forth in Minnesota Rules 8410.0140, Subp. 3 are met:

1. The original plan set forth the capital improvements but not to the degree needed to meet the definition of “capital improvement program” as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.205, subdivision 3; and 2. The affected county or counties have approved the capital improvement in its revised, more detailed form.

The following examples of other minor plan amendments are given in Minnesota Rules 8410.0020, Subp. 10:

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 108 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

“...recodification of the plan, revision of a procedure meant to streamline administration of the plan, clarification of the intent of a policy, the inclusion of additional data not requiring interpretation, or any other action that will not adversely affect a local unit of government or diminish a water management organization's ability to achieve its plan's goals or implementation program.”

In addition, a minor plan amendment will be required for the following situation:

1. When the MCWD initiates a capital project listed in its approved Capital Improvement Program and the updated cost estimate is greater than 120 percent or less than 80 percent of the annually adjusted project cost.

Neither a minor nor a general plan amendment will be required for the following situations:

1. If projects listed in the approved CIP are implemented at a different time than shown. 2. When the MCWD initiates a capital project listed in its approved Capital Improvement Program and the estimated project costs are within 20 percent of the annually adjusted project cost.

8.4 FORM OF AMENDMENTS

Unless the entire document is reprinted, all amendments adopted must be printed in the form of replacement pages for the plan, each page of which must:

1. On draft amendments being considered, show deleted text as stricken and new text as underlined; 2. Be renumbered as appropriate; and 3. Include the effective date of the amendment.

8.5 DISTRIBUTION OF AMENDMENTS

The District shall maintain a distribution list of agencies and individuals who have received a copy of the plan and shall distribute copies of amendments within 30 days of adoption. The District will consider sending drafts of proposed amendments to all plan review authorities to seek their comments before establishing a hearing date or commencing the formal review process.

8.6 FUTURE AMENDMENTS

Several mandatory amendments are anticipated for metropolitan area watersheds in addition to the amendments that will occur as a result of management plan implementation. A brief amendment description is provided in below to advise LGUs of these requirements and to stimulate stakeholder dialogue prior to their anticipated inclusion in this or future Plan Revisions.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 109 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

This list is not a comprehensive summary of mandated revisions or amendments that might be contemplated or required.

Table 34. Potential future amendments to this Plan. Approximate Sponsoring Description Year Agency As necessary MCWD Revisions to the capital improvement program As necessary MCWD, various agencies Various amendments based, for example, on new legislative requirements or policy initiatives, or technological advances. As necessary EPA/MPCA Changing requirements for NPDES permitting for stormwater discharges may require revisions to this Plan. 2007-2008 EPA/MPCA While the Plan incorporates the draft TMDL implementation plans for those lakes currently listed as Impaired Waters for excess nutrients and undergoing TMDLs, currently MPCA-contemplated regulatory changes regarding shallow lakes and wetlands may require future revision of strategies or differently-defined end goals for the nine lakes. 2007 and EPA/MPCA The watershed includes waters currently listed as impaired subsequent for which TMDLs have not yet been initiated. Completion of those studies and development of implementation plans may require revisions to policies, strategies, metrics, capital projects, management and management programs for those waters. 2007 and Metropolitan Council/ Ongoing metropolitan area planning to develop target subsequent BWSR/MPCA pollution loads for watersheds in the metropolitan area may require the District to amend this plan to meet specified performance standards. 2008 and EPA/MPCA New impairments may be identified in the waters of the subsequent watershed, resulting in 303(d) listing as Impaired Waters and the initiation of TMDLs and implementation plans requiring improvement.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 110 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

References

Barr Engineering Company. 2004. Stubbs Bay Feasibility Study. Minneapolis, MN: Barr Engineering Company.

Emmons & Olivier Resources (EOR). 2003. Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and Pollutant Loading Study, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. St. Paul, MN: Emmons & Olivier Resources.

Freshwater Society. 2005. Lake Minnetonka Ice-Out Dates, 1855-2005. << http://www.freshwater.org/iceout.html>>. Accessed August 21, 2005.

Hatch, Lorin. 2005. 2004 Hydrologic Data Report. Deephaven, MN: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.

Hennepin Conservation District. 2003. Functional Assessment of Wetlands, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.

Metropolitan Council. 2004. 2030 Regional Development Framework. St. Paul, MN: Metropolitan Council. << http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/framework/Framework.pdf>>. Accessed September 16, 2005.

Midwestern Regional Climate Center. 2005. Climate of the Midwest: Climate Summaries. <>. Accessed August 21, 2005.

Minnesota DNR. 1998. DNR Waters Lakes List, extracted from database LAKES-DB. <> Accessed January 20, 2006.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 200x. Revised Feedlot Rules at a Glance. St. Paul, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. << http://www.pca.state.mn.us/hot/feedlot- rulesataglance.pdf>> Accessed January 18, 2006.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1999. Baseline Water Quality of Minnesota’s Principle Aquifers: Twin Cities Metropolitan Region. St. Paul, MN: MPCA Environmental Outcomes Division, Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment Program.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (Soil Conservation Service). 1986. Technical Release 55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture).

Wenck Associates, Inc. 2003. Ditch and Policy Considerations, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Maple Plain, MN: Wenck Associates, Inc.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 111 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan

Wenck Associates, Inc. 2004. MCWD Stream Assessment – Stream Resources Management Recommendations report. Maple Plain, MN: Wenck Associates, Inc.

Wenck Associates, Inc. 2004. MCWD Stream Assessment Data Report – Volume 1: Minnehaha Creek. Maple Plain, MN: Wenck Associates, Inc.

Wenck Associates, Inc. 2004. MCWD Stream Assessment Data Report – Volume 2: Upper Streams. Maple Plain, MN: Wenck Associates, Inc.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 112 February 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan