The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019.02.04 CC Packet14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North • Hugo, MN 55038 A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AGENDA HUGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HUGO CITY HALL MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2018 — 7 P.M. 1. January 7, 2019 City Council Meeting 2. January 22, 2019 Goal Setting Session 3. January 24, 2019 TGK Open House 4. January 28, 2019 RCWD Information Meeting on JD3 Maintenance E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Parks Commission Annual Report G. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion and a roll call vote. If a member of the City Council wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. 1. Approval of Claims 2. Approve Annual Performance Review for Public Works Worker Neal Nelson 3. Approve Agreement with Northeast Youth and Family Services 4. Approve Agreement with Lakes Center for Youth & Families, Inc. 5. Approve CUP Review for Tom and Joanne Benick - 5777 165th Street North 6. Approve CUP Review for Kieger Enterprises - 5885 165th Street North 7. Approve CUP Review for Bald Eagle Sportsman Association - 6557 1251h Street North 8. Approve Advertisement for Public Works Summer Seasonal Workers 9. Approve Adopting of New Water Resource Management Plan 10. Approve Ordinance Adoption Rice Creek Watershed District Rules 11. Approve New MOU with Rice Creek Watershed District 12. Approve Resolution Restricting Parking on 130th Street from TH61 to Goodview Avenue 13. Approve Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit for MN Waterfowl Association 14. Approve Appointment of Colin Emans as Training Captain on the Fire Department 15. Approve Appointment of Ross Hoernemann as Administrative Captain on the Fire Department 16. Approve Resolution Consenting to Rice Creek Watershed District Ditch Maintenance 17. Approve Resolution Approving Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition Final Plat and Development Agreement H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Approval of City Council Focus Goals and Ongoing Priorities for 2019 2. Update on Hopkins Schoolhouse I. NEW BUSINESS 1. None Scheduled J. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 1. None Scheduled K. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. Update on Yellow Ribbon Network L. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Legislative Town Hall Meeting on Saturday, February 9, 2019 2. HBA Breakfast/Mayor State of the City Address on Tuesday, February 12, 2019 3. Cancel Second Meeting in February Due to President's Day Holiday on February 18, 2109 4. Family Movie Night on Friday, March 8, 2019 5. Kidz `N Biz on Saturday, April 6, 2019 6. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting on Thursday, April 11, 2019 M. ADJOURNMENT BACKGROUND MEMO FOR HUGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON FEBRUARY 5, 2018 D.1 January 7, 2019 City Council Meeting D.2 January 22, 2019 Goal Setting Session D.3. January 24, 2019 TGK Open House DA. January 28, 2019 RCWD Information Meeting on JD3 Maintenance Staff recommends Council approve the above minutes as presented. F.2 Parks Commission Annual Report Parks Planner Shayla Denaway will present the 2018 Parks Commission Annual Report. G.1 Approval of Claims Staff recommends Council approve the Claims Roster as presented. G.2 Approve Annual Performance Review for Public Works Worker Neal Nelson Neal Nelson was hired on January 3, 2017, as a Public Works Worker. Public Works Director recommends Council approve the Annual Performance Review Neal Nelson. G.3 Approve Agreement with Northeast Youth and Family Services Northeast Youth and Family Services (NYFS), located in White Bear Lake, has been providing counseling services to youth and families in the City of Hugo for many years. The City has paid NYFS $6,000 annually since the year 2009, and NYFS will continue providing service at that amount. Staff recommends Council approve the agreement with NYFS for counseling services for 2019. GA Approve Agreement with Lakes Center for Youth & Families, Inc. The Lakes Center for Youth & Family Services, located in Forest Lake, has been providing counseling services to youth and families in the City of Hugo for many years. The City has paid the Lakes Center $6,000 annually since the year 2009, and the Lakes Center will continue providing service at that amount. Staff recommends Council approve the agreement with Lakes Center for counseling services for 2019. G.5 Approve CUP Review for Tom and Joanne Benick - 5777 165th Street North Thommes and Thomas Land Clearing, operated by Tom and Joanne Benick, has a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for the processing and storage of firewood, recycling of tree waste, and wood chipping at 5777 165th Street North. Staff visited the property on January 2, 2019, and is not aware of any complaints or violations on site. The Planning Commission considered this at their meeting on January 24, 20199, and recommended approval of the review of the CUP. Staff recommends Council approve the review of the CUP for Tom and Joanne Benick. G.6 Approve CUP Review for Kieger Enterprises - 5885 165th Street North Kieger Enterprises has a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate an environmental clean-up business, garden center, and landscaping supply business for property located at 5885-165th Street North. Upon inspection of the property on October 22, 2018, staff observed that an additional building was constructed on the property without a building permit. Staff recommended renewal of the CUP for Kieger Enterprises with the condition that the building is removed from the property prior to June 1, 2019. At its January 24, 2019, meeting the Planning Commission considered the review of the conditional use permit (CUP). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the resolution for the review of the CUP with the condition that the non -compliant building be removed prior to June 1, 2019. Staff recommends Council approve the CUP review for Kieger Enterprises as recommended by the Planning Commission. G.7 Approve SUP Review for Bald Eagle Sportsman Association - 6557 12511 Street North The Bald Eagle Sportsmen's Association (BESA) has a SUP to operate a gun club on property located at 6557 125th Street. Staff visited the gun club on December 17, 2018, to review the SUP and found that the property is generally maintained. The Planning Commission considered the request at its meeting on January 10, 2019, and recommended approval of the review of the SUP. Staff recommends Council approve the SUP Review for the Bald Eagle Sportsman Association. G.8 Approve Advertisement for Public Works Summer Seasonal Workers In past years, the City has hired seasonal Public Works positions to help maintain the City's park system and building grounds as well as assist in road patching crews and other work as needed. These positions were approved in the 2018 General Fund Budget. Public works Director, Scott Anderson is seeking Council approval for the advertisement of Seasonal Public Works positions. G.9 Approve Adoptiing of New Water Resource Management Plan G.10 Approve Ordinance Adoption Rice Creek Watershed District Rules G.11 Approve New MOU with Rice Creek Watershed District The City's Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) is used as a guide to the City on administration and implementation of all stormwater management activities within the City. The plan was approved by the City Council in 2015, and was formally approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) on July 25, 2018. The plan states that the City will continue to be the Local Government Unit (LGU) that is responsible for reviewing and approving all activities regarding stormwater management, erosion and sediment control, and floodplain and wetland alterations. Currently, the City has a memorandum of understating (MOU) that outlines what rules the City will administer on behalf of the RCWD and the terms that will be followed. To retain the regulatory authority over these items, the City needs to update the MOU and adopt the RCWD rules relating to these areas. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution adopting the Water Resources Management Plan, approve the ordinance adopting RCWD Rules C, D, E, and F, by reference, and approve and authorize signing of the MOU. G.12 Approve Resolution Restricting Parking on 130" Street from TH61 to Goodview Avenue 130th Street is proposed to be reconstructed as a 26-foot from face -of -curb to face -of -curb, urban section roadway to comply with the design standards set forth by MnDOT as required by Municipal State Aid (MSA) funding. As this segment along 130th Street is proposed to include concrete curb and gutter, a resolution for Council consideration approves restricting parking along both sides 130th Street from Forest Boulevard (TH 61) to Goodview Avenue to accommodate the proposed roadway width of 26-foot as measured from face -of -curb to face -of - curb. Staff recommends Council approve the resolution restricting parking along that portion of 130th Street. G.13 Approve Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit for MN Waterfowl Association The Minnesota Waterfowl Association has applied for a Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit to conduct raffles at their event on Thursday, April 18, 2019. The event will be held at the Hugo American Legion. Staff recommends Council approve the Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit for the Minnesota Waterfowl Association. G.14 Approve Appointment of Colin Emans as Training Captain on the Fire Department Fire Chief Kevin Colvard has selected Colin Emans to be the new Training Captain. Staff recommends Council approve Colin Emans as the Training Captain effective February 1, 2019. G.15 Approve Appointment of Ross Hoernemann as Administrative Captain on the Fire Department Fire Chief Kevin Colvard has selected Ross Hoernemann to be the new Administrative Captain. Staff recommends Council approve Ross Hoernemann to be the Administrative Captain effective February 1, 2019. G.16 Approve Resolution Consenting to Rice Creek Watershed District Ditch Maintenance At its December 17, 2018, meeting, Council listened to a presentation from the Rice Creek Watershed District on the planned maintenance to Judicial Ditch 3 and Judicial Ditch 2, Branches 1 and 2. An informational meeting was held at City Hall on January 28, 2019, to provide the public information on this project. State Statute grants RCWD the authority to do this maintenance in accordance with the Watershed Law, rather than the drainage code in State Statute, subject to concurrence by the City Council. Under the Watershed Law, costs would be paid from general taxes throughout the RCWD rather than benefitted lands assessment as traditionally required under state statute. Staff recommends Council approve the resolution consenting to the drainage proceedings for the ditch maintenance under the Watershed Law. G.17 Approve Resolution Approving Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition Final Plat and Development Agreement The Excelsior Group is requesting approval of a final plat in order to plat 22lots and 1 outlot for Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition. The City Council reviewed the preliminary plat and PUD for Adelaide Landing at its May 1, 2017 meeting. The City Council approved the final plat for the first phase of the development consisting of 81 residential lots and 70 residential Lots in the second phase. This final plat request will plat 22 additional lots from the Adelaide Landing preliminary plat. The lots meet the minimum lot standards and requirements outlined in the regulations for the Adelaide Landing PUD. Staff recommends approval of the resolution approving the Final Plat and Development Agreement for Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition, subject to City Attorney review and approval. H.1 Approval of City Council Focus Goals and Ongoing Priorities for 2018 The Council held a goal setting workshop on Tuesday, January 22, 2019, for the purpose of setting goals and priorities for 2019. City Administrator Bryan Bear has compiled items discussed during the workshop and will review them with the Council. Staff recommends Council approve the goals as presented. H.2 Update on Hopkins Schoolhouse At its July 2, 2018 meeting, Council approved a committee to explore options for the future of the Hopkins Schoolhouse. The seven -member committee has met several times since and is ready to make a recommendation to Council. Olivia Schiffman will provide Council with the committee's recommendation. K.1 Update on Yellow Ribbon Network Council Member Chuck Haas and Phil Klein will report to Council on the Yellow Ribbon Network activities held recently. L.1 Legislative Town Hall Meeting on Saturday, February 9, 2019 State Legislators Senator Roger Chamberlain and Representative Linda Runbeck have scheduled a Town Hall Meeting on Saturday, February 9, 2019, from 10:00-11:30 a.m. This meeting is intended to be a listening Session. Staff recommends Council schedule a meeting for Saturday, February 9, 2019, if they wish to attend. L.2 HBA Breakfast/Mayor State of the City Address on Tuesday, February 12, 2019 The Hugo Area Business Association will hold a Business Networking Breakfast at the Blue Heron Grill on Tuesday, February 12, 2019, from 7:30-9:00 a.m. Mayor Weidt will deliver the State of the City Address. Staff recommends Council schedule this as a meeting to attend. L.3 Cancel Second Meeting in February Due to President's Day Holiday on February 18, 2109 Annually, the President's Day Holiday falls on the same day as the second Council meeting in February and would need to be rescheduled. Staff does not anticipate any items for that meeting agenda and recommends Council cancel their meeting of February 18, 2019. LA Family Movie Night on Friday, March 8, 2019 Family Movie Night will be held Friday, March 8, 2019, at Oneka Elementary School. Doors open at 6:30 pm. The Fire Department will serve free popcorn and snacks. The movie "Incredibles 2" (PG) will begin at 7:00 p.m. This is a free program open to all Hugo families. L.5 Kidz IN Biz on Saturday, April 6, 2019 The Hugo Area Business Association will hold their annual Kidz 'n Biz event on Saturday, April 6, 2019, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Oneka Elementary School. Staff recommends Council schedule this as a meeting if they choose to attend. L.6 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting on Thursday, April 11, 2019 Washington County is requesting the City of Hugo hold its Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting on Thursday, April 11, 2019, from 5:30 - 7 p.m. Staff recommends Council schedule the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization to meet on Thursday, April 11, 2019. M. Adiournment 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North • Hugo, MN 55038 Call to Order Minutes HUGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HUGO CITY HALL MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2019 — 7 P.M. Mayor Weidt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Haas (Via Skype), Klein, Miron, Petryk, Weidt ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: City Administrator Bryan Bear, Finance Director Ron Otkin, Community Development Director Rachel Juba, City Attorney Dave Snyder, City Engineer Mark Erichson, City Clerk Michele Lindau Oath of Office — Chuck Haas, Council Ward 3 Oath of Office — Becky Petryk, Council Ward 1 Oath of Office - Tom Weidt, Mayor On November 6, 2018, the City of Hugo held its municipal elections with races for Mayor, Council Member Ward 1 and Ward 3. Tom Weidt was successful in reelection as Mayor, Becky Petryk as Council Member Ward 1, and Chuck Haas as Council Member Ward 3. The Mayor and Council Members recited the Oath of Office. Approval of Minutes for the December 13, 2018, Holiday Party Klein made motion, Petryk seconded, to approve the minutes for the Holiday Party held on December 13, 2018, as presented. All Ayes. Motion carried. Approval of Minutes for the December 17, 2018, City Council Meeting Miron made motion, Klein seconded, approve the minutes for the City Council meeting held on December 17, 2018, as presented. All Ayes. Motion carried. Approval of the Agenda Weidt made motion, Klein seconded, to approve the agenda as amended by staff to add the meeting notice from the Rice Creek Watershed District. All Ayes. Motion carried. Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for January 7, 2019 Page 2 of 9 Blanket Presentation to the Yellow Ribbon Network Oneka Elementary school students had made fleece blankets to send to deployed soldiers. Janet Dickinson, 4th Grade Teacher and Building Representative, presented the blankets to the Yellow Ribbon Network. Approximately 180 kids made 70 blankets to be included in care packages. The Council thanked Ms. Dickson and the students for supporting the Yellow Ribbon Network. Building Annual Report Annually, the Community Development Department compiles information on building permits, planning applications and other activities of the department for prior years. Community Development Assistant Emily Weber provided this report to Council. There were 39 planning applications processed during 2018, mostly plats and PUDs. One hundred twenty five permits for new construction were issued; 177 were for single family homes and eight were townhome units in the Generation Acres Development. Homes in Hugo are approximately 2/3 single family and 1/3 multi -family. Hugo's two building inspectors performed 6,209 inspections during the year, 1,104 of them were for the City of Scandia. There were currently 313 residential lots available and five residential projects being developed. Emily talked about the non-residential building during 2018 explaining there were five projects totaling 217,178 square feet. She concluded by saying residential construction seemed to be increasing and Hugo businesses seemed to be succeeding and wanting to expand and grow in the community. Staff continues to receive calls and meet with developers. Approval of the Consent Agenda Miron made motion, Klein seconded, to approve the following Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of Claims 2. Approve Appointment of Becky Petryk as Acting Mayor 3. Approve Appointment of WSB and Associates as City Engineer 4. Approve Appointment of Landform as City Planner 5. Approve Appointment of Johnson & Turner as City Attorney 6. Approve Appointment of Springsted, Inc. as Financial Advisor 7. Approve Appointment of Fire Chief Kevin Colvard as Emergency Management Director 8. Approve Appointment of US Bank as Depository for City Funds 9. Approve Appointment of The Citizen as Official Newspaper 10. Approve Appointments to Hugo Firefighter Relief Association 11. Approve Resolution on Statutory Tort Liability Limits 12. Approve Appointment of Bronwen Kleissler as Chair of the Planning Commission and Scott Arcand as Vice -Chair 13. Approve Appointment of Dave Strub as Chair and Cathy Moore-Arcand as Vice -Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission 14. Approve Appointment of Cynthia Schoonover as Chair of Historical Commission Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for January 7, 2019 Page 3 of 9 15. Approve Appointment of Tom Weidt and Phil Klein as Council Representatives on the EDA 16. Approve Appointment of Tom Weidt as the City Council Representative on the Board of Zoning Appeals and Adjustments 17. Approve Appointment of Tom Weidt as Chair of the Board of Zoning Adjustments 18. Approve Animal Control Service Contracts with Companion Animal Control and Otter Lake Animal Hospital for 2019 19. Approve Purchase of a New Crew Cab Pickup Truck for the Hugo Fire Department to Replace Unit CV2 20. Approve Purchase of a New Crew Cab Pickup Truck for the Hugo Fire Department to Replace Unit U1 21. Approve Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit for Washington County Pheasants Forever 22. Approve Off -Site Gambling Permit for Merrick, Inc at the Hugo American Legion 23. Approve Premises Permit for Merrick, Inc. at the Hugo American Legion 24. Approve Resolution Designating Precinct Polling Places for 2019 25. Approve Reduction in Letter of Credit for Adelaide Landing 26. Approve Reduction in Cash Escrow for Oneka Place 27. Approve Release of Letter of Credit for Fox Meadows 28. Approve Decommissioning Escrow Agreement for Fast Sun4, LLC Regarding the 165th Street Solar Farm 29. Approve Hugo Fire Department Administrative Captain Job Description All Ayes. Motion carried. Approval of Claims Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the Claims Roster as presented. Approve Appointment of Becky Petryk as Acting Mayor Each year, the Council appoints a member of the Council for the position of Acting Mayor. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the appointment of Council Member Becky Petryk as Acting Mayor for the year 2018. Approve Appointment of WSB and Associates as City Engineer WSB Engineers had been the City Engineer for the past 15 years. Mark Erichson handled the day-to-day civil engineering duties, and Pete Willenbring continued as the water resource engineer. WSB Engineers had requested to continue to provide this service to the City at a revised rate schedule. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the appointment of WSB Engineers and Mark Erichson as the City Engineer for 2019. Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for January 7, 2019 Page 4 of 9 Approve Appointment of Landform as City Planner Kendra Lindahl from Landform had worked over the past 16 years as the City Planner. Landform requested to continue to provide this service to the City at a revised rate schedule. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the appointment of Kendra Lindahl as the City Planner/Planning Consultant for the year 2019. Approve Appointment of Johnson & Turner as City Attorney City Attorney Dave Snyder had served the City with the law firm of Johnson & Turner for the past five years. Johnson & Turner requested to provide legal services to the City at a revised rate schedule. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the appointment of David K. Snyder and the Johnson & Turner Law Firm as the City Attorney for the year 2019. Approve Appointment of Sprinuted, Inc. as Financial Advisor Financial advisors Paul Steinman, Mikaela Huot, and Nick Dragisich and the other members of the Springsted, Inc. team had served the City very well over the years on a wide variety of projects and they requested to continue to provide this service. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the appointment of Paul Steinman, Mikaela Huot, and Nick Dragisich, from Springsted, Inc., as the City's financial advisors for the year 2019. Approve Appointment of Fire Chief Kevin Colvard as Emergency Management Director Each year, Council appoints a member of the City staff to serve in the role of Emergency Management Director. For the past decade, the Fire Chief had served in this position. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the appointment of the Fire Chief Kevin Colvard as the City's Emergency Management Director for 2019. Approve Appointment of US Bank as Depository for City Funds Each year, Council selects a depository/bank for the deposit of City funds. For many years, Council had selected the local Hugo branch of US Bank. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the appointment of U.S. Bank -Hugo as the official depository for City funds for 2019. Approve Appointment of The Citizen as Official Newspaper Each year, Council selects a newspaper as the official publication for all public notices and publishing of ordinances. For the past ten years, the City Council appointed The Citizen as the City's new official newspaper, and The Citizen would like to continue to provide this service at a slightly increased rate. The Citizen is delivered free to over 4,100 households and can be picked up free at 20 locations around town including Festival Foods, Oneka Elementary, and Kwik Trip. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved The Citizen as the City's official newspaper for 2019. Approve Appointments to Hugo Firefighter Relief Association Minnesota State Statute requires the official appointment of the ex-offci members of the Hugo Fire Department Relief Association Board. Council needed to appoint two elected or appointed Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for January 7, 2019 Page 5 of 9 members. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the appointment of Mayor Tom Weidt, with Councilmember Chuck Haas as his designee in his absence, and Finance Director Ron Otkin as ex-officio members of the Hugo Fire Department Relief Association Board. Approve Resolution on Statutory Tort Liability Limits In the late 1990's the League of Minnesota Insurance Trust required each City that obtained liability coverage from them to decide whether or not to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of coverage purchased. Currently these limits are $500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence. At that time, the City Council opted not to waive the statutory limits. LMCIT requires each member city to reaffirm their position on an annual basis. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved RESOLUTION 2019-1 NOT TO WAIVE STATUTORY TORT LIABILITY LIMITS. Approve Appointment of Bronwen Kleissler as Chair of the Planning Commission and Scott Arcand as Vice -Chair Annually, Council appoints a member of the Planning Commission to serve as the chair and vice -chair. Bronwen Kleissler had been serving as the chair of the Planning Commission since August, 2015, and Scott Arcand had served as vice -chair since February, 2018. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the reappointment of Bronwen Kleissler as the chair of the Planning Commission and Scott Arcand as vice -chair for 2019. Approve Appointment of Dave Strub as Chair and Cathy Moore-Arcand as Vice -Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission Annually, the City Council appoints members of the Parks Commission to serve as chair and vice -chair. Dave Strub had served as chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission since November, 2016, and Cathy Moore-Arcand had served as vice -chair since January 2017. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the reappointment of Dave Strub as chair and Cathy Moore-Arcand as vice -chair for the Parks and Recreation Commission for 2019. Approve Appointment of Cynthia Schoonover as Chair of Historical Commission Annually, the City Council appoints a member of the Historical Commission to serve as the chair of the Commission. Cynthia Schoonover had served as the chair of the Commission since July, 2015. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the reappointment of Cynthia Schoonover as the chair of the Historical Commission for 2019. Approve Appointment of Tom Weidt and Phil Klein as Council Representatives on the EDA Annually, Council appoints two representatives from the Hugo City Council to serve on the Economic Development Authority (EDA). Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the appointment of Mayor Weidt and Council Member Klein to continue to serve as the Council Representatives on the EDA for 2019. Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for January 7, 2019 Page 6 of 9 Approve Appointment of Tom Weidt as the City Council Representative on the Board of Zoning Appeals and Adiustments Annually, the Hugo City Council appoints a member of the Planning Commission, City Council, and a resident to serve on the Board of Zoning Appeals and Adjustments. Tom Weidt had agreed to serve another year on the Board as the City Council Representative. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the reappointment of Tom Weidt as the City Council representative to serve on the Board of Zoning Appeals and Adjustments for another one-year term. Approve Appointment of Tom Weidt as Chair of the Board of Zoning Adiustments Annually, Council approves appointment of Chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals and Adjustments. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the reappoint Board Member Tom Weidt as Chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals and Adjustments. Approve Animal Control Service Contracts with Companion Animal Control and Otter Lake Animal Hospital for 2019 Since July 2013, Companion Animal Control and Otter Lake Animal Hospital had been providing animal control services to the City. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved continuation of the current contracts with Companion Animal Control and Otter Lake Animal Hospital for 2019. Approve Purchase of a New Crew Cab Pickup Truck for the Hugo Fire Department to Replace Unit CV2 Included in the City's 2019 Equipment Purchasing Fund was funding for the replacement of the Fire Department's 2008 Chevy Silverado, which is the deputy chief s vehicle. CV2 is used to respond to calls and attend meetings. The 2008 Silverado would be sold and was valued at approximately $12,476.00. The new truck to be purchased was a 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 Crew Cab from Midway Ford through the Cooperative Purchasing Venture at a price of $41,845.76 plus tax and licensing. An additional $14,000.00 would be required to equip the new CV2 with emergency lights, sirens, radios, graphics, and other accessories. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the purchase of the new 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 Crew Cab and the related accessories. Approve Purchase of a New Crew Cab Pickup Truck for the Hugo Fire Department to Replace Unit U1 Included in the City's 2019 Equipment Purchasing Fund was funding for the replacement of the Fire Department's 2006 Chevy Silverado, which is the utility vehicle. U1 is used to respond to medical calls where heavy equipment is not needed for rescue. The 2006 Silverado would be sold and was valued at approximately $11,338.00. The new truck to be purchased was a 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 Crew Cab from Midway Ford through the Cooperative Purchasing Venture at a price of $31,846.92 plus tax and licensing. An additional $8,000.00 would be required to equip the new U1 with emergency lights, sirens, radios, graphics, and other accessories. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the purchase of the new 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 Crew Cab and the related accessories. Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for January 7, 2019 Page 7 of 9 Approve Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit for Washington County Pheasants Forever Washington County Pheasants Forever, Chapter 0671, was preparing for their Stillwater Area High School/Pheasants Forever fundraiser to be held on February 17, 2019. This required a Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit to be approved by the City. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit for the Washington County Pheasants Forever. Approve Off -Site Gambling Permit for Merrick, Inc at the Hugo American Legion Merrick, Inc., had requested an Off -Site Gambling Permit to conduct Purse Bingo at the Hugo American Legion on January 28, 2019. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the Off -Site Gambling Permit for Merrick, Inc. Approve Premises Permit for Merrick, Inc. at the Hugo American Legion For the past several months, Merrick, Inc. had been conducting off -site gambling at the Hugo American Legion for Purse Bingo. Merrick and the American Legion had requested to continue to do this monthly; however, state statute only allows Merrick twelve Off -Site Permits each calendar year, which prevents them from holding other events if all twelve permits are used for Purse Bingo at the Legion. Merrick had applied for a Premises Permit to allow them to conduct gambling in the form of Bingo at the Legion without the need for the Off -Site Permit. The City needed to approve the Premises Permit application before it would be approved by the MN Department of Public Safety, Alcohol and Gambling Control Board. This permit is accompanied by a lease agreement between the Hugo American Legion and Merrick, which includes a condition that only Purse Bingo would be done at the Legion by Merrick. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the Premises Permit application for Merrick, Inc. to conduct gambling at the Hugo American Legion. Approve Resolution Designating Precinct Polling Places for 2019 A change was made during the 2017 legislative session to State Statute which discusses polling place designations. State law now requires municipalities to designate precinct polling places for all elections for the year by December 31 of the prior year. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved RESOLUTION 2019-2 DESIGNATING PRECINCT POLLING LOCATIONS FOR THE 2018 ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF HUGO, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA. Approve Reduction in Letter of Credit for Adelaide Landing I't Addition Adelaide Landing has had significant work completed to date and the developer is requesting a second reduction in the letter of credit for the lst Addition. The current letter of credit is in the amount of $700,000. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the reduction in the letter of credit to $500,000 based on the value of work remaining to be completed. Approve Reduction in Cash Escrow for Oneka Place Oneka Place has had significant work completed to date, and the developer is requesting an initial reduction in the cash escrow. The current letter of credit and cash escrow for the Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for January 7, 2019 Page 8 of 9 improvements is in the amount of $1,916,036. Staff has inspected the work completed to date and recommends reducing the cash escrow by $183,000 based on the value of work remaining to be completed. The remaining value of the combined cash escrow and letter of credit for the improvements will be in the amount of $1,733,036. Additional cash escrow remains above and beyond the amount for the improvements and is intended for inspection and engineering services, etc. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the reduction in cash escrow for the Oneka Place development. Approve Release of Letter of Credit for Fox Meadows Fox Meadows had completed the warranty period with all necessary punch list items being addressed to the satisfaction of City staff. The $147,900 letter of credit being held in place for the duration of the warranty period can be fully released as outlined in the Development Agreement. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the release of the Letter of Credit for Fox Meadows Approve Decommissioning Escrow Agreement for Fast Sun4, LLC Regarding the 165" Street Solar Farm At its October 1, 2018, meeting the City Council approved an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a solar farm located north of 165th Street North and west of Henna Avenue North. The IUP states that that the applicant, FastSun 4, LLC, shall deposit cash in the amount of $134,267 into an escrow account with the City. The escrow account would be used in the event that the City would need to remove the solar farm and complete site restoration if the applicant fails to do so per its decommissioning plan. If the applicant removed the solar farm per the decommissioning plan, the escrow money would be reimbursed to the applicant. The agreement outlined how the escrow account would be maintained and used. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the escrow agreement, subject to City Attorney review and approval. Approve Hugo Fire Department Administrative Captain Job Description Included in the 2019 budget was a part-time/paid on -call Administrative Captain position for the Hugo Fire Department with an annual salary of $2,750. This would replace the administrative lieutenant position and not create a new position. Fire Chief Kevin Colvard had created a job description for this position. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the Administrative Captain job description. Update on the Yellow Ribbon Network Council Member Chuck Haas and Phil Klein reported to Council on the Yellow Ribbon Network activities held recently. There were 21 secret Santa volunteers adopting military families this year. The YRN provided help through the Family Assistance Center. Eight hundred pounds of care package items were sent, including blankets. Haas thanked Ship Thrifty, operated by a Forest Lake family, who took care of the packing labels and forms. Coffee and hot chocolate was collected by the students in Forest Lake Schools. Miron added that the students also wrote notes to the soldiers. The YRN has received many care packages thanks. Haas also thanked all those who donated time and money. The next Hamburger Night will be January 23rd and it will be sponsored by Lake Area Bank. Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for January 7, 2019 Page 9 of 9 Hugo Fire Department Annual Banquet on Saturday, January 26, 2019 City Administrator Bryan Bear informed Council they had been invited to attend the Hugo Fire Department Annual Banquet on Saturday, January 26, 2019, at the Hugo American Legion from 6-9 p.m. He recommended Council schedule this as a meeting if they wish to attend. Klein made motion, Petryk seconded, to schedule a meeting to attend the Hugo Fire Department Annual Banquet on Saturday, July 26, 2019. All Ayes. Motion carried. Council Meeting Cancelled for Monday, January 21, 2019 City Administrator Bryan Bear reminded Council that their second meeting in the month of January falls on the Martin Luther King Holiday. At the December 17, 2018, meeting, Council cancelled the January 21, 2019, City Council meeting. Council Goal Setting Session on Tuesday, January 22, 2019 City Administrator Bryan Bear reminded Council they had scheduled their annual goal setting session for Tuesday, January 22, 2019. The meeting will take place in the Council Chambers at 5:00 p.m. RCWD Informational Meeting on Monday, January 28, 2019 City Administrator Bryan Bear added this to the agenda to notify Council that the Rice Creek Watershed District was holding an informational meeting on the planned maintenance on Judicial Ditch 3. He suggested Council schedule a meeting if they planned to attend. Miron made motion, Klein seconded, to schedule a meeting to attend the Rice Creek Watershed District informational meeting on Monday, January 28, 2019, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hugo Council Chambers. All Ayes. Motion carried. Adjournment Klein made motion, Petryk seconded, to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Michele Lindau, City Clerk 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North • Hugo, MN 55038 Weidt called the meeting to order at 5 p.m. Minutes HUGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOAL SETTING WORKSHOP HUGO CITY HALL TUESDAY. JANUARY 22. 2019 — 5 P.M. PRESENT: Haas (via Skype), Klein, Miron, Petryk, Weidt ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Administrator Bryan Bear, Finance Director Ron Otkin, Finance Coordinator Anna Wobse, Community Development Director Rachel Juba, Parks Planner Shayla Denaway, City Engineer Mark Erichson , and City Clerk Michele Lindau Goals for 2018 City Administrator Bryan Bear reviewed the 2018 goals and long range goals that were created last year. Many of these goals have been completed and some are still in progress. Updates from Commissions and Staff Prior to the Council Goals Setting Workshop, commissions met to discuss their specific goals. Bear had provided a memo to Council recapping those workshops, and he touched on a few of the topics. Planning Commission — The Comprehensive Plan is in the process of being adopted and the Commission will be working on text amendments. The Planning Commission has new members who are becoming acclimated and want to know more about meeting procedures. The Parks Commission has had similar discussions. One goal of the Planning Commission is to host a session on parliamentary procedures. Parks Commission - The Commission has worked on the park at Adelaide Landing and completed their planning on Clearwater Creek Preserve. Plans for Irish Avenue Park are still being considered. There is a lack of funding for all park needs. Expansion of the trails network is an ongoing goal. EDA — Downtown development the EDA's main focus. The restaurant "Cozzies" is not going to happen. It was noted there has been significant activity along TH61 during the past year. Discussions are also being had on 165t' Street and TH61 corridor. Historical Commission — The Commission has been evaluating the Hopkins Schoolhouse, and a committee had been established. An update will be provided at the next Council meeting. They continue to work on the display for Good Neighbor Days, their social media presence, and ongoing documentation of City history. Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for January 22, 2019, Goal Setting Workshop Page 2 of 3 Public Works - Staff has been working on policy changes in regard to the pavement management program. Significant funds are being allocated for street reconstruction projects, and this year's project is the roundabout on 130th Street North. The City has discontinued seal coating, which will affect the City's CIP. The gravel road test project on Ingersoll has worked so far and depending how the roads look this spring, the City may want to complete work on similar roads. The short -line railroad project should be finished and the I35E project should be completed this year finishing the corridor to St. Paul. Elmcrest Avenue and Cedar Avenue in Lino Lakes needs paving. The water tower is under construction, and there is a recommendation to incorporate bridge work in the City's CIP. Oral arguments will be had this week at the Court of Appeals on the White Bear Lake lawsuit, and there will be a verdict in 90 days that could affect what the City does regarding water conservation. Stormwater reuse projects will mainly be on the private development side, and grants are pending for the Waters Edge Phase 2 project. The City is still looking for funding for the CSAH 8 water reuse project. Public Works Director Scott Anderson is meeting with architectural firms on expansion to the Public Works facility. Fire Department — The Department will be conducting training on the new aerial truck. Staffing is a continued discussion, specifically for daytime responders. The Department is implementing the automatic response with other communities, and there has already been one fire requiring automatic mutual aid that had good results. Miscellaneous items - Public school needs are being discussed, and the school superintendent has been invited to provide Council an update. Upgrades in the Council Chambers and the Oneka room need to be considered. Staff had spent a lot of time on improving permit issuances and is regrouping to determine the best way to move forward. The Beautification Subcommittee has been discussing the monument sign at the north end of the City, and the Lions Club had some feedback. A recommendation to the Council is forthcoming. Many individuals have been applying for commissions, and there are no vacancies. Bear talked about the desire to keep them connected somehow. Klein talked about continuing efforts on water conservation and hopefully get more funding. Review of the ordinances and expansion of the maintenance building to accommodate the police department were of importance. Miron talked about the five-year maintenance plan on Judicial Ditch 2 and the City's anticipated involvement with the planned maintenance of Judicial Ditch 3. It was noted that drainage could be one of the City's ongoing priorities. Petryk talked about the compost site expansion for brush and other debris. She asked about the sealcoating lawsuit other cities are involved in. Bryan responded that the City has not had to deal with any hazardous waste from the City's ponds since they are newer, and hopefully the City will not be in the same position. Haas talked about the need to create a strategy for independence and self-reliance for our water needs using all our stormwater as a resource; the City needs to use stormwater wisely instead of groundwater. The lawsuit may reinvigorate discussions on the regional water plan, and the City needs to stay in communication with the St. Paul Regional Water Authority. He talked about Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for January 22, 2019, Goal Setting Workshop Page 3 of 3 economic development along TH61 and felt talks needed to be instigated with the County to get more local control of the corridor to be proactive. Weidt talked about the need to figure out the park funding and getting the facility needs study done. He felt progression should be shown towards these accomplishments, possibly with a parks referendum. He wants to be aggressive on water reuse and put assets towards that if needed. He also talked about the need to move forward on technology upgrades. Council reviewed the 2018 focus goals and amended them per their conversation. There was a consensus on focusing on ordinance amendments, conservation efforts, and establishing some sort of funding mechanism to improve the parks, possibly a referendum which will likely need a workshop. There was talk about patrol on the north end of Bald Eagle Lake during the winter and talk about community outreach to involve new people. City Administrator Bryan Bear will present the 2019 goals to the Council at their meeting on February 4, 2019, for formal adoption. Adiournment Klein made motion, Petryk seconded seconded, to adjourn at 6:31 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Michele Lindau City Clerk Minutes CITY OF EST. 1906 •. 0C 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North • Hugo, MN 55038 PRESENT: Klein, Miron, Petryk, Weidt ABSENT: Haas HUGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TGK OPEN HOUSE 13891 FOREST BOULEVARD N. THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2019 6-9 P.M. The Hugo City Council attended the open house for the new headquarters of TGK Automotive Specialists. Tours were given of their state-of-the-art facility. Refreshments were provided. Respectfully Submitted, Michele Lindau City Clerk 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North • Hugo, MN 55038 PRESENT: Klein, Mixon, Petryk, Weidt ABSENT: Haas Minutes HUGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING RCWD JD3 INFORMATIONAL MEETING HUGO COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2019 6:30 P.M. The Rice Creek Watershed District held an informational meeting to present the status of the repair report for Judicial Ditch 3 and provide information on the proposed repair. Respectfully Submitted, Michele Lindau City Clerk �r CFFY OF FWGO EST. 1908 PARKS REPORT Clearwater Creek Preserve Clearwater Creek Preserve is a unique 100+ acre passive park. The 1/2 mile wood chip trail fell in disrepair due to several exceptionally rainy years and the drainage issues in and around the park. As part of the their annual goals, the Parks Commission set out to master plan the park in 2018. SHIP Grant Received A $15,000 grant was received from Washington County through the Statewide Health Improvement Program for active living enhancement. The funding was used to evaluate the wetlands, gather input from the community, and develop a master plan document. Community Engaged in Master Planning With the grant funding, additional outreach to the community was possible. The Open House held on June 26, 2018 was well attended. Residents were highly engaged on an online forum called Social Pinpoint which allowed them to "pin" comments on the plans. Three concept plans were presented at the August 15 Parks Commission meeting for public review. A preferred master plan was pre- sented at the September 19 meeting and recommended for approval. The City Council approved the Clearwater Creek Preserve Master Plan at their October 15 meeting. "This design has the potential for many interesting loops and turns... a walker could easily get the sense that the park is bigger than it is. " - Comment on Social Pinpoint Recreation Programs Partnership Programs The City of Hugo continued its partnerships in providing recreation programs with the Forest Lake YMCA, Washington County Libraries, area School Districts, and more. Programs included: • 3 Movie Nights at Oneka Elementary • Park Play Days • 2 Tech Tac Toe Classes • Family Concert/ Emergency Vehicle Show • Z Juggling Rosenchnoz Show • Climb Theater presents "The Mousical" Show • 3 Fridays with Firefighters • The "Snow Princesses" Storytime • Monthly Preschool Storytimes • Walking Memory Cafes Festival Halloween Event Sponsor • Dementia Friends Partner • Hugo Good Neighbor Days Golden Spike Sponsor Special Events The city of Hugo also hosts or assists with several special events for all ages throughout the year. • April 28 Kid "N Biz September 22 Tour de Hugo • Sept 28 Movie Night at Hanifl Fields Athletic Park Neighborhood ParKS Improved At the February meeting, the Parks Commission allocated funding to make improvements and updates to a few neighborhood parks. Frog Hollow Park saw extensive land- scaping changes as the grown shrubs were removed at the front and back of the playground. The park also received a new bench, picnic table, and trash cans. At Arbre Park, the basketball court was resurfaced and a small repairs and upgrades were made to the play- ground. At Val Jean, the tennis court was resurfaced and the benches were replaced. Lions Park Playground Replaced At their meeting of May 16, the Parks Commission made the decision to replace the playground at Lions Park. The previous playground had been in place for nearly 20 years and was no longer fully functional. $100,000 was allocated for the replacement. At the meeting of June 20, the Commission heard playground design proposals from four different playground vendors. Residents had been invited to the meeting to share their opinions of the playground designs. Each of the designs were well received and it was a difficult decision for the Commission. St. Croix Recreation was selected to complete the project. The Burke Equipment that was presented included a substantial structure for 2-5 year olds, unique climbing nets, play house, and a large bank of swings. This is the first playground in Hugo to feature a fabric sun shade. Upon resident request, the slides and plat- forms were increased in height on the 5-12 year old structure. Hugo Public Works made improvements to the area including a new concrete playground boundary, grading/ gravel work, removal of the deteriorated park sign and a damaged tree. A grand opening was held on October 17 to celebrate the replacement of the play- ground. Development Update Oneka Place At the May 16 meeting, the Commission reviewed a park dedication proposal from CPDC Pratt Oakwood for Oneka Place. It included 177 single family residential lots and 10 Outlots located north of Oneka Parkway and 159th Street. The Com- mission had previously provided feedback on the concept plan for the develop- ment at their November 15, 2017 meeting. The dedication of the 43 acre "Outlot X was approved. The developer was required to construct the trails to the open space property. The Preserve on Sunset Lake At the May 16 meeting, the Commission reviewed a sketch plan of 12 residential lots on 125 acres on the south-west side of Sunset Lake. The Commission provided feedback to the developer, Cheldon Frank. At their October 17 meeting the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) was presented. The developer proposed park dedication of .93 acres adjacent to the city -owned prop- erty on Sunset Lake and for the remaining fee to be waived. The Commission approved park dedication of the land and $28,704 in fees. TWIN CITIES ORTHOPEDICS `:', \B WSB City of Hugo Claims February 4, 2019 G . 1 Vendor Invoice Amount Description Department - .. u.. A-1 Hydraulic Sales & Service Inc _... 0118200-1N $ .: 203.16 Hoses & Hardware for Easement Machine I Sewer Utility Alex Air Apparatus Inc INV-38578 $ 155.61 ! Road Flares Fire Dept Alex Air Apparatus Inc INV-38579 $ 695.88 Lite Force Plus Helmets Fire Dept Allstream 15862143 $ 92.14 Fax Lines Administration American Public Works Assoc - - 771710 $ _ 252.50 APWA Member Fees - Scott Anderson Public Works Anderson, Scott CLAIM $ _ 65.34 Safety Supplies (Amazon) _ Street Dept Aspen Mills 229378 $ 119.99 Boots Fire Dept AVVR, Inc INV-04307 $ 105.00 Screen for Movie Night Parks Dept Baseline Irrigation Solutions Inc 2018-12898 $ 398.00 Irrigation Controllers Data Service Renewal Parks Dept Battery Products Inc 58088 $ 142.18 Batteries Fire Dept C-Aire Inc 144959 $ 512.96 Air Compressor Parts & Repairs Fire Dept Century Link 651 653-1154 $ 63.98 SCADA Lines & Sewer Century Link 661 653-1154 $ 64.00 SCADA Lines _Water Water & Sewer Century Link 651 429-3212 $ 73.76 Fire Station Phone Lines Fire Dept Chief Supply Co oration 140334 $ 108.85 Helmet Decals Fire Dept Cintas Corporation _ December $ 336.44 Cleaning Supplies Various Cintas Corporation December $ _ 1,221.10 Uniform & Floor Mat Services Various Cintas Corporation December $ 724.35 Supplies & Floor Mat Services Fire Deed Cintas Corporation 5012833309 $ 58.83 First Aid Supplies Public Works Cintas Corporation 5012833309 $ _ 151.69 1 First Aid Supplies Gen Gov't Bldcs Comcast 96 198036 $ 487.61 1 Business Internet (December) Administration Comcast 909198036 $ 487.61 Business Internet (December) Public Works Comcast 12/18/2018 $ 155.77 1 Business Internet (thru January 27) Fire Dept Companion Animal Control LLC November $ 842.19 Callout Fees & Mileage Animal Control Companion Animal Control LLC December $ 409.73 _ _ Callout Fees & Mileage Animal Control De Lage Landen Financial Services Inc 62099818 $ 326.94 Janu�Copier Lease Payment Denaway, Shayla CLAIM $ 36.34 DVDs for Movie Night _Administration Parks Dept Denaway, Shayla CLAIM $ 40.69 Movie Night Supplies Parks Dept Dresser Trap Rock Inc 109067 $ 685.51 3/8" Chips for Snow & Ice Control Street Det Ehlers i Registration $ 295.00 2019 Public Finance Seminar _ Finance Dept Electro Watchman Inc 322854 $ 1,327.26 Additional Access Control Switch - PW (Final) Public Works Emergency Apparatus Maintenance Inc 103605 $ 331.26 Repairs - Unit #E1 Fire Dept Fairview Health Services 75000961 $ 152.00 Employment Testing - Kraig Pettee Sewer & Water Finken Water Solutions 5181952 $ 29.95 Drinking Water Filter 'Public Works Forest Lake Napa December $ 3,122.01 Auto Parts and Shop Su )plies Various Frattall_one's Hardware Store 124706 $ 8.29 Shop Supplies Public Works Frattallone's Hardware Store 125111 $ 93.98 Snow Shovels Parks Dept Gene's Disposal Service Inc Genes Disposal Service Inc Gene's Disposal ServiceInc Gopher State One Call Gopher State One Call Grainger Great Plains Fire Gregoire, Rick _ Hamline School of Business Holiday Companies Holiday Companies Hugo Feed Mill Hugo Mill Outdoor Power Equipme Innovative Office Solutions LLC Innovative Office Solutions LLC Innovative Office Solutions LLC Innovative Office Solutions LLC Innovative Office Solutions LLC 68362 - $ 14,955.93 Lift Station No. 1 Pump Replacement Sewer Utility 341894 $ 717.71 December Waste Hauling - PW Facility Public Works 341894 $ 163.45 December Waste Hauling - Fire Station_ Fire Dept 341894 $ 72.98 December Waste Hauling - City Hall _ Gen Gov't Bldgs 8120466 $ 58.05 December Service Charges Water & Sewer 9000468 $ 50.00 T2019 Annual User Fee _ 'Water & Sewer 9055874292 $ 76.50 H' h Flow Nozzles 'Public Works 5135 2018 $ $ 317.39 Hand Wands Fitness Program Reimbursement Fire Dept Fire Dept M-.00 Registration $ 615.00 Water Utility Management Institute - Rick Kieffer - Water Utility 84736005 $ 11.33 Fuel Street Dept_ 140247008 $ 15.01 Fuel Street Dept 1 36579 $ 7.18 Shop Supplies Public Works 136012 $ 89.56 Chainsaw Supplies (Tree Trimming) Street Dept IN2345330 $ 38.65 File Folders Public Works r IN2347686 $ 294.44 Restroom Supplies (CH) Gen Gov't Bldgs IN2347686 $ 215.94 Ca y Paper Administration IN2347686 $ 138.42 Storage Boxes Finance Dept IN2347686 1 $ 103.63 Breakroom Supplies Gen Gov't BINs innovative Office Solutions LLC _ IN2347686 $ - - 69.08 Storage Boxes - Building Inspections Innovative Office Solutions LLC IN2347686 $ 42.69 Pens & Binder Clips Administration Innovative Office Solutions LLC IN2353002_ $ 53.98 Wall Calendars Fire fit Innovative Office Solutions LLC - - --- IN2363691 $ 265.72 Folders, Pens & Binder Clips _ Administration Innovative Office Solut-ions LLC IN2363� $ _ 152.84 Lanyards Administration Innovative Office Solutions LLC IfV2363691 $ 33.30 Restroom Supplies (CH) Gen Gov# bid s Innovative Office Solutions LLC SCN-083058 $ i 15.60! Pens (Returned) Administration Instrumental Research Inc 1532 - $ 100.00 Water Bacteria Testing Water Utility Instrumental Research Inc 1585 $ 100.00 Water Bacteria Testing Water Utility Interstate Battery System of Minneapolis 110044116 $ 229.90 Battenes Public Works Jimmy's Johnnys Inc 142759 $ 67.00 Portable Toilet Rental - Compost Site Recyclin Johnson/Turner December $ 4,556.00 December Prosecution Fees (Flat Fee) _ 'Gen eral Legal Johnson/turner December $ 604.95 December Disbursements (Prosecution Costs) _ General Legal Page 1 City of Hugo Claims February 4, 2019 G. 1 Vendor Invoice Amount Description Department Jnh:,sonfTumer -- December $ 2,017 50 December Civil Leg AI_ -.See Attached Breakdown General Legal Juba, Rachel CLAIM $ 62.59 Meeting Mileage & Parking Planning & Zoning Kath Fuel Oil Service Co. 12320094 $ 3,764.95 December Unleaded Gas & Diesel Purchases Various Knowlan's_ Super Markets Inc 836 $ 85.91 'Meeting Supplies Planning & Zoning Knowlan's Super Markets Inc 1363 $ 63.84 Holiday Party Supplies Unallocated Knowlan's Super Markets Inc 7457 $ 10.28 Cleaning Supplies Public Works Knowlan's Super Markets Inc _ 8381 $ 7.50 Soft Drinks for Lobby Machine Gen Gov't Bldgs Landform 28583 $ 2,629.25 2040 Comp Plan Planning & Zoni Laughlin's Pest Control 24579 $ 85.00 December Pest Control Service (CH) Gen Gov't Bldgs Lawson Products 9306389500 $ 37.60 Bulk Hardware Supplies Public Works Lawson Products 9306396857 $ 194.96 Safety Supplies I Public Works Lawson Products 93064159,22 $ 697.76 Bulk Hardware Supplies I Public Works L' ht Switch LLC 1176 $ 1,368.00 LED Light Bulbs (FH) Fire Dept Loffler Companies Inc_ _ 3000838 $ _ 253.80 January Copier Service Payment Administration MailFinance N7536145 $ 68.99 Meter Rental - December Administration MailFinance N7536145 $ 68.99 Meter Rental - January Administration MailFinance N7536145 $ 68.99 1 Meter Rental - February Administration MBPTA 2019 $ 100.00 2019 Membership Dues - Debi Close Building Ins,oections Menards 1124 $ 100.95 . Fire Department Supplies --__ Fire Dept Menards 97765 $ 4.95 Shop Supplies Public Works Menards _ 98133 $ 35.88 LED Light Bulbs (CH) Gen Gov't Bldgs Metro Area Management Association 42 $ 37.50 MAMA Meeting Registration - Bryan Bear Administration Metro Citles 106 $ 5,565.00 2019 Membership Dues Administration Minnesota Pollution Control Agency SC-1881 $ 23.00 Vjastewater Certification Renewal - Paul Christianson Sevier Utility MN State Colleges and Universities 4557 $ 180.00 BLS Provider Course Cards Fire Dept MN Street Superintendents Association Dues $ 350.00 2019 Membership Dues (6) Street Dept MnFIAM Book Sales 2625 $ 160.00 Firefi hOng Textbooks _ _ Fire Dept North Memorial 8885020 $ 440.00 EMIR Refresher Course (20) Fire Dept _...... Otter Lake Animal Care Center 189560 $ 100.00 Boarding &Rescue Fees Animal Control Oxygen Service Compaq. .. 3424931 $ 23.56 Welding Supplies Public Works Performance Plus LLC 5319LF $ 15.00 Mask Fit - Colvard Fire Dept Pettee, Kraig CLAIM $ 35.09 Cell Phone Accessories (Walmart) Water & Sewer Pioneer Press 1218403714 $ 550.00 Job Advertisement - Senior Engineering Tech Proceedings Press Publications 616887 1 $ 92.31 Ordinance 2018-492 Ordinances/Proceedings Press Publications _ _ 616889 $ 21.72 City Council Change in Meetings Date Notice Ordinances/Proceedings Ricoh USA, Inc _ _ 101538650 $ 123.18 Copier Lease Payment Public Works Ricoh USA, Inc 101538650 $ 32.00 Overage Charges Public Works Sensible Land Use Coalition 200004216 $ 48.00 Meeting Registration - Brun Bear Administration Sensible Land Use Coalition 200004216 $ 48.00 Meeting Registration - Shayla Denaway Parks Dept Sensible Land Use Coalition 200004216 1 $ 48.00 Meeting Registration - Rachel Juba Planning & Zonin Sensible Land Use Coalition 200004216 $ 48.00 Meeting Registration - Emily Weber Community Development Stanley Access Technologies Inc 905304858 $ 4,200.00 Automatic Door Equipment & Installation (CH) Gen Gov't Bldgs Star Tribune 1000354451 $ 585.00 Job Advertisement - Senior Engineering Tech Proceedings T Sun Life Financial February $ 830.82 Disability Premium Finance Dept T-Mobile 870254054 $ 1,340.09 Cellular Phone Charges Various T-Mobile __. 870254054 $ 219.98 Equipment Purchases Various Toshiba Financial Services. -__ 69138316 $ 175.23 Janu Co ier Lease Payment Fire Dept Toshiba Financial Services 69138316 $ 2.71 Overage Charges (B & W) Fire Dept Toshiba Financial Services 69138316 $ 9.13 Overage Charges (Color) Fire Dept Trade Press Inc 30354 $� 132.00 Container Placement Door Hangers Street Dept Tri-State Bobcat A52418 $ 195.00 Utility Plate for Easement Machine Sewer Utility Twin City Hardware Co 992442 $ 1,895.00 Materials - Fire Hall Door Replacement Fire Dept Twin City Hardware Co 992774 $ 1,100.00 Labor- Fire Hall Door Replacement Fire Dept Verizon Wireless 9821613960 $ 677.15 Cellular Phone Charges - - Fire Dept a.._- Verizon Wireless _ 9820578223 $ 40.02 Cellular Phone Charges Fire Dept Washington Conservation District 4370 $ 625.00 East Metro Watershed Membership Store nw.ater Fund Washington CountL.. 150368 $ 4,300.86 800 Radio User Fees - October thru December Fire Dept Washington County 151950 $ 3,860.00 Election Maintenance Fees Elections Washington County 151859 $ 1,456.63 2019 Truth In Taxation Notice Miscellaneous Washington County 22185 $ 99.00 Hazardous Waste Generator License Public Works Washington County Fire Chiefs Assoc 2019 $ 50.00 2019 Membership Dues Fire Dept Washington County Sheriff 151729 $ 1,047.89 2019 Code Red Fee Fire Dept White Bear Area Chamber of Commerce 14480 $ 40.00 Annual Meeting Registration - Bryan Bear Administration White Bear Area Chamber of Commerce 14480 $ 40.00 Annual Meeting Registration - Tom Weidt Mayor & Council Winnick Supply 376743 _ I$ 433.53 Steel Tubing & Pipe for Easement Machine Sewer Utility WSB & Associates November ! $ 80,320.25 Engineering Fees - See Attached Breakdown Various Zack's Inc 33268 1 $ 91.96 Snow Shovels Public Works Total Claims for February 4, 2019 $ _ 162,192.23 Page 2 JOHNSON)(TURNER LEGAL- January 14, 2019 City of Hugo Attn: Ron Otkin 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, MN 55038 Dear Ron: Enclosed, please find our billing statements for the City of Hugo as of December 31, 2018. Below is a summary of the matter description, subtotal and total amount due and owing for the attached statements: MATTER MATTER I.D. SUBTOTAL Carpenter Property Purchase 12-2359-027 $157.50 General2018 18-2359-050 $1,815.00 White Bear Lake Restoration Litigation 13-2353-032 $45.00 Prosecution 12-2359-024 $5,160.95 TOTAL NOW DUE: $7,178.4S Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the billing statements. Sincerely, JOHNSON/TURNER LEGAL David K. Snyder DKS/mah Enclosures 56 East Broadway Avenue, Suite 206 / Forest Lake, MN 55025 / p 651.464.7292 f 651.464.7348 / johnsonturner. com FOREST LAKE / LAKE ELMO / WOODBURY / BLAINE / WAYZATA Go ei N O l"I ei 0 11 ei ei V O ap a G! t o` I I it m im lm im Ica I im m M m lm im m �m m we m m m m Im m m m I j j i 1 I O N IOIo O IN IO O i I O 10 N N I I N O IN Cl N I I j I j I i O i10 O j0 O N 'co !O O O I j I j I I I I O 1f1 O j�q O IN O N u, ,C, �N IN IO Of I LV 10 N 14 M A II r w I m e+f IO en m IA 0o ev r N m I m (r IO O co j A O! a l w m N o a O m IQp jm IA 0 I to i� m Ol M I IOO 1 en eb M r N f� pl I Ili I IN 00 m a M P Of lA N V Ir Q :M i0 m IA h N Ir :N I IM m 11L� +e+j Im m Ir IN Ir r cc �m IM Ir IN IM IM I 1 I I I jM ;N iM I La w w w Iw W.J. Iw w w ' I Iw w �w Iw Iw ,w Iw jw Iw !w jw iw jw T�AIA IA IT IT �A I?��.jT ITiTI?��A'AAIA IAIa 7 7 3 7 7 j 7 7 1 J O 1 0 I O ' O O O O; O Ix 7 7 i 7 1 7 3 7 7 17 7 1 7 I O O O! O j 0 O i 0 I O I O O 1 7 1 7 7 7 j 7 O O j 0 1 0 O x Ix Ex �x Ix �x ,x Ix �s Ix Ix ;x Ix �x Ix ix � 0 0 Io !0 !0 o o ,O o ;o o o to 4O o o to 0 0 'o o 'o O j0 10 jN O N O jN IN IN �O IO I'd w V O !! N RM IeG eei eV T 'm m V m rf m Im O �O IO i0 I� �O M ti 0 eh co O `h I M Ir V' N N i0 m i0 r r M �a Ir Im 1m m m m O t0 m m IM Im n Im N �N i O M N i j '. ItV le+i Ia N 100 M r IM IM I iN le cc! O r Ir 1 Ir I i IN 10 iN I I 1 1w Iw jw jw i I I �w �wo� �w I I I 'w iw Iv► iw Iw Iw Iw iw Iw jw Iw 'w !w w► Iw A 7 i L I d iY I W ! iY A iS IY I 1 I IY I O IJ9 �Y jY iV A T IL IL I A j IY IY ;Y IY iL i m CI R Q iY IL I !V iml� vI vjw t. Ig �... I� a IYo i� leo iW E l!'YomC m m I jo Iw � e? Io� to o o > w w w o jIS�c Le''tCo (ad Lw w w IC W W W x W W W x b x OYO LW1j WIW W xo 0 0 o io 0 0 0 0 N O O O < 0 o 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O H 0 .o O a a o :O o to 0 O O O O O O O O ie 0 IN a o 0 r m N eo 14 I It CO - m o 0 0 r o 0 0 o 0 o o 0 0 0 �o o I� o ti I eA o A n u3 a l eo � O IM em0 I� eq M M m Ir r r N M �O N m m 0 r N O N jt� m m le0 O M m m �m r Ir — a m O m m co IN M- O r N IN r O o N N IN r r r Ip r r r O O O I 0 K jK IiY to Ia ,IX JIM'' to r Ir 0 4 Ix IM r 0 � r r r r r r r r IM r �O l 0 0 0 0 l0 0 0 0 0 o I0 o Ia Ix � IR I& ICE ok Ic'C j� ;a it m e y n J m N O c� M (� 3 Northeast Youth & Family Services Transforming Lives December 21, 2018 Bryan Bear City Administrator City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Ave. N. Hugo, MN 55038 Dear Bryan, Enclosed is the 2019 partnership agreement with Northeast Youth & Family Services. I have also included the addendum referenced in section III-B Services Provided and Exhibit A referenced in section III-D-2 Funding. Please sign and return a fully executed copy of the agreement to me. You can either send a hard copy through the mail or a pdf electronically. Either way we need a copy in our files for our audit. We appreciate our partnership with you and look forward to another year of working in concert to serve the residents of our community. I will reach out to you in early January about setting up our annual presentation to the council. If you have any questions or need more information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Since ely, Jerry Hromatka President & CEO Shoreview Headquarters White Bear Lake Area Office 3490 Lexington Ave. N. 1280 N. Birch Lake Blvd. Shoreview, MN 55126 White Bear Lake, MN 55110 phone 651-486-3808 fax 651-486-3858 www.nyfs.org phone 651-429-8544 fax 651-407-5301 AGREEMENT I. PARTIES This agreement is made and entered into by and between the City of Hugo Minnesota ("City") and Northeast Youth and Family Services ("NYFS"). II. RECITALS A. NYFS is a non-profit social service agency whose mission is to meet the unmet developmental needs of at -risk youth and families within their community environment with emphasis on providing services through collaboration and coordination with existing community resources. These services are available to youth and families residing in the northern suburbs of Ramsey County, including, but not limited to, the municipalities which are signatory to agreements which are identical to this Agreement ("participating municipalities") and students and families from Independent School Districts 621, 622, 623, 624, 282 and 832. B. Through this Agreement the City intends to contract with NYFS to provide such services to its residents and to act as a sponsor of NYFS by providing financial support, a method to establish appropriate services to be provided and policy guidance for its activities. C This Agreement shall be used as the formal agreement between NYFS and each of the participating municipalies. This Agreement is intended to continue the spirit of cooperation and collaboration in the provision of social services between the City and NYFS. III. TERMS AND CONDITIONS In consideration of the mutual understandings of this Agreement, the parties hereby agree as follows: A. Prior Agreements Cancelled. By execution of this Agreement any prior agreements and amendments thereto between the parties are hereby cancelled. B. Services. Provided. NYFS shall provide the City and its residents with youth and family programs set forth in the Addendum attached hereto. C. Principles of Service and Program Establishment and Operations. On a yearly basis and prior to submission of its annual budget, as provided for hereafter, NYFS shall: Report regarding proposed changes in services and programs to the City; and 2. Establish a fair and open bidding/request for proposal (RFP) process to contract, manage or provide such services and programs, which are not directly provided by NYFS staff. D. Fundinq In addition to the participating municipalities' share of the annual budget, funds for the operation of NYFS will be raised by NYFS endeavoring to secure user fees, grants and appropriations from private organizations, the State of Minnesota, Federal and County agencies, and other legal and appropriate sources. 2. The City shall pay annually to NYFS the base amount listed in Exhibit A. 3. Any new City joining into this agreement will pay a base amount annually to NYFS that is on par with the amount paid by current participating municipalities. 4. Amounts payable by the City shall be paid to NYFS on or before January 30t" of each year, or at a date mutually agreed upon by both parties, to cover the City's share for that year. E. Board of Directors. This agreement is contingent upon the City having the right to a seat on the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall be limited to not more than 30 Board members. F. Further Obligations of NYFS. In addition to the obligations set forth elsewhere in this Agreement, this Agreement is further contingent upon NYFS doing the following: The Bylaws of NYFS shall be amended to add provisions requiring an open process for contracting services as provided for in paragraph C.2., above, and prohibiting NYFS from supporting or opposing individual candidates for election to public office in any of the participating municipalities; and adding the requirement that IRS 501.C3 status be maintained. 2. On or before June 30, of any year NYFS shall submit the proposed city budgeted amount for the subsequent year. 3. On or before November 30, of any year NYFS shall submit a written report to the City including an Annual Report, the audited financial statement, and a program specific summary of services provided to the municipality; in addition, 30 days from the end of each calendar quarter, NYFS shall submit a written report to the participating municipality. 4. Periodically advising the City of services available through NYFS to the City's residents; 5. Establishing a sliding scale for services available through NYFS to the City's residents and periodically advising the City of such fees; 6. Providing other reasonable information requested by the City; 7. Purchasing a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,500,000.00, naming the City as an additional insured and providing a copy of the insurance certificate evidencing such policy to the City; 8. Provide the City with a copy of its Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, Amendments thereto, and the IRS tax exempt status letter; 9. NYFS shall defend and indemnify the City from any and all claims or causes of actions brought against the City of any matter arising out of this Agreement or the services provided pursuant to this Agreement; and, 10. Without the written approval of the City, NYFS will not enter into any agreement with any other city which differs from the terms and conditions of this Agreement. G. Term. The term of this agreement will be through December 31, 2019. Unless either party gives at least 6 months written notice of its intent to cancel this Agreement effective December 31 of the year in which the notice is made, NYFS will continue to provide services to the City if a successor agreement has not been executed prior to the end of the term. H. (A) Distribution of Assets Upon Dissolution. If NYFS ceases to operate, the Board of Directors will do one of the following: Give the assets to one or more non-profit agencies providing similar social services in the northern suburbs of Ramsey County; or, 2. Form a new Foundation to fund appropriate social service programming in the northern suburbs of Ramsey County. The final Distribution of Assets Plan must be approved by the Ramsey County District Court. (B) Deviation from the Mission. If the City Council determines that NYFS has materially deviated from its mission (See II. Recitals, A.), the City Council may ask the NYFS Board of Directors to consider dissolving the agency and liquidating the assets. The Board will do one of the following: Consider the request and by a majority vote deny it. 2. Consider the request and by a majority vote agree to modify the programs to be consistent with the mission. 3. Consider the request and by a majority vote agree with the request and move to dissolve the agency and liquidate the assets. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on this date set forth below. CITY OF HUGO By: Elected Official Its: Clerk/Manager Dated: NORTHEAST YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES By: President/CEO Its.. Ch f the lBoard ofVrectors Dated: 12/2018 Northeast Youth & Family Services NYFS services fall into two categories: mental health services and youth development programs. By serving both areas within our agency, we can provide a continuum of care. This has proven beneficial because although mental health and youth development have similar goals, their distinctions also complement each other. Contracted Services Mental Health Services: ■ Mental Health Counseling — licensed mental health staff provide therapy for the emotional health of children, teens and adults. Community Service Programs: ■ Youth Diversion — a coordinated range of services for youth who have committed minor offenses (e.g. shoplifting, chemical/alcohol use, vandalism) to help them focus on positive behavior and prevent recidivism. ■ Senior Chore Program — youth and other adults complete seasonal and household tasks to help seniors remain independent. Non Contracted Services Mental Health Services: Northeast Educational & Therapeutic Services (NETS) — provides academics and therapy for youth with mental illnesses who can not function in traditional school environments in grades 6-12. Community Service Programs: ■ Out of School Time — underperforming youth receive support to increase grades, explore career and educational opportunities, and develop leadership in the community. o cd N c N () v(Di � O O � O oc � U N y � O ct \ O O N � � o p•, cd o O N � � � a o U a� w w o 0 0 z O N o a n Ci. 0 a� O v N O G E M &_L1 CITY OF HUGO AND LAKES CENTER FOR YOUTH & FAMILIES, INC PURCHASE OF SERVICE AGREEMENT The City of Hugo, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and Lakes Center for Youth & Families, Inc., 20 Lake St. North, Suite 103, Forest Lake, Minnesota 55025, hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor," enter into this agreement for the period from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019. WHEREAS, the intent of City of Hugo is to build safer communities by repairing the harm from, reducing the risk of, and involving the community in the resolution of juvenile crime; WHEREAS, City of Hugo is committed to using community -based approaches to strengthen individuals, families, and community; WHEREAS, City of Hugo approves of the following outcomes for juvenile diversion and early intervention: Juvenile offenders will be held accountable for their actions by engaging in activities that repair the harm done to the victim and community and will participate in programs that promote an increased understanding of the impact of their offense on victims, communities, and themselves; Crime victims will be notified of diversion proceedings; will have opportunities to provide input; and, if willing, will have the opportunity to participate in the process; Community members will have active and direct involvement in programming; WHEREAS, the City of Hugo, pursuant to its goals of providing accountability and the most appropriate diversion and early intervention available to juvenile offenders, wishes to purchase services for youth involved in at -risk behavior from the Contractor to support these outcomes; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: Contractor's Duties — The Contractor agrees to the provision of the following services: a. Recruit and support community work -service sites for youth residents of the City of Hugo who are ordered by the court and/or referred by law enforcement. b. Educational and prevention programs, including Chemical Awareness, Choice & Consequence, fire awareness, theft awareness, violence awareness, or another approved alternative. Eligible juveniles include those who are referred the City's Police Department and other law enforcement personnel. The reason for the referral must be behavior or actions that could result in a police report and a petition for delinquency. c. Evaluation and counseling. Counseling services include crisis intervention, youth, and family and group counseling. Referrals will be made for psychological/ psychiatric evaluation and long-term mental health treatment. d. The City Police Department agrees to provide victims of crimes diverted by local law enforcement the opportunity for direct or indirect involvement into how the juvenile should be held accountable, including consideration of the impact of the crime on the victim and any specific needs for restitution. When necessary, due to the offense, restitution will be determined and collected. e. As appropriate, facilitate restorative justice interventions, such as victim/offender mediation, family group conferencing, and/or community panels, so that juvenile offenders are held direct accountable to the victim and victimized community through some form of reparation. f. Provide support to parents of youth offenders, and provide opportunities for youth to access mentoring, enrichment, and leadership activities to keep youth from entering the juvenile justice system. 2. Attachments and References — The Contractor agrees to provide the enumerated services in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Cost and Delivery of Purchased Services — The total amount to be paid to the Contractor for services purchased under this agreement shall be $6,000. For these services, the City of Hugo agrees to make a single annual payment to the Contractor of $6,000 no later than August 1, 2019. 4. Eligibility for Services —A City of Hugo resident between the ages of five and eighteen (or older if still in high school), their family members, and the victims of juvenile crime who are assessed to be appropriate shall be eligible for the services provided under the terms of this agreement. 5. Evaluation Reporting, and Information Requirements — The Contractor agrees to reasonable evaluations of its programs, employees, and volunteers and make them available for review by the City of Hugo if so requested. The Contractor agrees to comply with all reporting requirements as assigned by law, rule, or contract by the State of Minnesota and Washington County. The Contractor further agrees to abide by all laws and rules regarding confidentiality and data practices. The Contractor agrees to provide necessary information allowed by law and deemed necessary by the City of Hugo on referred cases. 6. Indemnification — The Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, and agents for all claims arising out of the Contractor's activities related to the services provided under this agreement up to the liability limits set forth in Minn. Stat. 466.04. The City of Hugo will indemnify Lakes Center for Youth & Families, Inc. from and against all liability up to the liability limits set forth in Minn. Stat. 466.04, No other provision of this agreement shall serve to limit in any way the obligations of the Contractor to indemnify and defend the City of Hugo under this clause. 7. Insurance Requirements — The Contractor agrees that in order to protect it self, as well as the City of Hugo, from claims arising out of the Contractor's activities under this agreement, it will at all times during the term of this agreement keep in force policies of insurance providing the following liabilities: professional liability insurance policy in the minimum amount of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) bodily injury or death of one person; One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000) for bodily injury per occurrence; comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the minimum amount of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) bodily injury or death of one person; One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000) bodily injury per occurrence; One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) property damage; automobile insurance, including non - owned and hired autos, in the minimum of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) bodily injury or death of one person; One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000) bodily injury per occurrence; and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) property damage. The Contractor further agrees to maintain Workers' Compensation insurance in the statutory amounts. Certificates of Insurance showing the coverage listed herein shall be provided to the City of Hugo prior to the effective date of this contract. 8. Data Privacy — All data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated for any purpose by the activities of the Contractor because of this agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Chapter 13, as amended, the Minnesota Rule implementing such Act now in force or as adopted, as well as federal regulations on data privacy. 9. Record Disclosures/Monitoring — Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 16C.05, Subd. 5, the Contractor agrees that the City of Hugo, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the Contractor and involve transactions relating to this agreement. The Contractor agrees to maintain these records for a period of three years from the date of termination of this agreement. 10. Nondiscrimination — During the performance of this agreement, the Contractor agrees to the following: No person shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistance status, criminal record, creed, or national origin be excluded from full employment rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any and all applicable federal and state laws against discrimination. 11. Independent Contractor — Nothing contained in this agreement is intended or should be construed as creating the relationship of co-partners or joint ventures with the City of Hugo. No tenure or any rights or benefits, including Workers' Compensation, unemployment insurance, medical care, sick leave, vacation leave, severance pay, PERA, or other benefits available to City of Hugo employees shall accrue to the Contractor or employees of the Contractor performing services under this agreement. 12. Conditions of the Parties' Obligation — This agreement may be canceled by either party at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days' notice, in writing, delivered by mail, or in person. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing, duly signed by both parties, and attached to the original of this agreement. 13. Compliance With Law — The Contractor shall abide by all federal, state, or local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations now in effect or hereinafter adopted insofar as they relate to the Contractor's performance of the provisions of this agreement. 14. Firearms — Unless specifically required by the terms of this contract, no provider of services pursuant to this contract, including, but not limited to, employees, agents, or subcontractors of the Contractor shall carry or possess a firearm on City premises. Violation of this provision shall be considered a substantial breach of the agreement. Violation of this provision is grounds for immediate suspension or termination of this contract, without notice, pursuant to Section 12. 15. Savings Clause — if any section of this agreement is found to be invalid or not enforceable, the remainder of the agreement will remain in force and binding. 16. Governing Law — The laws of Minnesota shall govern the interpretation and prosecution of this agreement. 17. Notices — If any official correspondence concerning this agreement needs to be communicated to the other party, the following shall be deemed the effective addresses: As to the City of Hugo: As to Lakes Center for Youth & Families, Inc. City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue N Hugo, MN 55038 Lakes Center for Youth & Families, Inc. 20 Lake St. North, Suite 103 Forest Lake, MN 55025 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the City of Hugo and the Contractor have executed this agreement this day of APPROVED AS TO FORM 0 City of Hugo 12018. BY: City of Hugo By: Executive Director, Lakes Center for Youth & Families, Inc. A9440 Main Office: 20 Lake Street North, Suite 103 takes center Forest Lake, MN 55025 FOR YOUTH & n A M I I- I E 5 Phone: 651-464-3685 Fax: 651-464-3687 Guiding SUGCOSSFI11 Rutures www.LC4YF.org DATE: August lst, 2018 TO: Mayor Tom Weidt and Administrator Bryan Bear FROM: Matt Howard, Executive Director, Lakes Center for Youth & Families (LC4YF) RE: CONTRACT RENEWAL -FY 2019 Enclosed please find the Purchase of Service Contract between the City of Hugo and Lakes Center for Youth & Families (LC4YF) for January 1- December 31, 2019. The contract amount will remain $6,000 for FY 2019. Attached to this letter you will find a statistical grid/market value statement of services provided to your citizens in 2017. Attachment A of the contract includes an overview of services/programs available to Hugo residents. Once the city budget for 2019 has been adopted, please sign and return a copy of the contract to me. I will send a payment invoice to the city after January 1, 2019 or on a date specified by you. There are many reasons that this crime prevention and public safety program warrants support from the City of Hugo. LC4YF is the only comprehensive youth intervention program in our area, providing the most extensive array of evidence -based supports and services for at -risk youth. We provide the diversion alternative available to Hugo residents. Having this option available to at -risk youth actually saves taxpayers money and contributes directly to the safety and wellbeing of Hugo residents and the overall health of the community. P The cost of providing our community justice services to area youth and their families for up to a year is $750 per client. This includes access to educational classes, enrichment opportunities, parenting support, and youth and family counseling. The average cost of a juvenile court case is $3,500 per youth— and that does not count on -going supervision by probation staff and other resources. In 2017, LC4YF provided early intervention, counseling and parenting services to 22 youth clients, 15 adults. We provided $20,915 in services to Hugo residents. Our program is efficient, effective, and it works! 89% of youth who complete our services do not re -offend. Parents also get the support they need to help keep their child moving in the right direction. Your continued contract with LC4YF has a life -changing impact on youth offenders, victims, and family members. Thank you. Attachments Cl ow Council' MEETS STAND D: em�rtpirtrs.org, The following is a brief report on Lakes Center for Youth & Families' programs that directly affect the residents of your community. If you have any questions about this report, please call Matt Howard, Executive Director at 651-464-3685 City of HUGO Report Period: January 12017 to December 31, 2017 Total market value of all services through December 31, 2017: $20,915.00 (Please note that these numbers represent the market value of services provided, not what LC4YF charges for these services. Because of your collaboration with LC4YF, many of these services are offered at less cost or on a sliding fee scale based on Income.) Services Provided: Market Value # Served Hours of Service Community Justice/Diversion Services $10,800 15 180 Our Place Teen Addiction Services $2,160 3 36 Youth Counseling Services $1,250 1 10 Youth Enrichment & Mentoring $1,080 3 18 Parenting Services/Adult Volunteers $5,625 15 75 2019 Suggested contract for service amount: $6,000 20 Lake Street North, Suite 103, Forest Lake, MN 55025 Phone: 651-464-3685 Fax: 651-464-3687 • lakes center FOR YOUTH St cRridin�; SUf:G� ,sPul f°II Y.i a-c:, Agenda Number G.5 CITY OF HUGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT TO: Bryan Bear, City Administrator FROM: Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant SUBJECT: Thommes and Thomas Land Clearing (Tom and Joanne Benick) — Renewal of a conditional use permit for the property located at 5777 165th Street N. DATE: January 31, 2019 for the City Council Meeting of February 4, 2019. 1. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE: At its January 24 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the review of the conditional use permit (CUP). The applicant was there to address the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the review of the CUP. 2. OVERVIEW: In 1993, the City Council approved a CUP for the applicant to allow for the processing and storage of firewood, recycling of tree waste, and wood chipping. The permit was issued for a two-year period. In 2001, the City Council approved a renewal of the CUP with the same general conditions. However, there was a condition revised to delete the termination date for the permit and revise it to be renewed every two years. At that time the City Attorney opined that the City cannot set time limits on conditional use permits and that MN State Statute states that " A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed..." In addition, staff noted that the conditional use permit runs with the property, not a particular owner or operator. The last CUP renewal was in June of 2016. 3. ANALYSIS: Staff visited the property on January 2, 2019 to review the land clearing business and noted that the applicant has been conducting the same operation on the property but the intensity of the use over the last several years has declined. The site was well maintained, clean, and meets the conditions of the CUP. Staff is not aware of any violations on site and has had no complaints on the property. 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Page 2 Staff recommended renewal of the CUP for Thommes and Thomas Land Clearing, operated by Tom and Joanne Benick. The CUP shall be reviewed again in two years to ensure the operation continues to meet all city ordinances and conditions of approval. 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the review of the CUP. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Resolution 2001-75 (CUP Conditions) 3. Site Map 2 Thommes and Thomas Land Clearing Site Map W+`` CUP Renewal S q` Site y re I,"1%�-+ a s 4 u; a4 .'.'.. `, ... -l'.�, � �r G�� kl. it ✓�r 5.� 3 f ' III r I "< # - y` f r p �h � RESOLUTION 2001- 75 APPROVING A RENEWAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THOMMES AND THOMAS LAND CLEARING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5725-165m STREET WHEREAS, Thommes and Thomas has requested approval of the conditional use permit renewal to allow the operation of a business consisting of processing and storage of firewood, recycling of tree waste, chipping, and operation of a mobile air curtain furnace on property legally described as follows: The SW'/. and the SE'/. of the SW % of Section 8, T31N, R21W. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said conditional use permit at a duly called public hearing and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the conditional use permit renewal for Thommes and Thomas on property located at 5725- 165ei Street, subject to the following conditions: I . This permit shall be subject to renewal every 24 months beginning with the date of approval by the City Council. The Council, upon a recommendation from the Planning Commission, may add conditions to the Conditional Use Permit to mitigate any nuisances that exist on the property. 2. The activities on the site shall be limited to the storage, sorting, chipping, sawing, burning, and sale of tree waste and brush, in accordance with the approved site plan. 3. All burning activities, unless specifically permitted by the City Fire Marshall, shall be conducted within a Mobile Air Curtain Burner approved for such use by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The burner shall be operated in accordance with the manufacturers standards and recommendations, as well as the rules and regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 4. No open burning is permitted on the site unless specifically permitted by the City Fire Marshall, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 5. Hours of operation for the site shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. Hours of operation on Saturday shall be from 7:00 Rm. to 6:00 p.m., except legal holidays. The Mobile Air Curtain Burner shall be allowed to operate 24 hours per day Monday through Saturday, except legal holidays. 6. No machinery, equipment, or vehicles shall be stored on the site, except processing equipment necessary for the conduct of permitted activities. 7. The permitee shall maintain access for fire fighting equipment to all storage areas and processing facilities at all times, as determined adequate by the City Fire Marshall. Resolution 2001- 75 Page 2 8. Access to the site shall be controlled by a gate, which shall be closed and locked at all times an employee of the permitee is not on the site. "No Trespassing" signs shall be posted at the entrance gate. 9. Exterior storage of tree waste on bare ground, and in accordance with the approved site plan, is recognized as a lawful non -conforming use of the property. Pavement of the tree waste storage areas is not required. 10. The permitee shall maintain the vegetative screening along the south property line to screen on -site activities from view from adjacent properties and public road right-of- way. 11. The permitee shall reimburse the City for any and all costs the City incurs in responding to fires that occur, on or off the site, due to the permitee's activities on this site. 12. The permitee shall hold the City of Hugo, its employees and agents harmless for all activities undertaken by the penmitee under the teams of this permit. The permitee shall maintain liability insurance, naming the City of Hugo as an additional insured, in an amount not less than $ l ,000,000 for operations undertaken on this site during the duration of this permit. 13. No advertising signs are permitted on the site. 14. Vehicle weight restrictions on public roads shall be observed at all tunes. 15. All brush, wood, refuse, and other materials brought on to the site shall be removed from the site prior to expiration of this permit. 16. The permitee shall deposit $5,000.00, in cash or security acceptable to the City's Finance Director, with the City to guarantee the permitee's performance under the terms of this permit. Upon roll call, members voting AYE: Granger, Haas, Petryk, Puleo, Miron VOTING NAY: NONE ADOPTED by the City Council this 17a' day of December 2001. Fran Mi n, Mayor ATTEST: eo Mary Cz+eager, City Cl •• O {f C r +0 O 10 U I Ln Cam V d L r Vj � /Zdl %El B uoi�a�s fa f,�IKS ,fv �v11 fs�� y"�� }aaj 11911 #SaM f.° faafett► ;FPl o suit iSD31 cu IU .v d ti 1 f gn peg es O&Y o A F/ /D o0N PoZoa/ 4221 see ;Sam Alp Suil jSa3) IL % �! •f � � /�d � r • � '�. i , r • , ' if ` � �, ! , r l � '. - • :��=; :,_.��.�:�. • • _ � Yam, �.�� . _a'. �� . _. .. ..A JI -••wi�.�•F :-Y3•a'••S�' ... .. _.... �•' tiw. _ .;#s � ,r+r'�r.. - I►. N�/�VOO� �/i7V/II - _ :ra Agenda Number G.6 CITY OF HUGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT TO: Bryan Bear, City Administrator FROM: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Kieger Enterprises. Conditional use permit review for property located at 5885-1651h Street North DATE: January 31, 2019, for the City Council Meeting of February 4, 2019. 1. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE: At its January 24, 2019, meeting the Planning Commission considered the review of the conditional use permit (CUP). The applicant stated that he will have the building removed prior to June 1, 2019. The Planning Commission recommend approval of the review of the CUP with the condition that the non -compliant building be removed prior to June 1, 2019. 2. OVERVIEW: Kieger Enterprises has a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate an environmental clean- up business, garden center, and landscaping supply business for property located at 5885- 165t' Street North. On April 15, 2000, the city council approved the CUP for the environmental clean-up business which includes vehicle repair facilities, cold storage, exterior storage of vehicles and equipment, and company offices. On May 8, 2003, the City Council approved an amendment to the conditional use permit to allow a portion of the property to be used as a garden center and a landscape supply business. The conditional use permit amendment was approved subject to seventeen conditions of approval. One of the conditions of approval is that the CUP shall be reviewed and renewed after an initial two year period, with a four year review and renewal period thereafter. On September 16, 2013, the City Council approved the renewal of the CUP and directed staff to review the CUP again in four years to ensure the applicant continues to meet city ordinances and the conditions of approval. The four year review of the CUP is due for review and renewal. Kieger CUP Page 2 3. ANALYSIS: Upon inspection of the property on October 22, 2018, staff observed that an additional building was constructed on the property without a building permit. Further, condition number 11 in the CUP states that "the number of buildings, amount outdoor storage, and uses identified on the site plan dated February 14, 2000 and the application dated April 15, 2000, shall not be enlarged or expanded, unless a new conditional use permit is applied for and approved". The applicant did not apply for a CUP amendment or receive approval of a building permit for the building. Further, the building does not meet the commercial and industrial construction standards and would not receive approval from staff. Staff has discussed this with the applicant and the applicant has agreed to remove the building from the property prior to June 1, 2019. Staff is comfortable with this proposal and has added it as a condition of approval of the CUP review in the attached resolution. If the applicant does not remove the building prior to June 1, 2019, the applicant will be in violation of the CUP and staff will initiate the process of revoking the CUP because of non-compliance. The property is generally maintained and meets the remaining conditions outlined in their CUP. There are a few new businesses located on the property and all are similar in nature to what is allowed by the CUP. Staff is not aware of any complaints or issues related to the operation of Kieger enterprises. 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended renewal of the CUP for Kieger Enterprises with the condition that the building is removed from the property prior to June 1, 2019. The CUP shall be reviewed at that time and again in four years to ensure Kieger Enterprises continues to meet all city ordinances and conditions of approval. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend approval of the review of the CUP with the condition that the non -compliant building be removed prior to June 1, 2019. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Resolution 3. Resolution Approving 2003 CUP Amendment 4. Conditional Use Permit 5. Site Plan Kieger N CUP Review Site Map W: ' + t,�is "a �—.��!' _� �j �� `�'I•�:'.-1" � Ali f {'°f�•�le'r1F1''�°' •* _ E� -NTW L ml toqy, - _ Site L N fed RESOLUTION 2019- APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KIEGER ENTERPRISES INC LOCATED AT 5885165TH STREET NORTH WHEREAS, Kieger Enterprises has an existing conditional use permit (CUP) for an environmental cleanup business, including vehicle repair facilities, cold storage, exterior storage of vehicles and equipment, and company offices. The conditional use permit also allows for a landscape supply and garden center on the property. The property is legally described as: SEE ATTACHED WHEREAS, Kieger Enterprises shall meet all of the conditions listed in the conditional use permit dated September 5, 2000, WHEREAS, condition number 11 in the CUP states that " the number of buildings, amount outdoor storage, and uses identified on the site plan dated February 14, 2000 and the application dated April 15, 2000, shall not be enlarged or expanded, unless a new conditional use permit is applied for and approved", WHEREAS, upon inspecting the property on October 22, 2018, staff observed that an additional building was constructed on the property without a building permit, WHEREAS, the applicant did not apply for a CUP amendment or receive approval of a building permit for the building, WHEREAS, the applicant shall remove the additional building from the property prior to June 1, 2019, WHEREAS, staff will inspect the property prior to June 1, 2019, to ensure compliance with the CUP, WHEREAS, if the building is not removed the property will be in violation of the CUP, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the renewal of the conditional use permit for Kieger Enterprises located at 5885 165th Street North. ADOPTED by the City Council this 4th day of February, 2019 Tom Weidt, Mayor ATTEST: Resolution 2019- Page 2 Michele Lindau, City Clerk RESOLUTION 2003.17 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A LANDSCAPE SUPPLY BUSINESS AND GARDEN CENTER ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT M-169M STREET NORTH WHEREAS, Kieger Enterprises, Inc. has an existing conditional use permit for an environmental clean-up business, including vehicle repair facilities, cold storage, exterior storage of vehicles and equipment, and company offices and has made application to allow a landscape supply business and garden center on property legally described as follows: That part of the southeast quarter of the Section 8, Township 31 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly celled public meeting and recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGO, bMINMOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the conditional use permit for Kieger Enterprises on property located at 5885-1656 Sum North subject to the following conditions: 1. The use must not have sewage disposal needs which exceed three residential equivalencies as determined by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services standards. 2. The property must meet the Dimensional Requirements for Standard Development outlined in Figure 3-2 of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Regulations. 3. No land use may produce obnoxious or continuous smoke, as measured at the point of emission, by any means. All emissions shall comply with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7011. 4. All landscaping indicated on the Sits Plan dated February 14, 2000 (revised June 15, 2000) must be maintained in aeeordanoe with the requirements of Section 5.18 of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Regulations. 5. Conformance with the Section 6 - Performance Standards, with particular reference to the following. Resolution 2003-17 Page 2 5.19 Driveways 6.22 Exterior Storage 6.25 Feam 6.37 Lighting, Outdoor 6.45 Motor Freight Terminal 6.50 Parking and Loading 6.54 Recycling Center 6.61 Signs 6. Review and renewal of the CUP after an initial two year period, with a 4-year review and renewal period thereafter. 7. The applicant shall pave a 16P Street North extending east from the driveway to the existing paved surface, which is a distance of approximately 250 feet. Additionally, the applicant shall pave that portion of I65m Street North extending west a distance of 50 feet in order to provide a transition between the gravel and paved surfaces. The applicant shall submit construction plans, prepared by a professional engineer, to the City Engineer for review and approval. The paved road surface shall meet the City standards for a nine ton street section. The applicant shall submit the construction plans to the City no later than November 30, 2000, and shall complete the paving no later than June 30, 2001. 8. Access to the site shall be limited to 165a' Street North. The access to Ifighway 61 shall be used only for and by public safety vehicles. 9. The applicant shall maintain the emergency vehicle access and circulation route as indicated on the plans received by the City on August 1, 20K 10. All hazardous waste and non -recyclable waste products produced by the applicant's business and other operations on the site shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable local, County. State, and Federal laws. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from Washington County for the storage of any hazardous waste material. 11. The number of buildings, amount of outside storage, and uses identified on the site plan dated February 14, 2000 and the application dated April 15, 2000 shall not be enlarged or expanded, unless a new conditional use permit is applied for and approved. 12.11we shall be no outside storage of any junk or inoperable equipment or vehicles. 13. The normal hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 7:00 am. to 2:00 pan. on Saturday for all maintenance and Operation of equipment on the site (including the moving of vehicles on and off the Resolution 2003-17 Page 3 site), unless it is for the purpose of mobilizing equipment in response to an emergency, or for street cleaning or snow plowing operations. 14. The garden center and landscape supply business shall be allowed to operate from 7:00 am. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sunday (the Environmental Cleanup Building must comply with the hours listed in condition 13), provided no heavy equipment is used. A small bobcat may be used to load vehicles. The garden center and landscape supply business shall comply with the existing hours of operation on Monday through Saturday. 15.One monument advertising sign not to exceed 40 square feet and one business identification/direction sign not to exceed 32 square feet shall be permitted on the property. The signs shall not exceed 10 feet in height. 16. None of the existing buildings located on the property shall be used for retail sales. 17. A temporary greenhouse not to exceed 10,000 square feet shall be permitted. ADOPTED by the City Council this 2nd day of June, 2003. Mayor ATTEST: Mary& Creager, City 3123U44 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11M®®a10851 0111"d be DATE OF APPROVAL: September 5, 2000 Coealr 8boerder weehlaou cog*, MN ADDRESS FOR WHICH SUP IS GRANTED: 5885 165* Street North oaaw ow odw Hemmed a: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached. 2OW10102 8:0 .10 PM 3123044 OWNER: Edward J. Kieger, Jr. 0,A, ewer e-► ZONING DISTRICT: Restricted Industrial GA I&Vme THIS SUP ALLOWS FOR THE FOLLOWING: An environmental clean-up business, including vehicle repair facilities, cold storage, exterior storage of vehicles and equipment, and company offices. THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIOM: 1. The use must not have sewage disposal needs that exceed throe residential equivalencies as determined by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services standards. 2. The property must meet the Dimensional Requirements for Standard Development outlined in Figure 3-2 of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Regulations. 3. No land use may produce obnoxious or continuous smoke, as measured at the point of emission, by any means. All emissions shall comply with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7011. 4. All landscaping indicated on the Site Plan dated February 14, 2000 (revised June 15, 2000) must be maintained in accordance with the requirements of Section 5.18 of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Regulations. 5. Conformance with the Section 6 - Performance Standards, with particular reference to the following: 5.19 Driveways 6.22 Exterior Storage 6.25 Fences 6.37 Lighting, Outdoor 6.45 Motor Freight Terminal 6.50 Parking and Loading 6.54 Recycling Center 6.61 Signs 6. Review and renewal of the CUP after an initial two-year period, with a four-year review and renewal period thereafter. A 7. The applicant shall pave a 165' Street North extending east from the driveway to the existing paved surface, which is a distance of approximately 250 feet. Additionally, the applicant shall pave that portion of 165* Street North extending west a distance of 50 feet in order to provide a transition between the gravel and paved surfaces. The applicant shall submit construction plans, prepared by a professional engineer, to the City Engineer for review and approval. The paved mad surface shall meet the City standards for a nine -ton street section. The applicant shall submit the construction plans to the City no later than November 30, 2000, and shall complete the paving no later than June 30, 2001. 8. Access to the site shall be limited to 165d' Street North. The access to Highway 61 shall be used only for and by public safety vehicles. 9. The applicant shall maintain the emergency vehicle access and circulation mute as indicated on the plans received by the City on August 1, 2000. 10. All hazardous waste and non -recyclable waste products produced by the applicant's business and other operations on the site shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable local, County, State, and Federal laws. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from Washington County for the storage of any hazardous waste material. 11. The number of buildings, amount of outside storage, and uses identified on the site plan dated February 14, 2000 and the application dated April 15, 2000 shall not be enlarged or expanded, unless a new conditional use permit is applied for and approved. 12. There shall be no outside storage of any junk or inoperable equipment or vehicles. 13. The normal hours of operation shall be limited to 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday for all maintenance and operation of equipment on the site (excluding the moving of vehicles on and off the site), unless it is for the purpose of mobilizing equipment in response to an emergency, or for street cleaning or snow plowing operations Edward L KWger,lf4Z `Walter L. St&&man, Wayor ATTEST: 1,7 Mary gee`, City C S And swam heffire Imp thic•�'� day of , 2000. AM MCfELE At UMM)AU ilm NOWPLOW4MOMu wr GwidVAM &Pku A. al. 2mon (Notary �; " ► , , THE HUGO CITY COUNCIL DRAFTED THIS DOCUMENT: 21" 5524 Upper 1460' Street North ., ? ' r Hugo, MN 55038 A LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 31 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest comer of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8; thence South 1 degree 09 minutes 51 seconds West, assumed bearing along the west line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 1045 feet, thence North 89 degrees 47 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 729 feet, more or less, to the westerly right of way line of- the Burlington Northern Railroad; thence northeasterly. along said railroad right—of—way line, a distance of 1070 feet, more or less, to the North line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8; thence westerly. along said north line, a distance of 935 feet. more or less, to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom the North 213 feet of the West 525 feet of said Southeast Quarter. Subject to 165th Street No. Also excepting therefrom the following described parcel: The South 185 feet of the North 398 feet of the West 505 feet of the Nort Quarter of the Southeast Quarter Section 8. Township 31 North. Range 21 Wehstt Washington County. Minnesota. • % f a pm . J mz x 1010 ru. ESWAVA � ter- � � "— :�.::: �.:� ' / � JJ'• AWW wtw wm 1 �° 1 RECEIVED JUL 0 8 2002 CASE # Oc)- o a L a, 1em I IM ,.sa. slW11 NOW At NORTH onm ummm.IC 00000 rvi 4=-= yA1 rrerrt� =am Mc. 6.0"1E02 now A � at AIM 108 WAVZM Pm. =a W WE QATA .... ...y1,.N.. mur d .x... a...,. AM a,~.. : aallor mp .:. mr R WO �pNe asr •1 riR�.�' gnaw rwma me-.... >ana rm&=I .tea,. S of tm t or of R5.1. a of d MR td w�a. �w to at ridgy a "�"'W a�rn••o■W. [aw . A . s aw.p. �.. re or .� �am a 's1E� owr, �.... �• .,. � _-ti. � • °iru�tg"r°�..tl��O,.rhr. 1,01A.0GRA tltia..iyt..w,4 T �r nro.ar t. � � � a AD&MW & , IW. .,1,� ,,.,....,.. R.i1,.Lt .1. w,numm,.,N.Na.wav awawtaw,w. sIwo ..wm.aa,w CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HUGO, MINNESOTA KIEGER ENTERPRISES, INC. SITE PLAN ,«a, y �+ 9 OF 1 ao .Ayt powwoww,ay.aw CHO=Yri Agenda Number G.7 CITY OF HUGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT TO: Bryan Bear, City Administrator FROM: Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant SUBJECT: Bald Eagle Sportsmen's Association (BESA) - Special Use Permit Review for property located at 6557 125th Street North DATE: January 31, 2019 for the City Council Meeting of February 4, 2019. 1. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE: At its January 10, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the review of the special use permit (SUP). President of the BESA, David Arcand, was there to address the Planning Commission stated that he will maintain and fix the surrounding fence where necessary. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the review of the SUP with the understanding that the fence will be properly maintained. 2. OVERVIEW: The Bald Eagle Sportsmen's Association (BESA) has a SUP to operate a gun club on property located at 6557 125th Street (see attached permit). Condition 19 of the permit states that it shall be reviewed prior to December 1st of the even -numbered years, or if the SUP is amended or violated. There have been no changes on the property since the SUP was last amended on September 22, 2016 when an additional building was added. 3. ANALYSIS: Staff visited the gun club on December 17, 2018 and noted areas of the fence that need to be repaired along 125th Street. The property is generally maintained and meets the remaining conditions outlined in their SUP. Staff is not aware of any complaints or violations to the operation of the Bald Eagle Sportsmen's Association. 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Page 2 Staff recommended renewal of the SUP for the Bald Eagle Sportsmen's Association with the condition that the fence be repaired along 125th Street. The SUP shall be reviewed again in two years to ensure BESA continues to meet all city ordinances and conditions of approval. 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the review of the SUP. Attachments 1. BESA SUP 2. Site Maps 2 6557125th Street N 1 inch = 360 feet Site Map �� is -• �i � ,�� 'u��Y• � -7r4 AgIpw�P., ip- OP . � - R ✓ - Ili � .��T�` Y � �� . � s ',: 1 ��` � � f .,. /"' ,�, ,.ram � " ,;; � • +yam �, ,1 � �r ' �� ' P' ell l ire i= i , ( _ '� •� ! �R► • } A /�r ,_ 'E.,• �� - ist i r� . f E Es �'7 •a� -t �' -," s��" •ice •, � V, 4'I[3UL7 USE $46.00 Return to: I I I I I C71 OF HUGO I I I I I 14669 Fr ZGERALD AVE E N HUGO MN 55038 Certified Filed and/or recorded on; 8/8/2017 1:24 PM 4123021 Office of the County Recorder Washington County, Minnesota Jennifer Wagenius, County Recorder SPECIAL USE PERMIT SPECIAL USE PERMIT DATE OF APPROVAL: August 20, 2007, amended October 3, 2016 ADDRESS FOR WHICH SUP IS GRANTED: 6557 125`h Street North LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E %Z of the SW % of Section 33, T31N, R21 W, Washington County, Minnesota OWNER(S): Bald Eagle Sportsman Association ZONING DISTRICT: Agriculture THIS SUP ALLOWS FOR THE FOLLOWING: Operate gun club. THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Any and all conditions of the Special Use Permit must be met within 60 days, unless otherwise stipulated in this Permit. 2. A sign listing the name, hours of operation, club and emergency telephone number (911) shall be installed at the main gate. The safety rules are to be posted on the sign, which shall be 4' x 8', lateral dimension. 3. A legal fence shall be maintained in a tight and upright condition. Signs identifying the property are to be posted so that at no point is there not a sign readable. 4. An annual declaration of membership shall be filed with the City. 5. The City of Hugo to be provided with a current list of names, addresses, and phone numbers of the Club's officers. This list should be filed annually, or when there is any change of. officers. 6. A reforestation plan shall be filed with the City and revised annually. 7. A range officer must be on duty at all times the Club is opened to the public. The range officer requirement shall be waived for the Washington County Sheriff's Tactical Unit, allowing them use of the facility up to a maximum of six (6) times per year while under approved supervision subject to the requirements of Condition #8. 8. HOURS OF OPERATION SUNDAYS The Club may be open on six (6) consecutive Sundays ending with the Sunday closest to the Minnesota Deer Season Opener. Hours of operation shall be from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY Hours of operation — 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. SATURDAY Hours of operation — 10 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. HOLIDAY The Club will close Memorial Day weekend, Labor Day weekend, and the week of the 4' of July. 9. Youth groups and firearm groups are allowed unlimited use of off hours during the days the Club is authorized to be opened. Use is limited to 22-caliber rimfire. 10. Impulse noise levels shall at no time exceed the maximum levels established by Minn. Stat. § 87A.05. 11. The owners shall have sixty (60) days from the day they are notified that they exceed the standards established by Minn. Stat. § 87A.05 to prepare and submit to the City Council and Planning Commission, detailed plans for abatement of noise so that the operation will be brought within the required standards. Once the plans are approved by the City Council, the owners will have six (6) months to complete construction in accordance with the abatement plans so approved. 12. At no time shall there be a change in the physical operation of the Club without notification to and approval by the City, and at no time shall the current size of the physical operation of the club be increased except for the purposes of buffering or noise mitigation. 13. The Club shall be allowed to construct and use a 200-yard range, subject to berming of the site for noise abatement. 14. Should the City Council determine that any of the conditions of the Special Use Permit have been violated, and that said violation has not been corrected within thirty (30) days of notification of the property owner of said violation, the City Council shall schedule a public hearing, with notice to the owners, to consider the violation or violations and thereafter, may suspend, modify, or revoke the SUP, giving reason for the action taken. 15. The facility may be used by Club members and their guests, and may be opened to the public, subject to the requirements of Condition #8. 16. The City shall be notified five (5) working days prior to the next regular -scheduled City Council meeting preceding any day during which extended hours will be requested. 17. The owners shall hold the City of Hugo harmless for any loss, expense, damage, including reasonable attorney fees that may be incurred as a result of granting this SUP. 18. The owners shall provide the City with a performance bond, in the amount of $5,000, to insure maintenance of the physical facilities in the condition herein outlined. 19. The SUP shall be reviewed prior to December 1 st of the even numbered years, or if the SUP is amended or violated. 20. The existing facility is approved as shown on Exhibit A. Changes to Exhibit A may only be approved by the City Council after a public hearing with the Planning Commission. 21. Hand held muzzleloaders are permitted to use the facility. 22. BESA will provide the names of three (3) people responsible for maintaining the rules of the Club so that they can be contacted in case of any rule infraction. The Club will provide a copy of their shooting schedule to any neighbor requesting a copy. A copy is to be provided to City Hall. 23. Four (4) days will be designated as CMP shoot days: one day in June; one day in July; one day in August; and one day in September. 24. The BESA shall be allowed to conduct archery shoots and tournaments for the general public on Sundays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 25. This permit may be modified or amended by the City Council to incorporate any restriction authorized or permitted by the Shooting Range Protection Act § 87A.01 or any amendment, revision or repeal thereof including, without limitation, reimposition of membership limitations. 26. It is expressly understood and agreed that the modifications made to this Permit as of the date below shall not impair or affect the effective date of this Permit and this Permit is agreed to be in effect on the effective date of Minn. Stat. § 87A.01 et seq., Subd. 8 of which permits continued regulation of days and hours of operation imposed by the terms and conditions of ordinances and permits that are in effect on the effective date of Minn. Stat. § 87A.01. It being the intent of the parties, the existing regulation of days and hours of operation shall not be impaired or affected hereby. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) On this % day of WV , 2017, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared David Arcand, President'of BESA, who signed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged said instrument to be his free act and deed. f aF RACHELA. LEITZ € NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2020 " Notary Public Tom Weidt, Mayor Michele Lindau, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) On this day of 2017, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Tom Weidt, Mayor, and Michele Lindau, City Clerk, who signed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged said instrument to be his free act and deed. 1 EBI CLOSE NOTAWRY PUBLIC - AMNNESOTA My Conx►ion Expires Jan. 31, 2021 THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Ave N Hugo, MN 55038 �'N� Notary Public Exhibit A Ar V CITY OF HUGO MEMORANDUM TO: Bryan Bear, City Administrator FROM: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Adoption of the Water Resource Management Plan Agenda G.9 G.10 G.11 Adoption of Rice Creek Watershed District Rules C, D, E, and F Regarding Stormwater Management Approval of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for LGU Authority DATE: January 31, 2019, for the City Council meeting of February 4, 2019 1. BACKGROUND: The City's Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) is used as a guide to the City on administration and implementation of all stormwater management activities within the City. The plan was approved by the City Council in 2015 and was formally approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) on July 25, 2018. The plan will now be incorporated in the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The plan states that the City will continue to be the Local Government Unit (LGU) that is responsible for reviewing and approving all activities regarding stormwater management, erosion and sediment control, and floodplain and wetland alterations. Currently, the City has a memorandum of understating (MOU) that outlines what rules the City will be administer on behalf of the RCWD and the terms that will be followed. To retain the regulatory authority over these items the City needs to update the MOU and adopt the RCWD rules relating to these areas. The City has been following these rules since it began exercising its LGU authority in 2004. Staff has drafted an ordinance that would adopt the RCWD rules by reference. There are a few instances where the City of Hugo has more restrictive rules than the RCWD, these items have been added the ordinance. At its January 10, 2019, meeting, the Planning Commission considered and held a public hearing on the ordinance. There was no one that spoke during the public hearing. Staff recommended approval of the ordinance. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance. 2. CONCLUSION/STAFF RECOMMENDATION: These steps will finalize the approval process of the WRMP. The plan will then be implemented and incorporated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for approval by the Metropolitan Council. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance adopting RCWD Rules C, D, E, and F. Staff recommends the following: 1. Approve the resolution adopting the Water Resources Management Plan 2. Approve the ordinance adopting RCWD Rules C, D, E, and F, by reference 3. Approve and authorize signing of the MOU. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Adopting WRMP 2. Draft Ordinance 3. Draft MOU 4. WRMP -December 2018 RESOLUTION 2019- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGO AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY'S WATER RESOUCRE MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Hugo initiated an update to its Water Resource Management Plan in 2015, consistent with the requirement in state law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Water Resource Management Plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommended approval to the City Council; and; WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Water Resource Management Plan on June 1, 2015, for Rice Creek Watershed District review; and; WHEREAS, the Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed and taken final action on the plan on July 25, 2018, and found that the plan meets all requirements Minnesota State Statutes 10313.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410.0160, and is consistent with, and meets all requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan. WHEREAS, after adoption the City of Hugo will implement the Water Resources Management Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does adopt the Water Resource Management Plan. WHEREUPON, a vote being taken upon the motion, the following voted in favor: The following voted against: ADOPTED by the City Council this 4th day of February, 2019 Tom Weidt, Mayor ATTEST: Michele Lindau, City Clerk ORDINANCE 2019- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUGO ADOPTING CERTAIN RULES OF THE RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT REGARDING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. The City Council of the City of Hugo, Washington County, Minnesota, does hereby ordain as follows: WHEREAS, the City of Hugo is responsible for local water resource management and desires to adopt by reference Rice Creek Watershed District's Rules regarding storm water management (Rule C), erosion and sediment control (Rule D) flood plain alteration (Rule E) and wetland alteration (Rule F) and any revisions or amendments thereto by the Rice Creek Watershed District. NOW THEREFORE, it is ordained as follows: Section 1. The following rules of the Rice Creek Watershed District and any amendments or revisions thereto are adopted as ordinances of the City of Hugo: Rule: Rule C "Stormwater Management Plans" (a) The City of Hugo adopts by reference the Rice Creek Watershed District Rule C regarding Stormwater Management Plans. The rules and regulations related to the review of Stormwater management plans will be reviewed by the Local Governing Unit (LGU) in accordance with the Rice Creek Watershed District Rule The Rice Creek Watershed District retains authority for C.5(f) and the City will covey drainage system easements to the Rice Creek Watershed District as required by C.10 (b). (b) Additions. The following regulations are additions to Rule C because they are more restrictive than the Rice Creek Watershed District Rules. (1) Rate Control. The City requires applicable new and redevelopment sites to limit the 100-year 24-hour rainfall event discharge rate to less than 0.1 cfs/acre. Atlas 14 rainfall data must be used to calculate this value. (2) Freeboard. Any new development or redevelopment within the City will maintain 3 feet of freeboard between the 100-year high water elevation (HWL) or 10-day snowmelt event, whichever is greater, of the nearest stormwater BMP or natural waterbody and the minimum building opening. If this 3-foot freeboard requirement is considered a hardship, the standard could be lowered to two feet if the below conditions can be met: a. Provide flood storage volume within the freeboard area that is at least 50% of the flood storage volume below the 100-yr HWL; and b. 25% outlet obstruction does not increase the 100-yr HWL by more than 1'; and c. Adequate emergency overflow (EOF) from basin to provide assurance that F freeboard will be maintained for proposed low opening Rule D "Erosion and Sediment Control" (a) The City of Hugo adopts by reference the Rice Creek Watershed District Rule D regarding Erosion and Sediment Control. (b) The application for the modification or alterations of Erosion and Sediment Control will be reviewed by the Local Governing Unit (LGU) in accordance with the Rice Creek Watershed District Rule D. Rule E "Floodplain Alteration" (a) The City of Hugo adopts by reference the Rice Creek Watershed District Rule E regarding Floodplain Alteration. The City will convey drainage system easements to the Rice Creek Watershed District as required by EA(b). (b) The application for the modification or alterations of Floodplain Alteration will be reviewed by the Local Governing Unit (LGU) in accordance with the Rice Creek Watershed District Rule E. Rule F "Wetland Alteration" (a) The City of Hugo adopts by reference the Rice Creek Watershed District Rule F regarding Wetland Alteration. (b) The application for the modification or alterations of Wetland Alteration will be reviewed by the Local Governing Unit (LGU) in accordance with the Rice Creek Watershed District Rule F and the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Section 2. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this ordinance and the provisions in the City Code for City Water Resources Management Plan, the more restrictive standards prevails. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective after its passage and publication. Section 4. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any part of this ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provision of this ordinance not specifically included within that judgment. WHEREUPON the following members voted in favor: WHEREUPON the following members voted against: PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Hugo, Washington County, Minnesota this day of 92019 Tom Weidt, Mayor ATTEST: Michele Lindau, City Clerk D '7A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between the Rice Creek Watershed District and the City of Hugo for Local Water Planning and Regulation This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made by and between the Rice Creek Watershed District, a watershed district with purposes and powers as set forth at Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D ("District"), and the City of Hugo, a statutory city of the State of Minnesota ("City"). Recitals and Statement of Purpose WHEREAS on April 28, 2004, the City and the District executed a memorandum of understanding for local water planning and regulation; WHEREAS pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §103B.231, on January 4, 2010, the District adopted, and on November 9, 2016 it amended, its watershed management plan (WMP) detailing the existing physical environment, land use and development in the watershed and providing for water resource management to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding, and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B, 103D and 103 E; WHEREAS to achieve the policies and purposes of the WMP and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §103D.341, the District has adopted and implements rules requiring permits for and otherwise regulating land disturbance; WHEREAS pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §103G.2242 and associated statutes and rules, the District serves as the local government unit (LGU) for implementation of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) except within the boundaries of a municipality that has undertaken to fulfill the role of LGU; WHEREAS the City has developed a local water management plan under Minnesota Statutes §103B.235, titled "Water Resource Management Plan for the City of Hugo, Minnesota" and dated (date), that describes the existing and proposed physical environment and land use within the City and sets forth an implementation plan for bringing local water management into conformance with the WMP ("Local Plan"); WHEREAS on (date), 2018, the District Board of Managers conditionally approved the Local Plan by adoption of Resolution 2018-19, which resolution is attached and incorporated herein; WHEREAS Minnesota Statutes §103B.211 and the WMP provide that at the City's election and on the District's approval of the Local Plan, the District shall cease to apply its rules within the D '7A City boundaries, except as the District and City have agreed, and further that the District and City shall agree as to which will act as the WCA LGU; WHEREAS pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §103B.235 and WMP subsection 8.3.2, District approval of the Local Plan requires a finding that the official controls of the City will protect water resources to a degree equivalent to that of the District rules, and further is conditioned on District approval of inspection and administrative procedures for the City's effective implementation and enforcement of its official controls, and on mutual establishment of a framework for the District's periodic review of the City's regulatory program; and WHEREAS District approval of the Local Plan is conditioned on execution of this MOU setting forth the respective roles and responsibilities of the District and the City in regulating potential water resource impacts within the City; NOW THEREFORE the parties enter into this MOU in order to document the understanding of the parties as to the roles and responsibilities of each, and to replace the April 28, 2004 MOU. Terms 1. The City may exercise all present and future authority it otherwise may possess to issue permits for and regulate activities affecting water resources within the City. 2. The City in its Local Plan commits to adopting ordinances materially identical to those attached hereto as Exhibit A. The District will continue to refrain from exercising regulatory authority under its Rules C (Stormwater Management Plans), D (Erosion and Sediment Control Plans), E (Floodplain Alteration) and F (Wetland Alteration) within municipal boundaries provided that within 180 days of District adoption of Resolution a. The District has confirmed that the City's ordinances are adopted and in effect; and b. The District and City have agreed on written protocols for: (i) City inspection and administrative procedures to administer and enforce its water resource ordinances, including maintenance of those stormwater practices constructed or installed for compliance with City ordinances pursuant to this MOU and that the City owns or has assumed the obligation to maintain; (ii) City transmission of information to the District regarding changes to the City's hydrology or conveyance systems that the District finds warranted to keep its watershed models and data systems current; and (iii) District procedures for periodic field inspection of development projects and operational audits of the City's regulatory program implementation. 3. The City shall serve as the WCA LGU within municipal boundaries on the City's acknowledgement to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources pursuant to Minnesota Rules 8420.0200. 2 D '7A 4. The District shall exercise its authority under its Rules in the following circumstances: a. With respect to all District rules other than Rules C, D, E and F; b. As to work by any public body that the City does not have the legal authority to regulate; c. If the work requires a variance from City water resource ordinances, unless the variance is from a standard stricter than the District standard and the proposal would meet the District standard, in which case the City will notify District regulatory staff but the District will not exercise its authority; d. If the City, in a specific case or programmatically, requests that the District exercise its regulatory jurisdiction; or e. As required for the District to meet its legal obligations under its NPDES municipal stormwater (MS4) permit or any other independent law. 5. The City need not issue a permit for its own work, but shall document its review demonstrating that the work conforms to its water resource ordinances. 6. The District retains approval authority with respect to a comprehensive stormwater management plan under Rule C.5(f). 7. In issuing a permit under its stormwater management or floodplain alteration ordinance, the City shall require the drainage system repair easement set forth at Rules C.10(b) and E.4(b), as amended, to be conveyed to the District, which easement shall be subject to prior District review and approval. 8. If the District revises its Rule C, D, E or F in a manner that it considers significant and so advises the City in writing, the City shall revise its own ordinance to maintain equivalent water resource protection. If the District has not approved the City's revision within six months or such other time as the parties may agree, the District may reassume regulatory jurisdiction with respect to the affected rule. 9. The District retains all authority that it may possess under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B, 103D and 103E and any other provision of law, except as explicitly reposed in the City under this Agreement. 10. The District will exercise its right under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B to resume regulatory jurisdiction if its Board of Managers finds that the City is not implementing its Local Plan. 3 D '7A 11. This MOU may be amended only by a writing signed by both of the parties. This MOU will expire, and the District will reassume regulatory jurisdiction under its Rules C, D, E and F, two years after the District's adoption of its next decennial WMP revision. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, this MOU will remain in effect until the District and City enter into a superseding MOU, and the District will not reassume regulatory jurisdiction, provided: (a) the City has adopted a Local Plan that conforms to the District's decennial WMP revision within the time specified by Minnesota Statutes §103B.235, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules 8410.0160, subpart 6; (b) the City's revised official controls are effective within 180 days of the City's adoption of its Local Plan; and (c) the City has conformed to all conditions of the District's Local Plan approval. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto execute this MOU. CITY OF HUGO AM Tom Weidt, Mayor Date: Bryan Bear, City Administrator RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Date: Patricia Preiner, President Board of Managers Date: Approved as to Form & Execution 0 Its Attorney C! , CITY 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, MN 55038 (651)762-6300 DEC 2018 Water Resource MANAGEMENT PLAN 1904-52 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Peter Willenbring, PE Stephanie Hatten, EIT Reg. No. 15998 CERTIFICATION Title Page Certification Table of Contents SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION 2: Land and Water Resource Inventory SECTION 3: Agency Cooperation SECTION 4: Assessment of Problems and Issues SECTION 5: Goals and Policies SECTION 6: Implementation Program LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A — Figures Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Soils Map Figure 3: Existing Land Use (2016) Figure 4: Future Land Use (2040) Figure 5: NWI and DNR Waters Map Figure 6: Watershed Organization Boundaries Figure 7: Water Quality Monitoring Stations Figure 8: Problem Areas Figure 9: Water Appropriations Figure 10: Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) Figure 11: Surface Water and Groundwater Interaction Figure 12: Subwatersheds Map Figure 13: Storm Infrastructure Figure 14: Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) Map Figure 15: FEMA Floodplain Map Figure 16: Pollutant Sources Figure 17: DNR Regulated Areas Appendix B — Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Application for Reauthorization Appendix C — Water Management Ordinances Appendix D — City of Hugo Capital Improvement Plan for Stormwater Projects Appendix E — Washington County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Ordinance Appendix F — Stormwater Review Checklist and Permit Appendix G — Wellhead Protection Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. Water Resource Management Plan purposes The City of Hugo's Water Resource Management Plan (plan, City plan, local plan, WRMP) is a local management plan that meets the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103B.235, Minnesota Rules 8410, the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Watershed Management Plan (adopted January 4, 2010 and amended November 9, 2016) the Brown's Creek Watershed District's Fourth Generation Watershed Management Plan (adopted October 12, 2016),the Carnelian -Marine -St. Croix Watershed District Rules (dated March 1, 2010,), and Washington County Groundwater Plan (adopted September 23, 2014). Minnesota Statute 103B.201 states that the purposes of the water management programs are to: • Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems; • Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems; • Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality; • Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management; • Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems; • Promote groundwater recharge; • Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and • Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and groundwater. The Hugo Water Resource Management Plan addresses these purposes. 1.2. Water Resource Management Responsibilities and Related Agreements The City of Hugo has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Rice Creek Watershed District to administer RCWD Rules C, D, E, and F. This MOU will be renewed as required to maintain permitting authority for those rules specified previously. The City serves as the Local Governing Unit (LGU) for the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The City has also entered into a separate MOU with the RCWD to administer minor maintenance on the Washington Jurisdictional Ditch (JD 2). This MOU was renewed in 2017 to extend to 2021. The City has not entered into any other water resource management related agreements with its neighboring cities, Washington County, Brown's Creek Watershed District, Carnelian -Marine -St. Croix Watershed District, or the State of Minnesota. The City of Hugo is responsible for construction, maintenance, and other projects in or along the City's stormwater management systems (i.e., ponds, pipes, channels) that are not considered part of RCWD's public drainage system. SECTION 1 ' . • 1.3. Executive Summary The Hugo Water Resource Management Plan is divided into six sections: • Section 1 Executive Summary provides background information and summarizes the plan contents. • Section 2 Land and Water Resource Inventory presents information about the topography, geology, groundwater, soils, land use, public utilities, surface waters, hydrologic system and data, and the drainage system. • Section 3 Agency Cooperation describes local organizations and other governmental controls and programs that affect water management. • Section 4 Assessment of Problems and Issues presents the City's water management related problems and issues. • Section 5 Goals and Policies outlines the City's goals and policies pertaining to water management. • Section 6Implementation Program presents the program elements and discusses the responsibilities, priorities, and financial considerations associated with the implementation program. 1.3.1. Background The City of Hugo (2010 census population 13,332) is located in Washington County, is part of the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area and is approximately 14 miles north of downtown St. Paul (Figure 1, Appendix A). The City covers approximately 36 square miles. Hugo is nestled between the City of Forest Lake on the north, on the east by May Township, on the south by the City of Grant and White Bear Township, and on the west by the City of Lino Lakes. State Highway 61 runs north/south through the City. Lakes, wetlands, streams, and drainage ways dominate the landscape (Figure 5, Appendix A). These natural features play an extensive role in the way in which the community is currently developed and how the community develops into the future. There are nine lakes in the City classified as protected waters and three lakes which are classified as wetlands by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. There are also approximately 584 acres of protected wetlands in the City of Hugo (Figure 5, Appendix A). Hardwood Creek, Clearwater Creek, and a number of judicial ditches also traverse the City. There are three separate watershed districts in the City of Hugo. The majority of the City is within the RCWD except for small portions of eastern Hugo that are within the Carnelian -Marine -St. Croix Watershed District and the Brown's Creek Watershed District (see Figure 6, Appendix A). This plan addresses the rules and regulations put forth by the Rice Creek Watershed District, Brown's Creek Watershed District, and the Carnelian -Marine Watershed District. The City also developed several policies for environmental protection that are referenced in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 1 2. LAND AND WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY 2.1. Topography and Geology The City of Hugo is 36 square miles in area and located in northern Washington County as shown in Figure 1, Appendix A. The City lies partially within the Glacial Lake Hugo Plain and St. Croix Moraine geomorphic areas. The St. Croix Moraine is the dominant geomorphic feature in Washington County and marks the last advance of the large ice sheet. The landscape is characterized by rolling hills, ridges, and depressions generally forming many lakes and wetlands. The Glacial Lake Hugo Plain consists of terrain that is gently rolling to flat. The surface geology consists primarily of fine sand and sandy silt glacial lake deposits and outwash. The Glacial Lake Hugo Plain can be found on the western half of Hugo. The water table within the City typically ranges from two to ten or more feet below the surface. The current RCWD Watershed Management Plan (WMP) provides a detailed description of the City's surficial and bedrock geology and aquifers. More information is available in the Washington County Geologic Atlas from the Minnesota Geological Survey and the Washington County Groundwater Plan. 2.2. Climate and Precipitation The climate within the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area is described as a humid continental climate with moderate precipitation, wide daily temperature variations, warm humid summers, and cold winters. The total average annual precipitation in this area is approximately 29 inches, of which approximately one-third occurs in the months of June, July, and August. The annual snowfall average is about 56 inches and is equivalent to approximately 5.6 inches of water. The 1-year rainfall event occurring over a 24-hour period produces approximately 2.42 inches. The 100-year rainfall event occurring over a 24-hour period produces approximately 7.15 inches. The 100-year, 10-day snowmelt runoff event is approximately 7.3 inches. This data was derived from the Atlas 14 report produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Additional climatological information for the area can be obtained from the State Climatologist website. • 1-year event = 99% chance of occurring each year • 100-year event = 1 % chance of occurring each year 2.3. Soils The City of Hugo consists mostly of Zimmermann, Isanti, and Lino soils. Lino and Isanti soils are poorly draining and result in higher runoff potential compared to Zimmerman soils. Additional information is available in the Washington County Soil Survey, which is available in the Hugo Water Resource Library. Figure 2, Appendix A shows the Hydrologic Soil type throughout the City. 2.4. Land Use The City of Hugo land use practices include residential, commercial, and industrial development, as well as designated park and open space areas and public recreational areas. The City's 2016 existing land uses are shown on Figure 3, Appendix A, and the City's Future Land Use Map is shown in Figure 4, Appendix A. The land uses as shown on Figure 3 and Figure 4 are defined as follows: • Agricultural: One unit per ten gross acres SECTION 2 • Large Lot Residential: One unit per ten gross acres • Very Low Density Residential: One unit per one acre • Low Density Residential: Between two units and four units per acre • Medium Density Residential: Between three units and eight units per net acre • High Density Residential: Between six units and twelve units per acre • Mixed Use: Opportunity for multiple, compatible uses on a single site • Commercial: Area designated for both service retail, highway, and neighborhood -oriented businesses and retail establishments to develop. • Business Park: Opportunity for office, office warehouse, light industrial, and light manufacturing businesses. • Industrial: Identified areas suitable for warehousing, manufacturing, or processing of products. • Public/Quasi-Public: Areas designated for institutional uses such as governmental uses, religious, educational uses and cemeteries, as well as public parks, conservatories, and private recreation areas. • Manufactured Housing Parks • Major Highway • Multifamily • Office A more detailed definition of land uses within the City of Hugo is available in the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2.5. Public Utilities Public utility services within the City of Hugo include city sewer and water. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) is the area in which public utilities are available. The MUSA is an area agreed upon with the Metropolitan Council and the City of Hugo. Those parcels which are within the MUSA consist of primarily the western side of the City of Hugo, west of Highway 61. The 2040 MUSA is shown on Figure 4, Appendix A. 2.6. Surface Waters Lakes, wetlands, streams, and drainage ways dominate the landscape of the City of Hugo and are shown graphically on Figure 5, Appendix A. These natural features play an extensive role in the way in which the community is currently developed and will develop into the future. There are twelve lakes in the City classified as DNR protected waters. Hardwood Creek and Clearwater Creek are classified as DNR protected watercourses. A number of judicial and private ditches also traverse the City. There are three separate watershed districts in the City of Hugo as shown on Figure 6, Appendix A. The majority of the City is within the RCWD except for small portions of eastern Hugo that are within the Carnelian -Marine -St. Croix Watershed District and the Brown's Creek Watershed District. The City of Hugo is committed to protecting these water bodies as outlined in Section 5 of this Plan. 2.6.1. Water Quality Data The City will continue to support monitoring of surface and ground waters within its jurisdictional boundaries and outside these boundaries for waters to which the City discharges. Data will be obtained through cooperation and coordination of various agencies listed below. SECTION 2 • Rice Creek Watershed District monitoring • Brown's Creek Watershed District monitoring • Carnelian -Marine St. Croix Watershed District monitoring • Metropolitan Council Citizen monitoring, includes the Citizen -Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) • Washington Conservation District monitoring information • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Citizen Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP) Figure 7, Appendix A shows monitoring stations located within the City. Water quality data can be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Environmental Data. This database is utilized by participating agencies to compile water quality testing data and is almost entirely used for the storage of water quality parameters. 2.6.2. Impaired Waters The MPCA is required to publish a list of impaired waters. These are lakes and streams in the state that are not meeting federal water quality standards. For each water body on the list, the MPCA is required to conduct a study to determine the allowable Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for each Hugo, are summarized in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 — 2018 Impaired Waters Impaired Water Affected Use Pollutant Year Added TMDL Status Hardwood Creek Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen 2004 Not Complete (07010206-595) Headwaters to Hwy 61 Hardwood Creek Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen, Fishes 2004, 2002 Complete in 2009, (07010206-596) Bioassessments Hardwood Creek Impaired Biota and Dissolved Hwy 61 to Peltier Lake Oxygen TMDL Clearwater Creek Aquatic Life Fishes Bioassessments, 2002, 2006 Not Complete (07010206-519) Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments Bald Eagle Lake (62- Aquatic Mercury in Fish Tissue, 1998, 2002 Complete in 2008 & 2012, 0002-00) Consumption, Excess Nutrients Bald Eagle Lake Nutrient TMDL Aquatic Recreation Otter Lake (02-0003- Aquatic Consumption Mercury in Fish Tissue* 2010 Complete in 2010 00) Fish Lake (82-0137- Aquatic Recreation Excess Nutrients 2006 Not Complete 00)) South School Section Aquatic Recreation Excess Nutrients 2002 Complete in 2016, Lake (80-0151-00) Northern Chain of Lakes WRAPS RWJD-1 (07010206- Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen 2004 Not Complete 565) Peltier Lake Aquatic Recreation, Mercury in Fish Tissue*, 2008, 2002 Complete in 2008 & 2013, (02-0004-00) Aquatic Consumption Excess Nutrients Peltier Lake and Centerville Lake TMDL Plaisted Lake Aquatic Recreation Excess Nutrients 2012 Complete in 2016, (ID 82-0148-00) Northern Chain of Lakes WRAPS SECTION 2 ' . • Impaired Water Affected Use Pollutant Year Added TMDL Status Barker Lake (82-0076-00) Aquatic Recreation Excess Nutrients 2012 Not Complete Upper Mississippi River (070010206-805) Aquatic Consumption, Aquatic Recreation Mercury in Fish Tissue, Fecal Coliform 1998, 2006 Complete in 2007 & 2014, Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL * Part of the Statewide Mercury Reduction Plan approved in 2008. Every two years, the MPCA updates information in the approved statewide mercury TMDL by adding any new impaired waters or those that have been delisted. The locations of these impaired water bodies are shown on the water resource problem areas map, Figure 8, Appendix A. As noted above, the City is located near Peltier Lake which receives runoff from the City of Hugo. As part of the approved Peltier Lake and Centerville Lake TMDL, the City has been assigned a Waste Load Allocation (WLA). Wasteload allocations are discussed in Section 4 of this WRMP. The Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL was developed to protect numerous stream reaches within the Upper Mississippi River Corridor from impairment due to E.coli. Although the City of Hugo has no direct drainage to the Mississippi River, all cities within Rice Creek Watershed are required to implement actions to address this TMDL. In addition to the water bodies listed above, the City is upstream of the St. Croix River. A TMDL plan for the St. Croix River been adopted, and the City will be required to implement that management plan. The City is also upstream of White Bear Lake which is listed as impaired for Aquatic Consumption. 2.6.3. Shoreland The City of Hugo has adopted a Shoreland Overlay District, a copy of which is located in Appendix C. This ordinance requires setbacks from shoreland areas and limits the type of development, amount of impervious, and use of the City's shoreland areas. 2.6.4. Floodplain The City of Hugo has adopted a floodplain management ordinance. A copy of these regulations is located in Appendix C. This ordinance generally regulates developments, land alterations and uses within each of the floodway, flood fringe, and general floodplain districts. Where defined, floodplain elevations will be measured from Atlas 14 floodplain elevations instead of Technical Paper — 40 elevations. When multiple floodplain elevations exist, the floodplain administrator will review the most appropriate elevation. A copy of the permit checklist with relation to floodplains can be found in Appendix F. 2.6.5. Wetland Inventory There are approximately 584 acres of protected wetlands in the City of Hugo. The City of Hugo has adopted a Wetland Protection District Ordinance, included in Appendix C. Wetland inventories have been completed by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as published on the National Wetland Inventory Maps, and by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as published in their Protected Waters Inventory. These wetland inventories will be utilized to assist in determining if a wetland is present on a given parcel of property within the City. These wetland inventories are located in Figure 5, Appendix A. The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan provides additional information on the wetland inventory. SECTION 2 2.6.6. Intercommunity Flows The RCWD District -wide Modeling Program outlines the existing intercommunity flows in its district -wide modeling program summary. The City of Hugo is committed to maintaining these flow rates under full buildout and will regulate development to ensure compliance with the current intercommunity flow rates identified by the latest model. Table 2.2 below is an excerpt from the summary report showing these existing flows as provided by RCWD. The City will work with RCWD to maintain these flows through coordination on new and redeveloping areas. Table 2.2 Intercommunity Flows Peak Flows cfs 2-Year 10- 100- 100-Year Discharging Receiving Watercourse 24- Year Year 10-Day City City 24- 24- Snowmelt hour hour hour Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall Hugo Forest Lake AWJD 2 42 130 703 670 Main Trunk Hugo Grant Private 26 47 54 33 Open Channel Hugo Lino Lakes AWJD 2 113 207 642 868 Main Trunk Hugo Lino Lakes AWJD 3 134 222 329 321 Main Trunk Lino Lakes Hugo AWJD 3 34 67 163 64 Branch 4 Lino Lakes Hugo AWJD 3 15 17 53 8 Branch 1 While not part of the jurisdictional ditch system, the City of Hugo discharges stormwater via surface flows into Lino Lakes and contributes to the Anoka County Ditch 55 System. Table 2.3 shows proposed flows entering the City of Lino Lakes from Hugo as identified in the City of Lino Lakes' Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Area Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. Table 2.3 Proposed Flows from Hugo to Lino Lakes at Everton Avenue URC Link Peak Flows cfs 2-Year 24- hour Rainfall 10-Year 24- hour Rainfall 100-Year 24-hour Rainfall 100-Year 10-Day Snowmelt CA55MTL 013 2.0 3.5 5.0 4.3 CA55MTL 012 0.3 1.2 3.3 1.6 CA55MTL 011 2.1 7.3 17.7 6.4 CA55MTL 014 3.6 8.3 13.9 12.5 CA55MTL 014B 0.0 0.1 3.9 2.8 Total 8.0 20.4 43.8 27.6 SECTION 2 The northeast corner of Hugo is part of the Carnelian -Marine St. Croix Watershed and surface flows to the east to May Township. The southeast corner of Hugo is part of the Brown's Creek Watershed and surface flows south and east into May Township and the City of Grant. Intercommunity flows will be monitored for these two watersheds as areas develop. 2.7. Groundwater Various agencies are responsible for groundwater management and protection. The DNR regulates groundwater usage rate and volume as part of its charge to conserve and use the waters of the State. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) is the official State agency responsible for addressing all environmental health matters, including groundwater protection. The MPCA administers and enforces laws relating to pollution of the State's waters, including groundwater. The Minnesota Geological Survey provides a complete account of the State's groundwater resources. The RCWD serves an advisory and educational role in cooperating and assisting the DNR, MDH, and the MPCA in their groundwater protection efforts. The City of Hugo currently has six wells in service, which draw ground water from the Jordan Aquifer. They are designated Well No. 1, Well No. 2, Well No. 3, Well No. 4, Well No. 5, and Well No. 6. Locations of the wells are identified in Figure 9, Appendix A. Well No. 2 serves the southern water system and is located west of Trunk Highway 61 and south of County Road 8. Well No. 3 and Well No. 4 serve the northern water system. Well No. 5 along Oneka Parkway serves the northern water system. Well No. 6 was completed in 2013 and serves the southern portion of the water system. Groundwater studies which include the City of Hugo were completed or were in the process of being completed during the time this WRMP was written. Those studies include the following: • Washington County Groundwater Plan • Minnesota DNR Draft Groundwater Management Program Strategic Plan • USGS Groundwater and Surface -Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011. • Metropolitan Council Draft Water Resource Policy Plan. • North and East Metro Groundwater Management Plan • Groundwater Management and Planning Program Final Report • City of Hugo Wellhead Protection Plan — Appendix G The City's Wellhead Protection Plan identifies locations and strategies for managing Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs) and Wellhead Protection Areas. These locations are shown in Figure 10, Appendix A. The North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan was approved by the DNR in 2015 and included the City of Hugo in its analysis. The purpose of the plan is to identify resources, especially groundwater, at risk due to growing demands of water supply due to development. A statewide analysis of groundwater resources identified the north and east metro region, including Hugo, as an area of concern. The City itself has many surface waters connected to and affected by groundwater levels, as shown in Figure 11, Appendix A. As the City's population and water use increase, these factors could affect groundwater levels and other connected surface water features. This plan promotes water conservation and reuse, the protection of surface waters and water quality, improving the groundwater appropriations permitting process, and resolving any conflicts from coordination. SECTION 2 ' . • Figure 11, Appendix A also shows the surface water/groundwater interaction as analyzed by regional screening performed by the Metropolitan Council in their report, Evaluation of Groundwater and Surface -Water Interaction: Guidance for Resource Assessment. The Council intends on completing this process again in the future as new information becomes available. A majority of the waterbodies on the western half of the City have been shown to recharge aquifers. 2.8. Hydrologic System and Data Stormwater runoff generated from the City of Hugo is directed to three different watersheds. a. The north and south portions of the City are directed north into Hardwood Creek, the southwest portion of the City is directed west into Clearwater Creek. Both Clearwater and Hardwood Creeks are directed west into the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes and are contained within the Rice Creek watershed. This stormwater runoff is directed to the west, eventually outletting into the Mississippi River. The total area of Hugo contained within the RCWD is approximately 31 square miles. b. Approximately four square miles of southeastern Hugo drains east into north and south School Section Lakes, which are in the Brown's Creek Watershed. This stormwater is eventually conveyed to the east, outletting into the St. Croix River. c. Approximately one square mile of east central Hugo is directed to the east into Big Marine Lake. This portion of the City is contained within the Carnelian -Marine Watershed District. Figure 12, Appendix A shows these subwatersheds and flow paths as well as the RCWD's boundaries for designated Resources of Concern. The RCWD has completed watershed -wide hydrologic and hydraulic models that includes the City of Hugo as part of their District -wide Modeling Program. These models include SWMM models for public drainage systems into Rice Creek, direct drainage into Rice Creek, water quality models, Future Conditions Modeling, and a HEC-RAS model of Rice Creek. The City currently has a signed License Agreement dated May 20, 2016 for the use of the RCWD's models. The City will regularly coordinate with the RCWD to data -share any updated component of the models. The City has reviewed model assumptions and accepts the model outputs as a part of City modeling data. The City is responsible for the use of the RCWD's models. The City intends to use the models for assessment of floodplain alterations as part of Rule E, peak rate requirements and intercommunity flows for Rule C, project design and permitting, identification of flood prone areas, and for sizing stormwater infrastructure. Hugo will continue working with RCWD on future management of model input data to ensure RCWD and Hugo have consistent information for future projects. Figure 13, Appendix A shows the City's stormwater infrastructure including storm sewer, stormwater pond locations, and MS4 outfalls. 2.9. Public Areas for Water Based Recreation and Access Water based recreation within the City of Hugo includes swimming, fishing, and boating. Lakes within the City include Oneka, Bald Eagle, Egg, Horseshoe, Sunset, Long, Barker, Plaisted, Round, and School Section Lake. Oneka, Bald Eagle, and Sunset Lakes have public water access; the other lakes have private water access. SECTION 2 CITY OF HUGO WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 •milli",ii The City of Hugo contains several lakes that are capable of supporting a generally healthy fish population. The major wildlife habitat classification for the City is Blue Stem Prairie Community. This habitat supports many mammals, birds, shrubs, and herbs. The DNR ecological and management classifications for lakes and streams in the City can be found in Appendix C within the Water Management Ordinances. Other ecological information can be found in the DNR County Biological Survey of Washington County. This information is incorporated by reference and can be found in the Water Resource Library at City Hall. 2.11. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System The entire City of Hugo has been categorized according to the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS). Figure 14, Appendix A shows a map of the MLCCS areas that have been classified as the following: • Developed • Planted or Cultivated Vegetation • Forest • Woodland • Shrubland • Herbaceous • Water 2.12. NPDES Phase II The MPCA implemented the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Stormwater Program in March 2003. Phase II requires Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) to obtain an NPDES permit. MS4s designated by rule are urban areas with populations over 10,000 or urban areas with populations greater than 5,000 with the potential to discharge to valuable or polluted waters. Permits for construction sites greater than one acre will also be required as part of Phase II. As an MS4, the City will be required to implement the following six minimum control measures: 1. Public Education and Outreach 2. Public Participation/Involvement 3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 4. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control 5. Post -Construction Stormwater Management 6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations A new MS4 permit was signed in 2014. For more information on the MS4 Permit requirements refer to www.pca.state.mn.us. Refer to Appendix B for a copy of the City's MS4 SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan). SECTION 2 ' . • 2.13. Water Resource Problem Areas Water resource problem areas were identified based on information obtained from City staff, residents, and other agencies. Potential solutions to address the problems were developed as detailed in Section 4. Refer to Figure 8, Appendix A for the location of site -specific problem areas. Water resource problem areas within the City were generally related to the following issues: • Flooding and rate control issues at various locations • Backyard drainage issues at various locations • Water levels in landlocked basins • Erosion and sedimentation of channels and creeks 2.14. Flood Insurance Studies The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completed the map modernization process for its Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) to identify flood risk within Washington County in 2010. A copy of the updated FIS and FIRMS can be obtained online through the FEMA Map Service Center website. The State is currently undergoing a Metro -wide study to revise Washington County's FIS. The results from this are anticipated to be completed in 2020. Figure 15, Appendix A shows FEMA's flood mapping within Hugo. 2.15. Pollutant Sources Potential pollutant sources are shown in Figure 16, Appendix A or can be obtained from the "What's in my Neighborhood" on the MPCA website 2.16. DNR Regulated Land The City of Hugo recognizes that there are important environmental corridors which traverse the City that include ecological management corridors, high quality wetlands, and the metro conservation corridor. The City has provided those areas as shown on Figure 17, Appendix A. The City will work with the DNR and other agencies as appropriate to preserve these areas. SECTION 2 ' • • ' 3. AGENCY COOPERATION There are a number of local, state, and federal agencies that have rules and regulations related to stormwater management. The City recognizes the roles of these other agencies and will cooperate, coordinate, and when possible partner with these entities. This Plan is in conformance with but does not restate all other agency rules that are applicable to stormwater management. The following agencies deal with or regulate stormwater throughout the City: • Rice Creek Watershed District • Brown's Creek Watershed District • Carnelian-Marine-St.Croix Watershed District • Washington County • Washinaton Conservation District • Minnesota Department of Health • Metropolitan Council • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • Board of Water and Soil Resources • Wetland Conservation Act • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • US Army Corps of Engineers • Minnesota Department of Agriculture • US Fish and Wildlife Service • Minnesota Environmental Quality Board While these other entities' rules, policies, and guidelines are not all restated in this Plan, they are applicable to land use, projects, programs, and planning within the City. The MPCA Minnesota Stormwater Manual, which is a document intended to be frequently updated, is also incorporated by reference into this Plan and can be found on the MPCA website. SECTION 3 4. ASSESSMENT OF PROBLEMS AND ISSUES Outlined below is an assessment of existing and potential water resource -related problems that are known at this time. These problems have been identified based on an analysis of the land and water resource data collected during the preparation of this plan and through information provided by the City, its residents, and the watershed organizations. A description of any existing or potential problem within the City has been listed and potential future corrective actions have been incorporated into an implementation plan. Refer to Figure 7, Appendix A for the location of many of the problem areas discussed below. 4.1. Judicial Ditch #2 and Judicial Ditch #3 Problem 4.1.A Judicial Ditch (JD) #2 and Judicial Ditch #3 require ongoing routine maintenance. Corrective Action 4.1.A The City of Hugo entered into a MOU with the RCWD regarding the maintenance of JD #2 in 2017, which expires in 2021. The City will work with the RCWD to retain that agreement. The City is also interested in assuming minor maintenance responsibilities of Judicial Ditch #3. The City will work with RCWD on additional measures needed. 4.2. Water Quality Problems Problem 4.2.A Within the City of Hugo, degradation in surface water quality has been noted at Bald Eagle Lake, Peltier Lake, and Hardwood Creek. Corrective Action 4.2.A A TMDL has been completed for Bald Eagle Lake, Peltier Lake, and Hardwood Creek. Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) as part of the implementation plans associated with each TMDL will be followed to improve existing water quality problems. The Bald Eagle Lake TMDL assigned the City of Hugo a WLA of 125 pounds of total phosphorus (TP) per year (47 pounds direct from Bald Eagle and 78 pounds associated with JD #1). The Hardwood Creek TMDL allocates 8,000 pounds per year of phosphorus reduction for all MS4 entities that contribute to the creek. The City was not assigned a specific numeric goal but must show progress towards helping to achieve the overarching 8,000 pounds per year goal. The City will continue to administer their stormwater management ordinances to meet the requirements of this TMDL and will collaborate with RCWD to complete streambank restoration projects identified in Table 6-1. The Peltier TMDL lists a reduction of 943 pounds of total phosphorus per year. Similar to the Hardwood Creek TMDL, the Peltier Lake TMDL lists the City of Hugo as one of a number of MS4 entities which contribute to Peltier Lake and as such the City must contribute to the overall reduction goal. To meet these TMDL requirements, the City has created the Capital Improvement Plan for Stormwater Projects (Appendix D), which contains the following projects: • Oneka Ridge stormwater reuse system contributed to a measured reduction of 21.5 pounds per year of phosphorus in 2015. This system has been constructed. This project helps meet TP reductions for the Bald Eagle Lake TMDL. • Beaver Ponds was constructed the summer of 2016 and has an expected phosphorus reduction of 9.2 pounds per year*. This project helps meet TP reductions for the Bald Eagle Lake TMDL. SECTION 4 ' . • • Clearwater Cove has been online since the summer of 2016 and has an expected phosphorus reduction of 18 pounds per year*. This project helps meet TP reductions for the Peltier Lake TMDL. • Waters Edge is being constructed in 2017 and has an expected phosphorus reduction of 32 pounds per year*. Phase 2 is expected to occur in 2020. See Table 6-1 #41. This project will help to meet TP reductions for the Peltier Lake TMDL. *Measurement derived by using the value of one pound of phosphorus per acre foot of stormwater. Annual monitoring will be conducted to track annual progress towards meeting TMDL goals. Additional projects to address these TMDL requirements are listed in Table 6-1. Projects implemented from the City's Stormwater CIP must meet the current RCWD stormwater requirements. Problem 4.23 The Northern Chain of Lakes WRAPS Report was approved for Brown's Creek Watershed District in 2016 and establishes a required watershed load reduction for Plaisted Lake, North School Section Lake, and South School Section Lake. For Plaisted Lake, the entire watershed will be required to reduce TP loading by 55.1 pounds per year. For North School Section Lake, watershed TP load reduction is 15.1 pounds per year and for South School Section Lake, the watershed TP load reduction is 10.6 pounds per year. Corrective Action 4.2 B The City will collaborate and partner with Brown's Creek Watershed District to implement proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) and watershed -wide restoration strategies identified in the Northern Chain of Lakes WRAPS report. Table 6-1 lists BMP opportunities identified in the report for the City of Hugo. Problem 4.2.0 Degradation in surface water quality has been noted at Oneka Lake, Rice Lake, Barker Lake, and Clearwater Creek within the City of Hugo. Corrective Action 4.2.0 The City will work with watershed districts and other organizations where reasonable and practical to improve overall quality of these waterbodies. Once TMDLs are completed for these waterbodies, the City will update the Table 6-1 (Stormwater Management Implementation Plan) in Section 6 to include projects that address the TMDL requirements. Problem 4.2.13 Individual sewage systems may impact both Bald Eagle Lake and Sunset Lake. Corrective Action 4.2.11) The City of Hugo has provided sanitary sewer to properties around Bald Eagle Lake and only a few properties have not hooked up to the system. For those remaining properties around Bald Eagle Lake and Sunset Lake, the City has adopted the Washington County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulation Ordinance. This ordinance is in compliance with the MPCA individual wastewater treatment system regulations. Problem 4.2.E A TMDL was recently completed for the Upper Mississippi River to address the water quality standard for E. coli. Corrective Action 4.2.E The Upper Mississippi River TMDL addresses reducing E. coli loading for different stream reaches in the metro area, including Rice Creek. The City continues to educate its residents on the importance of cleaning up after their pets to reduce pollutants entering the stormwater system. The City also has an ordinance in place requiring adequate disposal of animal waste from commercial kennels. BMPs that are constructed will continue to provide some removal of E. coli prior to stormwater discharge into receiving water bodies. SECTION 4 ' . • 4.3. Flooding and Stormwater Rate Control Concerns Problem 4.3.A Drainage issue has been noted at 124'h Street and Falcon Avenue due to wetland capacity reduction due to the overgrowth of cattails. Corrective Action 4.3.A When feasible, the City will work with local residents and within its drainage and utility easement to alleviate drainage issues in this area. Problem 4.3.13 JD #2 has caused intermittent flooding. Corrective Action 4.3.13 The City will continue its maintenance plan for JD #2 and work with the RCWD to alleviate this drainage issue. Problem 4.3.0 The City is aware of intermittent flooding from two small ponds which straddle July Avenue south of 122" d Street in the southeast portion of the City. These small ponds may be landlocked basins as City staff have been unable to locate an outlet. Corrective Action 4.3.0 City staff will work with Brown's Creek Watershed District to aid in the identification of the outlet of these small ponds as well as the replacement of the equalizer culvert running underneath July Avenue connecting the two ponds that is beginning to fail. 4.4. Flooding or Stormwater Rate Control Concerns between the City of Hugo and Adjoining Communities. Problem 4.4.A The current capacity of ACD 55 and ACD 72, both of which are clay tile systems constructed in the early 1900 for agricultural purposes, are insufficient to convey runoff within the developing urban landscape for the areas contributing to this system. A portion of the drainage that directs runoff to ACD 55 is located in the City of Hugo. Corrective Action 4.4. The City of Lino Lakes is in the process of developing a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan and will be constructing a municipal drainage system of higher capacity to address this need. The City of Hugo further understands that once constructed, the design of this system has incorporated enough capacity to convey runoff from the areas in the City of Hugo as a rate of 0.1 cfs/acre. The City of Hugo will continue to manage its flow rates into the City of Lino Lakes and to not exceed these rates in the future. The City further understands that until the outlet is in place and functional, any new and redevelopment in this area that requires a stormwater permit from the City of Hugo will not only need to meet the 0.1 cfs per acre peak rate control standard along with applicable treatment standards of the City and District, but will also need to provide measures as necessary to not allow any increase in the volume of runoff generated from the site. If the volume control provision is not met, a petition will be required for an outlet to this ditch system, per Minnesota Statute 103E.401, along with information demonstrating no adverse impact will occur as a result of this increase in runoff volume. 4.5. Impacts of Stormwater Management Practices on Recreational Opportunities Problem 4.5.A The City is aware that current management practices associated with Individual Sewage Treatment Systems around area lakes may impact recreational use of local water bodies. Corrective Action 4.5.A The City of Hugo has adopted the Washington County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulation Ordinance. This ordinance is in compliance with the SECTION 4 ' . • MPCA individual wastewater treatment system regulations. 4.6. Impacts of Stormwater Quality on Fish and Wildlife Resources Problem 4.6.A The City is aware that most lakes within the City of Hugo have been impacted by stormwater runoff directed to these lakes from agricultural and developed areas. However, the City recognizes that there is currently not enough water quality monitoring data available to determine the effects of stormwater quality on area lakes because of these land use practices. Corrective Action 4.6.A When feasible and appropriate, the City will partner and assist in water quality monitoring programs. 4.7. Impacts of Erosion and Sedimentation on Local Water Resources Problem 4.7.A Soil erosion and sediment transportation associated with new development may impact the quality of water and storage volume available within City lakes, streams, and ditches. Corrective Action 4.7.A The City will continue to enforce their erosion control ordinance which is similar to those in the MPCA's Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual. In addition, the City will enforce the RCWD's adopted Rule D which requires Sediment and Erosion Control Plans. 4.8. Adequacy of Existing Regulations and Programs to Address Adverse Impacts on Local Water Resources Problem 4.8.A The City of Hugo currently does not have the funding sources available to implement the entirety of the Table 6-1 Stormwater Management Implementation Plan. Corrective Action 4.8.A The City will apply for grants, as well as State and Federal funding for the implementation of capital improvements identified in this water resource management plan, which include cost -share programs offered by local watershed districts. Problem 4.8.113 The City of Hugo has adopted ordinances related to floodplains, illicit discharge, stormwater, erosion and sediment control, and wetlands. These ordinances will need to be updated to adopt RCWD rules by reference. Corrective Action 4.8.113 The City will update these ordinances as part of the implementation plan. Draft ordinances will be sent to RCWD for approval. Ordinances will be adopted within 180 days following RCWD Board Approval of this WRMP. 4.9. Identification of Potential Problems Anticipated to Occur Within the Next 20 years Based on Growth Projections and Planned Urbanization. Problem 4.9.A Future development has the possibility of adversely affecting stormwater runoff both in quantity and in quality. These flood impacts are significantly shown in the Anoka Chain of Lakes lack of storage capacity as well as in the existing ditch capacity. RCWD Future Land Use Conditions Report and ACID 55 & 72 Drainage Memos provide additional information on the magnitude of adverse impacts from future development. These documents can be requested from RCWD. SECTION 4 ' . • Corrective Action 4.9.A The City of Hugo will implement the City of Hugo Water Resource Management Plan, follow MS4 permit requirements, and enforce City ordinances and associated watershed district rules. By following these requirements, the City will help reduce stormwater runoff rate and volume and provide an increase in the quality of stormwater runoff. Problem 4.9.113 RCWD has identified areas within the City with their Future Conditions Modeling that are prone to future flooding due to development. The City has reviewed and accepted the modeling results and identified issues listed below. 2C — JD #2 Main Trunk: This location was labeled as a relatively low problem likelihood. This likely showed an increase in flooding for the 2-year storm event and not and 10-year or 100- year due to the fact that the flows are strictly confined to the channel. No potential solution was identified. This location will be monitored by City staff on a regular basis to inspect channel conditions. Using inspection results, the City will be proactive in addressing any potential scour or erosion issues. • 100E — JD #2 Upstream of Elmcrest Avenue: This location was labeled as a high problem likelihood. The existing structure at 165th Street looks to be overtopped during the 100-year flood event. The City will consider a feasibility study to look at culvert replacement options at 1651h Street. • 100F — JD# 2 Upstream of Highway 61: This location was labeled as a low problem likelihood. The area currently provides a significant amount of flood storage and no structures are shown to be inundated. The peak flood elevation is shown to increase by less than a foot. The City will work with MnDOT and Washington County to address any concerns concurrently with future street or trail reconstruction projects • 100G — JD #3 Main Trunk: This location was labeled as a low problem likelihood. No structures are shown in the close proximity to the existing floodplain. Any future development will need to work with the City to address and mitigate any floodplain impacts and ensure structures are elevated to Rule E, City, and State standards. • 100J — JD #3 Main Trunk: This location was labeled as a low problem likelihood. This floodplain is not near any structures that could be inundated and is not shown to impact future development. Future development will be reviewed for floodplain impacts and will need to comply with City, State, and Federal floodplain standards. Corrective Action 4.9.113 This increase in flooding is caused by the added impervious that comes from new development. The City will work with RCWD on problem areas that are identified as having a high likelihood of occurring. The City will note these potential future problem areas and will continue to implement ordinances and RCWD rules to prevent them from occurring. The City will continue to maximize and promote infiltration and reuse opportunities to reduce stormwater runoff volume. Corrective actions listed above will also be implemented by the City. Problem 4.9.0 Through the development of North and East Groundwater Management Plan, the City of Hugo has been identified as located in an area of concern for groundwater recharge due to a high concentration of connection to surface waters and increase water demand from development. Corrective Action 4.9.0 The City have already completed and are pursuing numerous stormwater reuse projects for irrigation as part of new and existing developments. These projects help to meet the City's policy to reduce, reuse, and replenish surface and groundwater through stormwater management. Table 6-1 lists reuse projects that the City wishes to pursue over the next ten years. SECTION 4 CITY OF HUGO WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Problem 4.10.A. The City recognizes the need for coordination with the RCWD in the administration of the RCWD rules by the City. Corrective Action 4.10.A. The City has completed, and will continue to complete, annual audits with the RCWD; however, to ensure continued proper administration of RCWD the City has amended its permit, as well as permit checklist as requested by the RCWD. Those documents are provided in Appendix F. The City will have its Ordinance Review Committee review City Ordinances related to RCWD rules. Once completed, the City will send the RCWD its draft ordinances revisions for review and comment. Problem 4.10.13. For those projects located within the Carnelian -Marine -St. Croix Watershed and Brown's Creek Watershed District, the City has identified the need for coordination with developers regarding permit applications. Corrective Action 4.10.13. As development occurs within Carnelian -Marine -St. Croix Watershed and Brown's Creek Watershed District BCWD, the City will notify permit applicants of the watershed districts' roles in permitting and stormwater management where applicable. Carnelian - Marine -St. Croix Watershed and Brown's Creek Watershed District will be included in the discussion about potential development plans prior to submittal for a watershed permit. SECTION 4 ' . • 5. GOALS AND POLICIES 5.1. General The goals and policies in the City of Hugo's Water Resource Management Plan are consistent with the goals of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), Brown's Creek Watershed District (BCWD), Carnelian -Marine -St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD), and Washington County Groundwater Plan, while meeting the more specific and changing needs of the City. The goals of this plan were established in accordance with the guidelines contained in Minnesota Statutes 103B and Minnesota Rules 8410. Furthermore, each goal has several corresponding policies. These goals and policies provide for future development and redevelopment while minimizing surface water problems and enhancing the environment. These goals and policies are subject to conformance with current Watershed District policies and standards as well as Washington County groundwater management policies. The City currently has permitting authority over RCWD Rules C, D, E, and F for areas of the City within the RCWD boundaries. The City adopts and enforces the most recent RCWD Rules for which the City has permitting authority as listed previously. The City does not have permitting authority in BCWD or CMSCWD as such, any permit review or approval required within these jurisdictions must be applied to and approved by the respective watershed district. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes section 103B.211, subd. 1(a)(3)(iii), the City of Hugo defers exercise of regulatory authority over the activities subject to the BCWD's rules and CMSCWD's rules to each watershed district. Additional goals and policies of the City are contained throughout this section. A general goal of the City is to cooperate, collaborate, and partner with other entities, such as the watershed districts and the MPCA as much as possible as the City implements this plan. Cooperation, collaboration, and partnering results in projects that are less likely to conflict with the goals of the affected entities, are better able to meet long-term goals, and are generally more cost-effective. In addition to the goals and policies outlined below, the City will annually review and update its Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to effectively manage its stormwater system and be in conformance with the NPDES MS4 Program. The following are components of the SWPPP: • Public information and education plan relating to water resources and stormwater • An inspection and maintenance schedule • City housekeeping practices (e.g., street sweeping priorities) • BMPs used by the City to control and/or reduce pollutants • Methods used to control and manage post -construction stormwater • Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Hugo implements a reduce, reuse, and replenish philosophy through its stormwater management policies. Hugo's policies reduce stormwater runoff to prevent the damage that occurs to lakes, streams, and wetlands from urbanization. Hugo's policies reduce reliance on groundwater by encouraging projects that reuse stormwater for irrigation. Hugo's policies favor a regional approach to preserve and replenish underground drinking water supplies. This regional approach substitutes surface water for groundwater where possible and seeks to replenish groundwater supplies by active regional management of existing appropriations and by consideration of an aquifer recharge and storage program. The City will work with the appropriate watershed district when developing regional programs and obtain necessary approvals by those districts prior to implementation. 5.2. Volume Management SECTION 5 ' . • 5.2.1. Goal Hugo will reduce its annual stormwater discharge of runoff volume by infiltrating and reusing stormwater runoff. 5.2.2. Policies 1. The City of Hugo has adopted a "Reduce, Reuse, Replenish" strategy for the usage of water. This strategy will reduce the impact on aquifer draw down and allow for increased aquifer recharge through strategic direct injection infiltration and stormwater based irrigation practices. 2. The City of Hugo has adopted Atlas 14 rainfall precipitation data and will incorporate this data into future analyses. 3. Any development or redevelopment within the City of Hugo will give first preference to infiltration and stormwater reuse as a means to maintain existing runoff volume in accordance with RCWD Rule C. 4. Reuse projects should function to reduce or eliminate the use of City potable water for irrigation. 5. Development and redevelopment projects shall reestablish turf according to Hugo's turf establishment design guidance: providing sufficient topsoil and organic matter to sustain turf without excessive irrigation (whether using potable water, reclaimed water). 6. As allowed by RCWD Rule C.5(f), for properties within the RCWD boundary, the City of Hugo will develop Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plans (CSMPs) to manage stormwater at a regional scale within Resource Areas of Concern. These CSMPs must be approved by RCWD's Board of Managers prior to City implementation. The focus of these CSMPs will help to quantify a system of regional volume reduction projects, mostly stormwater reuse for irrigation, to generate volume reduction credits on select city roadway and redevelopment projects. Hugo will use these credits on land development or linear projects where physical constraints do not allow for cost efficient BMP implementation to address volume reduction. Rate control requirements will still need to be met for any projects within these CSMP areas. 7. The City will work with the BCWD and CMSCWD on permitting and stormwater management as required for possible future development in areas of the City under their jurisdictions. 8. Development that results in the creation of impervious surfaces must explicitly address use of BMPs to first limit the loss of pervious area; and second, to: a. Infiltrate runoff which does occur from impervious areas to the extent feasible considering site -specific conditions, and/or b. Reuse runoff for irrigation and other appropriate uses. SECTION 5 5.3. Water Quality 5.3.1. Goal Maintain or improve the quality of water in lakes, streams, and wetlands within or immediately downstream of the City of Hugo. 5.3.2. Policies 1. Hugo's primary means of protecting water quality is to reduce and reuse stormwater runoff. 2. Hugo's water quality program seeks to replenish wetlands and lakes with clean water and maintain base flow in streams by letting runoff absorb into the ground. 3. Hugo requires that stormwater BMPs include sufficient water quality pretreatment to preserve the function of these facilities. 4. As allowed by RCWD Rule C.5(f), for properties within the RCWD boundary, the City of Hugo develops CSMPs to manage stormwater at a regional scale within Resource Areas of Concern. 5. The City's preferred method to achieve desired water quality standards, specifically total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) reduction is through its volume management policies, pursuant to RCWD Rule C. 6. The design and construction of all new stormwater ponds, stormwater conveyance systems and modifications to existing stormwater ponds or conveyance systems, must be designed to meet NURP water quality standards and predevelopment phosphorous loads as is required by CMSCWD Rule 2.4.1 and BCWD Rule 2.4.1. RCWD Rule C shall also apply to stormwater ponds. 7. For stormwater discharged to slightly and least susceptible wetlands, storm water must be treated to remove 75% of the sediment and must follow RCWD Rule C.8 and Rule C.6(e). 8. The City of Hugo will sweep the streets at least two times annually. Furthermore, future purchases of street sweeping units will give consideration to street sweepers which have the greatest ability to remove nutrients from the streets within the community. 9. The City will encourage homeowners with properties adjacent to water resources to establish a vegetative buffer strip at the shoreline. This strip should consist of legumes or other perennial grasses to limit erosion and nutrient transport across the buffer strip. For properties under the jurisdiction of the BCWD or CMSCWD, a vegetative buffer strip will be required if BCWD Rule 4.0 or CMSCWD Rule 4.0 is triggered due to development activity. 10. The City has adopted Washington County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Ordinance which became effective April 28, 2015. This ordinance is in compliance with the MPCA individual wastewater treatment regulations. A copy can be found in Appendix E of this WRMP. SECTION 5 11. The City will investigate the development and implementation of a water quality monitoring program capable of establishing that the stormwater treatment basins constructed within the City are not only designed to NURP standards, but also meet the anticipated design removal efficiencies based on actual monitoring of the system. This program will be carried out to the extent deemed necessary and reasonable by the Hugo City Council. The City will keep the RCWD informed of all water quality monitoring program updates. 12. For areas within the City that are redeveloping, projects that creates or reconstructs 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface a permit will be required. This does not include public linear projects. For public linear projects, a permit is required to create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface through multiple phases or connected actions of a single complete project, as defined by the watershed district, within a Resource of Concern Drainage Area. This is only valid within those parts of the City of Hugo which fall within the boundaries of the RCWD. All other areas of Hugo are subject to the permit requirements for BCWD and CMSCWD. 13. Any new development or redevelopment shall show sufficient drainage and ponding easements over hydrologic features such as floodplains, storm sewers, ponds, ditches, swales, wetlands, and waterways. 14. All new and redeveloped stormwater management structures and facilities shall be maintained in perpetuity either through dedication of the facilities to the City through an easement or through a maintenance agreement between the landowner and the City. 5.4. Runoff Management and Flood Control 5.4.1. Goal Limit public capital expenditures that are necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff to prevent flooding. 5.4.2. Policies 1. Hugo's primary flood control strategy is to reduce the volume of its runoff through regional stormwater reuse and infiltration projects. 2. Hugo will strategically place flood control facilities near highly permeable soils so that regional infiltration can be promoted. 3. For new development and redevelopment, proposed stormwater runoff rates must be less than or equal to the existing runoff rates for the critical 2-year, 10- year 24-hour rainfall events and 100-year 10-day snowmelt event. For the 100- year 24-hour rainfall event, discharge rates must be less than 0.1 cfs/acre. Atlas 14 rainfall data must be used to calculate these values. 4. The design of all major stormwater storage facilities shall attempt to accommodate the 100-year critical duration event. These facilities include lakes, ponds, and their outlets. New storm sewer systems shall be designed to accommodate the 10-year 24-hour design storm. Atlas 14 rainfall data must be used to calculate these values. 5. Any new development or redevelopment within the City will maintain three feet of freeboard between the 100-year high water elevation or 10-day snowmelt event, whichever is greater, of the nearest stormwater BMP or natural waterbody and the SECTION 5 minimum building opening. This is more restrictive than what is required by RCWD Rule, as shown in Table 5.1. However, if this three-foot freeboard requirement is considered a hardship, the standard could be lowered to two feet if certain conditions can be met. Table 5.1 shows the requirements of the RCWD with regard to low floor and low entry freeboard requirements. Atlas 14 rainfall data shall be used to calculate the 100-year high water elevation. Table 5.1 Hugo Requirements for Low Floor and Low Entry Freeboard Requirements Freeboard Regional Flood Detention Basins, Infiltration and Biofiltration Rain Elevations Wetlands & Basins Gardens Stormwater Ponds 100-yr EOF 100-yr EOF Bottom 100-yr EOF EOF Low Floor 2.0 ft 1.0 ft 0.0 ft NA 0.0 ft NA NA NA Low 3.0 ft NA 3.0 ft 1.0 ft NA 3.0 ft 1.0 0.5 ft Opening ft 6. Wetlands will be protected within the City boundaries to assure that the value of wetlands in relation to their surface water quantity benefits are not impacted. Where appropriate and feasible the City will support the improved function and value of degraded and drained wetlands in order to provide increased water quality treatment, flood attenuation and storage, plant diversity, and wildlife, fisheries, and amphibian habitat. 7. The City will identify and manage landlocked basins to minimize flooding and preserve the natural hydrology of landlocked basins in accordance with RCWD Rule C.5(e), BCWD rule 2.4.1(a), 2.4.1(b) and 7.3.1, and CMSCWD Rules Policy 7.1.4. 8. The City will require compensatory storage equal to the storage losses resulting from floodplain fill. Floodplain elevations within the RCWD will be based on RCWD's flood models and the associated regulatory flood elevations. All floodplain permitting activities shall be subject to RCWD, BCWD, or CMSCWD rules. 9. The City will require that the peak rate of runoff for any area that drains to Brown's Creek be limited to the pre -settlement rate of runoff when it is deemed reasonable and feasible to do so. 10. The City will require that those areas within the CMSCWD be required to a stormwater discharge rate equal to pre -development rate and volume as calculated by the approved curve numbers for upland areas. 11. The City will implement the use of the RCWD flood models and associated regulatory floodplain elevations to enforce freeboard requirements and floodplain alterations. 12. The City will ensure no net loss of flood storage capacity. To that end, no person shall alter or fill land below the 100-year flood elevation of any waterbody, wetland, or stormwater management basin or place fill in a landlocked basin without first obtaining a permit from the appropriate jurisdiction. 5.5. Wetlands 5.5.1. Goal The City of Hugo will protect and manage wetlands in conformance with the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 and RCWD Rule F. SECTION 5 5.5.2. Policies 1. Policies in areas such as volume management and water quality reduce the degradation of wetlands which preserves them as areas of groundwater recharge. 2. The City of Hugo will continue to take responsibility of local governmental unit (LGU) duties for wetland management in conformance with Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). 3. Prior to any site development activities, the City will require a site inspection to identify the location and extent of any wetlands present. The proponent of the site development shall have the burden of providing to the City a report showing the on - site inspection and delineation of all wetland areas by a qualified consultant. If any wetland encroachment is proposed, wetland values and impacts will be evaluated on a case by case basis in conformance with the rules associated with WCA and those of the watershed district. A functions and values assessment utilizing the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM) will be required for all proposed wetland alterations. In addition to the MnRAM analysis, wetland dependency on groundwater will be completed to identify the management classification and subsequent requirements of the wetland. For any alteration of a wetland not regulated by WCA, a functions and values assessment must be completed. If it is determined that the functions and values of the wetland will be diminished, replacement must be at a 1:1 ratio. 4. Any review of a proposed wetland encroachment will initially address the issue of avoidance. It will be the City's policy that prior to allowing any wetland encroachment, all reasonable attempts to avoid such alteration must be demonstrated. This avoidance review must also consider the reasonableness of the no build alternative. 5.6. Erosion and Sediment Control 5.6.1. Goal Protect the capacity of the City's stormwater management system and local waterbodies by preventing erosion and sedimentation from occurring and correcting existing erosion and sedimentation problems. 5.6.2. Policies 1. Hugo's policies reduce runoff volume which prevents erosion in streams by preventing increases in stream flow. 2. Erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be reviewed and enforced by the City of Hugo for all new developments, redevelopments, and additions to existing sites. These plans shall conform to the general criteria set forth in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Division of Water Quality Document "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" and Met Council's "Minnesota Urban Small Site BMP Manual". The City will also consider the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. 3. The City may prohibit work in areas having steep slopes and high erosion potential where the impacts of significant erosion cannot be protected against or mitigated in accordance with the City of Hugo erosion control ordinances. A copy of this ordinance is included in Appendix C. SECTION 5 4. Erosion and sediment control measures must be installed prior to land altering activities and these measures must routinely inspected and maintained by the owner during the project until final turf and ground cover is established as documented in "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" (MPCA 2000). The owner will inspect project sites after every rainfall event exceeding 0.5 inches and implement erosion and sediment control measures addressed as needed. The construction of the project must be phased to minimize disturbed areas and removal of existing vegetation until necessary for project progress. 5.7. Groundwater 5.7.1. Goal Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater resources including groundwater dependent natural resources. 5.7.2. Policies 1. The City of Hugo has adopted a "Reduce, Reuse, Replenish" strategy for the usage of water. This strategy will reduce the impact on aquifer draw down and allow for increased aquifer recharge. The City is interested in strategic direct injection infiltration and stormwater based irrigation practices and will coordinate with the DNR, MPCA, and EPA on any such projects. 2. The City of Hugo understands that a groundwater problem has been identified in the Northeast Metro. The City of Hugo will cooperate with appropriate agencies to facilitate appropriate studies and acknowledges the delineated groundwater management areas as defined in the North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan. 3. The City of Hugo will continue to implement stormwater reuse projects to reduce the amount of groundwater pumped for irrigation. 4. The City of Hugo will take leadership in measures to replenish regional groundwater aquifers and provide assistance to State and other governmental agencies as they seek to resolve regional groundwater issues. 5. Hugo will champion regional efforts at implementing an aquifer storage and recovery system. 6. Hugo will promote and coordinate with other agencies the continuation of existing groundwater monitoring, inventorying, or permitting programs. 7. Hugo encourages the development of spill prevention, control, and counter measure plans that are consistent with State and/or Federal regulations for industrial facilities within its borders and for its own facilities, as well. 8. The City will encourage preservation of wetlands, ponds, and parks to encourage infiltration of precipitation in areas where land use is not anticipated to adversely affect surface water runoff. 9. The City of Hugo will partner with Washington County and the Department of Health (MDH) to ensure that all unsealed or improperly abandoned wells within the watershed are properly sealed. Technical requirements for the abandonment of these wells will be in conformance with the MDH Water Well Code. SECTION 5 ' 10. The City of Hugo will implement their adopted wellhead protection plan in accordance with State requirements. The City will balance the need for infiltration with the need for protection of vulnerable wellhead areas. The City's current Wellhead Protection Plan can be found in Appendix G. Figure 14. Appendix A showcases the Drinking Water Supply Management Areas. 5.8. Recreation, Habitat and Shoreland Management 5.8.1. Goal Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. 5.8.2. Policies 1. The City of Hugo will work with and support to the maximum extent practical the efforts of Minnesota DNR, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the watershed districts, and other appropriate agencies in promoting public enjoyment and protecting fish, wildlife, and recreational resource values in the City. 2. Preserve wetlands that provide habitat for wildlife and spawning of fish. 3. The City will encourage land owners to maintain wetlands and open space areas for the benefit of wildlife. 4. The City will enforce its wetland protection district ordinance. 5.9. Education and Public Involvement 5.9.1. Goal Increase public awareness, understanding and involvement in water and natural resource management issues. 5.9.2. Policies 1. The City will prepare and distribute a mailing to city residents a minimum of one time per year that provides information on pertinent water management issues. This mailing will provide an opportunity for residents to participate in watershed management activities. 2. The City will implement the public education requirements of NPDES Phase II. A copy of the description of the program to be implemented by the City is included in the MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization located in Appendix B. 3. Coordinate education efforts with watershed districts within the City where appropriate. 4. Hugo will highlight within its education materials its commitment, and successes, in reducing and reusing stormwater runoff and preserving and replenishing regional groundwater resources. SECTION 5 ' . • 5.10. Public Ditch Systems 5.10.1. Goal Provide a mechanism through which public ditch systems will be managed. 5.10.2. Policies 1. The City will work with the RCWD to ensure adequate inspection, maintenance and repair of all public ditches within the City. 2. The City of Hugo prefers the development of municipal drainage systems whenever possible to the development of private drainage systems. Design of drainage systems shall be consistent with existing drainage systems, including tile lines, and avoid causing adverse impacts to properties upstream and downstream. Existing drainage systems will be protected and drainage rights maintained. 3. The City of Hugo will maintain ditches in conformance with the policies in this WRMP and City ordinances. 4. Judicial Ditch #2 will be managed in accordance with the agreement between the City of Hugo and the RCWD, as well as statutory requirements. 5.11. Maintenance and Inspection 5.11.1. Goal The City will continue an active storm sewer system maintenance and inspection program per the MS4 permit requirements. 5.11.2. Policies 1. The City will follow the stormwater maintenance plan as outlined in the MS4 permit. A copy of the MS4 application for reauthorization is included in Appendix B. This plan has been developed to assure that the retention/treatment basin clean out and maintenance will be addressed to the extent that is feasible and practical. Infrastructure to be inspected includes outfalls, water quality BMPs, and stormwater ponds. 2. All new and redeveloped stormwater management structures and facilities shall be maintained in perpetuity either through dedication of the facilities to the City through an easement or through a maintenance agreement between the landowner and the City. 3. The City will implement the Stormwater Asset Management Program (SWAMP) that identifies and prioritizes pond maintenance activities and BMP inspections. This program will need to be updated regularly to result in an updated prioritization of pond inspection and maintenance activities. This program uses construction as- builts, pond inventory, drainage areas, field inspections, and storm sewer maps to rank BMPs based on cost/benefit pollutant removal efficiency. Basins are prioritized based on a set of parameters and a schedule can be determined for maintenance needs. The program is continually updated to include new BMPs, updated stormwater infrastructure, or changed drainage areas. The City will be able to incorporate SWAMP to include the following: SECTION 5 ' • • ' • Scheduling, tracking, and storing MS4 infrastructure inspections • Budget stormwater inspection and maintenance activities in coordination with the watershed districts • Track TSS and TP load reductions towards TMDL requirements • Prioritize inspection and maintenance activities through a ranking system • Provide information to the public on BMP maintenance priorities and schedules • Compliance for written procedure and treatment effectiveness requirements as part of the MS4 permit SECTION 5 ' 6. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 6.1. Implementation Program Components Table 6.1 contains a comprehensive list of the MS4 activities and projects, programs, and studies that make up the City of Hugo implementation program for the next ten years (2018 through 2027). The City developed this program by evaluating the requirements in the MS4 permit (see MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization in Appendix B), reviewing existing information (Section 2), identifying potential and existing problems (Section 4), developing goals and policies (Section 5), and then assessing the need for programs, studies, or projects. The City estimated total costs, identified possible funding sources, and developed an approximate schedule to complete the implementation activities. It is anticipated these tables will be updated/revised on a yearly basis. 6.2. Implementation Priorities The implementation components listed in Table 6.1 were prioritized to make the best use of available local funding, meet MS4 Permit requirements, address existing water management problems, and prevent future water management problems from occurring. Table 6.1 identifies which activities are MS4 Permit Requirements or Capital Projects/Programs/Studies. The City's implementation plan reflects its responsibility to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens by addressing problems and issues that are specific to the City of Hugo. As part of the implementation priorities of this WRMP, the City of Hugo will work with RCWD to revise the current City ordinances to adopt RCWD rules by reference, to execute a revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing the transfer of RCWD rules C, D, E, and F and WCA LGU authority, and to provide inspection and administrative procedures. These activities will be completed with 180 days of District Board approval of this WRMP. These implementation items can be found in Table 6.1 #58, #59 and #60. The City understands that if these three items are not provided within 180 days of this WRMP approval, RCWD will assume its permitting role for RCWD Rules C, D, E, and F. 6.3. Financial Considerations The City will use funds generated from its Stormwater Trunk Fee as the primary funding mechanism for its implementation program including maintenance, repairs, capital projects, and studies. If funds from this trunk fee do not cover necessary costs, the City will consider other financial methods to generate funds to cover the costs associated with the implementation program. The City also levies each year for stormwater. The City will continue to review the Stormwater Trunk Fee annually and adjust based on the stormwater related needs of the City and other available funding mechanisms. Although not proposed at this time, the City may consider using plan implementation taxes (MN Statutes 103B.241) in the future if the existing funds are not sufficient to fund proposed projects. The City will also take advantage of grant or loan programs to offset project costs where appropriate and cost-effective. 6.4. Plan Revision and Amendments The City may need to revise this Plan to keep it current. Any amendments that are made to the plan must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council, Washington County, RCWD, BCWD, and CMSCWD for review and approval before adoption by the City. The City may amend this plan at any time in response to a petition by a resident or business. Written petitions for plan SECTION 6 ' . • CITY OF HUGO WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN amendments must be submitted to the City Administrator. The petition must state the reason for the requested amendment and provide supporting information for the City to consider the request. The City may reject the petition, delay action on the petition until the next full plan revision, or accept the petition as an urgent issue that requires immediate amendment of the plan. The City of Hugo may also revise/amend the plan in response to City -identified needs. This Plan is intended to be in effect for ten years. The Plan will be revised/updated at that time, to the extent necessary. SECTION 6 ' . • SECTION VI TABLE 6.1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN o 0 c 06 Proposed Cost By Year''z = E E E a � F 0 � E w V 10 Year Possible .L a' 6 .L = a o o Cost Funding No. Project Description a X a a- C Estimate' Sources s 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Comments Education Activity Implementation Plan - Complete See SWPPP Application for yearly outline of education activity implementation Reauthorization (Appendix B) program and implementation schedule. Include Completed by City Staff procedures to meet requirements for the following stormwater educational programs: -City news letters twice a year -Links to stormwater related topics on City website General Fund, 1 -Send reminder to lawn care/ snow removal services ✓ ✓ ✓ $30,000 Stormwater $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 -Send lawn care and ice and snow removal information Trunk Fee, City to home owner associations Levies -Work with volunteers on storm water related topics yearly. Past projects including stenciling of catch basins and weeding of rain gardens and wetland areas. Annual SWPPP Assessment & Annual Reporting City See SWPPP Application for staff will conduct an annual SWPPP assessment in Reauthorization (Appendix B) preparation of each annual report. Proposed SWPPP General Fund, Completed by City Sr. Engineer modifications are subject to Part II.G of the MS4 permit. ✓ Stormwater Technician with review by City Engineer 2 The final annual report will be posted on the Cities `/ $20,000 Trunk Fee, City $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 website. City staff will submit the annual report to the Levies MPCA prior to June 30th for the previous calendar year. Annual Public Meeting/Event Present the draft MS4 See SWPPP Application for annual report to one public event per year to solicit Reauthorization (Appendix B) public input regarding the adequacy of the City's General Fund, Completed by City Sr. Engineer SWPPP. Public input received (oral and written) will be Stormwater Technician 3 recorded in a record of decision and evaluated by the ✓ ✓ $5,000 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 City's MS4 General Contact. City responses (if relevant) Trunk Fee, City will be made in writing to each commenter. Hold one Levies event per calendar year of the MS4 permit cycle. Online Availability of the Stormwater Pollution Prevent General Fund, See SWPPP Application for Plan (SWPPP) Program Document - The City will make the Stormwater Reauthorization (Appendix B) 4 SWPPP and 2013 annual report available on the City's ✓ ✓ ✓ $500 Trunk Fee, City $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 Completed by City Staff webpage within 12 months from the date the MS4 permit Levies coverage is extended to the City. IDDE Inspections - The City will continue to annually conduct See SWPPP Application for IDDE inspections concurrently with storm sewer outfall, and General Fund, Reauthorization (Appendix B) ponds inspections per the IDDE inspection program. This ✓ ✓ ✓ Stormwater Completed by City Public Works Staff 5 includes visual inspections, receiving alerts from the public, $30,000 Trunk Fee, City $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 and through building inspectors site assessment for erosion Levies control site management. City of Hugo TABLE 6.1 WSB Project No. 1904-520 SECTION VI t o = 06 Proposed Cost By Year',2 +, E 4 E a) vi L 0 10 Year Possible _ CT Cost Funding No. Project Description W Q a " in Estimate' Sources s 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Comments Employee Training - Continue to provide a minimum of See SWPPP Application for one staff training event per year to discuss illicit General Fund, Reauthorization (Appendix B) discharge recognition and reporting. City staff will Stormwater Completed by City Staff 6 develop an annual training schedule, record the ✓ ✓ ✓ $5,000 Trunk Fee, City $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 employee names, topics covered, and date of each Levies event, annually through the end of the MS4 permit cycle (July 31, 2018) Storm Sewer System Map & Inventory - The City will General Fund, See SWPPP Application for update their pond and wetland inventory on a yearly ✓ ✓ Stormwater Reauthorization (Appendix B) 7 basis. $10,000 Trunk Fee, City $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Completed by City Staff and City Engineer Levies IDDE Priority Inspection Map - Update IDDE inspection See SWPPP Application for map during the permit renewal period every 5 years. General Fund, Reauthorization (Appendix B) 8 Utilize map for inspections within 12 months from when ✓ $2,000 Stormwater $1,000 $1,000 Completed by City Sr. Engineer the MS4 permit coverage is extended. Trunk Fee, City Technician with review by City Engineer Levies Enforcement Response Procedures (ERPs) - Update the See SWPPP Application for current procedures being used and current tracking General Fund, Reauthorization (Appendix B) 9 mechanism. The current process following a reported violation ✓ ✓ ✓ $2,000 Stormwater $1,000 $1,000 Completed by City Staff is to verify the violation occurred and then use one of the Trunk Fee, City violation corrections referred to in part III.D.4.a of the MS4 Levies Application for Reauthorization. City Erosion Control - Continue to implement as defined General Fund, See SWPPP Application for by City Code Chapter 90-173 Erosion Control throughout Stormwater Reauthorization (Appendix B) 10 the MS4 Permit cycle. Update as needed when MS4 ✓ ✓ $2,000 Trunk Fee, City $1,000 $1,000 Completed by City Sr. Engineer permit coverage is extended. Levies Technician Employee Training - Building or Engineering Department See SWPPP Application for staff (a minimum of one staff member) will maintain valid General Fund, Reauthorization (Appendix B) certification in NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit ✓ Stormwater Completed by City Staff / External training 11 related training per NPDES-CSW training requirements. `� $2,000 Trunk Fee, City $500 $500 $500 $500 Training to occur every 3 years. Levies Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control - The City See SWPPP Application for will review and update the existing Erosion and sediment Reauthorization (Appendix B) control inspection form to meet current NPDES General Fund, Completed by City Sr. Engineer 12 Construction Stormwater Permit requirements. V/ $5,000 Stormwater $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 Technician with review by City Engineer Infiltration and structural BMPs will be implemented and Trunk Fee, City required on an as warranted basis. Levies Develop Priority IDDE Site Inspection Frequency & See SWPPP Application for Procedures - Develop internal procedures for identifying General Fund, Reauthorization (Appendix B) 13 priority sites. Utilize procedures within 12 months from ✓ ✓ ✓ $1,000 Stormwater $500 $500 Completed by City Sr. Engineer the date MS4 permit coverage is extended (every 5 Trunk Fee, City Technician with review by City Engineer years). Set up email notification system to electronically Levies track violations. City of Hugo TABLE 6.1 WSB Project No. 1904-520 SECTION VI c o c 06 Proposed Cost By Year'°2 E E CD m E �' E 0y � .� vi E � � � 10 Year Possible s asi a o o Cost Funding No. Project Description 2 M a W a a in Estimate' Sources s 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Comments City Stormwater Management Permits - The City will See SWPPP Application for continue to review land disturbance activities and issue General Fund, Reauthorization (Appendix B) 14 permits. The City will collaborate with the appropriate ✓ $100,000 Stormwater $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Completed through typical LGU activities watershed districts on land disturbance projects through Trunk Fee, City the end of the MS4 permit cycle. Levies Post Construction Stormwater Mitigation Provisions - General Fund, See SWPPP Application for The City will adopt post construction stormwater Stormwater Reauthorization (Appendix B) 15 mitigation requirements to comply with the MS4 permit gg ✓ ✓ ✓ $1,000 Trunk Fee, City $500 $500 Completed b City Staff and CityEngineer p y y g requirements as updated every years when MS4 Levies permit coverage is extended to the City. Street Sweeping - The City will continue to conduct See SWPPP Application for street sweeping operations of all public streets twice Reauthorization (Appendix B) annually (record the sweeping route, volume of material General Fund, Completed by Public Works Staff 16 removed, and date per occurrence). Review and revise ✓ $450,000 Stormwater $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 (as needed) street sweeping operations (including Trunk Fee, City schedule, equipment, and disposal), stormwater quality Levies priority areas, and routes annually through the end of the MS4 permit cycle. Structural Stormwater BMP Inspections - Continue to General Fund, See SWPPP Application for inspect 100% of all structural stormwater BMPs each ✓ ✓ Stormwater Reauthorization (Appendix B) 17 year of the MS4 permit cycle. `� $25,000 Trunk Fee, City $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Completed by City Sr. Engineer Levies Technician Inspect MS4 Outfalls and Ponds - Continue to annually General Fund, See SWPPP Application for 18 inspect all MS4 Outfalls and inspect all Ponds on a 5 ✓ $40,000 Stormwater $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 Reauthorization (Appendix B) year cycle through the MS4 permit cycle (20% each Trunk Fee, City Completed by Senior Engineering year). Levies Technician, and Public Works Staff. Review Inspection Reports - Annually, review all pond, See SWPPP Application for outfall, and SPCD inspection records to determine if Reauthorization (Appendix B) maintenance, repair, or replacement is needed. Include Completed by Senior Engineering a description of the findings and any maintenance, General Fund, Technician, and City Engineer 19 repair, or replacement as a result of the inspection `� `� `� $10,000 Stormwater $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 findings. Evaluate each SPCD's inspection frequency Trunk Fee, City and adjust as needed per MS4 Permit Part III.D.6.e(1.). Levies Evaluate and update inspection records annually through the end of the MS4 permit cycle (July 31, 2018) Employee Training - Host a minimum of one training See SWPPP Application for session per year to address the importance of water Reauthorization (Appendix B) quality, cover the requirements of the permit relevant to Completed by Public Works Staff the duties of each employee. The City will develop a schedule that establishes initial training for new and/or General Fund, 20 seasonal employees and recurring training intervals for �/ �/ V/ $10,000 Stormwater $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 existing employees to address changes in procedures, Trunk Fee, City practices, techniques, or requirements. The City will Levies implement this within 12 months from the date each time the permit coverage is extended. City of Hugo TABLE 6.1 WSB Project No. 1904-520 SECTION VI c t o = 06 Proposed Cost By Year',2 +, E 4 E � vi L 10 Year Possible _ CT Cost Funding No. Project Description a a a in Estimate' Sources s 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Comments Salt Application Reduction Program - The Public Works See SWPPP Application for Department has reduced overall salt application and will Reauthorization (Appendix B) implement prewetting of salt application to specific Completed by Public Works Staff roadways when 2" or less snow fall is anticipated. City General Fund, 21 Staff will calibrate ice and snow control applicators at the �/ ✓ $5,000 Stormwater $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 beginning of the winter season to reduce the amount of Trunk Fee, City chemicals ordered and applied. The City will implement Levies this program throughout the MS4 permit cycle. Stormwater Asset Management Program (SWAMP) - General Fund, Program to track TSS and TP treatment effectiveness in Stormwater 22 stormwater BMPs, store inspection results, prioritize ✓ ✓ $45,000 Trunk Fee, City $18,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 maintenance activities, and document test results and Levies cleanout. Pond Surveys - The City will annually complete pond General Fund, surveys to schedule and prioritize the necessary Stormwater 23 maintenance projects. This effort will be assisted by the `� $100,000 Trunk Fee, City $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 SWAMP Application. Levies Annual Pond Cleanout - The City will perform yearly General Fund, 24 cleanout of ponds identified for maintenance with the ✓ ✓ $1,000,000 Stormwater $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 SWAMP program. Trunk Fee, City Levies Stockpiles, Storage and Material Handling Area See SWPPP Application for Inspections - Conduct quarterly written inspections of all General Fund, Reauthorization (Appendix B) stockpile, storage and material handling areas (per the ✓ Stormwater Completed by Public Works Staff 25 current facility inventory), through the end of the MS4 Y � rY)� 9 `� `� $10,000 Trunk Fee, City $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 permit cycle (July 31, 2018). Note any and all erosion Levies problems. Update Public Works MS4 Program - Update existing General Fund, See SWPPP Application for 26 BMPs to coincide with new/revised MS4 permit ✓ ✓ $2,000 Stormwater $1,000 $1,000 Reauthorization (Appendix B) requirements as coverage is extended every 5 years. Trunk Fee, City Completed by Public Works Staff and City Levies Senior Engineering Technician Protection of Drinking Water Sources - The City is General Fund, See SWPPP Application for 27 working to implement its Wellhead Protection Program. ✓ ✓ $5,000 Stormwater $2,500 $2,500 Reauthorization (Appendix B) Trunk Fee, City Completed by City Staff Levies TMDL Implementation - Implement the Bald Eagle Lake, General Fund, 4.3.A Hardwood Creek, Upper Mississippi River, Peltier Lake, Stormwater 28 and Centerville Lake TMDL implementation plan. ✓ ✓ $10,000 Trunk Fee, City $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 of Centerville, RCW D Annual culvert replacements General Fund, 29 ✓ $100,000 Stormwater $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Trunk Fee, City Levies City of Hugo TABLE 6.1 WSB Project No. 1904-520 SECTION VI t o = 06 Proposed Cost By Year',2 +, E 4 E � vi L 10 Year Possible _ ca CT Cost Funding No. Project Description 2 W _ Q W a a cnn Estimate' Sources s 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Comments **Flooding - Drainage issues have been noted at 124th General Fund, 4.4.A 30 Street and Falcon Avenue. Study to be complete in V/ $90,000 Stormwater $15,000 $75,000 2018. Trunk Fee, City Levies, RCWD **Flooding/Water Quality- Judicial Ditch number 2 has 4.4.13, Addresses Hardwood Creek TMDL caused intermittent flooding which has been reported by General Fund, 31 a resident. The City will complete annual maintenance to v/ $400,000 Stormwater $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 prevent blockage of flows and erosion issues. Trunk Fee, City Identification and stabilization of bank failures will be Levies, RCWD complete as identified. **Flooding - Intermittent flooding of two small ponds 4.4.0 which straddle July Avenue south of 122nd street. Possible culvert replacement and outletting. The City will General Fund, work with the appropriate watershed districts to aid in the Stormwater 32 identification of the outlet and the replacement of the ✓ $25,000 Trunk Fee, $5,000 $20,000 equalizer culvert that runs underneath July Avenue and Adjacent connects the two ponds which is beginning to fail. Verify Communities, railroad culvert and collaborate with adjacent BCWD communities. **Water Quality Monitoring - When feasible and General Fund, 4.7.A appropriate, the City will partner and assist RCWD in Stormwater 33 water quality monitoring programs. ✓ TBD Trunk Fee, Cost to be determined on an as -needed basis. RCWD Arbre Park Irrigation Project - This project consists of See CIP for Stormwater Projects pumping water from a pond adjacent to Arbre Park and General Fund, (Appendix D). Applies to Peltier Lake 34 using this stormwater for irrigation purposes. It is noted ✓ $88,000 Stormwater $80,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 TMDL. that this park is already being irrigated using city water. Trunk Fee, City Levies, RCWD Val Jean Park Water Reuse Project - This project See CIP for Stormwater Projects consists of pumping water from a stormwater pond General Fund, (Appendix D). Applies to Peltier Lake 35 located adjacent to Val Jean Park and using this water to ✓ $84,000 Stormwater $75,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 TMDL. irrigate the park property. This park is already irrigated Trunk Fee, City with city water. Levies, RCWD Irrigate Public Property Around School Within Water's See CIP for Stormwater Projects Edge North Subdivision - Based on pumping records General Fund, (Appendix D). Applies to Peltier Lake associated with operation of current irrigation system, it ✓ Stormwater TMDL. 36 is estimated between blank and blank acre feet of $130,000 Trunk Fee, City $120,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 stormwater could be re -used at this location. Levies, RCWD Heritage Pond Park Irrigation/Infiltration System - This See CIP for Stormwater Projects project consists of irrigating and infiltration General Fund, (Appendix D). Applies to Peltier Lake 37 stormwater within Heritage Pond's Park. ✓ $151,500 Stormwater $120,000 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 TMDL. Trunk Fee, City Levies, RCWD Diamond Point Park Water Re -use System- This project See CIP for Stormwater Projects consists of constructing a water re -use General Fund, (Appendix D) 38 system to irrigate and infiltrate water in Diamond Point ✓ $83,000 Stormwater $75,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Park. Trunk Fee, City Levies, RCWD City of Hugo TABLE 6.1 WSB Project No. 1904-520 SECTION VI c o c 06 Proposed Cost By Year'°2 E E CD (Dr 04 i � N c � � 10 Year Possible a asi a o o Cost Funding No. Project Description 2 M Q x a a cnn Estimate' Sources s 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Comments Rice Lake Soccer Fields Water Re -Use System- This See CIP for Stormwater Projects project consists of irrigating and infiltrating the General Fund, (Appendix D) soccer fields and/or City of Hugo Public Works Garage Stormwater 39 property with stormwater runoff taken from ✓ $170,500 $160,000 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 stormwater ponds installed as part of the construction of Trunk Fee, City the City of Hugo's Public Works garage. Levies, RCWD Infiltrate/Irrigate Lions Park - This project consists of General Fund, See CIP for Stormwater Projects water from Water's Edge Ponds and using pumping g g Stormwater D Applies to Peltier Lake (Appendix )� pp 40 Lions Park for both irrigation and irrigation. ✓ $164,000 $40,000 $102,000 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 TMDL. Trunk Fee, City Levies, RCWD Water's Edge Phase 2 - This project consists of pumping General Fund, See CIP for Stormwater Projects water from selected stormwater ponds within the Water's Stormwater (Appendix D). Applies to Peltier Lake 41 Edge development and using this stormwater for V/ $100,000 Trunk Fee, City $100,000 TMDL. irrigation purposes in place of city water that is currently Levies, RCWD used for this purpose. County Road 8 - The project will reconnect the existing irrigation system along County Road 8 (Frenchman General Fund, 42 Road) to stormwater, resulting in improved surface water v/ $377,000 Stormwater $377,000 quality due to the removal of nutrients from the Trunk Fee, City stormwater system and decreased groundwater demand. Levies, RCWD Creekside Villas - Connect the water reuse system General Fund, between Clearwater Cove and Creekside Villas. Study to Stormwater 43 be completed in 2019 with construction in 2020. ✓ $115,000 Trunk Fee, City $15,000 $100,000 Levies, RCWD Water Reuse Retrofit - Complete three studies looking at General Fund, retrofitting opportunities for existing development. The Stormwater 44 City would consider partnering with RCWD on ✓ $60,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 implementing identified water reuse projects. Trunk Fee, City Levies, RCWD Animal Waste Ordinance - The City will regularly update General Fund, Upper Mississippi River TMDL for E.coli 45 and enforce their animal ordinance to properly dispose V/ V/ $8,000 Stormwater $800 $800 $800 $800 $800 $800 $800 $800 $800 $800 pet waste to limit E.coli discharge to the Mississippi Trunk Fee, City River and other waterbodies. Levies Natural Buffers - The City will collaborate with RCWD to General Fund, Upper Mississippi River TMDL for E.coli install buffers or other applicable BMP near waterbodies Stormwater 46 to limit E.coli discharge. ✓ $6,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Trunk Fee, City Levies, RCWD Plaisted Lake & North and South School Section Lakes General Fund, See Northern Chain of Lakes WRAPS for BMP - Sediment basin to be located on the NW side of 47 $24,553 Stormwater $24,553 additional information the wetland complex located upstream of North School Trunk Fee, Section. BCWD Plaisted Lake & North and South School Section Lakes General Fund, See Northern Chain of Lakes WRAPS for BMP - Sediment basin to be located on the west side of Stormwater additional information 48 the wetland complex located upstream of North School ✓ $2,818 Trunk Fee, City $2,818 Section. Levies, BCWD City of Hugo TABLE 6.1 WSB Project No. 1904-520 SECTION VI o = 06 Proposed Cost By Year'°2 E E y d r 04 i � N c � � 10 Year Possible a asi a o o Cost Funding No. Project Description 2 M Q x a a cnn Estimate' Sources s 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Comments Plaisted Lake & North and South School Section Lakes General Fund, See Northern Chain of Lakes WRAPS for BMP - Sediment basin to be located on the SW side of Stormwater additional information 49 the wetland complex located upstream of North School ✓ $25,070 Trunk Fee, City $25,070 Section. Levies, BCWD Plaisted Lake & North and South School Section Lakes General Fund, See Northern Chain of Lakes WRAPS for BMP - Sediment basin to be located near the wetland Stormwater additional information 50 complex located upstream of North School Section. ✓ $219,052 Trunk Fee, City $219,052 Levies, BCWD Plaisted Lake & North and South School Section Lakes General Fund, See Northern Chain of Lakes WRAPS for BMP - Sediment basin to be located NE of South School Stormwater additional information 51 Section Lake. ✓ $28,756 $28,756 Trunk Fee, City Levies, BCWD Plaisted Lake & North and South School Section Lakes General Fund, See Northern Chain of Lakes WRAPS for BMP - Sediment basin to be located east of Plaisted Stormwater additional information 52 Lake. ✓ $29,394 $29,394 Trunk Fee, City Levies, BCWD Aquatic Management - Partner with BCWD to manage General Fund, See Northern Chain of Lakes WRAPS for curly -leaf pondweed in Plaisted Lake and South School Stormwater additional information 53 Section Lake ✓ $8,000 $4,000 $4,000 Trunk Fee, City Levies, BCWD Hardwood Creek Streambank Stabilization - Area 5.4 of See Hardwood Creek TMDL Hardwood Creek has been identified as needing various General Fund, Implementation Plan for additional 54 stabilization techniques. The City will partner with RCWD ✓ $8 700 Stormwater $4,350 $4,350 information as areas are identified during annual inspection and Trunk Fee, City maintenance activities. Levies, RCWD Hardwood Creek Streambank Stabilization - Area 5.5 of General Fund, See Hardwood Creek TMDL Hardwood Creek has been identified as needing various Stormwater Implementation Plan for additional 55 stabilization techniques. The City will partner with RCWD ✓ $31,500 Trunk Fee, City $6,300 $6,300 $6,300 $6,300 $6,300 information as areas are identified during annual inspection and Levies, RCWD maintenance activities. Hardwood Creek Streambank Stabilization - Area 5.6 of General Fund, See Hardwood Creek TMDL Hardwood Creek has been identified as needing various Stormwater Implementation Plan for additional 56 stabilization techniques. The City will partner with RCWD ✓ $53,600 Trunk Fee, City $26,800 $26,800 information as areas are identified during annual inspection and Levies, RCWD maintenance activities. Hardwood Creek Lateral Channel Treatment Basins - General Fund, See Hardwood Creek TMDL The City will collaborate with RCWD to enhance Type 1 Stormwater Implementation Plan for additional 57 and Type 2 wetlands areas along the corridor of ✓ $120,000 Trunk Fee, City $60,000 $60,000 information Hardwood Creek and JD2. Levies, RCWD Ordinance Update - The City will work with RCWD to update their current ordinances to meet or exceed General Fund, 58 RCWD Rules C, D, E, and F. The City will regularly ✓ $5,000 Stormwater $4,000 $500 $500 review and update these ordinances as regulations are Trunk Fee changed. City of Hugo TABLE 6.1 WSB Project No. 1904-520 SECTION VI c o c 06 Proposed Cost By Year'°2 E E E E vi CD m �' 0y � .� E � � � 10 Year Possible s asi a o o Cost Funding No. Project Description 2 Q a a Estimate' Sources s 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Comments MOU Update - The City will work with RCWD to provide General Fund, 59 an updated MOU governing the transfer of RCWD rules ✓ $1,000 Stormwater $1,000 and WCA LGU authority. Trunk Fee Inspection and Administrative Procedures - The City will General Fund, 60 work with RCWD to update as necessary their current ✓ $500 Stormwater $500 administrative and inspection procedures. Trunk Fee Floodplain Elevation Model Update - The City will look to General Fund, update the existing RCWD models for Clearwater Creek Stormwater 61 and send to FEMA for approval. ✓ $80,000 Trunk Fee, City $80,000 Levies, RCWD, Grants City of Hugo CIP for Stormwater Projects* - Medium and See CIP for Stormwater Projects low priority projects listed in the CIP will be evaluated General Fund, (Appendix D) and completed as deemed feasible. This CIP item Stormwater 62 excludes Project # 19 of the report. ✓ $5,917,443 Trunk Fee, City $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 Levies, RCWD, Grants TOTAL $10,634,886 $408,850 $953,650 $683,350 $540,553 $652,920 $559,650 $564,150 $477,818 $467,800 $608,702 ' Cost estimates are preliminary and subject to review and revision as engineer's reports are completed and more information becomes available. Table reflects 2018 costs and does not account for inflation. Costs generally include labor, equipment, materials, and all other costs necessary to complete each activity. For City completed activities, staff time is included in the cost. Some of the costs outlined above may be included in other operational costs budgeted by the City. 210 Year cost projections are based upon 2 MS4 Permit Cycles with year 1 program updates occurring again in 2018/2019 3 Funding for stormwater program activities projected to come from following sources - Surface Water Management Fund, Developers Agreements, Grant Funds, General Operating Fund, or Special Assessments 4 (*) Indicates project which initial capital costs for installation are not included 5 (**) Indicates projects which costs have not yet been identified. City of Hugo TABLE 6.1 WSB Project No. 1904-520 Appendix A — Figures Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Soils Map Figure 3: Existing Land Use (2016) Figure 4: Future Land Use (2040) Figure 5: NWI and DNR Waters Map Figure 6: Watershed Organization Boundaries Figure 7: Water Quality Monitoring Stations Figure 8: Problem Areas Figure 9: Water Appropriations Figure 10: Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) Figure 11: Surface Water and Groundwater Interaction Figure 12: Subwatersheds Map Figure 13: Storm Infrastructure Figure 14: Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) Map Figure 15: FEMA Floodplain Map Figure 16: Pollutant Sources Figure 17: DNR Regulated Areas APPENDIX I I � I i I j a — — —_— — — _ I---------------� _--- — — I I I I I I I ! r v N � o I I I I I I I I I I o p N O � ! I I I I 1 N TI I I I I I I ! I N to v I I I _ I I I o � v h = 41W I ti p I I i I I o N Ea st Bethel I j I J I y 10 F I! I I I IY 1 i I 4`� I I City of Hugo � C } I I I r t 4 I `>4 I I f' Maple Grove J f K ry i I IArtlen oeudy vlvi— N�a Oaks. Illlll�.ik.` `'y I > . F ; +kl J �_ � I ynu � i `� I I CrY` I 1 Sh Nov HOk } �. Brighton Vadnais ,•.. Heights I �� I. i Medina I 4Y .i t \. p I { al ,Plymouth 1- Nay t I _HOPa 0 ® w•y � Litt Canada - I Ras North I Sa nt , 46 Oak P�,k t i- } ..-. h, cnmenvaoey _ _ ,PaW f t JOakda le r akeE 1 ti -i W yz to- I f• ! l ', Z st. Louisi iII I 952 1 Minnetonka 11� Mound = P. t Hopkins i M Shorewnd -. s .. v 'S �' ..ti"l ) fr WPatii5l. I Ls i Afton i Edlna�� Mendota � kk % I ME7F ar i �� wfl �Ii - rloria Height / _ b, I' Sunfish f �A La ke y I 1 }f Etl P i' 5` I 212 Bloomington t E.g.,, - f' f' F s� f � I apple I valley Rosemount t— � �} I 169 --1 I I I Lakeville I y J V I Farmington I I M I II I Legend I I f -- -' -- ------------- I I Pa rks Municipal Boundaries Lakes r.� a 'r CITY OF— Water Resourm FIGURE 1: Location Map 0 2.5 �� 5 Miles 1 N MANAGIMIN I FLAN 2018 K v 0 3 v m Forest Lake 0 0 G) � O G T 0 J O z O X 180TFL SF _—_ _—__—__—__—__ 180T'H-.`)�N__—__—__—_ _—__—__—__—_ 1'fl OTH RST� - d v N 177 TH ST 1 '7TH ST N c N c I o -* ._ ,. 'L176T S N ¢ I_ a G BOTH ST E OF i a i � z,•. > I M !6 Z a Y I a 44 - • y1 x� w� 158TH 159TH ST N .�i H�Fy\S Poe PKLNYN 0�� 15nH 8T N - •, 0O 1H STN A�_ -J �. �' i 155TH,ST r w 61 i i Q z I Or w a '1 149T H - x FR O 1 8TH ST y MAIN ST s ^ • ENCHMAN 1szND sT _ i +y. 4 a -- 't 11711 147TH ST RN w- J\O.�ORPATy FREN HMANRD_ 5 W W 0 I ti O 1pb �� G) 2 _ � w� -- -w w CEDAR S S Z e �� T ♦ Yr T S N4oT. ST N_ z � 4✓ .. icy, C. ��^� _ k 1 TH STN - STN 136THajP Q O V z 1N ST N z Z. 132N0 ST N �"y �R a _ c NK-%. a _'Y 130TH ST N u' a j O-.-OTH STN N KE 'Rv k ■■■ YSTONH D u , z N ' �, z 2 > m G C m < W L a u TH .ST N 12 126TH 9 STN41 W Po z o 0 2 ► I is •. .. _+. i 2 Y 122ND STN > z 21ST STN Anoka Q �� -- -- -- --- Ramsey 1zoT�s�-N --- � � m T F C,92O _—___1zoTrF STN -- z. ------------•----------- F 3U�YP g19TH ST N ?� O �`S<F 2 118TH N W 2 K u vEN ST j z W 1 L7 O1 �o r" IvrH Sl N m� <. O y O o 0 x A -These soils have high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. These soils consist chiefly of deep, well drained to excessively drained Z Z sands and gravel. These soils haves high rate of water transmission, therefore resulting in a low runoff potential. B- These soils have moderate infiltration rates. These soils consist of deep moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. C Grant C -These sots have slow infiltration rates. These soils typloaly consist of clayey gravel or clayey sand. Legend D -These soils have very slow infiltration rates. These soils are are typically clay soils wth high swelling potential at or near the surface or shallow soils over nearly impervious material. Lakes q B/D - Hydrologic Soil Group A/ D C Urban - These soils have been greatly affected by development and are frequency corrected, cut, and filled, grouting in variable runoff rates and a poor environment for plant growth. Urban BC/D Dual Soil Groups - Adequately drained soils when wet are assigned to dual hydrologic soil groups (ArD, BID, and CID) based on their saturated hydraulicconductivity and the water table depth when drained. Oe CITY OF— 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Water Resource FIGURE 2: Hydrologic Soils and Infiltration I I A M A N A G [ M [ N i F [ f,5. N 2018 Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2009 0 0 3 v m 0 co o_ Forest Lake T iD j 3 w O > ¢ IW X (n v z o o ° � N 3 a p - 18QT SiN 18OTFO SAN - t8 TF}SiN N IT �Q- I — I 17 SLN I o TTH'SIrN w 17 T SjI N a f z �O Horseshoe I BOTH ST E+ I � 170TH- ST-N— I Iel I I I 1 w titi I _¢ Q 3 z F-9 _J U � -165T SFN J p w 0 � O lC �� m O _ z Y p —¢ w Bark >¢ ll 159. Oneka "'[N ST N - JJI + I 157TFi-ST-N Z i N I- 155TH-ST N 152ND-STZN 61 _ 11�TH ' r '148TH ST N MAIN ST i � ff-v" FRENCHMAN z w 147TH SLN ¢ o I RD I � x a JOTOQ'"Ary F4ENCF'MANRD" Riee o > 2 w o a5 < w Egg Cu 4 O a o I., m cr-onR s� E 1. T S N -� 140T FN z 5 Plaisted ¢ F SFN H-+ z 13 I ,EN I Q North School s 4:: o ti Section z -- � m m I z — SOUtI,I ' ¢ z - 2N0,-STIN 3 Sch 00 Z 130TH ST.N -� I j r� I < z � i 130T Section S N N KEVSTON sN L J� e. - o P'c'• - 0 a - 4t a Sunset f tip, s- > ¢ Long a w� m ¢ 125TH ST -N 125T SLN w x Bald Eagle Z Z ? 1z 122NI Round ��T-N 0 LL129TFtSTiN 20THN S 17N mOPT 7 tt w C9Z0 PJ� Z igT TO ti AH E'� j,J YP "IN ST N FN 11 STH ST N `✓' x w w < C w .0 11y15 Q Y O m 117TH STN r 0 o 117TH SI N Z � 2 m Z Y Q Legend City Parcels Industrial and Utility Mixed Use Residential Retail and Other Commercial M 2040 MUSA Institutional - Multifamily Single Family Attached Land Use Major Highway Office Single Family Detached Agricultural Manufactured Housing Parks Open Water Undeveloped - Golf Course Mixed Use Industrial -I Park, Recreational, or Preserve oe 0 0.25 0.5 Miles C1T OF- Water Resource FIGURE 3: Existing Land Use I Il N vs,F N A N Q G[ M E N i F L A N 2018 Source: Metropolitan Council, 2016 ,,Fa,, 0 3 0 co A U1 O_ Forest Lake ¢ a � LL O 2 w > r C m 7Q O m O z O � a O : L 111TF SLN 180TFL SLN W 18 TH ST N 1 0 ]T SLN t:7�TN=S�N 0 3 z TIljll.p TJIII S N ¢ ¢ w 2 > Horseshoe O > 88TH ST E f+� 1 17 TFF SfN e z I w J ¢ ffllflfl ¢ t65T SFN a > w 0 2 (7 M Y p C_ w —'¢ z y '< Barker E a rn 3 0LL ¢ by iu 159 H`8 Oneka SS TH ST N 157TI-HST-N �� 157TN ST 2 .. NEFy\j PGE F+KW,Y N F� N 0O 755TH-ST N _ � s -Q' O iF _S 2 52ND_S,N I 61 14'9TH � O MAIN ST w 148TH ST x 147TH SLN ¢ � x Rice z o m O 1p6 % c sue. w' w Egg m 7pSTh�1 L 1 Y w, � z o a m O, r Ir cr-onR 514'R � T S N 14 T Sl`N4\ z 2 w F n Plaisted � o z d0 0��5� Z Fy�s 137T SFN 13fiTH%SST H T N p m % North SchoolJ Section rn SOuth `r STUN SCh0o/ _ ' �41 Section S N W > y m r z- � ,f �129TH-' (cJ�oQP _ W CPO OO ` 4444F �I- I z Sunset w z > A Long 1 m > m ¢ z a a 1.25TH ST N _ 111 SLN 5 f w O I tt w m Bald Eagle12 Z 9 — 1 z _ ST ° . Round 0� a 129T_FL51-N 128TH-SLN O x w 'P Y z S<FT o ON AV E JULYP 119TH ST N N 2 1 STi ST N > a Se m Q m 117TH �, o \RtSH m 117TH ST N 5T N m z Legend Lakes Commercial Medium Density 2040 MUSA High Density Residential Mixed Use 2040 Land Use Industrial Public/Quasi-Public Agriculture Low Density Very Low Density Business Park Large Lot Residential C1-Fcar Water Resourcc FIGURE 4: Future Land Use (2040) 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 1 1 1 N AGE M I N T P L AN 2018 Source: City of Hugo, 2017 KeeMAN +.WOAF ' o4 .`, ' 228 W `•r � _ ;V 238lW 0. '!r v p2 � W 'f 22; VId J 233 W w 4 239,W � # a, * * }#, 225 Wy - .+„ • r, �: '14 : 7 of J .- L. ■♦,fit - ►..C_ I'd 4 230f a 2 27Ba r r 32 W : � � . } �_ i I r . -226-W - 8' 7f 240 W r •�i = i e aa+l+- " 'F 141 W !}23,1 W Oneka o-' :t! tr r-�', '• -p p�q 140 P �� °� ,� � ,d.1►�= � ' �' - �; x ��-.�i:�i'q de "� 'i+�•' 144'W,�-�;4'3"W -`# _ # I Ar r xF RI _244 _ 0�k,0 .•.#' '2� l " , , 47 z. r P,+1'45W 245W .//AaN If 714� 241 W 9m"p �qt I j Ej■ir! l F all a rr 249' 25 W, Fingers. -, ,r Clearwater Creek 1_ I # ! Ponds 253 W f Rice 256 VV, 250 W . r„ Egg 4 P .259W - W 257 W25 147 --- r *• #� #w sj+255,•: r� " 251'IV,r III WOO,4 � q }I ! . � 52 �+ 1 II I' I"I prd - .t: 262�W ' c d 264 W ♦- Nort c I wlw_Section # 154W I*, .F * 'J+'15' AO l, I- 265 W p School 261�VVq .,. Section 272 � V a, 151 P 27gW/ y. , n ` • Sunset i' **-d Lon 274 w S'a ! 15'3 P 4 T g r Bald f3 41 �i I '• '} Eagle 2�77 W 275eW , ;° -,, ,', 1� W 2 P PQ� . 273 W `' Round jai is ra .s SESET&Y, a O 0 v v Forest Lake 0 N O G) T 0 O d � � N (D a v_ I I o Hardwood Creek '�� Horseshoe I I I I j Hardwood Greek I Ba ke o Oneka I Q H !0 # I � ! I I � c I � i 61 I Egg I l �000, I Plaisted I _ Clearwater Creek I I !� North School I Section � I out - I I School j ;I Section Suns,.. ._ Long I I Bald Eagle I Legend Lakes Watershed District Boundaries y� C E Dellwood JD4 Rice Creek WD JD3 Browns Creek WD JD2 Carnelian/Marine WD White Bear Lake AL Creeks O- Water Resource FIGURE 6: Watershed Organization Boundary BWSR (2014) A &,,rCI-FY N P A N A G I M I N I PLAN 2018 0 0.25 0.5Miles I i I o 0 0 ON 0 N T tC C/ co J. y� Horseshoe J I 1. IF d I Awl 47 I DV Jill R` L' r R I o a� 3 r •. t Oie+ Rice V I , i t a _j Pla'isted North School a,A 4F _. _ IflSection 1. South ' 4 . h of Section lk ,. VIP- Sunset " Long •O Bald Eagle. c = I , Legend O® O LAKE, WCD JD4 OOO QD C) rnO LAKE, RCWD JD3 O STREAM, RCWD JD2 O O o y 1 O O OO O U) Dellwood Monitoring Type, Owner creeks O O O BIOLOGICAL, MPCA O O LAKE, MPCA OO O STREAM,MPCA ONote: Monitoring sites shown have been used to collect data Lakes 00 at some point. Not all sites shown are active monitoring sites. r �Y (Dr Water Resource 0 0.25 0.5 Miles �A FIGURE 7: Water Quality Monitoring Stations I I N PA A N A G [ [ N T FLAN October 2017 ,� ,%JJI Source: MPCA (2012), RCWD (2013), WCD (2014) Issue Description v 4.1.A Judicial Ditch #3 ongoing maintenance C� The NTCA lists the follovaang water bodies located within or near the City as being 4.1.A Judicial Ditch #2 ongoing maintenance ` � 4.2.A Bald Eagle Lake TMDL 4.2.A Peltier Lake TMDL • Hardwood Creek (ID 07010206-595) is listed as impaired by the _tPCA due to s 4.2.A Hardwood Creek TMDL: dissolved oxygen standards not met- 4.2.B Plaisted Lake water quality and TMDL - t Cleawater Creek (ID 07010206-519) is listed as unpaired by the NTCA due to 0 4.2.B Long Lake water quality fishes bioassessments and aquatic macro invertebrate bioassessments standards 4.2.B North School Section Lake water quality and TMDL not met` wr N 4.2.B South School Section Lake water quality and TMDL * Bald Eagle Lake (ID 62.-0002-00) is listed as impaired due to mercury found in 4.2.0 Oneka Lake water quality - fish tissue and nutrient-eutrophication biological indicator standards not met_ 4.2.0 Rice Lake water quality ; Otter Lake (ID 02-0003-00) is listed as impaired due to mercury found in fish 4.2.0 Clearwater Creek water quality tissue o 4.2.D SSTS for Sunset • Fish Lake (ID 82-0137-00) is listed as impaired due to nutrient+eutrophication j 3 4.2.D SSTS for Bald Eagle biological indicator standards not met_ 4.2.E Upper Mississippi bacteria TMDL n' ti • South School Section Lake (ID 80-0151-00) is listed as unpaired due to 2 4.3.A Drainage issue 124th and Falcon "f s" nutrient eutrophication biological indicator standards are not met. x a 4.3.B JD2flooding • RWJD-1 (ID 07010206-565) is listed as unpaired due to dissolved oxygen o 4.3.0 Pond flooding near July Ave & 122nd St standards not met, w 4.4.A ACD 55 system at capacity &volume constrained a Peltier Lake (ID 02-00LJ44)0) is listed as impaired due to nutnent'eutrophication 4.9.B JD 2 main trunk flooding biological indicators standards not met_ 4.9.B JD2u stream ofElmcrestfloodinti; p g • Plaisted Lake (ID 52-0148-00) is listed as impaired due to nutrient eutrophication 'y" `~ 4.9.B JD2upstream ofHwy 6lflooding biological indicator standards not met_ 4.9.B JD3 main trunk flooding • Barker Lake (ID 82-0076-00) is listed as impaired due to nutrientleutrophication 4.9.B JD3 main trunk flooding biological indicators standards not met 4.2.0 Barker Lake water quality - * Upper hfississippi (ID — 070010206) is listed as impaired for mercury in fish 4.9.A Anoka Chain of Lakes future flood impacts` tissue and fecal coliform The Lipper I4iississippi vvas first. added to the impaired 4.9.0 Concern for groundwater recharge (City-wide) Waters list by the PCA in 1998. *Issues under 4.9.B were identified through RCWD's Future _ r HaYCiW00out Conditions Modeling Report Cr **Additional information for each issue can be found in Section 4 ° '— c t Horseshoe Q ?eitier Lake - y 61 o Oarwater Creek JP3 Egg � P "' •e 'If'"'E` Section , Saath � School i R Sunset ft Lon• F F ake Ea• e no Rand a sey Lake - Rr� Legend Issue Areas 2016 Impaired Lakes C m 2016 Impaired Streams v) M � o Lakes 4'l JD3 JD2 CFFcar 0 0.5 1 Miles Water Resource FIGURE 7: Problem Areas N ,r MANAGIMLN I PLAN 2018 Source: City of Hugo (2013), MPCA (2010) 0 0 ,y 0 A (P O_ Tl lD O C N D a 0 a __—_____—_____—_____ 0 3 x —__ ___ __ _ —_ _ —_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - M1 a T , w: t . +iy 4 Well #5A . Well:#4. a f�' r � Well#1 � �� Ir • � ,, _ • rt i 4. .,s i , - Well#2 ■ �•QQ � .. _ n, k y � s �` ! • ■■ Q* ■ ■ 1, I0� *. i ■ f�«r Well #6 " • Q �Q .r e " Legend y = O Hugo Municipal Wells E L Private Wells CATEGORY 0 Major Crop Irrigation Non -Crop Irrigation r CFFY Car Water Resource FIGURE 9: Water Appropriations 0 0.225 0.45 Miles A N Kee M A N A G E M E N T P L A N 2018 Source: MN DNR, 2013 0 v 0 co A U1 O_ T N A <O D 3 ` # r pop • �rsrr. Horseshoe ` • ,� j . _, -- ,H fl. i o .y Oneka y 1�k .• <., �, f • 61 I . // • .e„$ Rice - I'- I'� -- ..`. i . ,w+1 4 f •—r gig ' {{,� .`,�• � 4°J I � Long i Bald Eagle A `� _ r "� ��•I Anoka Legend ..--_---- - -- ��'rr------------- Ram sey`�r� , . � O Hugo Municipal Wells Lakes Wellhead Protection Areas DWSMA Vulnerability E�` Very High t High Moderate Low Ve ry Low ' r Cj or WaterResourm FIGURE 10: Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) � iF�•t ,�I�� A N A G[ ti� A N T P L A N 2018 Source: City g of Hugo WHPP, 2015 0 0.25 0.5 Miles I i I r , r le Ile 1 • PP 7 96 r �AL10, i IN Cup do Opp .` ' ir M do ~OP Sunset • NVPj Legend Surface Water Supported by upwelling groundwater Disconnected from regional groundwater system Receives and discharges groundwater Recharges aquifers • • 1 1 1 1 i y .tl 9� 0 2 � 1 if (P 1 r •. (n � T Cn m x r �y.k - _, A\ Horseshoe if � !er L. 1 ► r � ► v Oneka ' ♦ nF � A 1 A J. A 14 3 f 1 �. I - - Rice _T IF :, `e Egg ►' y_ i« �,. x *7" i I i , ► , q "Piaisted j w r N, o�1 1B rth School. section1 i ►'. " South School _Section I ► Fes° Sunset J Long I Bald Eagle NI Round , ! ► ► 44 , 1 Aar Legend 1 JD2 ► Flow Paths JD3 Subwatersheds If ► JD4 Rice Creek Resource of Concern Boundaries ► RCWD Watercourses Lakes I C1-FY OF Water Resourm FIGURE 12: Subwatersheds o 0.25 Oi5 Miles A N KMAN AGE M I N T P L AN 2018 Source: RCWD, BWSR, 2015 775TH- SL O 0N 3 m (� I m y Horseshoe o g Z � 4 Q ¢ A U N 80TF SLE 770TH-S.T-ry- � Z tit ¢ I Hardwood Creek z C (n w 165TH- SFN O N K s 3 N W U' Z_ n �p O_ W W > Hardwood Creek y Z 7'TNrST N�Z Q r Oneka 157TF♦-SFN Apz 2 O v 1'�'Tti'� SyN PK,WY-N�. vµi :SWAY 2 K I 4 �EMPAESS 155T+SFN— Vd?VR oNF r h-y 152ND.ST 4' ff 752ND4 1ST ¢ 15 ST-N N P z NZ �� z Its'C a ,FP 148TH-ST N J MMN-S O o F E K z 14ZT S N 149TH ST-N GI NC Y N w �F 147TH-SLN = y A r � � O �145TH-S N 1.45iH,s Op N Rice x JO 9� �eP� Egg oa i 1 � w W 1415 S N- y m CEDAR-52Y 140T SLN( R'9 L 140TFL SLN " 73�yyST \ � � 131T1-L SLN FG 136TH.S.T N -L35-ST N _ O 7 z RD m KE Ni � TART �:P<q O O i' z W m N } Q Clearwater Creek m F, y 73 TH-SLN N- S N JPOQ' � t.29�.H.OR- t 29T:H�•--` O z LL y 730TFF SFN 13211P SFN > ¢ 2 w x � 130TH- SIN-- � 'N g Sunset x z t-26TH-S.T--ry O �W�I 126 `..ST N < y K f? a r5 j 1 5T STiN Bald Eagle o ,O -129- 1y Z OZ 125TH-SLN < N x O w 12 y.1D-ST N g N Q vwPG w � T 76 z 121 ST-SFN ? V Round 12 A y o� � 1z FiPP O L-EIBEL—STD m m 9c m i d o w.1F' z 0 Z D fi�Q I m Q 117TF ST-" a = _ o 2 I A o v � Zx PJ6 <J Legend N I * MS4 Outfall Storm Gravity Mains DNR Protected Watercourses Lakes o Stormwater Pond Locations CFFY OF Water Resourm FIGURE 13: Storm Infrastructure 0 0.1175 0.35 Miles A N ,e,M A N AG E � I N T P L A N 2018 Source: BWSR, 2015 K O 0 3 v m Forest Lake 0 0 G) T - IA n Cn (n 3 d Y F•. I y� 0 Horse- ya— r' r ice_ o O ►._ 40 h. I r rJ 61 - F'� l: Rice rt. I1 it I •f. ft _ I I South• cool c io I Long Bald Ea9 le - I I Anoka - Round � -- Ramsey — ----------- Legend Lakes Developed � Grant Planted or Cultivated Vegetation N E w Dellwood Forest Woodland Shrubland Lake Herbaceous Water ' r C1-FOr- Water Resourm FIGURE 14: Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) A N Miles MANAGIMIN I PLAN 2018 Source: MN DNR, 201S 0 0.25 0.5 I I I 0 0 3 v m 0 co o_ G) �0 T (D N T_ 8 O v o- v { p ?d 11 Hard ooCree r 4, ' Horseshoe - _ r Oe O - c t a Oneka ip r• r ' L �� :(Af � � Y�• I 7 r r • �arwater Creek ! °' d i .r - - �' -'�'� *' `` ` -•Plaisted y M ,n I 1wff "'` North School Section School fs ' a � - Section v of VR Bald Eagg _ j„ - Anoka ,�, � .. - -- - • Round ,, _ Ramsey N c IM E M tY y M Legend ® Floodway 100 Year Floodplain 500 Year Floodplain 0 0.25 0.5 Miles C1-FY OF Water Resourm FIGURE 15: FEMA Floodplain Map I I A 14 MANAGEMIN I PLAN 2018 Source: Washington County - FEMA (2017) 0 0 0 0 A (P N (n T1 lD I� O o W-IN; I ° % - I` • ___ Horseshoe cu ., L Yi c O, a If 41 qN -68 c U << Rice v , I ' It Plaisted I North SG,,�) b I Section South �• _ .w. School _ Section E I # I P I } Bald Eagle 4 . I Nei - ■b • o Legend Potential Contaminant Source Inventory 0 Solid Waste Management Site Hazardous Waste U Lakes ® Above Ground Storage Tanks Q Spills • Leak Site JD4 ® ® Animal Feedlot Storage or Preparation Area Tank Site JD3 • O Potential Contamination Site • Underground Storage Tank Unpermitted Dump Site JD2 Stormwater Outlet ACTIVITY Voluntary Investigation & Cleanup Creeks N• ® Wastewater Discharger • Industrial Stormwater Permit White Bez . O Feedlot O Multiple of above Activities Air Permit 011110 r CITY or- Water Resource FIGURE 16: Pollutant Sources Map 0 0.25 0.5 Miles A I I N MANAGLMENT P L � N October 2017 Source: MPCA -"What's in my neighborhood" 2012, Hugo WHPP 2015 y F f++ 2 F_orest'L-ake {L'rjL� A o /" ' /" /" �:• z f�f � m o Harod Creek 1f F'iorsesh, oe f f /fJ H;:q:) wACreek-ll{ � = arker , O M aI Y = O O � Q N Oneka } -99 Clearwater Creek ' i � ,Noah S Sec6onJ y'• I Sout- Schoc Section "� Sunf�" t 4 : I , all t Bald Eagle f} I. Legend �0 y E JD4 Regional Ecological Management Corridors MN County Biological Survey Cc Outstanding JD3 Metro Conservation Corridors High JD2 Lakes white Bea Creeks Moderate Below C1-FOF Water Resource FIGURE 17: DNR Regulated Areas 0 0.25 0.5 Miles �, l A ,F, MANAGEMENT PLAN 2018 Source: MN DNR, 201S Appendix B — Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Application for Reauthorization APPENDIX Minnesota Pollution MS4 SWPPP Application Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North for Reauthorization 5t. Paul, MN 55155-4194 for the NPDES/SDS General Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit MNR040000 reissued with an effective date of August 1, 2013 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Document Doc Type: Permit Application Instructions: This application is for authorization to discharge stormwater associated with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit Program. No fee is required with the submittal of this application. Please refer to "Example" for detailed instructions found on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) MS4 website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ms4. Submittal: This MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization form must be submitted electronically via e-mail to the MPCA at ms4permitprogram.pca(a%state.mn.us from the person that is duly authorized to certify this form. All questions with an asterisk (*) are required fields. All applications will be returned if required fields are not completed. Questions: Contact Claudia Hochstein at 651-757-2881 or claudia.hochstein(a)state.mn.us, Dan Miller at 651-757-2246 or daniel.miller(a)state.mn.us, or call toll -free at 800-657-3864. General Contact Information (*Required fields) MS4 Owner (with ownership or operational responsibility, or control of the MS4) *MS4 permittee name: City of Hugo (city, county, municipality, government agency or other entity) *Mailing address: 14669 Fitzgerald Ave N *City: H *Phone (including area code): 651 7626316 *State: MN *County: Washington County *Zip code: 55038 *E-mail: sduff@ci.hugo.mn.us MS4 General Contact (with Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program [SWPPP] implementation responsibility) *Last name: Anderson *First name: Scott (department head, MS4 coordinator, consultant, etc.) *Title: Director of Public Works *Mailing address: 14669 Fitzgerald Ave N *City: Hugo *State: MN *Zip code: 55038 *Phone (including area code): 651 7626326 *E-mail: sanderson@ci.hugo.mn.us Preparer information (complete if SWPPP application is prepared by a party other than MS4 General contact) Last name: Duff First name: Steven (department head, MS4 coordinator, consultant, etc.) Title: Senior Enaineerinq Technician Mailing address: 14669 Fitzgerald Ave N City: Hugo Phone (including area code): 651 7626316 Verification State: MN Zip code: 55038 E-mail: sduff@ci.hugo.mn.us 1. I seek to continue discharging stormwater associated with a small MS4 after the effective date of this Permit, and shall submit this MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization form, in accordance with the schedule in Appendix A, Table 1, with the SWPPP document completed in accordance with the Permit (Part II.D.). ®Yes 2. 1 have read and understand the NPDES/SDS MS4 General Permit and certify that we intend to comply with all requirements of the Permit. ® Yes www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5131113 Page 1 of 14 Certification (All fields are required) ® Yes - 1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. 1 certify that based on my inquiry of the person, or persons, who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. 1 am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of civil and criminal penalties. This certification is required by Minn. Stat. §§ 7001.0070 and 7001.0540. The authorized person with overall, MS4 legal responsibility must certify the application (principal executive officer or a ranking elected official). By typing my name in the following box, I certify the above statements to be true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, and that this information can be used for the purpose of processing my application. Name: Scott Anderson (This document has been electronically signed) Title: Director of Public Works Mailing address: 14669 City: Hugo Phone (including area code) erald Ave N 651 7626326 Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 12/17/2013 State: MN Zip code: 55038 E-mail: sanderson(o)ci.hugo.mn.us Note: The application will not be processed without certification. www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5131113 Page 2 of 14 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Document I. Partnerships: (Part II.D.1) A. List the regulated small MS4(s) with which you have established a partnership in order to satisfy one or more requirements of this Permit. Indicate which Minimum Control Measure (MCM) requirements or other program components that each partnership helps to accomplish (List all that apply). Check the box below if you currently have no established partnerships with other regulated MS4s. If you have more than five partnerships, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. ❑ No partnerships with regulated small MS4s Name and description of partnershi RCWD collaborate on educating the public MCM/Other permit reauirements involved MCM 1 & 2 B. If you have additional information that you would like to communicate about your partnerships with other regulated small MS4(s), provide it in the space below, or include an attachment to the SWPPP Document, with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere Partnerships. II. Description of Regulatory Mechanisms: (Part II.D.2) Illicit discharges A. Do you have a regulatory mechanism(s) that effectively prohibits non-stormwater discharges into your small MS4, except those non-stormwater discharges authorized under the Permit (Part III.D.3.b.)? ® Yes ❑ No 1. If yes: - Check which type of regulatory mechanism(s) your organization has (check all that apply): ® Ordinance ❑ Contract language ❑ Policy/Standards ❑ Permits ❑ Rules ❑ Other, explain: b. Provide either a direct link to the mechanism selected above or attach it as an electronic document to this form; or if your regulatory mechanism is either an Ordinance or a Rule, you may provide a citation: Citation: Section 90-170 of the City Code Direct link: ® Check here if attaching an electronic copy of your regulatory mechanism, with the following file naming convention: MS4 City of Hugo_IDDEreg. 2. If no: Describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, this permit requirement is met: www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5131113 Page 3 of 14 Construction site stormwater runoff control A. Do you have a regulatory mechanism(s) that establishes requirements for erosion and sediment controls and waste controls? ® Yes ❑ No 1. If yes: a. Check which type of regulatory mechanism(s) your organization has (check all that apply): ® Ordinance ® Contract language ❑ Policy/Standards ❑ Permits ❑ Rules ® Other, explain: developer agreements b. Provide either a direct link to the mechanism selected above or attach it as an electronic document to this form; or if your regulatory mechanism is either an Ordinance or a Rule, you may provide a citation: Citation: Direct link: http: / /www.ci. huoo. mn. us/vertical/sites/%7BBED5C6A0-2687- 460E-9C61-6B7CCADA2CBA%7D/uploads/Hugo_CSWMP.pdf ® Check here if attaching an electronic copy of your regulatory mechanism, with the following file naming convention MS4 City of Hugo CSWreg. B. Is your regulatory mechanism at least as stringent as the MPCA general permit to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (as of the effective date of the MS4 Permit)? ®Yes ❑ No If you answered yes to the above question, proceed to C. If you answered no to either of the above permit requirements listed in A. or B., describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: C. Answer yes or no to indicate whether your regulatory mechanism(s) requires owners and operators of construction activity to develop site plans that incorporate the following erosion and sediment controls and waste controls as described in the Permit (Part III.D.4.a.(1)-(8)), and as listed below: 1. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion. ® Yes ❑ No 2. BMPs to minimize the discharge of sediment and other pollutants. ® Yes ❑ No 3. BMPs for dewatering activities. ® Yes ❑ No 4. Site inspections and records of rainfall events ® Yes ❑ No 5. BMP maintenance ® Yes ❑ No 6. Management of solid and hazardous wastes on each project site. ® Yes ❑ No 7. Final stabilization upon the completion of construction activity, including the use of perennial ® Yes ❑ No vegetative cover on all exposed soils or other equivalent means. 8. Criteria for the use of temporary sediment basins. ® Yes ❑ No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: Post -construction stormwater management A. Do you have a regulatory mechanism(s) to address post -construction stormwater management activities? ® Yes ❑ No 1. If yes: a. Check which type of regulatory mechanism(s) your organization has (check all that apply): ® Ordinance ❑ Contract language ❑ Policy/Standards ❑ Permits ❑ Rules www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5131113 Page 4 of 14 ® Other, explain: development agreements b. Provide either a direct link to the mechanism selected above or attach it as an electronic document to this form; or if your regulatory mechanism is either an Ordinance or a Rule, you may provide a citation: Citation: Direct link: http://www.ci.hugo. mn. us/vertical/sites/%7BBED5C6A0- 2687-460E-9C61-6B7CCADA2CBA%7D/uploads/Hugo_CSWMP.pdf ® Check here if attaching an electronic copy of your regulatory mechanism, with the following file naming convention: MS4 City of Hugo-PostCSWreg. B. Answer yes or no below to indicate whether you have a regulatory mechanism(s) in place that meets the following requirements as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a.): 1. Site plan review: Requirements that owners and/or operators of construction activity submit ® Yes ❑ No site plans with post -construction stormwater management BMPs to the permittee for review and approval, prior to start of construction activity. 2. Conditions for post construction stormwater management: Requires the use of any combination of BMPs, with highest preference given to Green Infrastructure techniques and practices (e.g., infiltration, evapotranspiration, reuse/harvesting, conservation design, urban forestry, green roofs, etc.), necessary to meet the following conditions on the site of a construction activity to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP): a. For new development projects — no net increase from pre -project conditions (on an annual ® Yes ❑ No average basis) of: 1) Stormwater discharge volume, unless precluded by the stormwater management limitations in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(3)(a)). 2) Stormwater discharges of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). 3) Stormwater discharges of Total Phosphorus (TP). b. For redevelopment projects — a net reduction from pre -project conditions (on an annual ❑ Yes ® No average basis) of: 1) Stormwater discharge volume, unless precluded by the stormwater management limitations in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(3)(a)). 2) Stormwater discharges of TSS. 3) Stormwater discharges of TP. 3. Stormwater management limitations and exceptions: a. Limitations 1) Prohibit the use of infiltration techniques to achieve the conditions for post -construction ® Yes ❑ No stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)) when the infiltration structural stormwater BMP will receive discharges from, or be constructed in areas: a) Where industrial facilities are not authorized to infiltrate industrial stormwater under an NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Permit issued by the MPCA. b) Where vehicle fueling and maintenance occur. c) With less than three (3) feet of separation distance from the bottom of the infiltration system to the elevation of the seasonally saturated soils or the top of bedrock. d) Where high levels of contaminants in soil or groundwater will be mobilized by the infiltrating stormwater. 2) Restrict the use of infiltration techniques to achieve the conditions for post -construction ❑ Yes ® No stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)), without higher engineering review, sufficient to provide a functioning treatment system and prevent adverse impacts to groundwater, when the infiltration device will be constructed in areas: a) With predominately Hydrologic Soil Group D (clay) soils. b) Within 1,000 feet up -gradient, or 100 feet down -gradient of active karst features. c) Within a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) as defined in Minn. R. 4720.5100, subp. 13. d) Where soil infiltration rates are more than 8.3 inches per hour. 3) For linear projects where the lack of right-of-way precludes the installation of volume ® Yes ❑ No control practices that meet the conditions for post -construction stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)), the permittee's regulatory mechanism(s) may allow www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5131113 Page 5 of 14 exceptions as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(3)(b)). The permittee's regulatory mechanism(s) shall ensure that a reasonable attempt be made to obtain right-of-way during the project planning process. 4. Mitigation provisions: The permittee's regulatory mechanism(s) shall ensure that any stormwater discharges of TSS and/or TP not addressed on the site of the original construction activity are addressed through mitigation and, at a minimum, shall ensure the following requirements are met: a. Mitigation project areas are selected in the following order of preference: ® Yes ❑ No 1) Locations that yield benefits to the same receiving water that receives runoff from the original construction activity. 2) Locations within the same Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (DNR) catchment area as the original construction activity. 3) Locations in the next adjacent DNR catchment area up -stream 4) Locations anywhere within the permittee's jurisdiction. b. Mitigation projects must involve the creation of new structural stormwater BMPs or the ® Yes ❑ No retrofit of existing structural stormwater BMPs, or the use of a properly designed regional structural stormwater BMP. c. Routine maintenance of structural stormwater BMPs already required by this permit cannot ® Yes ❑ No be used to meet mitigation requirements of this part. d. Mitigation projects shall be completed within 24 months after the start of the original ❑ Yes ® No construction activity. e. The permittee shall determine, and document, who will be responsible for long-term ® Yes ❑ No maintenance on all mitigation projects of this part. f. If the permittee receives payment from the owner and/or operator of a construction activity ❑ Yes ® No for mitigation purposes in lieu of the owner or operator of that construction activity meeting the conditions for post -construction stormwater management in Part III.D.5.a(2), the permittee shall apply any such payment received to a public stormwater project, and all projects must be in compliance with Part III.D.5.a(4)(a)-(e). Long-term maintenance of structural stormwater BMPs: The permittee's regulatory mechanism(s) shall provide for the establishment of legal mechanisms between the permittee and owners or operators responsible for the long-term maintenance of structural stormwater BMPs not owned or operated by the permittee, that have been implemented to meet the conditions for post -construction stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)). This only includes structural stormwater BMPs constructed after the effective date of this permit and that are directly connected to the permittee's MS4, and that are in the permittee's jurisdiction. The legal mechanism shall include provisions that, at a minimum: a. Allow the permittee to conduct inspections of structural stormwater BMPs not owned or ® Yes ❑ No operated by the permittee, perform necessary maintenance, and assess costs for those structural stormwater BMPs when the permittee determines that the owner and/or operator of that structural stormwater BMP has not conducted maintenance. b. Include conditions that are designed to preserve the permittee's right to ensure maintenance ® Yes ❑ No responsibility, for structural stormwater BMPs not owned or operated by the permittee, when those responsibilities are legally transferred to another party. c. Include conditions that are designed to protect/preserve structural stormwater BMPs and ® Yes ❑ No site features that are implemented to comply with the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)). If site configurations or structural stormwater BMPs change, causing decreased structural stormwater BMP effectiveness, new or improved structural stormwater BMPs must be implemented to ensure the conditions for post -construction stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)) continue to be met. If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within twelve (12) months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: within 12 months after the City receives permit coverage the City will adopt mitigation requirements to comply with permit requirements III. Enforcement Response Procedures (ERPs): (Part II.D.3) A. Do you have existing ERPs that satisfy the requirements of the Permit (Part III.B.)? ❑ Yes ® No www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5131113 Page 6 of 14 1. If yes, attach them to this form as an electronic document, with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere ERPs. 2. If no, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, with twelve (12) months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: procedure that is currently being used put in a written format and develop a tracking mechanism B. Describe your ERPs: current process followed receive report of violation. verify violation occurred. use one of the violation corrections referred to in part Ill. D.4.a IV. Storm Sewer System Map and Inventory: (Part II.D.4.) A. Describe how you manage your storm sewer system map and inventory: update the cad file yearly B. Answer yes or no to indicate whether your storm sewer system map addresses the following requirements from the Permit (Part III.C.1.a-d), as listed below: 1. The permittee's entire small MS4 as a goal, but at a minimum, all pipes 12 inches or greater in ® Yes ❑ No diameter, including stormwater flow direction in those pipes. 2. Outfalls, including a unique identification (ID) number assigned by the permittee, and an ® Yes ❑ No associated geographic coordinate. 3. Structural stormwater BMPs that are part of the permittee's small MS4. 4. All receiving waters. // - ■ • 14 1 M ■ • If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: C. Answer yes or no to indicate whether you have completed the requirements of 2009 Minnesota Session Law, Ch. 172. Sec. 28: with the following inventories, according to the specifications of the Permit (Part III.C.2.a.-b.), including: 1. All ponds within the permittee's jurisdiction that are constructed and operated for purposes of ❑ Yes ® No water quality treatment, stormwater detention, and flood control, and that are used for the collection of stormwater via constructed conveyances. 2. All wetlands and lakes, within the permittee's jurisdiction, that collect stormwater via constructed ❑ Yes ® No conveyances. D. Answer yes or no to indicate whether you have completed the following information for each feature inventoried. 1. A unique identification (ID) number assigned by the permittee. ® Yes ❑ No 2. A geographic coordinate. ❑ Yes ® No 3. Type of feature (e.g., pond, wetland, or lake). This may be determined by using best professional ® Yes ❑ No judgment. If you have answered yes to all above requirements, and you have already submitted the Pond Inventory Form to the MPCA, then you do not need to resubmit the inventory form below. If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: Within 12 months after storm water permit has been extended the City will have a complete pond and wetland inventory E. Answer yes or no to indicate if you are attaching your pond, wetland and lake inventory to the MPCA ❑ Yes ® No on the form provided on the MPCA website at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ms4 , according to the specifications of Permit (Part III.C.2.b.(1)-(3)). Attach with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere_in ventory. If you answered no, the inventory form must be submitted to the MPCA MS4 Permit Program within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended. V. Minimum Control Measures (MCMs) (Part II.D.S) www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5131113 Page 7 of 14 A. MCM1: Public education and outreach 1. The Permit requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees revise their education and outreach program that focuses on illicit discharge recognition and reporting, as well as other specifically selected stormwater-related issue(s) of high priority to the permittee during this permit term. Describe your current educational program, including any high -priority topics included: send news letter twice yearly to residents, post links to storm water related topics and educational materials on website 2. List the categories of BMPs that address your public education and outreach program, including the distribution of educational materials and a program implementation plan. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase 11 Small MS4s (hftp://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP Measurable goals and timeframes City news letter twice a year to all residents 113 212 residents twice yearly Anyone interested in storm water topics will find links or articles Links to storm water related topics City's Website on the City's Website BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes Send reminder to lawn care/ snow removal services Send out a news letter to maintenance companies regarding reduced salt usage and lawn care gather information on companies 2014 for notice to go out spring 2015 Send lawn care and ice and snow removal information to home owner associations Send lawn care tips and ice removal information to home owner associations gather information 2014 send out tips 2015 3. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: Senior Engineering Technician B. MCM2: Public participation and involvement 1. The Permit (Part III.D.2.a.) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees shall revise their current program, as necessary, and continue to implement a public participation/involvement program to solicit public input on the SWPPP. Describe your current program: hold a public meeting yearly to receive public comments 2. List the categories of BMPs that address your public participation/involvement program, including solicitation and documentation of public input on the SWPPP. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the EPA's Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase 11 Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP cateaories Yearlv meeti Measurable goals and timeframes at a City Council meeting present city SWPPP receive comments www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strr4-49a • 5131113 Page 8 of 14 BMP categories to be implemented I Measurable goals and timeframes Volunteer arou Work with volunteers on storm water related 3. Do you have a process for receiving and documenting citizen input? ® Yes ❑ No If you answered no to the above permit requirement, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, this permit requirement is met: 4. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: Senior Engineering Technician/ City Clerk C. MCM 3: Illicit discharge detection and elimination 1. The Permit (Part III.D.3.) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees revise their current program as necessary, and continue to implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges into the small MS4. Describe your current program: check all out falls within the permitted time frame 2. Does your Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program meet the following requirements, as found in the Permit (Part III.D.3.c.-g.)? a. Incorporation of illicit discharge detection into all inspection and maintenance activities conducted ® Yes ❑ No under the Permit (Part III.D.6.e.-f.)Where feasible, illicit discharge inspections shall be conducted during dry -weather conditions (e.g., periods of 72 or more hours of no precipitation). b. Detecting and tracking the source of illicit discharges using visual inspections. The permittee may ® Yes ❑ No also include use of mobile cameras, collecting and analyzing water samples, and/or other detailed procedures that may be effective investigative tools. c. Training of all field staff, in accordance with the requirements of the Permit (Part III.D.6.g.(2)), in ® Yes ❑ No illicit discharge recognition (including conditions which could cause illicit discharges), and reporting illicit discharges for further investigation. d. Identification of priority areas likely to have illicit discharges, including at a minimum, evaluating ❑ Yes ® No land use associated with business/industrial activities, areas where illicit discharges have been identified in the past, and areas with storage of large quantities of significant materials that could result in an illicit discharge. e. Procedures for the timely response to known, suspected, and reported illicit discharges. ® Yes ❑ No f. Procedures for investigating, locating, and eliminating the source of illicit discharges. ® Yes ❑ No g. Procedures for responding to spills, including emergency response procedures to prevent spills from ® Yes ❑ No entering the small MS4. The procedures shall also include the immediate notification of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Duty Officer, if the source of the illicit discharge is a spill or leak as defined in Minn. Stat. § 115.061. h. When the source of the illicit discharge is found, the permittee shall use the ERPs required by the ® Yes ❑ No Permit (Part III.B.) to eliminate the illicit discharge and require any needed corrective action(s). If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: within 12 months of receiving permit coverage priorities outfalls and inspection frequency 3. List the categories of BMPs that address your illicit discharge, detection and elimination program. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the EPA's Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase 11 Small MS4s www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5131113 Page 9 of 14 (hftp://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoaIs.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes Visual inspection 100% of MS4 Structural Pollution Control yearly, outfalls ponds once per permit cycle Alerts from the public As they happen Building inspectors Certified erosion control site management BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes Set up automated email notification I Track violations electronically 2014 based on land use for potential illicit discharge ( industrial Determine Priority areas commercial) 4. Do you have procedures for record -keeping within your Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program as specified within the Permit (Part III.D.3.h.)? ® Yes ❑ No f If you answered no, indicate how you will develop procedures for record -keeping of your Illicit Discharge, Detection and Elimination Program, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended: 5. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: Senior Engineering Technician D. MCM 4: Construction site stormwater runoff control 1. The Permit (Part III.D.4) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees shall revise their current program, as necessary, and continue to implement and enforce a construction site stormwater runoff control program. Describe your current program: plan review prior to construction preconstruction meeting prior to construction site visit as BMPs are installed Weekly site inspection on City owned projects monthly or after rain events larger then 112" on private developments 2. Does your program address the following BMPs for construction stormwater erosion and sediment control as required in the Permit (Part III.D.4.b.): a. Have you established written procedures for site plan reviews that you conduct prior to the start of ® Yes ❑ No construction activity? b. Does the site plan review procedure include notification to owners and operators proposing ® Yes ❑ No construction activity that they need to apply for and obtain coverage under the MPCA's general permit to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity No. MN R100001? c. Does your program include written procedures for receipt and consideration of reports of ® Yes ❑ No noncompliance or other stormwater related information on construction activity submitted by the public to the permittee? d. Have you included written procedures for the following aspects of site inspections to determine compliance with your regulatory mechanism(s): 1) Does your program include procedures for identifying priority sites for inspection? ® Yes ❑ No 2) Does your program identify a frequency at which you will conduct construction site ® Yes ❑ No inspections? 3) Does your program identify the names of individual(s) or position titles of those responsible for ® Yes ❑ No conducting construction site inspections? 4) Does your program include a checklist or other written means to document construction site ® Yes ❑ No inspections when determining compliance? e. Does your program document and retain construction project name, location, total acreage to be ® Yes ❑ No disturbed, and owner/operator information? f. Does your program document stormwater-related comments and/or supporting information used to ® Yes ❑ No determine project approval or denial? www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5131113 Page 10 of 14 g. Does your program retain construction site inspection checklists or other written materials used to ® Yes ❑ No document site inspections? If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met. 3. List the categories of BMPs that address your construction site stormwater runoff control program. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the EPA's Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase 11 Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes Silt fence Before construction starts Inlet protection As inlets are installed existing structures prior to construction Bio logs As needed Temporary seed and mulch erosion control blanket As grading is completed Rock construction entrance As construction starts and progresses Temporary / permanent storm water pond As site specifies or allows BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes infiltration As sites warrant structural As sites warrant 4. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: building officals/ inspectors, Senior Engineering Technician, Director of Public Works E. MCM 5: Post -construction stormwater management 1. The Permit (Part III.D.5.) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees shall revise their current program, as necessary, and continue to implement and enforce a post -construction stormwater management program. Describe your current program: The City uses RCWD standards for post construction stormwater 2. Have you established written procedures for site plan reviews that you will conduct prior to the start of ® Yes ❑ No construction activity? 3. Answer yes or no to indicate whether you have the following listed procedures for documentation of post -construction stormwater management according to the specifications of Permit (Part III.D.5.c.): a. Any supporting documentation that you use to determine compliance with the Permit (Part ® Yes ❑ No III.D.5.a), including the project name, location, owner and operator of the construction activity, any checklists used for conducting site plan reviews, and any calculations used to determine compliance? b. All supporting documentation associated with mitigation projects that you authorize? ® Yes ❑ No c. Payments received and used in accordance with Permit (Part III.D.5.a.(4)(f))? ® Yes ❑ No d. All legal mechanisms drafted in accordance with the Permit (Part III.D.5.a.(5)), including date(s) of ® Yes ❑ No the agreement(s) and names of all responsible parties involved? If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the steps that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met. 4. List the categories of BMPs that address your post -construction stormwater management program. Use the first table www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5131113 Page 11 of 14 for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the EPA's Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase 11 Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes ordinance structural Evaluate effectiveness for each project as projects occur Nonstructural Evaluate effectiveness for each project as projects occur infiltration Evaluate effectiveness for each project as projects occur BMP cateaories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes Reduce the amount of storm runoff leaving the site as projects Water reuse and site conditions warrant this use 5. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: Senior Engin eering Technician F. MCM 6: Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations 1. The Permit (Part III.D.6.) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees shall revise their current program, as necessary, and continue to implement an operations and maintenance program that prevents or reduces the discharge of pollutants from the permittee owned/operated facilities and operations to the small MS4. Describe your current program: spring and fall street sweeping, reduce salt application and apply salt brine to specific roadways when 2" or less snow fall anticipated 2. Do you have a facilities inventory as outlined in the Permit (Part III.D.6.a.)? ❑ Yes ® No 3. If you answered no to the above permit requirement in question 2, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, this permit requirement is met: Within 12 months of permit coverage renewal establish a facilities inventory 4. List the categories of BMPs that address your pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations program. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. For an explanation of measurable goals, refer to the EPA's Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase 11 Small MS4s (hftp://www.ei)a.gov/ni)des/pubs/measurablegoals.i)df). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP cateaories Street reduction in snow and ice control chemicals Measurable goals and timeframes Sweep roadways in the MS4 storm sewer area a minimum of twice yearly track the volume of material removed from Calibrate ice and snow control applicators at the beginning of the winter season reduced amount of chemicals ordered and applied www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5131113 Page 12 of 14 Outfall Inspections Inspect outfalls annually inspect Pond Inspection Inspect ponds on a 5 year cycle BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes Quarterly inspections of stockpiles, material handling areas Note any erosion problems Monitor areas for possible increase street sweeping As developed areas mature some areas may need to be swept more often 5. Does discharge from your MS4 affect a Source Water Protection Area (Permit Part III.D.6.c.)? ❑ Yes ® No a. If no, continue to 6. b. If yes, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) is in the process of mapping the following items. Maps are available at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/maps/index.htm. Is a map including the following items available for your MS4: 1) Wells and source waters for drinking water supply management areas identified as M Yes ❑ No vulnerable under Minn. R. 4720.5205, 4720.5210, and 4720.5330? 2) Source water protection areas for surface intakes identified in the source water ® Yes ❑ No assessments conducted by or for the Minnesota Department of Health under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, U.S.C. §§ 300j — 13? c. Have you developed and implemented BMPs to protect any of the above drinking water ❑ Yes ® No sources? 6. Have you developed procedures and a schedule for the purpose of determining the TSS and ❑ Yes ® No TP treatment effectiveness of all permittee owned/operated ponds constructed and used for the collection and treatment of stormwater, according to the Permit (Part III.D.6.d.)? 7. Do you have inspection procedures that meet the requirements of the Permit (Part III.D.6.e.(1)- ® Yes ❑ No (3)) for structural stormwater BMPs, ponds and outfalls, and stockpile, storage and material handling areas? 8. Have you developed and implemented a stormwater management training program commensurate with each employee's job duties that: a. Addresses the importance of protecting water quality? ❑ Yes ® No b. Covers the requirements of the permit relevant to the duties of the employee? ❑ Yes ® No c. Includes a schedule that establishes initial training for new and/or seasonal employees and ❑ Yes ® No recurring training intervals for existing employees to address changes in procedures, practices, techniques, or requirements? 9. Do you keep documentation of inspections, maintenance, and training as required by the Permit ® Yes ❑ No (Part III.D.6.h.(1)-(5))? If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements listed in Questions 5 — 9, then describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: Within 12 months of permit renewal develop programs 10. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: Senior Engineering Technician/ Public Works Director VI. Compliance Schedule for an Approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) with an Applicable Waste Load Allocation (WLA) (Part II.D.6.) A. Do you have an approved TMDL with a Waste Load Allocation (WLA) prior to the effective date ® Yes ❑ No of the Permit? www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5131113 Page 13 of 14 1. If no, continue to section VII. 2. If yes, fill out and attach the MS4 Permit TMDL Attachment Spreadsheet with the following naming convention: MS4NameHere TMDL. This form is found on the MPCA MS4 website: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ms4. VII. Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment Systems (Part II.D.7.) A. Do you own and/or operate any Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment Systems which are regulated by this Permit (Part III.F.)? 1. If no, this section requires no further information. 2. If yes, you own and/or operate an Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment System within your small MS4, then you must submit the Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment Systems Form supplement to this document, with the following naming convention: MS4NameHere TreatmentSystem. This form is found on the MPCA MS4 website: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ms4. VIII. Add any Additional Comments to Describe Your Program ❑ Yes ® No www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5131113 Page 14 of 14 Appendix C — Water Management Ordinances APPENDIX Sec. 90-173. Erosion control. (a) Any person grading, filling, or excavating within a shoreland area or adjacent to a protected wetland or public drainageway shall take adequate measures to trap and retain sediments and pollutants from entering into the waterbody or wetland, store runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage, protect fish and wildlife habitat, preserve recreational uses, stabilize the shoreline or bank, and protect areas of environmental importance. (b) Any person disturbing one -quarter acre (10,890 square feet) of land or more for construction activities, including, but not limited to, filling, excavating, grading, and mining, shall provide an erosion control plan to the city building official for approval prior to beginning work. All work performed shall be in accordance with the approved plan. This provision does not apply to horticultural, agricultural, or gardening activities related to crop or plant production, but does pertain to logging activities. The plan shall meet the following minimum standards: (1) The smallest amount of bare ground feasible is exposed at any given time, and then only for the shortest period of time possible. (2) Mulches or similar materials are used, where necessary, to reduce or avoid soil loss and erosion. (3) Temporary vegetative cover is established if ground is to remain undisturbed for a period of 30 days or more. (4) Permanent vegetative cover is to be established as soon as possible. (5) Positive controls are in place to prohibit the deposit of sedimentation and pollutants in public waters, drainageways, and protected wetlands. (6) Altered areas are stabilized in accordance with the field office technical guides published by the United States Soil Conservation Service. (7) Fill or excavated material shall not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope. (8) No fill or excavated material is placed in a bluff impact zone, protected wetland, or public waterbody. (9) Plans include the use of water or other material to reduce soil loss due to wind when necessary. (Prior Code, § 1175-080.1) Sec. 90-138. Floodplain district.. The floodplain district of the City of Hugo shall apply to all lands in the city shown on the official zoning map and/or the attachments thereto as being located within the boundaries of Zone AE or Zone A. Establishment of official zoning map: The official zoning map together with all materials attached thereto is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. The attached material shall include the Flood Insurance Study for Washington County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and dated February 3, 2010 and Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels numbered; 2705040109E, 2705040117E, 2705040119E, 2705040128E, 2705040129E, 2705040133E, 2705040134E, 2705040136E, 2705040138E, 2705040140E, 2705040143E, 2705040144E, 2705040145E, 2705040207E, 2705040230E, and 2705040235E. The official zoning map shall be on file in the office of the city clerk. (1)Permitted uses. Any use of the land that does not involve a structure, a habitation, an addition to the outside dimensions of an existing structure, or an obstruction to flood flows such as fill, excavation, or the storage of materials and supplies, so long as such use is permitted in the underlying zoning district. The use must not increase any stage of the 100-year regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. (2)Accessory uses. Any use of the land that does not involve a structure, a habitation, an addition to the outside dimensions of an existing structure, or an obstruction to flood flows such as fill, excavation, or the storage of materials and supplies, so long as such use is a permitted accessory use in the underlying zoning district. The use must not increase any stage of the 100-year regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. (3)Conditional uses. Any permitted, accessory, or conditional use allowed in the underlying zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use in the general floodplain district subject to the conditions established in subsection (4) of this section. (4)Standards for floodplain district conditional uses. a. No structure, facility, or land use shall be allowed in the floodway that will increase the stage of the 100-year regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected, except for railroads, essential government facilities, accessory structures for public and private recreational facilities, essential utilities, marinas, docks, and other water -oriented accessory structures. b. No use shall result in obstruction to, or be incompatible with, preservation of those natural land forms, vegetation, and wetland areas contiguous to watercourses in the city where such use will detract from consistent rates of water flow. c. No use shall be permitted that results in development of land or water areas necessary to temporarily store excessive amounts of surface water during periods of floodwater or high water, or of groundwater recharge areas, where such development may decrease the capacity of such areas to temporarily store surface waters or to provide groundwater infiltration. d. The use must meet the construction standards found in subsection (5) of this section. e. Storage of material and equipment may be allowed below the regulatory flood protection elevation if readily removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning, and in accordance with a plan approved by the city council. f. Commercial, recreational, and accessory uses may be allowed only where an adequate flood warning system exists to allow evacuation of areas to be flooded prior to their inundation. g. Industrial uses maybe permitted in the floodplain district only when adequate procedures are in place to limit flood interference with normal plant operations. h. Temporary, on -site storage of fill or other material may be allowed that would increase the stage of the 100-year or regional flood if a specific and detailed removal plan for the material is accepted by the city council. The applicant shall be required to post financial security in an amount not less than 125 percent of the cost of removing the material, and provide proof of liability insurance as necessary to indemnify the city for any potential damage to public or private property caused from possible increased flooding. i. To be considered complete, all applications for a conditional use permit to construct a permanent structure in the floodplain overlay district shall include an elevation certificate, (FEMA Form 81-31) completed and certified by a registered land surveyor. Structural works for flood control such as levees, dikes and floodwalls constructed to any height may be allowed where the intent is to protect individual structures and levees or dikes may be allowed where the intent is to protect agricultural crops for a frequency flood event equal to or less than the 10-year frequency flood event, provided the provisions of subsections 90-138 (5) n. and (5) o. are satisfied. k. Motor homes that are currently in the floodplain that do not meet the exemption criteria specified in subsection k. 1. immediately below shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of this section for new structures): 1. Exemption. Motor homes located within the city are exempt from the provisions of this section if they meet the following criteria: (i)Have current licenses required for highway use. (ii)Are highway ready meaning on wheels or the internal jacking system, are attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks and the motor homes has no permanent structural type additions attached to it. (iii)The motor homes and associated use must be permissible in any pre-existing, underlying zoning use district. (iv)The motor home shall have no structural additions including decks. (5)Floodplain use and construction standards. a. All permanent structures, including accessory structures and additions to existing structures, shall be constructed on fill so that the basement floor, or first floor if there is no basement, is one foot or more above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation must be no lower than one foot below the regulatory flood protection elevation and shall extend at such elevation 15 feet beyond the limits of the structure constructed thereon. As an alternative, alterations and additions to nonconforming structures may be flood proofed in accordance with section 90-46 of this chapter. b. As an alternative to construction on fill, low cost accessory structures (under $10,000.00) may be internally floodproofed in accordance with the following standards: 1.Accessory structures shall not be designed for human habitation. 2.Accessory structures in the floodway, if permitted, shall be constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer the minimum obstruction to the flow of flood waters: (i)Whenever possible, structures shall be constructed with the longitudinal axis parallel to the direction of flood flow; and (ii)So far as practicable, structures shall be placed approximately on the same flood flow lines as those of adjoining structures. 3.Accessory structures not elevated on fill to the regulatory flood protection elevation may be floodproofed to the FP-3 or FP-4 floodproofing classification in the state building code provided the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does not exceed 500 square feet in size at its largest projection, and for a detached garage, the detached garage must be used solely for parking of vehicles and limited storage. All floodproofed accessory structures must meet the following additional standards: (i)The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure and shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls; (ii)Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure must be elevated to or above the regulatory flood protection elevation or properly floodproofed; and (iii)To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there must be a minimum of two "automatic" openings in the outside walls of the structure having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. There must be openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings must be no higher than one foot above the lowest adjacent grade to the structure. Using human intervention to open a garage door prior to flooding will not satisfy this requirement for automatic openings. c.Alternative elevation methods other than the use of fill may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor above the regulatory flood protection elevation. These alternative methods may include the use of stilts, pilings, parallel walls, etc., or above -grade, enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages. The base or floor of an enclosed area shall be considered above -grade and not a structure's basement or lowest floor if: 1) the enclosed area is above -grade on at least one side of the structure; 2) it is designed to internally flood and is constructed with flood resistant materials; and 3) it is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage. The above -noted alternative elevation methods are subject to the following additional standards: 1. Design and certification. The structure's design and as - built condition must be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect as being in compliance with the general design standards of the state building code and, specifically, that all electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities must be at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation or be designed to prevent flood water from entering or accumulating within these components during times of flooding. 2. Specific standards for above -grade, enclosed areas. Above -grade, fully enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed to internally flood and the design plans must stipulate: (i) A minimum area of openings in the walls where internal flooding is to be used as a flood proofing technique. There shall be a minimum of two openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one -foot above grade. The automatic openings shall have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding unless a registered professional engineer or architect certifies that a smaller net area would suffice. The automatic openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters without any form of human intervention; and (ii) That the enclosed area will be designed of flood resistant materials in accordance with the FP-3 or FP-4 classifications in the state building code and shall be used solely for building access, parking of vehicles or storage. d. Structures shall be constructed to prevent flotation which may result in damage to other structures and/or restrictions of bridge openings or other narrow sections of watercourses. e. Public services such as gas, electrical, sewer and water supply systems shall be floodproofed in accordance with the state building code, unless situated above the regulatory flood protection elevation. f. Parking lots may be constructed at elevations lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation, provided that for the parking lots to be used by employees or the general public, a flood warning system must be in place and operational. The flood warning system must provide adequate time for evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth and velocity such that when multiplying the depth (in feet) times the velocity (in feet per second) the product number exceeds four upon occurrence of the regional flood. g. Railroad tracks, roads, and bridges shall be elevated to, or above, the regulatory flood protection elevation where failure or interruption of the facility would result in danger to the public health or safety, or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. h. Uses and principle structures that do not have a vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation to lands outside of the floodplain shall not be permitted unless granted a variance in accordance with section 90-38. Such variance shall limit the use or occupancy period to nonflood periods, and may be granted only where adequate warning time is available to vacate the property prior to the driveway becoming impassable. Service facilities, such as electrical and heating equipment, whether inside or outside of a structure, shall be installed at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation, or be adequately floodproofed to avoid damage to the facility during periods of flood. Fill, dredge spoil, and other similar materials deposited or stored in the floodplain district shall be located out of the floodway and protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap, or other method acceptable to the city engineer. k. Dredge spoil sites and mining operations created after the adoption of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived shall not be allowed in the floodway but may be allowed in the flood fringe if a long-term site development plan is submitted that includes erosion/sedimentation prevention. Materials and equipment must be stored on fill to a point at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. m. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. n. Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current, or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall be subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 10 (G). Community - wide structural works for flood control intended to remove areas from the floodplain district shall not be allowed in the floodway. o. A levee, dike, or floodwall constructed in the floodway shall not cause an increase to the 100-year or regional flood, and the technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of the stream. p. F000dplain developments shall not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system where a floodway or other encroachment limit has not been specified on the official zoning map. (6) Altering designations and boundaries. In certain instances, land may be removed from the floodplain district by increasing its elevation through fill in accordance with the standards established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for removing the special flood hazard designation on property. Such change to the boundaries of the floodplain district may be allowed by the city council by resolution amending this section following a recommendation by the city engineer and approval by the state department of natural resources and FEMA. (7) Certificate required for use or occupancy. It is unlawful for any person to use, occupy, or permit the use or occupancy of any building or premises in the floodplain district that is hereafter created, erected, changed, converted, altered, or enlarged in its use or structure without first having obtained a certificate of occupancy from the community development director. (8) Conditions for permits and certificates. As a condition for granting any certificate of occupancy, certificate of compliance, or conditional use permit for any property or use in the floodplain district, the property owner or user shall provide the community development director the following: a.A certification from a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor, that the finished fill and building elevation are in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. b.Where floodproofing measures have been taken, the owner or user shall provide a certification from a registered professional engineer or registered architect that the floodproofing measures taken are in compliance with subsection (5) of this section. c.Certification from a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor of the as -built elevation of the finished fill and floor elevations for all structures located in the floodplain district. (9) Records to be maintained. The community development director shall maintain a record of the floor elevations and flood proofing measures of all buildings or structures hereafter constructed, altered, or enlarged in the floodplain district. (10)Permit required for obstruction. It is unlawful for any person to construct, erect, or maintain an obstruction in the floodplain district without a permit from the city council. (11)Limitation to interpretation of regulations. The city shall not be more restrictive in the interpretation of its floodplain regulations than required by the state department of natural resources. (12) Notification to FEMA when physical changes increase or decrease the 100- year flood elevation. As soon as is practicable, but not later than six months after the date such supporting information becomes available, the community development director shall notify the Chicago Regional Office of FEMA of the changes by submitting a copy of said technical or scientific data. (13) Notifications for mapped watercourse alterations. The zoning administrator shall notify, in riverine situations, adjacent communities and the commissioner of the department of natural resources prior to the community authorizing any alteration or relocation of a mapped watercourse. If the applicant has applied for a permit to work in the beds of public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 103G, this shall suffice as adequate notice to the commissioner of natural resources. A copy of said notification shall also be submitted to the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (14) Annexations. The flood insurance rate map panels adopted by reference in this article may include floodplain areas that lie outside of the corporate boundaries of the city at the time of adoption of this ordinance. If any of these floodplain land areas are annexed into the city after the date of adoption of this ordinance, the newly annexed floodplain lands shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter immediately upon the date of annexation. (Prior Code, § 1155-030.1, Ord. No. 2009-434, § 1, 10-5-2009) Sec. 90-137. Shoreland district.- ' The shoreland district of the city shall be all that land within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high-water levels of the lakes, ponds, and flowages, and within 300 feet of the ordinary high- water level of the rivers and streams listed in the shoreland classification data table of this section. All land lying within the shoreland district of the city shall be subject to the regulations established herein. (1)The following table shows the shoreland classification data for the city: Shoreland Classification Data Lake Name LD. T R Sections Classification Unnamed 2-1W 31 21;22 30-25 Natural environment (NE) Bald Eagle 31— General development (GD) 62-2 31 21 Various Barker 12-7 Natural environment (NE) 82-76 Fr Goggins Lake r7_r_r 36-31 Natural environment (NE) Round 82-136 _rr 35 Recreational development (RD) Fish 33-6 Natural environment (NE) 82-137 31;30 21 Horseshoe 82-138 31 21 3-4 Natural environment (NE) Oneka 9-16 Natural environment (NE) 82-140 r-r Unnamed 82-141 31 21 I 1-14 Natural environment (NE) Unnamed 82-144 31 21 14 Natural environment (NE) Unnamed 82-145 31 21 14-23 Natural environment (NE) Rice Egg 82-146 82-147 31 31 21 21 15, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28 20-29 Natural environment (NE) Recreational development (RD) Lake Plaisted 82-148 31 21 25 Natural environment (NE) North School Section 82-149 31 21 25 Natural environment (NE) Unnamed 82-150 31 21 25-26 Natural environment (NE) South School Section 82-151 31 21 25-26 Natural environment (NE) Unnamed 82-152 31 21 26 Natural environment (NE) Sunset 82-153 31 21 27-34 Recreational development (RD) Long 82-155 31 21 35 Natural environment (NE) Unnamed 82-156 31 21 1-36 Natural environment (NE) Watercourses 1 Unnamed to Rice Lake Clearwater Creek 31 21 20-21 General development (GD) 31 21 31-19 General development (GD) Unnamed to Clearwater Creek 31 21 8-19 General development (GD) 'All rivers and streams in the municipality having a total drainage area of greater than two square miles are assigned a shoreland classification of general development. (2)The following table provides the minimum dimensional requirements for development within the shoreland district. The city council may grant variances to the strict interpretation of these standards in accordance with section 90-38. Dimensional Requirements For Riparian Shoreland Development (for residential lots only unless otherwise stated) Minimum Lot Minimum Structure Minimum Maximum Structure Area Lot Width Setback Septic Height from OHW Setback from OHW Natural environment lake — 40,000 125 ft. 150 ft. NA 25 ft. sewered lot sq. ft. Natural environment lake — 80,000 200 ft. 200 ft. 150 ft. 25 ft. unsewered lot sq. ft. Recreational lake — 20,000 80 ft. 100 ft. NA 25 ft. sewered lot sq. ft. Recreational lake — 40,000 150 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. 25 ft. unsewered lot sq. ft. General development lake — 15,000 80 ft. 100 ft. NA 25 ft. sewered lot sq. ft. General development lake — 40,000 150 ft. r0ft 25 ft. unsewered lot rft- F-F-F- Controlled access lots and As above plus As above As above Same 25 ft. commercial lots, based on lake type 25% plus 25% plus 25% as above Dimensional Requirements for Nonriparian 5horeland Development (for residential lots only unless otherwise stated) Minimum Lot Area Minimum Maximum Lot Width StructureHeight Natural environment lake— 20,000 sq. ft. 125 ft. 25 ft. sewered lot Natural environment lake— 80,000 sq. ft. 200 ft. 25 ft. unsewered lot Recreational lake— 15,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 25 ft. sewered lot Recreational lake— 40,000 sq. ft. 150 ft. 25 ft. unsewered lot General Development lake— 10,400 sq. ft. 80 ft. 25 ft. sewered lot General Development lake— 40,000 sq. ft. 150 ft. 25 ft. unsewered lot Controlled Access Lots and As above plus 25% As above plus 25% 25 ft. Commercial Lots, based on lake type Notes to Table: 1. Building setbacks on side yards fronting public streets shall be the same as the specified front yard setback. 2. Church steeples and nonresidential farm buildings are excluded from height limitations. 3. No more than 25% of a lot or parcel in the shoreland district may be covered by an impervious surface. (3) Permitted uses within the shoreland district shall be the same as those of the underlying zoning district. (4) Permitted accessory uses in the shoreland district shall be the same as those of the underlying zoning district, and also include: a. One deck or dock not meeting the normal setback requirements from the waterbody as defined in this section, given that the deck meets the following conditions: 1. The dock may not occupy an area exceeding 450 square feet in the case of a private dock, nor 600 square feet in the case of a commercial or public dock. 2. The dock may not be over six feet wide in relation to the shoreline. 3. No dock, platform, deck, or similar structure shall be located within or over the banks of a creek or stream. 4. The dock may not block a navigable channel. 5. The dock may not extend more than 75 feet past the ordinary high- water level into a lake in the case of a private dock, nor more than 100 feet past the ordinary high-water level in the case of a commercial or public dock. A variance may be granted in accordance with section 90- 38 to allow access to navigable waters. 6. The treadway of the dock may not be more than two feet above the ordinary high-water level of the waterbody over which it is constructed. 7. No walls, roof, or enclosed structure may be constructed on any dock. b. One stairway for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. The stairway may not be greater than four feet in width, and may not have a landing exceeding 32 square feet area. c. Lifts for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes. (5)Conditional uses in the shoreland district shall be the same as those for the underlying zoning district, and also include: a. Intensive clearing of vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management practices as permitted by law. b. Advertising signs. c. Lake access lots. d. Marinas. (Prior Code, § 1155-020.1) %i Sec. 90-327. Stormwater management."" All land development activities shall make provision for the adequate management of stormwater generated on the site. To be considered adequate, stormwater management must be approved by the city engineer and include: limiting the discharge of stormwater downstream to a rate not to exceed that existing prior to development, the treatment of stormwater discharged to national urban runoff protection program (NURP) standards, and the limitation of runoff volumes to the greatest extent practical. Where the property being developed is located all or partially within an established regional stormwater management district of the city, the city council may require the applicant pay a stormwater management fee instead of constructing all or part of the stormwater management system required for the site. The fee to be charged shall be approved by the council and based on the city engineer's estimate of the public costs associated with the collection, transportation, storage, treatment, and management of stormwater generated by the site in accordance with rates established by the city council. (Prior Code, § 1215-070.1) Sec. 90-139. Wetlands protection district. The wetlands protection district of the city is all that land located in the city that has a predominance of hydric soils, are inundated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration to support a prevalence of hydrophilic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils conditions, and under normal circumstances, support a prevalence of such vegetation. The district does not include public waters wetlands as defined in Minn. Stats. § 103G.005, subd. 15a. (1) Determination of land located in the city's wetlands protection district shall be based on the January 1989 edition of Technical Report Y-82-1, Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, and is subject to approval of the city engineer or designated alternate. Where there is any dispute to the correct delineation of a wetland area, the property owner may request, in writing, a determination of the boundary be made by a technical evaluation panel to consist of three individuals chosen for their technical expertise: one each appointed by the board of soil and water resources, the watershed district of jurisdiction, and the city engineer. Such request must be made prior to the city council approving or denying any land use request. Once approved by the city council, the delineation made by the technical evaluation panel shall be the official record of the city. (2) It is unlawful for any person to fill, excavate, alter, or drain, or to allow the fill, excavation, alteration, or drainage of any land within the wetland protection district, except in conformance with this chapter. No building or structure may be constructed or placed in the wetland protection district except in conformance with this chapter and state law. (3) Those uses and activities specified in Minn. Stats. §§ 103G.2241, 103G.231 and 103G.2364 are permitted accessory uses in the wetlands protection district to the extent allowed by law. (4) Fill, excavation, alteration, and drainage of wetlands may be allowed by conditional use permit, subject to an approved wetlands replacement plan prepared in accordance with Minn. Stats. § 103G.222 and/or Minn. Stats. § 103G.2242. The wetlands replacement plan shall be considered concurrently and as part of the conditional use permit. (Prior Code, § 1155-050.1) Appendix D — City of Hugo Capital Improvement Plan for Stormwater Projects APPENDIX � NOVEMBER 2011 1687-85 REPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR STORM WATER PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY OF HUGO November 2011 Prepared By: WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue S., Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 (763) 541-4800 (763) 541-1700 (FAX) Prepared For: The City of Hugo Rice Creek Watershed District I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Peter Willenbring, PE Reg. No. 15998 CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE....................................................................................... 1 II. PROCEDURES AND METHODS FOLLOWED.......................................................... 2 III. OVERVIEW OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION COLLECTED ......................... 5 IV. FINDINGS OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT NEEDS ANALYSIS ................. 7 V. FINDINGS OF GIS ANALYSIS AND P8 MODELING .............................................. 12 VI. FINDINGS OF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF TMDLS...........................................16 VIL RESULTS OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE EVALUATION ...................... 19 IX. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS................................................................ 23 List of Figures: P8 Water Quality Modeling Discharge Location Map Potential Stormwater Projects Page Index Map List of Tables: Clearwater Creek Watershed P8 Water Quality Analysis Results Hardwood Creek Watershed P8 Water Quality Analysis Results List of Appendices: Appendix A Proposed Improvement Projects Appendix B Anticipated Change in Land Use in Clearwater Creek Watershed Existing versus Future (2030) Appendix C Estimated Pollutant Loadings — Clearwater Creek Watershed Existing versus Future (2030) Appendix D Anticipated Change in Land Use in Hardwood Creek Watershed Existing versus Future (2030) Appendix E Estimated Pollutant Loadings — Hardwood Creek Watershed Existing versus Future (2030) CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE The City of Hugo is faced with a need to provide additional reductions in runoff volume and pollutant loads in areas within the City that are tributary to Hardwood Creek, Clearwater Creek, and Bald Eagle Lake. These reductions are driven by either the requirements set out in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Hardwood Creek, Peltier Lake, Centerville Lake, and Bald Eagle Lake or through the implementation of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) rules governing development or redevelopment activities. In order for the City to anticipate the future cost and impact of these restrictions as well as identify the best projects that can be constructed to achieved these goals, there is a need to quantify the amount of infiltration and pollutant reduction necessary to meet future TMDL load allocations and RCWD plan requirements. To do this most effectively, this joint study between the City of Hugo and the RCWD has been undertaken. Based on the analyses that were undertaken and the planning process that was completed as part of this study, the following information has been developed. 1. An estimate of the amount of runoff volume reduction, storm water storage, total phosphorus, and suspended solids load reduction that needs to be provided to meet the waste load allocation goals assigned in the TMDLs and/or reductions that would be required as part of development or redevelopment. 2. A listing of the general Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are most capable of providing load reductions in a cost-effective and sustainable manner given the soil, topographic, land use, and other physical conditions that are present within this area. This review and evaluation took into consideration the various benefits of the BMPs, their corresponding cost, long-term maintenance, ownership considerations, anticipated sources of revenue for construction and maintenance, and other pertinent factors. A prioritized listing of the BMPs that are most suitable to address the storm water management needs for the RCWD and City is also provided. 3. A listing of site -specific projects that could be constructed to address regional storm water management as well as TMDL waste load allocation requirements. 4. A prioritized implementation plan that identifies potential projects that can be undertaken by both the City of Hugo and the RCWD to address the storm water management needs for this area. This prioritization takes into consideration the perspectives of stakeholders (MPCA, DNR, SWCD, City, RCWD, and others) relative to their interest in the listed projects. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 1 II. PROCEDURES AND METHODS FOLLOWED The specific activities that were completed by the City of Hugo and the RCWD in order to develop this Storm Water Management Capital Improvement Plan for the study area are described within this section. The City of Hugo took the lead in the development of this document. However, the Staff and Board of Managers of the RCWD completed many of the tasks outlined below, primarily related to modeling. Task 1: Collect and Analyze Background Information As part of this task the available storm water management information regarding land use, topography, soils, land ownership, impaired waters, water quality, information on drained and impacted wetlands, and other data was collected, reviewed, and analyzed. GIS specialists were used in completing this analysis to sort through and analyze the information collected. In addition to undertaking the aforementioned tasks, meetings were held with stakeholders to facilitate obtaining the necessary background information needed to successfully complete this project. Once this background information was collected by City of Hugo staff, workshop -type meetings were held between the staff, the City of Hugo, and the RCWD. During these meetings, additional information was exchanged and both parties worked to better define which water quality and hydrologic models that were most suitable for use in completing future tasks. Task 2: Define the Location and Extent of Anticipated Future Land Use Changes In order to anticipate future pollutant load reduction requirements, the location and extent to which development or redevelopment is anticipated to occur in the foreseeable future was estimated. As part of this activity, the City of Hugo developed existing and future land use maps to be used in the completion of future tasks. The timelines associated with these land -use change projections were defined based on information developed as part of activities completed in Task 1. Meetings were held with City staff to develop this information on the estimated future land -use changes. Task 3: Model Future Pollutant Load Reduction Requirements Volume and pollutant load reductions associated with development or redevelopment within the City were estimated as part of this task. A water quality model was developed that took into consideration permitting requirements and the impact associated with anticipated changes in land use. The corresponding benefit of BMPs related to volume and pollutant load reduction was then quantified through this modeling process. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 2 Prior to beginning work on this task, a work session meeting was held between the City of Hugo staff and the RCWD staff to define: • The parameters of interest that needed to be analyzed based on draft TMDLs available for Hardwood Creek, Centerville Lake, Peltier Lake, and Bald Eagle Lake. • The goals expressed as load reductions for the parameters of interest. • The specifications for the modeling. The RCWD's staff took the lead in developing these parameters of interest, defining the goals, and specifying the methodology that would be suitable for modeling these future pollutant load reduction requirements. The District utilized existing water quality models for the area to assist in this analysis. The City of Hugo staff worked with the District to assist in properly populating the model for use in subsequent tasks. The load reductions required by the Hardwood Creek, Centerville/Peltier Lake, and Bald Eagle Lake TMDLs were reviewed, quantified, and incorporated into estimates regarding the need for future pollutant and volume load reductions for the City of Hugo. It is further noted that the required reductions in the Peltier/Centerville Lake TMDL will be considerably greater than those required by the Hardwood Creek TMDL. As a result, the City will need to primarily focus on the Peltier/Centerville Lake TMDL and Bald Eagle TMDL when estimating target future load reductions. Task 4: Develop/Evaluate BMP Alternatives As part of this task, the City of Hugo staff identified, evaluated, and further developed BMP alternatives that they felt would be reasonable for use within the City of Hugo. As part of this analysis a review of the physical conditions relating to land use, soils, topography, availability of public and private land, and the presence of wetlands, drained wetlands, floodplain, groundwater elevations, and other features were completed. These features were taken into consideration for the purpose of identifying the most cost- effective and feasible BMPs that can be used to achieve the desired storm water management goals for the area. Following this initial evaluation, the City staff met with RCWD staff for the purpose of further evaluating these alternatives and identifying other alternatives that may be suitable for meeting not only the needs of the City of Hugo, but also the RCWD. The RCWD also provided specific information and recommendations on potential capital improvements that could be used to address the District's needs taking into consideration the different responsibilities they have for storm water management. Multiple meetings were held between the City of Hugo staff and the RCWD staff for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, reviewing, and further developing these alternatives. Meetings were held with staff from the DNR, Soil Water Conservation District, CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 3 Washington County, and others for the purpose of developing concurrence on perspectives regarding the use of various BMPs in this area. Task 5: Develop Specific Projects for Implementation Based on the information collected in previous tasks along with input from stakeholders, the opportunities that are available to construct regional storm water management projects were identified. The City of Hugo focused on projects that employed water reuse, enhanced storm water treatment, infiltration, and wetland restoration to meet these goals. The RCWD staffs also worked to identify specific projects that they were interested in implementing. Both parties worked collaboratively to develop these projects for inclusion within this Capital Improvement Plan. The City of Hugo identified projects as part of this effort and for each project concept level design information was developed. Three meetings were held with the RCWD staff to collaboratively develop this information. Task 6: Evaluate Potential Project Cost vs. Benefits For each of the projects identified the estimated pollutant removal capabilities, cost for construction, benefits and maintenance costs were evaluated. This information was reviewed, and meetings were held between the City and the RCWD staff for the purpose of prioritizing these potential capital improvement projects. Task 7: Complete Storm Water Capital Improvement Plan Based on a compilation of information developed in the previous tasks, the City of Hugo developed a formal Capital Improvement Plan that summarized the results of the study. The plans includes a description of the various potential capital improvements, their costs and benefits, a description of how the project will be funded, and a description of the City or RCWD's interest and ranking of the project relative to other projects. Task 8: Receive Acceptance of Final Capital Improvement Plan from Stakeholders Once the Storm Water Capital Improvement Plan was developed, the plan was submitted for final review by stakeholders as part of the incorporation of this information into the City of Hugo's Storm Water Plan. Follow-up information was provided to allow for the smooth implementation of the projects identified within this Capital Improvement Plan. Three meetings were held with stakeholders to facilitate this task. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 4 III. OVERVIEW OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION COLLECTED A significant amount of background information was collected and reviewed in order for this Capital Improvement Plan to be prepared. Outlined below, is a list of the background information that was used in the development of this Capital Improvement Plan. 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, prepared by the City of Hugo and dated 2007. 2. Soils Map for areas within the City of Hugo, prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service dated August 2010. 3. City of Hugo Land Use — Existing Conditions (2005) prepared by the Metropolitan Council and dated April 2005. 4. City of Hugo Land Use prepared by the City of Hugo for the year 2030 5. Topographic Maps for City of Hugo prepared by Rice Creek Watershed LIDAR Data and dated November 2008. 6. Land Ownership Map - City of Hugo prepared by Washington County Parcel Dataset and dated September 2010. 7. Draft TMDL Report for Bald Eagle Lake, prepared by FOR and dated January 2009. 8. TMDL Report for Hardwood Creek, prepared by FOR and dated January 2009. 9. Peltier/Centerville Lake Draft TMDL Report, prepared by FOR and dated February 2009. 10. Maps Drained or Impacted Wetlands, prepared by Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and dated 2009. 11. DNR Public Waters prepared by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and dated July 2008. 12. Wetland Inventory Maps and Information, prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and dated January 2010. 13. Existing and Future Conditions Hydrologic Models, updated by WSB & Associates and Houston Engineering and dated April 2011. 14. P8 Water Quality Model, prepared by Houston Engineer and dated March 2, 2011. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 5 15. Aerial Photography - City of Hugo, prepared by Aerials Express and dated August 2008. 16. Minnesota Stormwater Manual (Version 2), prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and dated January 2008. The above information was reviewed and analyzed for the purpose of better refining the City's stormwater management needs and responsibilities as it relates to: • Meeting Total Maximum Daily Load target allocations for Hardwood Creek, Bald Eagle Lake, and Peltier Lake. • Rice Creek Watershed District permitting requirements. • Quantifying the benefit of various BMPs in achieving desired reductions in runoff volumes and pollutant load CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 6 IV. FINDINGS OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT NEEDS ANALYSIS The City of Hugo is required to manage storm water to achieve a number of regulatory goals and requirements. Outlined below, is a description of various goals and requirements needed to achieve the target storm water management goals for areas within Hardwood Creek, Bald Eagle Lake, Peltier and Centerville Lakes, and meet RCWD permit requirements. TMDL Goals for Hardwood Creek The Hardwood Creek TMDL has indicated that this creek is impaired for biota (fish) and load dissolved oxygen. As part of these impairments, it was identified that suspended solids loading to the channel either from channel banks or the watershed has a significant impact on this impairment. The TMDL also identified other land use actions to be further impairing the functions and values of this channel. Generally the Hardwood Creek TMDL will require the City of Hugo to undertake the following: a) Implement updated RCWD storm water rules Through the implementation of the RCWD rules, rate and volume control as well as pollutant load reductions will be provided for areas that develop or redevelop. b) Improve livestock management practices As part of this activity, the extent to which livestock are allowed to enter the creek must be reduced and manure application practices will also need to be improved with additional setbacks standards along with enhanced application practices. c) Undertake regular inspections of the channel and complete maintenance As part of this activity, the removal of accumulated sediment will be done and necessary repairs will be done to any channel banks that are observed to be failing. Based on the implementation of the above practices coupled with a project to restore meanders and the channel cross section for Hardwood Creek, the TMDL for Hardwood Creek predicts achieving a four (4) percent reduction in total suspended solids loading to the channel and a six (6) percent reduction in biological oxygen demand (BOD) as exerted within the channel. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 7 TMDL Goals for Bald Eagle Lake The Bald Eagle Lake TMDL indicates the lake is impaired for aquatic life/aquatic recreation. The pollutant that is creating this impairment is phosphorus. The TMDL has identified the current phosphorus budget and the required reductions to meet the in -lake phosphorus goal of forty (40) micrograms per liter. The TMDL has indicated a need for a ninety-one (91) percent reduction in internal phosphorus loading and a thirty-eight (38) percent reduction in external phosphorus loading to the lake from its watershed. Based on an extensive analysis of recently completed hydrologic and P8 modeling for the watershed, a summary of pertinent hydrologic and water quality information is provided below: • 3,523 acres of land within Hugo drain to Bald Eagle Lake • Under current conditions with existing BMPs, areas within Hugo create an annual phosphorus load of 756 pounds • If the phosphorus load is reduced by 38%, Hugo's share would correspond to a 287 pound reduction. This would correspond to the City having a projected allowable phosphorus load of 468 pounds. • The existing phosphorus load is generated with a corresponding runoff volume of 1,590 acre feet. • When the watershed is fully developed, it is estimated 1,971 acres of impervious surface will be present. This compares to the 1200 acres of impervious surface currently in place. • Based on fully developed conditions, if one inch of infiltration is provided from all impervious surfaces, and existing BMPs are in place the fully developed phosphorus load will be 668 pounds and have a corresponding runoff volume of 1,181 acre feet. • If full development takes place and only existing BMPs are utlized, the phosphorus load to Pether Lake would increase to 2,150 pounds per year (representing an increase of 1,398 pounds). • Without infiltration BMPs, the future runoff volume would be 4,338 acre feet. With one inch of infiltration, the volume would be reduced by 3,157 acre feet and result in a future runoff volume of 1,181 acre feet. • On average, modeling predicts 1.89 pounds of total phosphorus will be generated per acre of impervious surface and approximately one pound of phosphorus is contained in one acre foot of untreated stormwater runoff. • To meet the target watershed load reduction of 287 pounds, the TMDL has indicated that phosphorus concentration in water discharged to the lake could be reduced to have a maximum concentration of one hundred seventy seven (177) micrograms per liter, the runoff volume could be reduced by thirty-eight (38) percent, or a combination of the two could be utilized to achieve this goal. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 8 In order to achieve these goals, it is anticipated the City will need to implement the following actions: a) Retrofit existing BMPs to enhance removal in areas tributary to Bald Eagle Lake Existing BMPs that are in place for areas tributary to Bald Eagle Lake could be retrofitted to enhance their removal capabilities either through increasing storm water storage enhanced infiltration, or providing flocculation treatment. The Bald Eagle Lake TMDL has assigned an allowable target load for phosphorus leaving the City of 468 pounds annually. This would require the City of Hugo to reduce future phosphorus loadings to the lake by 287 pounds. b) Implement infiltration and other BMPs to allow for no increase in pollutant load from developing areas c) Implement new BMPs in development and redevelopment to reduce load to targeted levels CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 9 TMDL Goals for Peltier and Centerville Lakes Peltier and Centerville Lakes have been identified to be impaired. The nutrient causing the impairment has been identified as phosphorus. The TMDL for Peltier/Centerville Lake has identified a need to reduce the external phosphorus loading from Hardwood Creek or Clearwater Creek by between 46 and 62 percent. Recent P8 modeling completed by Houston Engineering provides significantly different existing phosphorus load estimates than the information provided in the TMDL. Depending on the data utilized, a 50% reduction would correspond to an annual reduction of phosphorus loading from the City of Hugo of 500-1,500 pounds. In order to achieve these goals it is anticipated the following actions could to be taken: a) Reduce phosphorus loads from areas within in the City that develop or redevelop by requiring the incorporation of BMPs consistent with RCWD permitting standards. b) Incorporate regional BMPs or retrofit existing BMPs to further reduce the phosphorus loading from these areas. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 10 RCWD Permit Requirements RCWD permitting rules generally require the use of better site design techniques as outlined in Chapter 4 of the Minnesota Storm Water Manual (MPCA, 2007), and water quality and infiltration BMPs sized to infiltrate or retain the runoff volume generated within the contributing area by a 2.8 inch storm under the developed condition. Based on a memorandum prepared by HEI that analyzes the net benefit of these rules, to meet this requirement it will be necessary to provide systems to infiltrate approximately the first inch of runoff from new or redeveloping sites for most areas within the City of Hugo. It is the City of Hugo's intention to address these issues through onsite practices, regional practices, or both. Through the implementation of the above infiltration standards, approximately 80% of the runoff volume will be removed and no increase in runoff volume and pollutant loading will occur from new or redeveloping sites. This analysis also indicates that with this infiltration requirement, there is some potential for additional removal slightly over and above that associated with new development, but for planning purposes implementation of this practice will generally balance the impact of new development. Further reductions in nutrient loadings could take place as a result of providing infiltration for areas being redeveloped or through the implementation of regional improvements to reduce phosphorus loading independent of redevelopment, development, or reconstruction. In order to achieve RCWD permit requirement goals, the following actions need to be taken: a) New development and re -development must infiltrate or retain the runoff volume generated by a 2.8 inch rain event from all new or redeveloping area unless regional projects are constructed to achieve the same benefits. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 11 V. FINDINGS OF GIS ANALYSIS AND P8 MODELING To further evaluate opportunities that may be available to reduce runoff volumes and pollutant loads within the City of Hugo, an analysis of GIS data that is available within the City was completed. The results of this analysis were used to develop a P8 model to evaluate existing and future pollutant loads based on various land use scenarios. The detailed results of this GIS and P8 modeling work are provide in Appendices B, C, D, and E. A summary of the results of this work is provided on Figure 1, which shows the various sub -watersheds discharge location and the following tables summarize the hydrologic and water quality analysis results for those selected locations. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 12 184th St N Q " T 3 c o c = LL -------a---- ---------------------------180th-St-N-:._ a a Q Z 0 177th St N z a 177th St N iz a 175th St N L 2 N Z T (7 a z z > 0 21 ei Q o C T 'fin -�>---->-----------------1 180th St N y ,NNW a' IQ a E c x 1 III �1 JMT_029-PI 1701th St N � •' 1" T I m I 3 I I li 165th St N z a Za w 0 pC � SA55MT_025-P 15st St N a 157th St N I 157t Q� I �d I SA55MT_01S-W 1 OC. SA95MT_011-W z 152nd St N _ > 0 152hd St N Q I SA55MT 0,12P. 4 SJ3BR31- - 08P ,- "0", E SJ3MT_Z027-P W= 148th St N `IJ FrenchmanRdN SJ3BR3_001-P ® 147th St N 146th St N _ 145th St N QiZ J3MT_036-PI i z I Q' z 140thSrN w � ii a Q 4 , I I wP LL fake Ra A. N 137th St N xey 135th St N ��,,��y t�11�L4iS ALA z 2 m 0] a m > a z s 0 2 '> °' > - 0 3 W c > Q 130th St N o o a `0 x c a z ... > 128th St N 128th St N x t- > 4m I R Flay Rd N Z 2 W 2 > Q Q I m Q 125th St N o x I0 ao OP W LL d2 Mg'.SJ Q19.9h I _ WC:.711.95 L`U'�l..5,11.5 I 12;1st St N I SAMT 018-P _ SJ' ------ --..=- - - - --- SJ1MT-051-P -_ - - --- - - - \- - - -' - SJ1MT_035-P SJlMT 041-P 117th St N 155th St N 1 z ' a a' s 147thySk_ x 40th StN p� a' z 132nd.St N•,� 4 Q IM o ,ry c 130th,A ,e,N 43. th St N z z > Q 0 "- - 122nd St N SJ1 MT_047=P a a t2 Legend Discharge Locations C� Clearwater Creek Central O Clearwater Creek North Clearwater Creek Northeast Clearwater Creek South Clearwater Creek Southeast O Clearwater Creek West ■ Hardwood Creek North Hardwood Creek West L City Boundary N W+E S 0 1,750 3,500 7,000 Feet File: K:\01687-85\GIS\Maps\ModelingDischa ge.mxd, Jun 17, 2011 10:26:09 AM WSB A City of Hugo !-HUGO June 17, 2011 CLEARWATER CREEK WATERSHED P8 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS RUNOFF VOLUMES, TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS, AND PHOSPHORUS ANNUAL AVERAGES CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA WATERSHED ID WATERSHED AREA IN HUGO RUNOFF VOLUME COMPARISON TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLID LOAD COMPARISON PHOSPHORUS LOAD COMPARISON EXISTING LANDUSE ANNUAL AVERAGE RUNOFFVOLUME 2030 LANDUSE ANNUAL AVERAGE RUNOFFVOLUME 2030 LANDUSE ONE INCH DEP. STORAGE ANNUAL AVERAGE RUNOFF VOLUME EXISTING LANDUSE ANNUAL AVERAGE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) 2030 LANDUSE ANNUAL AVERAGE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS 2030 LANDUSE ONE INCH DEP. STORAGE ANNUAL AVERAGE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) EXISTING LANDUSE ANNUAL AVERAGE TOTALSUSPENDED SOLIDS 2030 LANDUSE ANNUAL AVERAGE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) 2030 LANDUSE ONE INCH DEP. STORAGE ANNUAL AVERAGE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS TSS ACRES ACRE-FEET/YEAR ACRE-FEET/YEAR DIFFERENCE ACRE-FEET/YEAR DIFFERENCE LBS/YEAR LBS/YEAR DIFFERENCE LBS/YEAR DIFFERENCE LBS/YEAR LBS/YEAR DIFFERENCE LBS/YEAR DIFFERENCE CENTRAL WATERSHED 489.3 696.7 1,050.4 353.7 568.0 -128.7 135,252.9 243,624.6 108,371.7 128,933.1 -6,319.8 364.5 596.9 232.4 322.6 -41.9 NORTH WATERSHED 1,143.4 685.0 1,180.3 495.3 507.3 -177.7 44,607.0 89,353.8 44,746.8 44,653.3 46.3 248.6 451.7 203.1 203.6 -45.0 NORTHEAST WATERSHED 1,906.7 977.6 2,290.5 1,312.9 609.1 -368.5 128,184.8 428,284.4 300,099.6 144,726.1 16,541.3 437.7 1,260.0 822.3 371.6 -66.1 SOUTH WATERSHED 3,523.2 1,589.8 4,337.8 2,748.0 1,181.4 -408.4 266,018.2 779,001.2 512,983.0 276,675.6 10,657.4 756.5 2,149.1 1,392.6 668.2 -88.3 SOUTHEAST WATERSHED 1,798.1 1,059.5 2,481.9 1,422.3 713.4 -346.1 330,666.2 982,669.1 652,002.9 301,787.5 -28,878.7 686.0 1,758.3 1,072.3 532.9 -153.1 WEST WATERSHED 215.6 144.6 267.5 122.9 77.0 -67.6 29,787.0 60,045.2 i 30,258.2 23,833.9 -5,953.1 80.8 162.2 81.4 55.0 -25.8 TOTALS - AVERAGE 9,076.4 5,153.2 11,608.4 6,455.2 3,656.1-1,497.1 934,516.1 2,582,978.3 1 1,648,462.2 920,609.5-13,906.6 2,574.1 6,378.2 3,804.1 2,153.9 -420.2 NOTE: 50 YEAR AVERAGE RUNOFF VOLUME, TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLID, AND PHOSPHORUS COMPARISON. 4:28 PM 6/15/2011 K:\01687-85\WR\RCWD-P8\CWC\Clearwaters Creek P8 Water Quality Model\Model Tables\Model Output Tables\CWC_P8_SUMMARY.xls HARDWOOD CREEK WATERSHED P8 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS RUNOFF VOLUMES, TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS, AND PHOSPHORUS ANNUAL AVERAGES CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA WATERSHED ID WATERSHED AREA IN HUGO RUNOFF VOLUME COMPARISON TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLID LOAD COMPARISON PHOSPHORUS LOAD COMPARISON EXISTING LANDUSE ANNUAL AVERAGE RUNOFFVOLUME 2030 LANDUSE ANNUALAVERAGE RUNOFFVOLUME 2030 LANDUSE ONE INCH DEP. STORAGE ANNUALAVERAGE RUNOFFVOLUME EXISTING LANDUSE ANNUALAVERAGE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) 2030 LANDUSE ANNUALAVERAGE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) 2030 LANDUSE ONE INCH DEP. STORAGE ANNUALAVERAGE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) EXISTING LANDUSE ANNUALAVERAGE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) 2030 LANDUSE ANNUALAVERAGE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) 2030 LANDUSE ONE INCH DEP. STORAGE ANNUALAVERAGE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) ACRES ACRE-FEET/YEAR ACRE-FEET/YEAR DIFFERENCE ACRE-FEET/YEAR DIFFERENCE LBS/YEAR LBS/YEAR DIFFERENCE LBS/YEAR DIFFERENCE LBS/YEAR LBS/YEAR DIFFERENCE LBS/YEAR DIFFERENCE HARDWOOD CREEK WATERSHED 8,111.0 3,243.3 3,825.5 582.2 1,551.2 -1,692.1 254,135.1 290,303.1 36,168.0 206,990.2 -47,144.9 2,229.8 2,573.5 343.7 1,413.1 -816.7 NORTH CITY BOUNDARY HARDWOOD CREEK WATERSHED 3,250.0 4,085.1 6,409.3 2,324.2 2,255.3 -1,829.8 429,541.2 1,264,509.3 834,968.1 389,675.3 -39,865.9 3,139.3 5,453.3 2,314.0 2,300.6 -838.7 WEST CITY BOUNDARY TOTALS - AVERAGE 11,361.0 7,328.4 10,234.8 2,906.4 31806.5-3,521.9 683,676.3 1,554,812.4 1 871,136.1 596,665.5-87,010.8 5,369.1 8,026.8 2,657.7 3,713.7-1,655.4 NOTE: 50 YEAR AVERAGE RUNOFF VOLUME, TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLID, AND PHOSPHORUS COMPARISON. 10:02 AM 6/16/2011 K:\01687-85\WR\RCWD-P8\HWC\JD-2 Hardwood Creek P8 Water Quality Model\Model Tables\Model Results\HWC_P8_SUMMARY.As VI. FINDINGS OF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF TMDLS The GIS and P8 modeling results were analyzed and interpreted taking into consideration the requirements of the TMDLs for Hardwood Creek, Bald Eagle Lake, and Peltier/Centerville Lake. The findings of this analysis as it relates to potential City activities are summarized below: Hardwood Creek TMDL • TMDL requires reducing existing total suspended solids concentrations from 22 milligrams/liter to 19 milligrams/liter. • TMDL anticipates 6% reduction in BOD and a 4 % reduction in TSS. • Target reductions should be achieved through proposed in -channel improvements. • City anticipates complying with target requirements in the future by implementing RCWD permit requirements as land develops or redevelops. Bald Eagle Lake TMDL • TMDL target is a 38% reduction in existing total phosphorus (TP) from the watershed tributary to Bald Eagle Lake. • TMDL anticipates that if TP concentration from external load is limited to 177 micrograms/liter, the 38% reduction can be achieved. • 3,523 acres within the City of Hugo is tributary to Bald Eagle Lake. • Based on P8 modeling, the total phosphorus yield from Clearwater and Hardwood Creek watersheds ranges from .40-.51 pounds per acre per year and the total phosphorus concentration ranges from .37-.40 milligrams/liter. • City anticipates working towards target reduction through the implementation of Rice Creek Watershed District rules for land that develops or redevelops, enhancing existing stormwater BMPs, implementing new regional BMPs. Centerville and Peltier Lake TMDL TMDL anticipates a need to reduce external phosphorus load between 46- 62 %. Target waste load allocation for the City of Hugo is estimated to range from 514 pounds (62% reduction) to 725 pounds (46% reduction). Daily waste load allocation is estimated to range from 4.2-5.9 pounds per day. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 16 • Based on P8 modeling from 2008 and 2009 combined, 3,413 pounds of TP was discharged, along with 5,587 acre feet of runoff. This corresponds to a predicted yield of .61 pounds of TP per acre foot and a concentration of .22 milligrams per liter. • Based on P8 modeling, 3,413 pounds of phosphorus would typically be generated over a two year period, an average of 1,706 pounds would be generated annually. This corresponds to a total phosphorus yield of .0835 pounds per acre of land per year. • P8 results indicated .4 pounds per acre per year would be generated from Hardwood Creek and .51 pounds per acre per year would be generated from Clearwater Creek. This modeling estimated concentrations of total phosphorus in stormwater from Clearwater Creek at 360 micrograms per liter and Hardwood Creek at 400 micrograms per liter. • P8 modeling indicated unit runoff volumes at 4 inchers per year for Hardwood Creek and 6.6 inches for Clearwater Creek. Findings from P8 Modeling and GIS Analysis of City Data: • The City of Hugo has 9,076 of land tributary to Clearwater Creek. • The City of Hugo has 11,360 of land tributary to Hardwood Creek. • In 2005, the City of Hugo had 2,285 acres of impervious surface in Clearwater Creek and 1,401 acres of impervious surface in Hardwood Creek. • Between 2005 and 2030 the City of Hugo anticipates increasing the amount of impervious surface within Clearwater Creek by 3,180 acres and within Hardwood Creek by 1,201 acres. • P8 modeling predicts that between 2005 and 2030 with no BMPs in place, the volume of runoff will increase by 6,948 acre feet per year, based on a 3,180 acre increase in impervious surface. This represents an increase of approximately 2 feet of runoff volume annually for each acre of impervious surface added. • P8 model predicts 6,641 pounds of additional phosphorus will be generated by development with no BMPs and reflects the increase in 3,180 acres of impervious surface. This represents an increase in phosphorus loading by approximately 2 pounds per acre of impervious surface added. • P8 modeling estimates the concentration of phosphorus in untreated stormwater will be between 350 and 400 parts per billion. This corresponds to approximately 1 pound of phosphorus in each acre foot of additional runoff volume. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 17 • Based on P8 modeling, undeveloped property within the City of Hugo currently generates .12, .18, .31, and .43 pounds of total phosphorus per year per acre of land having A, B, C, and D soils respectively. • P8 modeling predicts undeveloped property within the City of Hugo generates .11, .17, .30, and .41 acre feet of runoff volume per year per acre of undeveloped land A, B, C, and D soils respectively. • Based on analysis by Houston Engineering as well as by WSB & Associates, infiltration of the first inch of runoff from impervious surfaces will reduce annual runoff volumes and the corresponding pollutant load by approximately 80%. • Based on an evaluation of the regional impacts of development, if the runoff volume generate by impervious surfaces is estimated at approximately 18 inches per year and this amount is increased by 25% to 24 inches per year, on an annual basis the increase in runoff volume created by impervious and pervious surface could be fully mitigated. • On average, for areas in the City of Hugo, the P8 modeling indicates that if 2 acre feet of untreated runoff are infiltrated, two pounds of phosphorus load will be removed. • On average, for each acre of impervious surface within a development, will generate 2 acre feet of additional runoff volume. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 18 VII. RESULTS OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE EVALUATION As part of the development of this storm water management Capital Improvement Plan, an evaluation was undertaken into various best management practices that could be considered to address the storm water needs of the City and RCWD. Outlined below, please find a general discussion of the various practices that were identified to be available and a discussion of the City and/or RCWD perspectives regarding their applicability for use within the City of Hugo. Storm Water Retention Ponds Storm Water Retention Ponds are required to manage runoff rates from developing areas so that increases in storm water runoff rates or extended runoff volumes will not impact downstream lakes and streams. For the purpose of this description, these ponds will only be identified to provide this rate control function, to limit downstream rates, and also create floodplain storage to protect roads and other structures from flooding. NURP Treatment Ponds Ponds designed to NURP guidelines which generally anticipate creating dead pool storage to accommodate the runoff volume generated from the watershed tributary to the pond for a 2.5 inch rainfall event are anticipated to provide the following level of treatment: • Removal of sixty (60) percent of the total phosphorus loading directed to the pond from untreated storm water runoff. • Removal of ninety (90) percent of the total suspended solids loading from untreated runoff directed to the pond. Water Reuse/Irrigation/Infiltration This practice will generally involve the removal of one hundred (100) percent of the runoff volume and its corresponding pollutant load for water that is reused and not returned to the drainage system. Based on P8 models that were developed by the RCWD, we anticipate that for every acre foot of storm water runoff removed from the system, 1 pound of phosphorus will also be removed in this process. Flocculation Treatment This practice involves taking pretreated storm water runoff and treating it utilizing a flocculation process to achieve a significantly enhanced treatment. Storm water treated by this process will be anticipated to remove ninety (90) percent of the total phosphorus present in the storm water runoff, achieve a phosphorus concentration of less than fifty (50) micrograms per liter, and achieve total suspended solids concentrations of less than ten (10) milligrams per liter. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 19 Porous Pavement Porous pavement is an infiltration practice. For the volume of storm water runoff infiltrated by this practice, the anticipated removal of total phosphorus, total suspended solids, and volume will be one hundred (100) percent. Filtration This practice consists of directing untreated storm water runoff through vegetation, filter strips, gravel, sand filters, or other materials to remove particulates and the corresponding pollutant load associated with them. Total phosphorus and total suspended solids removal totals utilizing this practice are anticipated to range from twenty-five (25) to thirty-five (35) percent for total phosphorus and from fifty (50) to seventy (70) percent for total suspended solids. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 20 Vill. IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS — DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A number of potential improvement projects have been identified for potential inclusion in the City of Hugo or the Rice Creek Watershed District Capital Improvement Plan. Generally the projects included in this list were found to be feasible to construct based on the following considerations: • Property owner may be receptive to work on property • Soil suitable for BMPs • Proposed land use practice compatible with BMPS • Topography in area suitable for cost-effective construction of BMPs • Flood plain considerations will not inhibit the ability of BMPs to be constructed • Vegetation on site is suitable for BMP implementation • Site suitable for cost-effective implementation of BMPs • Other considerations as identified In addition to the feasibility level considerations listed above, a number of design assumptions needed to be defined for each of the BMPs in order to properly evaluate their cost to construct and water quality benefits. A listing of the design assumptions used for the BMPs considered are provided below: Water Reuse — Irrigation • Typical irrigation rate 1-3" per week • 2-6 acre feet per acre could be removed annually • One pound of phosphorus removed per acre foot of water infiltrated • Average cost for construction: $15,000 per acre irrigated • Annual cost for operation and maintenance: $1,000 per year per system location plus 2.5% of Capital Cost. Water Reuse — Infiltration • Typical infiltration rate of 0.5-l" per hour Based on a single trench 1000' long and having an effective infiltration width of 10', per 1000' section at 1" per hour, this section could infiltrate 80 acre feet in 180 days. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 21 • Cost to construct 1000 lineal feet of drain tile system with pumps and controls is estimated at $80,000. • Operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1,000 per year per system plus 2.5% of Capital Cost. • Proposed construction costs reflect a 30% contingency for construction and a 25% cost for indirect expenses relating to legal, administrative, and land acquisition. • For estimating purposes, the cost for installation of 1,150 linear feet of infiltration trench will be $100,000, and such a system will have the capability to annually remove 100 acre feet of runoff volume and 100 pounds of total phosphorus from the watershed. Assumptions Associated with Water Quality Benefits • Infiltration of one acre foot of runoff volume will result in one pound of phosphorus removal • For each acre of impervious surface that is added as part of a subdivision, if two acre feet of runoff volume are infiltrated, the impact associated with that subdivision will be fully mitigated. • For each acre of existing impervious surface that is reconstructed and for which infiltration is required as part of updated standards, a reduction of 2 pounds of phosphorus will be assumed to occur a result of infiltration BMPs being retroactively applied to the project. • For purposes of estimating the annual cost for a BMP, 6.5% of the BMPs capital costs will be used as the annual cost associated with the capital contribution. Flocculation Treatment System • For systems having a capacity to remove up to 10 pounds of phosphorus per month, a cost of $1,300 per pound of phosphorus will be used. • For flocculation systems having a capacity to remove 10-20 pounds per month, a cost of $1,000 per pound of phosphorus removed will be used. • For systems with removal rates of more than 20 pounds of phosphorus per month, a cost of $800 per pound of phosphorus will be used. • Flocculation treatment will be assumed to reduce phosphorus concentrations in treated water to at or below 25 parts per billion. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 22 IX. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Based on information developed as part of this study, 19 potential improvement projects have been identified that could be considered for construction within the City of Hugo. The location of these projects is shown in the following figure. A detailed description and concept level plan for each project is also provided Appendix A. CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 Page 23 Ell 99WON7►:t:1 Proposed Improvement Projects CIP for Storm Water Projects Within the City of Hugo City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1687-85 APPENDIX A CITY OF HUGO Page Index Map Rice Creek Marsh ice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Centerville Park L_ Hardwood Pond Park enterville ino Lakes Amelia Lake 184th St N w d z z 182nd St N 21 LL ro 180thStN Z � �= Forest Lake z 180thStN Bald < F� ova Eagle Otter Lake Lake 121st St N : -------------------------w ---- , - u 9 l White ear Towns ip Bald Eagle -Otter Lake Park Benson Park Otter Park Red Pine Park c 117th St N Z Ave + *11 oeN V1. 9 If 119th St N ---- 118th St N 114 117th St N Big Ma Big Marine Park Reserve 1 Lynch Lake Mud Lake Potential Stormwater Projects 1. Irrigation of Oneka Ridge Golf Course 2 Beaver Ponds Park Irrigation/Infiltration Proj ect 3. Wilderness View Water Reuse Project 4. Infiltrate & Irrigate Lions Park 5 Egg Lake Perimeter Stormwater Re -use System 6. Water's Edge Water Re-use/Irrigation 7. Wagner Greenhouse Water Re -use Project 8. Irrigate Clearwater Creek Park 9. Irrigate Future Fable Hills Park 10. Arbre Park Irrigation Project 11. Val Jean Park Water Re -use Project 12. Irrigate Public Property Around School Within Water's Edge North Subdivision 13. Heritage Pond Park Irrigation System 14.Oneka Ponds Park Water Re -use System 15. Diamond Point Park Water Re -use System 16. Rice Lake Soccer Fields Water Re -use System 17. Hugo Gravel Pit Infiltration System 18. Harley Sod Field Irrigation Project 19. Not Shown on Map: Bald Eagle Lake/White Bear Lake Improvement Project N A 0 0.5 1 Miles WSB Ok- HUGO Project Number: 1 Project Priority: High Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Irrigate/Infiltrate stormwater runoff in selected areas of the Oneka Ridge Golf Course Full Description of Project: Re -use stormwater runoff generated from 900 acre watershed to irrigate golf course. Design Parameters: • Irrigate up to 90 acres of property within in the Oneka Ridge Golf Course • Install 1 to 5,000 LF of infiltration trench • Install forcemain to divert stormwater runoff from areas outside the golf course to the site to use for irrigation or to be infiltrated Project Location: S1/2 of Section 32 Township 31N Range 21W Estimated Benefits: • Volume reduction up to 1,000 acre-feet annually • TP reduction up to 1,000 pounds reduction Estimated Capital Cost: $600,000 Estimated Annual Cost: $5,000 Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus $100/per pound Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume $100/per acre-feet Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx Project Number: 2 Project Priority: High Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Beaver Ponds Park Irrigation Project Full Description of Project: This project consists of pumping water from the storm water ponds constructed as part of the Beaver Ponds Development and infiltrating this water under soccer fields in Beaver Ponds Park. Design Parameters: • Install 1500 LF of infiltration trench • Install lift station pumps and controls Project Location: Section 32, Township 31N, Range 21W (south of 130th street and east of Forest Blvd.) Estimated Benefits: • Volume reduction up to 130 acre-feet annually • TP reduction up to 130 pounds reduction Estimated Capital Cost: $130,000 Estimated Annual Cost: $4,250 Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus $100/per pound Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume $100/per acre-feet Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx Proposed Infiltration Trenches, ,. 1'1 V 4 s�^ FAL Jr ,ram a Hugo Stormwater Project #2 Beaver Ponds Park Irrigation/Infiltration lk-HUGO Project 1 inch = 250 feet Project Number: 3 Project Priority: Low Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Wilderness View Water Reuse Project Full Description of Project: This project consists of pumping water from the ditch immediately upstream of Fish Lake to allow stormwater runoff to be used for irrigation purposes over the 20- acre Wilderness View Residential Development. Design Parameters: Water Reuse/Irrigation Project Location: Section 32, Township 31N, Range 21W (east of TH 61 and, north of 125th Street.) Estimated Benefits: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Capital Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Annual Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus To be determined when listed as high priority. Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume To be determined when listed as high priority. Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx flab II 4 k .F •. - v IF 4 to or f '• '+ 0 ° Y 4r a n V�^*X_ V j[ � j y a Y+4 iugo Stormwater Project #3 Nilderness View Water Reuse Project lk- HUGO 1 inch = 150 feet am Project Number: 4 Project Priority: High Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Infiltrate/Irrigate Lions Park Full Description of Project: This project consists of pumping water from Water's Edge Ponds and using Lions Park for both irrigation and irrigation. Design Parameters: • Install 1,200 LF of infiltration trench • Install lift station pumps and controls • Install irrigation system over 2 acre area Project Location: Section 32, Township 31N, Range 21W (West of TH 61 and immediately north and south of 147th Street) Estimated Benefits: • Volume reduction up to 112 acre-feet annually • TP reduction up to 112 pounds reduction Estimated Capital Cost: $105,000 — Infiltration System $37,000 — Irrigation System $142,000—Total Project Cost Estimated Annual Cost: $5,500 for opperation Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus $130/per pound Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume $130/per acre foot Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx i Ct; r y� dy y A� �4 A.• .��. `��a IC r2R; �w i �' -- T....` c�o� Irrigation Area 4, I l� WON 7! em YO lugo Stormwater Project #4 ifiltrate & Irrigate Lions Park lk-HUG( 1 inch = 150 feet Project Number: 5 Project Priority: Low (until redevelopment projects on northwest side of Egg Lake become active) Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Egg Lake Perimeter Stormwater Re -use System Full Description of Project: This project consists of pumping stormwater runoff from a perimeter pond constructed around Egg Lake and utilizing the stormwater for irrigation purposes in selected areas. Design Parameters: Water Reuse/Irrigation Project Location: Section 20, Township 31N, Range 21W (areas on the north and west sides of Egg Lake) Estimated Benefits: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Capital Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Annual Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus To be determined when listed as high priority. Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume To be determined when listed as high priority. Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx iM t Hugo Stormwater Project #5 Egg Lake Perimeter Stormwater Re -use ok- HUGO System 1 inch = 400 feet Project Number: 6 Project Priority: Medium —will require agreement with home owners assosication Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Water's Edge Water Reuse/Irrigation Full Description of Project: This project consists of pumping water from selected stormwater ponds within the Water's Edge development and using this stormwater for irrigation purposes in place of city water that is currently used for this purpose. Design Parameters: Water Reuse/Irrigation Project Location: Section 19, Township 31N, Range 21W (south of Frenchman Road and west of Everton Avenue) Estimated Benefits: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Capital Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Annual Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus To be determined when listed as high priority. Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume To be determined when listed as high priority. Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx pop", t:�• .. y _ v Ilk l 4 r J - p i .. J• roll, .. .y tow WL ft rf Hugo Stormwater Project #6 Water's Edge Water Re-use/Irrigation - HUGO 1 inch = 400 feet Project Number: 7 Project Priority: Medium — need to work with property owners as they develop/redevelop Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Wagner Green house/LaVaIle Water Re -use Project Full Description of Project: This project consists of pumping water located north of Frenchman Road and west of Oneka Parkway north and using it to irrigate the open field located west or east of Oneka Lake Parkway and north of Frenchman Road or areas south of Frenchman road. Design Parameters: Water Reuse/Irrigation Project Location: Section 19, Township 31N, Range 21W (west of Fenway Avenue in the vicinity of 142nd St.) Estimated Benefits: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Capital Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Annual Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus To be determined when listed as high priority. Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume To be determined when listed as high priority. Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx R � FT ' O N O {`�.j air..—.. _� —_—� - ..J• - _ — _ / ��. � _ M I._ r i 1< jv �1 :g t ugo Stormwater Project #7 agner Greenhouse Water Re -use Project lk- HUG 1 inch = 400 feet Project Number: 8 Project Priority: High Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Construct irrigation or construct infiltration system in Clearwater Creek Park Full Description of Project: This project consists of pumping water from Clearwater Creek and using it to irrigate an 80-acre park property located west of Fenway Blvd. and south of 140th Street. This project could be implemented in conjunction with the irrigation project proposed for Harley Sod Fields (which is located immediately north of this parcel). Design Parameters: • Install 1,150 LF of infiltration trench • Install lift station pumps and controls • Future opportunity exists for system expansion in this area Project Location: Section 30, Township 31N, Range 21W (west of Fenway Blvd, south of 140th Street) Estimated Benefits: • Volume reduction up to 100 acre-feet annually • TP reduction up to 100 pounds reduction Estimated Capital Cost: $100,000 Estimated Annual Cost: $3,500 Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus $100/per pound Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume $100/per acre foot Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx ` '4 a r Infiltration Trenches a - i 4- re r A' �r�Os _ i 2 Hugo Stormwater Project #8 Irrigate Clearwater Creek Park It-HUGO 1 inch = 400 feet Project Number: 9 Project Priority: Medium —to be further evaluated when Future Fable Hills Park improvements developed Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Future Fable Hills Park Full Description of Project: This project consists of pumping water a stormwater pond within the Fable Hills Development and using the stormwater to irrigate a planned Fable Hills Park located within the subdivision. Design Parameters: Water Reuse/Irrigation Project Location: Section 30, Township 31N, Range 21W Estimated Benefits: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Capital Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Annual Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus Removed: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume Removed: To be determined when listed as high priority. k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx ,v p• _.� J. n i'fr sly N Ur r IL1 �l N i _ _ O t t L t044, 11hLn;• �V A Ile% •� i #9 ►A� ��, Via, � � .. �i� � f _^I i" g .�+ Hugo Stormwater Project #9 Irrigate Future Fable Hills Park ItFUGO 1 inch = 500 feet Project Number: 10 Project Priority: High — City is actively pursuing installation of irrigation system in park Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Arbre Park Irrigation Project Full Description of Project: This project consists of pumping water from a pond adjacent to Arbe Park and using this stormwater for irrigation purposes. It is noted that this park is already being irrigated using city water. Design Parameters: • Irrigate .5 acre park area Project Location: Section 19, Township 31N, Range 21W Estimated Benefits: • Volume reduction up to 3 acre-feet annually • TP reduction up to 3 pounds reduction Estimated Capital Cost: $20,000 (higher per acre cost due to small scale) Estimated Annual Cost: $1,000 Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus $400/per pound Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume $400/per acre foot Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx R v A � JI M Ile - Irrigation N.i{• . � � m Irrigation Area � K a Irrigation Area N w ' b w p { p N � at J. ,AM 4 • �:�. Hugo Stormwater Project #10 Arbre Park Irrigation Project ok- HUGO 1 inch = 150 feet Project Number: 11 Project Priority: High Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Val Jean Park Water Reuse Project Full Description of Project: This project consists of pumping water from a stormwater pond located adjacent to Val Jean Park and using this water to irrigate the park property. This park is already irrigated with city water. Design Parameters: • Irrigate .5 acre within park • Install 400 LF of infiltration trench • Install lift station pumps and controls Project Location: Section 19, Township 31N, Range 21W Estimated Benefits: • Volume reduction up to 33 acre-feet annually • TP reduction up to 33 pounds reduction Estimated Capital Cost: $75,000 Estimated Annual Cost: $1,500 Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus $120/per pound Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume $120/per acre foot Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx v e ! � � V n �4 Infiltration Trench Irrigation Area Rik Y lot - - - -- i Hugo Stormwater Project #11 Val Jean Park Water Re -use Project ' HUGO 1 inch = 150 feet Project Number: 12 Project Priority: High Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Irrigate Public Property Around School Within Water's Edge North Subdivision Full Description of Project: Based on pumping records associated with operation of current irrigation system, it is estimated between blank and blank acre feet of stormwater could be re -used at this location. Design Parameters: • Irrigate .6 acre within school property • Install 1,150 LF of infiltration trench • Install lift station pumps and controls Project Location: Section 18, Township 31N, Range 21W (West of Oneka Parkway and North Heritage Parkway) Estimated Benefits: • Volume reduction up to 100 acre-feet annually • TP reduction up to 100 pounds reduction Estimated Capital Cost: $120,000 Estimated Annual Cost: $2,000 Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus $100/per pound Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume $100/per acre foot Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx a!' t �5 Irrigation Area Infiltration Trenches -N " AlAi r Pi — /�� - _ - • � tom' _ "� 4 ' Hugo Stormwater Project #12 Irrigate Public Property Around School Within ' HUGO Water's Edge North Subdivision 1 inch = 250 feet Project Number: 13 Project Priority: High Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Heritage Pond Park Irrigation/Infiltration System Full Description of Project: This project consists of irrigating and infiltration stormwater within Heritage Pond's Park. Design Parameters: • Irrigate up to .5 acre of park land • Install 1,150 LF of infiltration trench • Install lift station pumps and controls Project Location: Section 18, Township 31N, Range 21W (South of Heritage Parkway and west of Elm Crest Avenue) Estimated Benefits: • Volume reduction up to 100 acre-feet annually • TP reduction up to 100 pounds reduction Estimated Capital Cost: $120,000 Estimated Annual Cost: $4,500 Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus $110/per pound Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume $110/per acre foot Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx O O� 1 ci 4 _ _,• - - - low x F 40 �g �4 q Irrigation Area - i-M a•F � o ` Infiltration Trench d� ondmok _ e 3 Hugo Stormwater Project #13 Heritage Pond Park Irrigation System ' HUGO 1 inch = 200 feet Project Number: 14 Project Priority: High Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Oneka Ponds Park Water Re -Use System Full Description of Project: This project consists of irrigating and infiltrating stormwater Oneka Ponds Park by utilizing runoff from the Oneka Ponds development. Design Parameters: • Irrigate 1 acre of park land • Install 1,150 LF of infiltration trench • Install lift station pumps and controls Project Location: Section 17, Township 31N, Range 21W (East of Goodview Avenue and North of 152"d Street) Estimated Benefits: • Volume reduction up to 100 acre-feet annually • TP reduction up to 100 pounds reduction Estimated Capital Cost: $120,000 Estimated Annual Cost: $2,000 Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus $100/per pound Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume $100/per acre foot Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx �w4o"60-6,4, J Irrigation Area — i Hugo Stormwater Project #14 )neka Ponds Water Re -use System lk- HUGC 1 inch = 250 feet Project Number: 15 Project Priority: High Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Diamond Point Park Water Re -use System Full Description of Project: This project consists of constructing a water re -use system to irrigate and infiltrate water in Diamond Point Park. Design Parameters: • Irrigate .6 acres of park land • Install 500 LF of infiltration trench • Install lift station pumps and controls Project Location: Section 21, Township 31N, Range 21W (South of 145th Street and East of Goodview Avenue) Estimated Benefits: • Volume reduction up to 50 acre-feet annually • TP reduction up to 50 pounds reduction Estimated Capital Cost: $75,000 Estimated Annual Cost: $2,000 Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus $130/per pound Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume $130/per acre foot Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx N w Cn a •n T `� v Irrigation Area .�■■■■ — 40 - `fi 4� � 4< 4 Infiltration Trench �,4 r 1 .` ,. _2& ugo Stormwater Project #15 iamond Point Park Water Re -use System Ok- HUG1 1 inch = 150 feet Project Number: 16 Project Priority: High Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Rice Lake Soccer Fields Water Re -Use System Full Description of Project: This project consists of irrigating and infiltrating the soccer fields and/or City of Hugo Public Works Garage property with stormwater runoff taken from stormwater ponds installed as part of the construction of the City of Hugo's Public Works garage. Design Parameters: • Irrigate 3.5 acres of park land • Install 1,150 LF of infiltration trench • Install lift station pumps and controls Project Location: Section 28, Township 31N, Range 21W (North of 137'h Street, Egg Lake Road and East of Goodview Ave) Estimated Benefits: • Volume reduction up to 120 acre-feet annually • TP reduction up to 120 pounds reduction Estimated Capital Cost: $160,000 Estimated Annual Cost: $3,500 Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus $100/per pound Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume $100/per acre foot Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx ,iAl '#'Y 1/ x t F! Irrigation Area Iq � 1� "'1F. w It, Ok 7-1 All. Atw x# i lugo Stormwater Project #16 ;ice Lake Soccer Fields Water Re -use lk- HUG( >ystem 1 inch = 250 feet Project Number: 17 Project Priority: Medium —this large scale project will need to be further evaluated to better define the project feasability Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Hugo Gravel Pit Infiltration System Full Description of Project: This project consists of pumping stormwater runoff from areas adjacent to the gravel pit. Design Parameters: Water Reuse/Irrigation Project Location: Section 28, Township 31N, Range 21W Estimated Benefits: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Capital Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Annual Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus Removed: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume Removed: To be determined when listed as high priority. k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx W_ �Iv • r, ..C. ,h. v ,'..r , • � +f`�TT' - lE ..�-. �d'}'.�nfv+� a .� k ,.54 1 ' as a _+�lf'� F Infiltration Trenches P 4 { :44' V� 14? '14L. Hugo Stormwater Project #17 Hugo Gravel Pit Infiltration System lk-HUGO 1 inch = 400 feet Project Number: 18 Project Priority: Low Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Harley Sod Field Irrigation Project Full Description of Project: This project consists of pumping water from Clearwater Creek to irrigate the "Harley Sod" operation located south of Frenchman Road and west of Fenway Avenue. Property owner will need to approve of project before it can move to high priority. Design Parameters: Water Reuse/Irrigation Project Location: North of Frenchman Road and west of Oneka Parkway North Estimated Benefits: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Capital Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Annual Cost: To be determined when listed as high priority. Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus To be determined when listed as high priority. Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume To be determined when listed as high priority. Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx aE 1 �w IR o f ig ; J a Al 1 f p _.`i, r Rw *,�'�, j� � �� a " �' -'!�" •� Fs. . �_ s-�`�++�- '` � `�' `.` sr. '�• Rya R ' l e y.i _ ; + Hugo Stormwater Project #18 Harley Sod Field Irrigation Project - HUGO 1 inch = 500 feet Project Number: 19 Project Priority: High Abbreviated Description of Project/BMP: Pump excess stormwater runoff volume from Bald Eagle Lake, remove phosphorus from the water through the utilization of a flocculation treatment system and then convey it to White Bear Lake. Full Description of Project: This project consists of building a system to pump water from Bald Eagle Lake when the lake is overflowing into Clearwater Creek, treat this water through the use of a flocculation treatment system so that phosphorus concentration levels are near detection limits (less than 40 ppm) and then convey this water to the south into White Bear Lake. This project would have multiple benefits including the runoff volume and pollutant load discharged downstream to the Peltier/Centerville Lake System, add water to White Bear Lake, and remove internal phosphorus load within Bald Eagle Lake. As a result, the quality of water in Bald Eagle Lake, Peltier/Centerville Chain of Lakes, and White Bear Lake can be improved as well as increasing the water levels in White Bear Lake. Design Parameters: Diversion/Water Re-Use/Lake Level Augmentation Project Location: Section 31, Township 31N, Range 21W and other sections as deemed reasonable and practical. Estimated Benefits: • Fully address TMDL requirements for internal load reduction in Bald Eagle Lake • Significantly reduce phosphorus load to Peltier/Centerville Lake • Add between 6-inches and 1-foot to White Bear Lake in a given year Estimated Capital Cost: $2,000,000 - $3,000,000 Estimated Annual Cost: $150,000 Estimated Cost per Pound of Phosphorus $1,000/per pound Removed: Estimated Cost per Acre-ft. of Volume $1,000/per acre foot Removed: k:\01687-85\admin\doc5\Potential projects 050911.docx §T,' - MIT;. M r_ _ r 10. ._ - • as ... -7- {' -I� ' I _ a I Force Main to Bald Eagle Lakeroll _ � o r +, 1 4f M Flocculation Treatment System Lift Station Hugo Stormwater Project #19 Bald Eagle/White Bear Lake Improvement lk� HUGO Project 1 inch = 600 feet Appendix E — Washington County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Ordinance APPENDIX Washington County Development Code CHAPTER FOUR SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM REGULATIONS Washington County ORDINANCE # 196 EFFECTIVE APRIL 28, 2015 WASHINGTON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CODE Pursuant to MSA Ch 394, Washington County has adopted official controls for the purposes of regulating the physical development of land in the unincorporated areas of the County. These official controls are compiled into and hereafter known as the Washington County Development Code and consists of the following chapters each adopted by Ordinance. (1) Chapter One Administration (2) Chapter Two Zoning Regulations (3) Chapter Three Subdivision Regulations (4) Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (5) Chapter Five Lower St. Croix River Bluffland and Shoreland Management Regulations (6) Chapter Six Shoreland Management Regulations (7) Chapter Seven Mining Regulations (8) Chapter Eight 201 Sewer Use Regulations (9) Chapter Nine Flood Plain Regulations (10) Chapter Ten Official Map Regulation and Designation Summary Washington County Development Code Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Ordinance No. 196 Subsurface sewage treatment systems, more commonly referred to as septic systems, have been regulated in Washington County since 1972. There have been numerous iterations of the ordinance regulating septic systems. In September 2009, the Washington County Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 179, Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations. Ordinance No. 179 is the County's current ordinance that regulates the location, design, installation, use and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems. The regulations are Chapter Four of the Washington County Development Code and applies in all areas of Washington County, other than cities and towns that have adopted ordinances that complied with Minn. Stat. § 115.55 and the rules promulgated thereunder which were as strict as Ordinance No. 179. On March 14, 2011, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) published changes to Minnesota Rules, Chapters 7080 through 7083, governing Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS). Minor changes were also made in 2014. Washington County is required to revise and implement an SSTS Ordinance in compliance with Chapters 7080, 7081, 7082, and 7083. On April 28, 2015, at its public hearing, the Washington County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution adopting Ordinance No. 196 which will repeal Ordinance No. 179. A brief summary of Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems, Ordinance No. 196 is as follows: Sections 1, 2, and 3 address the Purpose and Intent of the SSTS ordinance, provides expanded Definitions and describes how the Ordinance will be Administered. Section 4 establishes the Compliance Criteria for existing systems, new construction, and those systems receiving replacement components. Section 5 deals with Acceptable and Prohibited Discharges of those systems receiving sewage and those systems that receive both sewage and non sewage discharge. Section 6 addresses Permits, the permitting process, and when permits are required for SSTS. Permit applications will now require management plans for the proposed system before a permit can be issued. Section 7 addresses Operating Permits and what must be included in the operating permits. Operating permits will be required for Type III systems, Type IV systems, Type V systems, all Midsized Sewage Treatment Systems, Holding tanks, SSTS serving Food Beverage and Lodging Establishments, and SSTS serving Hazardous Waste Generators. Operating permits include maintenance requirements, operational requirements, compliance limits and boundaries, reporting frequency, notification by permitted, identified reserve areas, and prohibited discharges. Section 8 addresses when Inspections are required to determine compliance with Chapter Four. Compliance inspections must be conducted prior to issuance of a permit for the addition of a bedroom, all new construction and replacement, and prior to the transfer of any real property Washington County Development Code unless the age of the property's system is less than 5 years old. Compliance inspections are also required when deemed necessary by the Department. Section 8 further discusses Certificates of Compliance and Certificates of Non -Compliance, as well as a process to resolve disputes over the depth of periodically saturated soil. Section 9 addresses Site Evaluation and Soil Testing requirements for individual sewage treatment systems and Section 10 addresses additional Site Evaluation and Soil Testing requirements for midsized sewage treatment systems. Section 11 addresses Groundwater Investigation and Section 12 addresses Sewage Flow Determination. Section 13 deals with Sewage Tanks and the minimum number of required tanks. Section 14 addresses the Distribution of Effluent, non pressurized distribution pipes, gravity distribution, valve boxes, distribution boxes, and pressure distribution. Section 15 addresses the Dosing of Effluent and section 16 addresses Treatment and Dispersal with setback distances and soil hydraulic loading rates. Section 17 addresses design standards for Type I Systems, which include trenches, pressure beds, mounds, and at grades. Section 18 addresses Type II Systems, which include systems in rapidly permeable soils, floodplain systems, holding tanks and privies. Section 19 addresses Type III Systems, which includes Graywater Systems. Section 20 addresses Type IV Systems, which are systems that employ registered product. Section 21 addresses Type V Systems, which are engineered systems. Section 22 addresses Maintenance in accordance of the SSTS's operating management plan. Section 23 addresses Land Application of Septage, which incorporates oversight of land spreading activities in compliance with federal regulations and state guidelines, allows the Department to assess site suitability and will require a permit prior to land spreading septage. Section 24 address System Abandonment and Section 25 addresses Product Registration in accordance of Minn. Rule 7083.4000 to 7083.4120. Section 26 addresses Enforcement of the Ordinance and Section 27 is for of the Ordinance's Separability. Section 28 addresses the Repeal of Ordinance 179 and replacement with new ordinance and Section 29 addresses the Effective Date and publication of the Ordinance. The forgoing is intended only as a summary of the Washington County Development Code Chapter Four - Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (SSTS) Ordinance No. 196. A printed copy of this Ordinance is available at the Washington County Department of Public Health and Environment, Washington County Recorder's Office and at the following website: http://www.co.washinp,ton.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=1259 Washington County Development Code Passed by the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Minnesota, this 28th day of A--ex�-� �-- � Gary Kriesel, Chair Board of County Commissioners Attest: iOIR Approved as to form: irke George Kuprian County Administrator Assistant Washington County Attorney Ordinance prepared by: Washington County Department of Public Health and Environment 14949 62nd Street North PO Box 6 Stillwater, MN 55082-0006 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations WASHINGTON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER FOUR SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM REGULATIONS Table of Contents SECTION1. PURPOSE AND INTENT..................................................................................................................... 9 SECTION2. DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Certain Terms................................................................................................................................10 2.2 Definitions.....................................................................................................................................10 SECTION3 ADMINISTRATION............................................................................................................................ 20 3.1 Administrative scope.....................................................................................................................20 3.2 Qualifications.................................................................................................................................20 3.3 Federal regulations.........................................................................................................................20 3.3 Variance procedures......................................................................................................................20 3.4 Board of adjustment and appeals...................................................................................................20 3.5 Adherence to these standards.........................................................................................................20 3.6 MSTS qualifications......................................................................................................................21 3.7 Collection Systems........................................................................................................................21 3.8 MSTS septage................................................................................................................................21 3.9 SDS permit required......................................................................................................................21 3.10 Other state regulations...............................................................................................................21 3.11 Local regulations........................................................................................................................21 3.12 Work done without permit.........................................................................................................21 3.13 Authorized access......................................................................................................................22 3.14 Permit fees..................................................................................................................................22 SECTION 4 COMPLIANCE CRITERIA................................................................................................................. 23 4.1 Treatment required.........................................................................................................................23 4.2 Compliance criteria for new construction......................................................................................23 4.3 Compliance criteria for existing systems.......................................................................................23 4.4 Compliance criteria for systems with a flow of greater than 2,500 gallons per day.....................24 4.5 Compliance criteria for systems receiving replacement components............................................24 4.6 MSTS General...............................................................................................................................24 4.7 Public health and safety; imminent threat.....................................................................................24 4.8 Groundwater protection.................................................................................................................24 4.9 Other conformance........................................................................................................................25 4.10 System operation........................................................................................................................25 4.11 Compliance criteria for systems receiving replacement components........................................25 4.12 Upgrade requirements................................................................................................................25 2 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 5 ACCEPTABLE AND PROHIBITED DISCHARGES.........................................................................26 5.1 Sewage...........................................................................................................................................26 5.2 System influent..............................................................................................................................26 5.3 Domestic waste..............................................................................................................................26 SECTION6 PERMITS.............................................................................................................................................. 27 6.1 Building Permit requirements........................................................................................................27 6.2 Compliant system or permit issued................................................................................................27 6.3 Permit required..............................................................................................................................27 6.4 Permit application..........................................................................................................................27 6.5 Site plan required...........................................................................................................................27 6.6 Permit time limit............................................................................................................................27 6.7 Permit revocation...........................................................................................................................28 SECTION 7 OPERATING PERMITS...................................................................................................................... 29 7.1 Operating permit required..............................................................................................................29 7.2 Operating permits issued...............................................................................................................29 7.3 Operating permit criteria................................................................................................................29 7.4 Operating Permits..........................................................................................................................29 7.5 MSTS Maintenance.......................................................................................................................29 7.6 Grease Interceptors........................................................................................................................29 7.7 Operation and Maintenance Manual..............................................................................................29 7.8 Groundwater Monitoring...............................................................................................................29 7.9 Noncompliance..............................................................................................................................29 SECTION8 INSPECTIONS..................................................................................................................................... 30 8.1 Required inspections......................................................................................................................30 8.2 Time of inspections........................................................................................................................30 8.3 Inspection scheduling....................................................................................................................30 8.4 Work backfilled before inspection.................................................................................................30 8.5 Correction orders...........................................................................................................................30 8.6 System placed into service.............................................................................................................30 8.7 Department access.........................................................................................................................30 8.8 As-builts.........................................................................................................................................30 8.9 Disclosure......................................................................................................................................30 8.10 Compliance inspection; new construction or replacement........................................................30 8.11 Certificate of compliance; notice of noncompliance.................................................................31 8.12 Compliance inspections; existing systems.................................................................................32 8.13 Periodically saturated soil disagreements..................................................................................33 SECTION 9 SITE EVALUATION AND SOIL TESTING...................................................................................... 34 3 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 9.1 Design Phase I; Site Evaluation.....................................................................................................34 9.2 Preliminary Evaluation..................................................................................................................34 9.3 Field Evaluation.............................................................................................................................34 9.4 Minimum Size, Soil Treatment Area...........................................................................................34 9.5 Soil observations............................................................................................................................35 9.6 Soil descriptions for determination of limiting layers...................................................................35 9.7 Determination of loading rate and absorption area size................................................................36 9.8 Phase I; Site Evaluation Reporting................................................................................................37 9.9 Soil testing required.......................................................................................................................37 9.10 Qualifications.............................................................................................................................38 9.11 Site Protection............................................................................................................................38 9.12 Utilities.......................................................................................................................................38 9.13 Mound soil testing......................................................................................................................38 9.14 Compliance................................................................................................................................38 9.15 Phase II Reporting......................................................................................................................38 SECTION 10 MSTS SITE EVALUATION AND SOIL TESTING......................................................................... 39 10.1 Necessity of Soil and Site Evaluations......................................................................................39 10.2 Preliminary Evaluation..............................................................................................................39 10.3 Field Evaluation.........................................................................................................................39 10.4 Soil Description..........................................................................................................................40 10.5 Method.......................................................................................................................................40 10.6 Comparison with Soil Survey....................................................................................................40 10.7 Site and Soil Information...........................................................................................................40 10.8 Flood Fringe...............................................................................................................................41 10.9 Depth..........................................................................................................................................41 10.10 Site Protection............................................................................................................................41 10.11 Soil and Site Report...................................................................................................................41 SECTION 11 GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION............................................................................................... 42 11.1 Necessity of Investigation..........................................................................................................42 11.2 Preliminary Investigation...........................................................................................................42 11.3 Field or Further Investigation....................................................................................................42 11.4 Monitoring.................................................................................................................................42 11.5 Hydrological Interpretations......................................................................................................42 11.6 Groundwater Report ...................................................................................................................42 SECTION 12 SEWAGE FLOW DETERMINATION..............................................................................................43 12.1 Design Phase II: System Design................................................................................................43 4 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 12.2 Design Flow...............................................................................................................................43 12.3 Design Flow by Bedrooms.........................................................................................................43 12.4 Sum of design flow for existing dwellings................................................................................43 12.5 New housing developments.......................................................................................................43 12.6 Additional Capacity...................................................................................................................43 12.7 Design Flow Determination for Other Establishments..............................................................43 12.8 Employees in Design Flow Calculation.....................................................................................46 12.9 Measured Flow...........................................................................................................................46 12.10 Infiltration.................................................................................................................................. 47 12.11 Waste Concentration..................................................................................................................47 SECTION13 SEWAGE TANKS..............................................................................................................................48 13.1 Sewage Tanks, General..............................................................................................................48 13.2 Tank Strength Requirements......................................................................................................48 13.3 Poured -in -place concrete Tanks.................................................................................................48 13.4 Septic Tank Design....................................................................................................................48 13.5 Minimum Tank Capacity...........................................................................................................48 13.6 Common tanks...........................................................................................................................49 13.7 Septic tank capacity for multiple dwellings...............................................................................49 13.8 Septic tank capacity for other establishments............................................................................49 13.9 Holding Tank Capacity for Other Establishments.....................................................................49 13.10 Effluent Filters Required............................................................................................................49 13.11 Tanks connected in series..........................................................................................................49 13.12 Prior to other treatment devices.................................................................................................49 13.13 Compartmentalization of Single Tanks......................................................................................50 13.14 Septic Tank Baffles....................................................................................................................50 13.15 Sewage Tank Access..................................................................................................................50 13.16 Pump Tank Access..................................................................................................................... 51 13.17 Maintenance Hole Risers to Grade............................................................................................51 13.18 Maintenance Hole Covers..........................................................................................................51 13.19 Concrete Tank Construction......................................................................................................51 13.20 Non -Concrete Tank Construction..............................................................................................51 13.21 Precast Reinforced Concrete Tanks...........................................................................................51 13.22 Other Tanks................................................................................................................................51 13.23 Location and installation of tanks:.............................................................................................51 13.24 Tank Assessment........................................................................................................................52 13.25 Tank Identification.....................................................................................................................53 5 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 13.26 Sewage Tanks for MSTS, General.............................................................................................53 13.27 MSTS Septic Tank Capacity......................................................................................................53 13.28 MSTS Tank Geometry..............................................................................................................54 13.30 MSTS Tank Testing...................................................................................................................54 13.31 MSTS Liners..............................................................................................................................54 SECTION 14 DISTRIBUTION OF EFFLUENT...................................................................................................... 55 14.1 General.......................................................................................................................................55 14.2 Supply Pipes............................................................................................................................... 55 14.3 Gravity Distribution...................................................................................................................55 14.4 Pressure Distribution..................................................................................................................56 14.5 Distribution of Effluent for MSTS............................................................................................. 57 14.6 Pressure Distribution Required for MSTS.................................................................................57 14.7 MSTS Zones Required...............................................................................................................57 SECTION 15 DOSING OF EFFLUENT................................................................................................................... 58 15.1 General.......................................................................................................................................58 15.2 Pump Tanks................................................................................................................................58 15.3 Pumps for Gravity Distribution..................................................................................................58 15.4 Pumps for Pressure Distribution................................................................................................58 15.5 Pump Discharge Head................................................................................................................58 15.6 Maximum Dose Volume............................................................................................................59 SECTION 16 TREATMENT AND DISPERSAL..................................................................................................... 60 16.1 General.......................................................................................................................................60 16.2 General Technical Requirements for All Systems .....................................................................60 16.3 Other Technical Requirements for Systems...............................................................................61 16.4 Nitrogen BMP............................................................................................................................64 16.5 Final treatment and dispersal for MSTS: ................................................................................... 64 16.6 Collection Systems.....................................................................................................................65 16.7 Construction Requirements........................................................................................................65 16.8 MSTS Design Standards............................................................................................................65 16.9 Prohibited Discharges................................................................................................................65 16.10 Component Longevity................................................................................................................65 16.11 Flow Measurement Device........................................................................................................65 16.12 System Access............................................................................................................................66 16.13 Registered Products....................................................................................................................66 16.14 Designer Inspections..................................................................................................................66 SECTION 17 TYPE I SYSTEMS.............................................................................................................................. 67 17.1 Type I Systems...........................................................................................................................67 6 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 17.2 Trenches and Seepage Beds....................................................................................................... 67 17.3 Mounds.......................................................................................................................................68 17.4 At -Grade Systems......................................................................................................................70 SECTION18 TYPE 11 SYSTEMS............................................................................................................................ 73 18.1 Type II Systems.........................................................................................................................73 18.2 Floodplain Areas........................................................................................................................ 73 18.3 Privies.........................................................................................................................................74 18.4 Holding Tanks............................................................................................................................ 74 SECTION 19 TYPE III SYSTEMS........................................................................................................................... 76 19.1 Type III Systems........................................................................................................................76 19.2 Flow Restriction Device.............................................................................................................76 19.3 Previously Developed Sites.......................................................................................................76 19.4 Type III Systems Allowed.........................................................................................................76 19.5 Graywater Systems....................................................................................................................76 SECTION20 TYPE IV SYSTEMS........................................................................................................................... 78 20.1 General.......................................................................................................................................78 20.2 Previously Developed Sites.......................................................................................................78 20.3 Type IV Systems Allowed.........................................................................................................78 20.4 Soil Loading Rates.....................................................................................................................78 SECTION21 TYPE V SYSTEMS............................................................................................................................ 79 21.1 Type V Systems.........................................................................................................................79 21.2 Previously Developed Sites.......................................................................................................79 21.3 Type V Systems Allowed..........................................................................................................79 SECTION22 MAINTENANCE............................................................................................................................... 80 22.1 Management Plans Required..................................................................................................... 80 22.2 General.......................................................................................................................................80 22.3 Frequency of Assessment........................................................................................................... 80 22.4 Maintenance Permit and Reporting............................................................................................80 22.5 Removal of Material.................................................................................................................. 80 22.6 Pump Tank Maintenance...........................................................................................................81 22.7 Privies.........................................................................................................................................81 22.8 Additives....................................................................................................................................81 22.9 Septage....................................................................................................................................... 81 22.10 Land Spreading of Septage........................................................................................................ 81 22.11 Use of Soil Treatment Site.........................................................................................................81 22.10 System Remediation.................................................................................................................. 81 SECTION 23 LAND APPLICATION OF SEPTAGE............................................................................................. 82 7 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 23.1 Allowed Septage Application....................................................................................................82 23.2 Permits and Licenses Required.................................................................................................. 82 23.3 Permit Application..................................................................................................................... 82 23.4 Duration of Permit..................................................................................................................... 82 23.5 Maximum Volume..................................................................................................................... 82 23.6 Requirements for Land Application Sites.................................................................................. 83 23.7 Soil Suitability............................................................................................................................83 23.8 Required Application Methods.................................................................................................. 84 23.9 Slope Restrictions......................................................................................................................84 23.10 Setback Requirements................................................................................................................85 23.11 Reporting Requirements............................................................................................................86 SECTION 24 SYSTEM ABANDONMENT.............................................................................................................. 87 24.1 Tank Abandonment.................................................................................................................... 87 24.2 Future Discharge........................................................................................................................87 24.3 Removal of System....................................................................................................................87 24.4 MSTS Abandonment..................................................................................................................87 SECTION 25 PRODUCT REGISTRATION............................................................................................................. 88 25.1 Product Registration in Compliance with State Rules...............................................................88 25.2 Registered Products Approved by the Local Unit of Government ............................................ 88 SECTION26 ENFORCEMENT............................................................................................................................... 89 26.1 Misdemeanor..............................................................................................................................89 26.2 Corrective Actions Required......................................................................................................89 26.3 Public Health Nuisance Control................................................................................................. 89 SECTION 27 SEPARABILITY................................................................................................................................ 89 27.1 Separability................................................................................................................................89 SECTION 28 REPEAL.............................................................................................................................................. 89 28.1 Repeal..............................................................................................................................................89 SECTION 29 EFFECTIVE DATE............................................................................................................................ 89 29.1 Effective Date of Ordinance...................................................................................................... 89 8 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations WASHINGTON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER FOUR SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM REGULATIONS This chapter shall regulate the location, design, installation, use and maintenance of subsurface sewage treatment systems in all areas of Washington County other than cities and towns that have adopted ordinances that comply with Minnesota Statute 115.55 and are as strict as this Chapter. This chapter is authorized under Minnesota Statute Section 115.55 and 115.56 and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 145A. SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND INTENT Purpose and Intent. This Chapter is adopted for the following purposes: (1) To protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by the discharge of adequately treated sewage to the groundwater via the proper location, design, installation, use, and maintenance of individual subsurface sewage treatment systems (ISTS) and midsized subsurface sewage treatment systems (MSTS). (2) These environmental protection standards shall be adopted county wide and administered and enforced by the Department or local units of government as directed by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7082, and Minnesota Statute, Section 115.55. (3) This chapter does not regulate systems that will not receive sewage as defined in this chapter. If systems receive both sewage and nonsewage, the requirements of this chapter apply, in addition to any additional requirements governing the nonsewage portion of the wastewater. (4) To provide prescriptive design, construction, and operational standards to reasonably protect surface water and groundwater and promote public health, safety, and general welfare. (5) To protect individual water supply wells of the community from contamination by inadequate, improperly designed, located, installed or maintained subsurface sewage treatment systems. (6) To provide for the orderly development of areas of the community which are not served by central public wastewater treatment systems and to reduce the need to install central public wastewater treatment systems in areas where they are not now currently planned. (7) Technology and products employed in system design shall adequately protect the public health and the environment as determined by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7083, and be approved for use by the Department or local unit of government. (8) This Chapter does not intend to impose design standards for sewage treatment systems that discharge to the ground surface or surface waters. Those systems require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. 9 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Certain Terms. For the purposes of this Chapter, certain terms or words used are interpreted as follows: the words "shall" and "must" are mandatory and the words "should" and "may" are permissive. 2.2 Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, the certain words and phrases are defined as follows: (1) Absorption area. "Absorption area" means the design parameter that is associated with the hydraulic acceptance of effluent. The absorption area for mound systems is the original soil below a mound system that is designed to absorb sewage tank effluent. The absorption area for trenches, seepage beds, and at -grade systems is the soil area in contact with the part of the distribution medium that is designed and loaded to allow absorption of sewage tank effluent. This includes both bottom and sidewall soil contact areas. (2) Agency. "Agency" means the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). (3) Alarm device. "Alarm device" means a device that alerts a system operator or system owner of a component's status using a visual or audible device. An alarm device can be either on site or remotely located. (4) Applicable requirements. "Applicable requirements" means: (A) This Chapter; Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7082; and, Minnesota Statutes, section It 5.55; or (B) In areas of the County without complying ordinances to regulate SSTS, the requirements in this Chapter. (5) As-builts. "As-builts" means drawings and documentation specifying the final in -place location, size, and type of all system components. These records identify the results of materials testing and describe the conditions during construction. An as -built also contains a certified statement. (6) ASTM. "ASTM' means the American Society for Testing and Materials. (7) At -grade system. "At -grade system" means a pressurized soil treatment and dispersal system where sewage tank effluent is dosed to an absorption bed that is constructed directly on original soil at the ground surface and covered by loamy soil materials. (8) Baffle. "Baffle" means a device installed in a septic tank to retain solids and includes, but is not limited to, vented sanitary tees with submerged pipes and effluent screens. (9) Bedrock. "Bedrock" means geologic layers, of which greater than 50 percent by volume consists of unweathered in -place consolidated rock or rock fragments. Bedrock also means weathered in - place rock which cannot be hand augered or penetrated with a knife blade in a soil pit. (10) Bedroom. "Bedroom" means, for the sole purpose of estimating design flows from dwellings, an area that is: (A) a room designed or used for sleeping; or (B) a room or area of a dwelling that has a minimum floor area of 70 square feet with access gained from the living area or living area hallway. Architectural features that affect the use as a bedroom under this item may be considered in making the bedroom determination. (11) Biochemical oxygen demand or BOD. `Biochemical oxygen demand" or `BOD" means the measure of the amount of oxygen required by bacteria while stabilizing, digesting, or treating biodegradable organic matter under aerobic conditions over a five-day incubation period, commonly expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/L). (12) Building. "Building" means any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. (13) Building sewer. "Building sewer" means the part of the drainage system which extends from the end of the building drain and conveys its discharge to a subsurface sewage treatment system. (14) Capillary fringe. "Capillary fringe" means the soil layer directly above a saturated layer in which the pore spaces are nearly filled with water as water is drawn upward due to adhesive and cohesive forces. 10 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (15) Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand or CBOD5. "Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand" or "CBOD5" means the measure of the amount of oxygen required by bacteria while stabilizing, digesting, or treating organic matter under aerobic conditions over a five-day incubation period while in the presence of a chemical inhibitor to block nitrification. CBOD5 is commonly expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/L). (16) Certificate of compliance. "Certificate of compliance" means a document, written after a compliance inspection, certifying that a system is in compliance at the time of inspection with applicable requirements. (17) Certified. "Certified" means an individual is included on the Agency's SSTS certification list and is qualified to design, install, maintain, repair, pump, operate, or inspect an SSTS as appropriate with the individual's qualifications. A certified individual who is working under a license is subject to the obligations of the license. Certified individuals were previously known as registered professionals. (18) Certified statement. "Certified statement" means a statement signed by a certified individual, apprentice, or qualified employee under Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7083 certifying that the licensed business or qualified employee completed the work in accordance with applicable requirements. (19) Cesspool. "Cesspool" means an underground pit, receptacle, leaching pit, drywell, seepage pit, or seepage tank that receives sewage and leaches sewage into the surrounding soil, bedrock, or other soil materials. Cesspools include sewage tanks that were designed to be watertight, but subsequently leak below the designed operating depth. (20) Clean sand. "Clean sand" means a soil fill material required to be used in mounds. The standards for clean sand are set forth in Section 17.3 (3)(C). (21) Commissioner. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (22) Compliance inspection. "Compliance inspection" means an evaluation, investigation, inspection, or other such process for the purpose of issuing a certificate of compliance or notice of noncompliance. (23) Contour Loading Rate. "Contour Loading Rate" means the amount of effluent loaded to the soil per length of the dispersal unit or units along the single hillslope along the contour. The contour loading rate is determined on the relationship between the vertical and horizontal water movement in the soil and is based on the permeability difference between the absorption area and any deeper horizons, the depth between the absorption area and the change in permeability; and the land slope. (24) Department. "Department" means the Washington County Department of Public Health and Environment. (25) Design flow "Design flow" means the estimated or measured flow used to design the SSTS. (26) Disinfection. "Disinfection" means the process of destroying or inactivating pathogenic microorganisms in sewage to render them noninfectious. (27) Distinct. "Distinct" means a soil color that is not faint as described in Section 2.2 (39). (28) Distribution box. "Distribution box" means a device intended to distribute sewage tank effluent concurrently and equally by gravity to multiple segments of a soil dispersal system. (29) Distribution device. "Distribution device" means a device used to receive and transfer effluent from supply pipes to distribution pipes or downslope supply pipes, or both. These devices include, but are not limited to, drop boxes, valve boxes, distribution boxes, or manifolds. (30) Distribution medium. "Distribution medium" means the material used to provide void space in a dispersal component, through which effluent flows and is stored prior to infiltration. Distribution media includes, but is not limited to, drainfield rock, polystyrene beads, chambers, and gravelless pipe. (31) Distribution pipes. "Distribution pipes" means perforated pipes that distribute effluent within a distribution medium. (32) Domestic strength waste. "Domestic strength waste" means liquid waste produced by toilets, bathing, laundry, culinary operations, and the floor drains associated with these sources, and 11 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations includes household cleaners, medications, and other constituents in sewage restricted to amounts normally used for domestic purposes. Domestic waste has a biochemical oxygen demand of 170 mg/L or less (or carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand of 125 mg/L or less), a total suspended solids level of 60 mg/L or less, an oil and grease concentration of 25 mg/L or less and no hazardous wastes. Animal waste and commercial or industrial waste are not considered domestic strength waste. (33) Drip dispersal system. "Drip dispersal system" means a small diameter pressurized wastewater distribution system in which the treated effluent is distributed under pressure to the infiltrative surface via drip tubing and enters the receiving environment. (34) Drop bog. "Drop box" means a distribution device used for the serial gravity application of sewage tank effluent to a soil dispersal system. (35) Dwelling. "Dwelling" means any building with provision for living, sanitary, and sleeping facilities. (36) Effluent screen. "Effluent screen" means a device installed on the outlet piping of a septic tank for the purpose of retaining solids of a specific size. (37) EPA. "EPA" means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (38) Existing system. "Existing system" means a system that has been previously inspected and approved by the Department or local unit of government during installation. In addition, all operating systems installed before the adoption of this Chapter are considered existing systems. (39) Faint. "Faint" means a soil color in the Munsell Soil -Color Charts: (A) with the same hue as another soil color but that varies from the other color by two or less units of value and not more than one unit of chroma; (B) that differs from another soil color by one hue and by one or less units of value and not more than one unit of chroma; or (C) that differs from another soil color by two units of hue with the same value or chroma. (40) Fecal coliform or FC. "Fecal coliform" or "FC", for the purposes of this Chapter, means bacteria common to the digestive systems of humans that are cultured in standard tests. Counts of these organisms are typically used to indicate potential contamination from sewage or to describe a level of disinfection, generally expressed in colonies per 100 mL. (41) Fine Sand. "Fine sand" means a soil texture, as described in the Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, which is incorporated by reference in Section 2.2 (46) where more than 50 percent of the sand has a particle size range of 0.05 millimeters which is a sieve size of 270, to 0.25 millimeters which is a sieve size 60. (42) Flood fringe. "Flood fringe" means that portion of the floodplain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodway fringe" used in flood insurance studies. (43) Floodplain. "Floodplain" means the area covered by a 100-year flood event along lakes, rivers, and streams as published in technical studies by local, state, and federal agencies, or in the absence of these studies, the estimates of the 100-year flood boundaries and elevations as developed by Washington County. (44) Floodway. "Floodway" means the bed of a wetland or lake, the channel of a watercourse, and those portions of the adjoining floodplain that are reasonably required to carry the regional flood discharge. (45) Flow measurement. "Flow measurement" means any method used to accurately measure water or sewage flow, including, but not limited to, water meters, event counters, running time clocks, or electronically controlled dosing. (46) Geomorphic description. "Geomorphic description" means the identification of the landscape, landform, and surface morphometry of the proposed area of the soil treatment and dispersal system as described in the Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils: Version 2.0 (2002), developed by the National Soil Survey Center and Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. The field book is incorporated by reference into this ordinance. 12 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (47) Graywater. "Graywater" means sewage that does not contain toilet wastes. Liquid wastes from a dwelling or other establishment produced by bathing, laundry, culinary operation, and from floor drains associated with these sources are considered graywater. (48) Graywater system. "Graywater system" means a system that receives, treats, and disperses only graywater or similar systems designated as such by the commissioner. (49) Groundwater mound. "Groundwater mound" means the rise in height of the periodically saturated soil or regional water table caused by the addition of sewage effluent from a subsurface sewage treatment system into the soil. (50) Hazardous waste. "Hazardous waste" means any substance that, when discarded, meets the definition of hazardous waste in Minnesota Statutes, section 116.06, subdivision 11, Minnesota Rules 7045, or the Washington County Hazardous Waste Management Ordinance. (51) Holding tank. "Holding tank" means a tank for the storage of sewage until such time as it can be transported to a point of treatment and dispersal. Holding tanks are considered septic system tanks under Minnesota Statutes, section 115.55. (52) Individual subsurface sewage treatment system or ISTS. "Individual subsurface sewage treatment system" or "ISTS" means a sewage treatment system or part thereof, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, sections 115.03 and 115.55, that employs sewage tanks or other treatment devices with final discharge into the soil below the natural soil elevation or elevated final grade that are designed to receive a sewage design flow of 5,000 gallons per day or less. ISTS also includes all holding tanks that are designed to receive a design flow of 10,000 gallons per day or less; sewage collection systems and associated tanks that discharge into ISTS treatment and dispersal components; and privies. ISTS does not include those components defined as plumbing under Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4715. (53) Inner wellhead management zone. "Inner wellhead management zone" means the drinking water supply management area for a public water supply well that does not have a delineated wellhead protection area approved by the Department of Health under Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4720, section 4720.5330. (54) Invert. "Invert" means the lowest point of a channel inside a pipe. (55) Licensed advanced design business. "Licensed advanced design business" means a business that is authorized to conduct site and soil evaluations, design systems, and write management plans for all sizes and types of SSTS up to 10,000 gallons per day. (56) Licensed advanced inspection business. "Licensed advanced design business" means a business that is authorized to conduct compliance inspections and issue certificates of compliance and notices of noncompliance for all sizes and types of SSTS up to 10,000 gallons per day. (57) Licensed basic design business. "Licensed basic design business" means a business that is authorized to conduct site and soil evaluations, design systems, and write management plans for a Type I, II or III ISTS as described in Section 17 to Section 19 serving dwellings or other establishments with a design flow of 2,500 gallons per day or less. (58) Licensed installation business. "Licensed installation business" means a business that is authorized to construct, install, alter, extend, or repair all SSTS according to an approved design. (59) Licensed basic inspection business. "Licensed basic inspection business" means a business that is authorized to conduct compliance inspections and issue written certificates of compliance and notices of noncompliance for an existing Type 1,11, or III ISTS as described in Section 17 to Section 19 serving dwellings or other establishments with a design flow of 2,500 gallons per day or less. (60) Licensed intermediate design business. "Licensed intermediate design business" means a business that is authorized to conduct site and soil evaluations, design systems, and write management plans for a Type I, II,111, IV or V ISTS as described in Section 17 to Section 21 serving dwellings or other establishments with a design flow of 2,500 gallons per day or less. (61) Licensed intermediate inspection business. "Licensed intermediate inspection business" means a business that is authorized to conduct compliance inspections and issue written certificates of compliance and notices of noncompliance for an existing Type 1,11, III, IV or V ISTS as described 13 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations in Section 17 to Section 21 serving dwellings or other establishments with a design flow of 2,500 gallons per day or less.. (62) Licensed maintainer business. "Licensed maintainer business" means a business that is authorized to measure scum and sludge depths in sewage tanks for the accumulation of solids and removing these deposits; remove solids and liquids from toilet waste treatment devices; transport septage; land apply septage or dispose of septage in a treatment facility; identify problems related to sewage tanks, baffles, maintenance hole covers, extensions, and pumps and make the repairs; evaluate sewage tanks, pump tanks, distribution devices, valve boxes, or drop boxes for leakage; identify cesspools, seepage pits, leaching pits, and drywells; and clean supply pipes and distribution pipes for all SSTS. (63) Licensed service provider business. "Licensed service provider business" means a business that is authorized to measure scum and sludge depths for the accumulation of solids; identify problems related to sewage tanks, baffles, effluent screens, maintenance hole covers, extensions, and pumps and make the repairs; evaluate sewage tanks, dosing chambers, distribution devices, valve boxes, or drop boxes for leakage; and clean supply pipes and distribution pipes. Service provider businesses are also authorized to assess, adjust, and service systems for proper operation; take, preserve, store, and ship samples for analysis; interpret sampling results and report results for an SSTS; and operate sewage collections systems discharging to an SSTS. (64) Liquid capacity. "Liquid capacity" means the liquid volume of a sewage tank below the invert of the outlet pipe or, for holding tanks and pump tanks, the liquid volume below the invert of the inlet. (65) Long-term sewage treatment. "Long-term sewage treatment" shall mean enough lot area to contain two Type I or Type lI soil treatment and dispersal areas. (66) Lot. "Lot" means a parcel of land designated by metes and bounds, registered land survey, plat or other means, and which description is either recorded in the Office of the Washington County Recorder or Registrar of Titles or used by the County Treasurer or County Assessor to separate such parcel from other lands for tax purposes. (67) Maintenance permit. "Maintenance permit" means the permit issued to a licensed maintainer business prior to performing maintenance as described in Section 22. (68) Management plan. "Management plan" means a plan that requires the periodic examination, adjustment, testing, and other operational requirements to meet system performance expectations, including a planned course of action in the event a system does not meet performance expectations. (69) Matrix. "Matrix" means the majority of the color in a soil horizon, as described in the Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, which is incorporated by reference in Section 2.2 (46). (70) Midsized subsurface sewage treatment system or MSTS. "Midsized subsurface sewage treatment system" or "MSTS" means a subsurface sewage treatment system, or part thereof, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, sections 115.03 and 115.55, that employs sewage tanks or other treatment devices with final discharge into the soil below the natural soil elevation or elevated final grade and that is designed to receive sewage with a design flow of greater than 5,000 gallons per day to 10,000 gallons per day. MSTS also includes sewage collection systems and associated tanks that discharge into MSTS treatment or dispersal components. MSTS does not include those components defined as plumbing under Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4715. (71) Mottles. "Mottles" means the minority of the variegated colors in a soil horizon, as described in the Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, which is incorporated by reference in Section 2.2 (46). (72) Mound system. "Mound system" means a soil treatment and dispersal system designed and installed such that all of the infiltrative surface is installed above grade, using clean sand between the bottom of the infiltrative surface and the original ground elevation, utilizes pressure distribution and capped with suitable soil material to stabilize the surface and encourage vegetative growth. (73) MPCA. "MPCA" means the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (74) NPDES permit. "NPDES permit" means a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued by the MPCA. 14 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (75) New construction. "New construction" means installing or constructing a new ISTS or altering, extending, or adding capacity to a system that has been issued an initial certificate of compliance. (76) Notice of noncompliance. "Notice of noncompliance" means a document written and signed by a certified inspector after a compliance inspection that gives notice that an ISTS is not in compliance with this Chapter. (77) O&G. "O&G" means oil and grease, a component of sewage typically originating from foodstuffs such as animal fats or vegetable oils or consisting of compounds of alcohol or glycerol and fatty acids such as soaps and lotions, typically expressed in mg/L (also known as FOG, or fats, oil and grease). (78) Operating permit. "Operating permit' means the permit issued to the owner of an SSTS that requires an operating permit as described in Section 7. (79) Ordinary high water level. ""Ordinary high water level" means the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowage, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool. On lakes with an established ordinary high water level by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, that elevation shall be considered the ordinary high water level. (80) Original soil. "Original soil" means naturally occurring soil that has not been cut, filled, moved, smeared, compacted, altered, or manipulated to the degree that the loading rate must be reduced from that associated with natural soil conditions. (81) Other establishment. "Other establishment' means any public or private structure other than a dwelling that generates sewage that discharges into an ISTS or MSTS. (82) Other pit. "Other pit' means any pit or other device designed to leach sewage effluent that is greater than 30 inches in height or has a bottom area loading rate of sewage greater than two gallons per square foot per day. (83) Owner. "Owner" means any person having possession of, control over, or title to property with an SSTS. (84) Parent material. "Parent material" means the unconsolidated and chemically weathered geologic mineral or organic matter from which soils are developed through soil forming processes. (85) Percolation rate. "Percolation rate" means the rate of a drop of water infiltrating into a test hole as specified in Section 9.7 (2). (86) Periodically saturated soil. "Periodically saturated soil' means the highest elevation in the soil that is in a reduced chemical state due to soil pores filled or nearly filled with water causing anaerobic conditions. Periodically saturated soil is determined by the presence of redoximorphic features in conjunction with other established indicators as specified in Section 9.6 (5) or (6), or determined by other scientifically established technical methods or empirical field measurements acceptable to the local unit of government in consultation with the Department or the commissioner. (87) Permit. "Permit' means a permit issued for the construction, replacement, repair, alteration, extension, operation or maintenance of a subsurface sewage treatment system, or a permit issued by the Agency. . (88) Permittee. "Permittee" means a person who is named on a permit issued pursuant to these regulations. (89) Plastic limit. "Plastic limit' means the soil moisture content above which manipulation will cause compaction or smearing. The plastic limit can be measured by American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils, ASTM D4318 (2005). The standard is incorporated by reference, is available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system, and is not subject to frequent change. 15 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (90) Pressure distribution. "Pressure distribution" means a network of distribution pipes in which effluent is forced through orifices under pressure. (91) Privy. "Privy" means an aboveground structure with an underground cavity that meets the requirements of Section 18.3 that is used for the storage or treatment and dispersal of toilet wastes, excluding water for flushing and graywater. A privy also means a nondwelling structure containing a toilet waste treatment device. (92) Proprietary product. "Proprietary product" means a sewage treatment or distribution technology, method, or material subject to a patent or trademark. (93) Public domain technology. "Public domain technology" means a sewage treatment or distribution technology, method, or material not subject to a patent or trademark. (94) Public waters. "Public waters" means any public waters or wetlands defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005, subdivision 15, or identified as public waters or wetlands by the inventory prepared according to Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.201. (95) Pump tank. "Pump tank" means a tank or separate compartment within a sewage tank, which receives sewage tank effluent, that serves as a reservoir for a pump. A separate tank used as a pump tank is considered a septic system tank under Minnesota Statutes, section 115.55, subdivision 1, paragraph (p). (96) Qualified employee. "Qualified employee" means a state or local government employee who designs, installs, maintains, pumps, or inspects SSTS as part of the person's duties. (97) Redoximorphic features. "Redoximorphic features" means: (A) a color pattern in soil, formed by oxidation and/or reduction of iron and/or manganese in saturated soil coupled with its removal, translocation, or accrual, which results in the loss (depletion) or gain (concentration) of mineral compounds compared to the matrix color; or (B) a soil matrix color controlled by the presence of ferrous iron. Redoximorphic features are described in Section 9.6 (5). (98) Replacement. "Replacement" means the removal or discontinued use of any major portion of an ISTS and reinstallation of that portion of the system. (99) Rock fragments. "Rock fragments" means pieces of rock greater than two millimeters in diameter that are strongly cemented and resistant to rupture. Rock fragments are commonly known as gravel, stones, cobbles, and boulders. (100) SDS permit. "SDS permit" means a State Disposal System permit issued by the MPCA. (101) Sand. "Sand" means a sand soil texture, as described in the Soil Survey Manual (1993) developed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. The manual is incorporated by reference into this ordinance. (102) Seepage bed. "Seepage bed" means a soil treatment and dispersal system the absorption width of which is greater than three feet but no greater than 25 feet. (103) Seepage pit. "Seepage pit" means an underground pit that receives sewage tank effluent and from which the liquid seeps into the surrounding soil. (104) Septage. "Septage" means solids and liquids removed from an SSTS and includes solids and liquids from cesspools, seepage pits, other pits, or similar systems or devices that receive sewage. Septage also includes solids and liquids that are removed from portable, incinerating, composting, holding, or other types of toilets. Waste from Type III marine sanitation devices, as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, title 33, section 159.3, and material that has come into contact with untreated sewage within the past 12 months is also considered septage. (105) Septic tank. "Septic tank" means any receptacle that is designed and constructed to receive the discharge of sewage from a building sewer or preceding tank, stores liquids for a detention period that provides separation of solids from liquid and digestion of organic matter, and allows the effluent to discharge to a succeeding tank, treatment device, or soil dispersal area. (106) Serial distribution. "Serial distribution" means distribution of sewage tank effluent by gravity flow that progressively loads one section of a soil treatment and dispersal system to a 16 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations predetermined level before overflowing to the succeeding section and does not place a dynamic head on the lower section of the soil treatment and dispersal system. The distribution medium is allowed to serve as a conveyance medium to the next section. (107) Setback. "Setback" means a separation distance between two points measured horizontally. (108) Sewage. "Sewage" means waste produced by toilets, bathing, laundry, or culinary operations, or the floor drains associated with these sources, and includes but is not limited to household cleaners, medications, and other constituents in sewage restricted to amounts normally used for domestic purposes. (109) Sewage flow. "Sewage flow" means flow as determined by measurement of actual water measurement; or, if actual measurements are not available, by the best available data provided as determined by the Department. (110) Sewage tank. "Sewage tank" means a receptacle used in the containment or treatment of sewage and includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, aerobic tanks, pump tanks, and holding tanks. Requirements for sewage tanks are described in Section 13 of this Chapter. Sewage tanks are considered a septic system in Minnesota Statutes, section 115.55, subdivision 1, paragraph (p). (111) Sewage tank effluent. "Sewage tank effluent" means the liquid that flows from a septic tank or other treatment device. (112) Site. "Site" means the area required for the proper location of the SSTS. (113) Slope. "Slope" means the vertical rise, expressed as a percentage from a point A to a point C divided by the horizontal distance from point A to point B where the line from point C to point B is perpendicular to the line from point A to point B. (114) Soil dispersal area. "Soil dispersal area" means the area required for the soil dispersal system, including spacing between individual units or zones. (115) Soil dispersal system. "Soil dispersal system" means a system where sewage effluent is dispersed into the soil for treatment by absorption and filtration and includes, but is not limited to, trenches, seepage beds, at -grade systems, mound systems and drip dispersal systems. (116) Soil Survey. "Soil Survey" means the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey available online at http:Hwebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/. (117) Soil texture. "Soil texture" means the soil particle size classification and particle size distribution as specified in the Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, incorporated by reference in Section 2.2 (46). (118) Structure. "Structure" means a constructed lot improvement that is intended or used for human occupancy or that is determined by the Department to: (A) Interfere with the construction, operation, or maintenance of an SSTS; or, (B) Be interfered with by the construction, operation, or maintenance of an SSTS. (119) Subsoil. "Subsoil" means a soil layer that has a moist color value of 3.5 or greater and has undergone weathering and soil formation processes. (120) Subsurface sewage treatment system or SSTS. "Subsurface sewage treatment system" or "SSTS" is either an individual subsurface sewage treatment system as defined in Section 2.2 (52) or a midsized subsurface sewage treatment system as defined in Section 2.2 (70), as applicable. (121) Supply pipe. "Supply pipe" means a nonperforated pipe, the purpose of which is to transport sewage tank effluent. (122) Systems in shoreland areas or wellhead protection areas or systems serving food, beverage, or lodging establishments, or SWF. "Systems in shoreland areas or wellhead protection areas or systems serving food, beverage, or lodging establishments", or "SWF", means the following three categories or systems: (A) SSTS constructed in shoreland areas where land adjacent to public waters has been designated and delineated as shoreland in Chapter Six of the Washington County Development Code; 17 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (B) SSTS constructed in wellhead protection areas regulated under Minnesota Statute, chapter 103I; and (C) SSTS serving food, beverage, and lodging establishments that are required to obtain a licenses under Minnesota Statutes, section 157.16, subdivision 1, and Washington County Ordinance No. 145 or 146, and includes manufactured home parks and recreational camping areas licensed according to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 327 and Washington County Ordinance No. 147. (123) TN. "TN" means total nitrogen, which is the measure of the complete nitrogen content in wastewater, including nitrate (NO3_), nitrite (NOZ ), ammonia (NH3), ammonium (NH4+), and organic nitrogen, expressed as mg/L. (124) TP. "TP" means total phosphorus, which is the sum of all forms of phosphorus in effluent, expressed in mg/L. (125) Ten-year flood. "Ten-year flood" means the flood which can be expected to occur, on an average, of once in ten years, or the elevation to which flood waters have a ten percent chance of rising in any given year. (126) Toilet waste. "Toilet waste" means waste commonly disposed of in toilets, including fecal matter, urine, toilet paper, and water used for flushing. (127) Toilet waste treatment devices. "Toilet waste treatment devices" means other toilet waste apparatuses including incinerating, composting, biological, chemical, recirculating, or holding toilets or portable restrooms. (128) Topsoil. "Topsoil" means the natural, in -place organically enriched soil layer with a color value of less than 3.5 using the Munsell Soil -Color Charts. (129) Topsoil borrow. "Topsoil borrow" means a loamy soil material having: (A) less than five percent material larger than two millimeters, No. 10 sieve; (B) no material larger than 2.5 centimeters; (C) a moist color value of less than 3.5 using the Munsell Soil -Color Charts; and, (D) adequate nutrients and pH to sustain healthy plant growth. (130) Total suspended solids or TSS. "Total suspended solids" or "TSS" means solids that are in suspension in water and that are removable by laboratory filtering, expressed as mg/L. (131) Trench. "Trench" means a soil treatment and dispersal system, the absorption width of which is 36 inches or less. (132) Type I System. "Type I System" means a subsurface sewage treatment system that meets the prescriptive design criteria in Section 17 of this Chapter, and includes trenches, pressure beds, mounds and at grade systems with no pre-treatment ahead of the soil treatment area. (133) Type II System. "Type 11 System" means a subsurface sewage treatment system that meets the prescriptive design criteria in Section 18 of this Chapter, and includes systems in a floodplain with no pre-treatment ahead of the soil treatment area, holding tanks, and privies. (134) Type III System. "Type III System" means a subsurface sewage treatment system that meets the standards in Section 19 of this Chapter and does not require pre-treatment ahead of the soil treatment area, and is put on a site with less than ideal soil conditions, such as soil that has been compacted, cut, filled or otherwise disturbed. Type III systems include Graywater Systems as described in Section 19.5 of this Chapter. (135) Type IV System. "Type IV System" means subsurface sewage treatment system that meets the standards in Section 20 of this Chapter and requires pre-treatment ahead of the soil treatment area, due to high strength waste from the source or for reduced vertical separation, and uses a pre- treatment device that is registered in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7083.4030. (136) Type V System. "Type V System" means a subsurface sewage treatment system that meets the standards in Section 21 of this Chapter and requires pre-treatment ahead of the soil treatment area and uses a pre-treatment device that is not registered in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7083.4030. 18 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (137) Unclassified Body of Water. "Unclassified Body of Water" means any lake, pond, backwater, swamp, marsh, wetland, stream, drainage way, flowage, river, floodplain or other water oriented topographical features not designated as being a natural environment lake, recreational development lake, general development lake, or transition river or tributary stream on the zoning map. (138) Uniform distribution. "Uniform distribution" means a method that distributes effluent evenly over the entire absorption area of a component over both time and space. (139) Valve box. "Valve box" means a watertight structure designed for alternate distribution of sewage tank effluent to segments of a soil treatment system. (140) Vertical separation. "Vertical separation" means the vertical measurement of unsaturated soil or sand between the bottom of the distribution medium and the periodically saturated soil level or bedrock. (141) Watertight. "Watertight" means constructed so that no liquid can get into or out of a device except through designed inlets and outlets. (142) Water Resources. "Water Resources" means all wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes not defined as Natural Environment, Recreational Development, or General Development Lake; Transition or Tributary River/Stream; or Wild and Scenic Rivers. (143) Well capture zone. "Well capture zone" means the surface and subsurface area that supplies water to a water supply well. (144) Wellhead protection area. "Wellhead protection area" means the surface and subsurface area surrounding a well or well field that supplies a public water system, through which contaminants are likely to move toward and reach the well field as regulated under Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4720. For the purposes of this chapter, wellhead protection area is that area bounded by the drinking water supply management area as regulated under Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4720. 19 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 3 ADMINISTRATION 3.1 Administrative scope. This chapter shall apply and be in effect in all areas in Washington County other than cities and towns that have adopted ordinances that comply with Minnesota Statute Section 115.55, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7082, and are as strict as this Chapter. Pursuant to Chapter One of the Washington County Development Code, the Washington County Department of Public Health and Environment shall be the Administrator of these regulations. SSTS must be designed, constructed and operated according to this Chapter. 3.2 Qualifications. SSTS, including both ISTS and MSTS, must be designed, installed, inspected, maintained, repaired, and operated by licensed businesses and certified individuals meeting the qualifications in Minnesota Rules 7083.0700 to 7083.2040. SSTS must conform to all applicable state laws and rules and local requirements. 3.3 Federal regulations. SSTS that are designed to receive sewage or nonsewage from a two family dwelling or greater or receive sewage or nonsewage from another establishment that serves more than 20 persons per day, are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as Class V injection wells under Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, parts 144 and 146. Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, parts 144 and 146, prescribe additional design regulations applicable to certain systems designed under this Chapter. In addition, single family dwellings that receive nonsewage wastewater are regulated by these federal regulations. All systems that receive hazardous wastes are regulated by the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency as Class IV injection wells. Disposal of hazardous waste must be according to state and federal regulations. The owner or owner's agent of a new or replacement system classified as a Class V injection wells shall submit to the commissioner of the MPCA and the United States Environmental Protection Agency the inventory information specified in Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section 144.26. All Class V injection wells must be identified as such in property transfer disclosures. 3.3 Variance procedures. If the Department finds that by reason of exceptional circumstances, the strict enforcement of any provisions of this Chapter would cause undue hardship or that strict conformity with the standards would be unreasonable, impractical, or not feasible under the circumstances, the Department may permit modifications in individual cases based on conditions it may prescribe for prevention, control or abatement of pollution, with the exception of sections related to setbacks or zoning. Modifications related to setbacks or zoning shall be heard by the Washington County Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The Department cannot issue variances for Sections 4.1, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and Sections 16.2 (1) through Section 16.2 (4). The Department can grant a variance for Section 4.8 (4) (A) for replacement MSTS serving existing dwellings or other establishments.. 3.4 Board of adjustment and appeals. Consistent with the procedures in Chapter One of the Washington County Development Code, Section 6.1 (1), the Washington County Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall hear and decide appeals of any order, decision or determination made by the Department regarding the enforcement of this Chapter. Appeals of any administrative decision or determination may be filed by any person, county department, or township. All requests for a variance to requirements of this Chapter shall follow the procedure in Chapter One of the Washington County Development Code. 3.5 Adherence to these standards All subsurface sewage treatment systems installed subsequent to the adoption of this Chapter and all alterations, extensions, modifications or repairs to existing systems irrespective of the date of original installation shall be regulated in accordance with all requirements of this Chapter. 20 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 3.6 MSTS qualifications. All MSTS must be designed and operated according to this Chapter. All MSTS must be designed, installed, inspected, pumped and operated by a qualified employee in accordance with the requirements in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7083, or a licensed businesses meeting the qualifications of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7083. All MSTS must conform to applicable state statutes and rules. 3.7 Collection Systems. Collection of greater than 2,500 gallons per day of sewage from multiple buildings or multiple other establishments discharging into an SSTS must be: (1) Designed according to Prescriptive Designs and Design Guidance for Advanced Designers, incorporated by reference under Section 5.2(4); or (2) Designed by a Minnesota licensed professional engineer. 3.8 MSTS septage All septage generated from MSTS must be treated and dispersed to applicable standards for septage as set forth in Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, part 503, and any local requirements. 3.9 SDS permit required. (1) The owner or owners of a single SSTS, or a group of SSTS under common ownership must obtain either an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or an State Disposal Permit (SDS) permit from the MPCA and comply with all NPDES or SDS requirements according to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7001 when all or part of the proposed or existing soil dispersal components are within one-half mile of each other and the combined flow from all proposed and existing SSTS is greater than 10,000 gallons per day. For proposed SSTS, the now must be determined according to Section.3.9(3). For existing SSTS, the flow is determined by the greater of: (A) The average maximum seven-day measured flow; or (B) The flow determined according to Section 3.9(3). (2) An SDS permit is required for any subsurface sewage treatment system or group of subsurface sewage treatment systems that the commissioner determines has the potential or an increased potential to cause adverse public health or environmental impacts if not regulated under a state permit. Conditions for these permits include systems in environmentally sensitive areas, unsubstantiated or unexpected flow volumes, and systems requiring exceptional operation, monitoring, and management. (3) Flow amounts to calculate whether an SDS permit is required must be determined according to Section 12.4 to 12.10. The highest calculated value of the various methods in Table II of Section 12 must be used to make this determination. An SDS permit is not required, for an SSTS not otherwise requiring an SDS, if a factor of safety is added to the design flow that results in a design flow that is in excess of the SDS permit threshold. 3.10 Other state regulations. MSTS must conform to all applicable state statutes and rules. MSTS serving establishments licensed or regulated by the State of Minnesota, or MSTS owned by the State of Minnesota, must conform to this Chapter. 3.11 Local regulations. Any SSTS requiring approval from the State of Minnesota must also meet all requirements set forth in this Chapter, and in all other local codes and ordinances. 3.12 Work done without permit. Where work requiring a permit under this Chapter has commenced without first having obtained such permit, work shall be ordered to stop by the Department until all required permits have been approved and issued. 21 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 3.13 Authorized access. To enforce this Chapter, the Department or its authorized agent may enter any building, or come on to property, or place where there is reason to suspect that a subsurface sewage treatment system is failing to protect groundwater or is an imminent threat to public health and safety. 3.14 Permit fees. Fees for permits, operating permits, inspections required, or services rendered under this Chapter shall be set by the Washington County Board of Commissioners. 22 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 4 COMPLIANCE CRITERIA 4.1 Treatment required. Sewage discharged from a dwelling, group of dwellings, or other establishment that is not served by a system issued an operating permit containing effluent and discharge limits or specific monitoring requirements must be treated according to applicable requirements. 4.2 Compliance criteria for new construction. An SSTS regulated under a current permit is considered compliant if it meets the applicable requirements of Section 16 to Section 21. 4.3 Compliance criteria for existing systems. To be in compliance, an existing SSTS must meet the provisions of this subpart. (1) The SSTS must be protective of public health and safety. A system that is not protective is considered an imminent threat to public health or safety. At a minimum, a system that is an imminent threat to public health or safety is a system which discharges sewage or sewage effluent to the ground surface, drainage systems, ditches, or storm water drains or directly to surface water; systems that cause a reoccurring sewage backup into a dwelling or other establishment; systems which pose electrical hazards; systems which have sewage tanks that are unsecured, damaged, or with weak maintenance hole covers. A determination of protectiveness for other conditions must be made by a qualified employee of the Department or licensed inspection business. (2) The SSTS must be protective of groundwater. A system that is not protective is considered a system failing to protect groundwater. At a minimum, a system that is failing to protect groundwater is a system that is a cesspool,; a system with less than the required vertical separation distance described in Section 4.3 (4) and Section 4.3 (5) of this Section; and a system not abandoned in accordance with Section 24. A determination of the threat to groundwater quality for this and other conditions must be made by a qualified employee of the Department or licensed inspection business. (3) The SSTS must meet performance standards, be managed and operated according to its operating permit. (4) SSTS built after March 31, 1996, or in an SWF area as defined in Section 2.2 (122), shall have a three (3) foot vertical separation. No more than a fifteen (15) percent reduction in the vertical separation distance is allowed to account for settling of sand or soil, normal variation of measurements, and interpretations of the limiting layer conditions. (5) SSTS built before April 1, 1996, in areas that are not SWF areas as defined in Section 2.2 (122), must have at least two (2) feet of vertical separation. (6) The vertical separation measurement for Section 4.3 (4) and Section 4.3 (5) shall be measured outside of the area of system influence in an area of similar soil and on the same contour elevation. (7) An existing SSTS which is found to be an imminent threat to public health and safety by a qualified employees of the Department, or a licensed inspection business, is hereby declared to be a public health nuisance and shall be abated within ten (10) days from the date the Owner is given notice. The system shall be repaired, upgraded, replaced or its use discontinued within ninety (90) days from the date the Department gives the Owner notice and order to comply by the Department. Any further discharge of effluent must be prevented within ten (10) days (by such methods as reducing or stopping all water use or pumping the tank as necessary) until such time as the system is corrected. (8) Any existing system which is found to be failing to protect groundwater shall be replaced or otherwise brought into compliance within six (6) months of notice and order to comply by the Department. The Department may grant a one-time, six month extension. (9) An existing system that is not a cesspool, drywell, leaching pit or seepage pit or not considered an imminent threat to public health and safety need not be upgraded, repaired, replaced, or its use discontinued notwithstanding the fact that at the time of a compliance inspection, there appears to 23 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations be less than the required vertical separation between the system bottom and any limiting layer if all of the following can be verified in the historical permit record: (A) Complete soil testing, including soil borings and percolation tests were conducted at the time of the design and installation; (B) The soil observations are consistent with the Soil Survey; (C) The County verified that three feet of vertical separation existed at the time of installation by conducting verification soil observations and notes indicating such verification are present in the permit record; (D) The system was installed in the proper location where complete soil testing and the County's verification soil observation were conducted and approved; and (E) The system was installed at the maximum depth allowed by the permit. 4.4 Compliance criteria for systems with a flow of greater than 2,500 gallons per day. In addition to the requirements under Section 4.3, systems designed under Section 16.4 must demonstrate that the additional nutrient reduction component required under that section is in place and functioning. 4.5 Compliance criteria for systems receiving replacement components. Components of an existing system that result in the system being in noncompliance must be repaired or replaced according to this Chapter. The repaired or replaced components must meet the technical standards and criteria of this Chapter. The remaining components of the existing system must result in the system being in compliance with Section 4.3. If an existing sewage tank is to be used with the design of the new soil dispersal system, the tank must also be baffled, watertight, and the manhole cover brought to grade. 4.6 MSTS General. Newly constructed, replacement, or existing MSTS designed under this Chapter are considered conforming if they meet the requirements of this Chapter. Existing MSTS constructed before the effective date of this Chapter are considered conforming if they meet the requirements of this Section, except for Section 4.8 (4) and Section 4.8 (5). 4.7 Public health and safety; imminent threat. (1) To be in compliance, all MSTS must: (A) have treatment processes and devices that do not allow sewage or sewage effluent contact with humans, insects, or vermin; (B) disperse sewage effluent into soil or sand below final grade, with the effluent remaining below final grade; (C) not discharge to drainage tile, the ground surface, or surface water or back up sewage into dwellings or other establishments; (D) treat and disperse sewage effluent in a safe manner, including protection from physical injury and harm; and (E) not have received hazardous material. (2) MSTS must be considered an imminent threat to public health and safety for noncompliance with Section 4.7 (1) and any other condition that poses an imminent threat as determined by a qualified employee of the Department or licensed advanced inspection business. 4.8 Groundwater protection. To be in compliance, all MSTS must: (1) meet the requirements of Section 4.3 (4) (2) not be seepage pits, cesspools, drywells, leaching pits, sewage tanks, and treatment vessels that observably leak below the designated operating depth; (3) not allow viable fecal organisms to contaminate underground waters or zones of seasonal saturation; (4) employ nitrogen reduction processes that reduce nitrogen contribution to groundwater as determined in subitems (A) and (B): 24 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (A) if the discharge from an MSTS will impact water quality of an aquifer, as defined in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725.0100, subpart 21, the effluent from an MSTS, in combination with the effective recharge to the groundwater, must not exceed a concentration of total nitrogen of 10 mg/L or greater at the property boundary or nearest receptor, which is closest; and (B) if the discharge from an MSTS will not impact water quality of an aquifer, as defined in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725.0100, subpart 21, best management practices developed by the Commissioner to mitigate water quality impacts to groundwater must be employed; and (5) not exceed a groundwater discharge of phosphorus to a surface water that exceeds the phosphorus standard to the receiving water. 4.9 Other conformance. To be in compliance, all MSTS must meet the following requirements: (1) All methods and devices used to treat and disperse sewage must be designed to conform to all applicable federal, state and local regulations. (2) Systems no longer in use must be abandoned according to Section 24. 4.10 System operation. To be in compliance, MSTS must meet performance standards and be operated and managed according to its operating permit and management plan, as described in Section 22.1. To be in compliance, an MSTS designed before February 4, 2008 must be operated according to applicable requirements in Section 22. 4.11 Compliance criteria for systems receiving replacement components. Components of existing MSTS that cause non-compliance must be repaired or replaced. The repaired or replaced components must meet technical standards and criteria of this Chapter. The remaining components must comply with Section 4.1 to Section 4.1 Oif constructed after February 4, 2008. 4.12 Upgrade requirements. (1) MSTS in compliance with this Chapter shall be issued a certificate of compliance. MSTS found not in compliance with this Chapter shall be issued a notice of noncompliance. (2) MSTS issued a notice of noncompliance based on the criteria in Sections 4.7 shall be repaired or replaced in accordance with Section 4.3 (7) of this Chapter or as directed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 145A, whichever is more restrictive. (3) MSTS issued a notice of noncompliance based on criteria in Section 4.8 or Section 4.9 shall be repaired or replaced in accordance with Section 4.3 (8) of this chapter. (4) Systems issued a notice of non-compliance based on criteria in Section 4.10 must immediately be put into compliance with the operating permit. 25 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 5 ACCEPTABLE AND PROHIBITED DISCHARGES 5.1 Sewage. This Chapter provides design standards for SSTS that receive sewage. If an SSTS receives both sewage and nonsewage, the requirements of this chapter and requirements governing the nonsewage portion of the water apply. 5.2 System influent. (1) Footing or roof drainage and chemically treated hot tub and pool water must not be discharged into any part of a SSTS. Hazardous waste must not be discharged to a SSTS. Products containing hazardous chemicals must not be discharged to an SSTS other than normal amounts of household cleaners designed for household use. Substances not intended for use in household cleaning, including but not limited to, solvents, pesticides, flammables, photo finishing chemicals, paint, and dry-cleaning chemicals must not be discharged to a SSTS. Other unused products or substances, or unused medicines, must not be discharged to a SSTS as a method of disposal. Floor drains from garages serving dwellings, vehicle maintenance businesses, or any other floor drain that would have the potential to introduce hazardous waste into the SSTS, must not be connected to a SSTS. (2) An ISTS must be designed to provide additional treatment if: (A) Raw sewage exceeds 300 mg/L BOD, 200 mg/L TSS, or 50 mg/L oil and grease; or (B) Sewage tank effluent applied to the soil from the sewage tank or other secondary treatment device is greater than the concentrations in Section 12.11. (3) Additional treatment must be designed by a Minnesota licensed professional engineer or according to the recommendations in the Prescriptive Designs and Design Guidance for Advanced Designers, which is incorporated by reference, or must use a product registered under Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7083. (4) Prescriptive Designs and Design Guidance for Advanced Designers, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (October 2013 and as subsequently amended), is made a part of this ordinance by reference, is subject to frequent change, and is available at www.pca.state.n-m.us/programs/ists/technical.html. 5.3 Domestic waste. Only domestic strength waste shall be discharged to a soil dispersal and treatment area. Sewage tank effluent with a waste strength higher than domestic waste shall be pre-treated to a level equal to or less than domestic waste prior to final treatment and disposal in a soil treatment and dispersal area. 26 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 6 PERMITS 6.1 Building Permit requirements. No construction shall be allowed by any local unit of government until the permit required for the subsurface sewage treatment system has been issued. 6.2 Compliant system or permit issued. No additions, enlargements, improvements, or remodeling involving fifty (50) percent or more of the structure, or alterations that would affect the water use, such as bedrooms, bathrooms or additions to living space (excluding such areas as screen porches, entry ways, decks, attics, patios, nonhabitable storage space) shall be allowed until the subsurface sewage treatment system has been determined to be both adequate and conforming or a permit for a new treatment system has first been issued. 6.3 Permit required. Permits shall be required for subsurface sewage treatment systems in the following instances: (1) All new installations of sewage tanks, soil dispersal and treatment areas, and components thereof, (2) All repair, extension, replacement or modification of existing systems and components; or (3) Any change in use of a facility served by a subsurface sewage treatment system. 6.4 Permit application. Permit applications shall be made in writing on forms provided by the Department and shall contain data, including, but not limited to, to be considered a completed permit application: (1) Correct legal description of the property, including Property Identification Number or GEO Code; (2) Site plan, drawn to scale, showing the location of all proposed and existing structures, property lines, water supply wells within 100 feet, terrain features, such as blufflines, water bodies or water ways, buried utilities, easements, and other unique features of the site; (3) Soil test date, including soil boring logs, percolation test data with field notes (where required) and location and identification of test area. (4) Plans and details of the proposed installation of work, including engineering data and final design. (5) Building plans showing existing and proposed room arrangement and uses. (6) For other than dwellings, calculated or measured water use rates, occupancy and occupant load. (7) Where deemed necessary, a property survey may be required identifying corners and lines and other items such as elevations, contour lines, ordinary high water levels, and ten (10) year and one hundred (100) year flood elevations as applicable. (8) Evidence of compliance with state or other jurisdiction regulations where applicable. (9) A management plan for the proposed system, as described in Section 22.1. (10) A site grading plan. 6.5 Site plan required. No permit will be issued until a detailed system design is submitted for the current proposed construction, including site plan, a management plan and current soil observations. If previous soil observations have been conducted and meet this Chapter, and there is no reason to believe the soil conditions have changed, those soil observations may be used for the design of the proposed SSTS. 6.6 Permit time limit. Permits shall be valid upon issuance and shall continue for a period of one (1) year. After one (1) year, the permit may be renewed if no changes are proposed. Such renewal shall require reapplication and payment of the established fee. 27 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 6.7 Permit revocation. Permits issued under this Chapter may be revoked upon written notice by the department when such permit has been issued based on erroneous or inaccurate data supplied by the applicant or erroneous interpretation of the law by a building official. 28 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 7 OPERATING PERMITS 7.1 Operating permit required. Operating permits are required for the following systems: (1) Type IV Systems (2) Type V Systems (3) All MSTS (4) Food, Beverage and Lodging Establishments that discharge high -strength waste to the soil treatment area. 7.2 Operating permits issued. Operating permits will be issued by the Department. 7.3 Operating permit criteria. Operating permits may include: (1) Maintenance requirements, including frequency of maintenance; (2) Operational requirements; (3) Monitoring requirements; (4) Compliance limits and compliance boundaries; (5) Reporting frequency; (6) A requirement that the permittee notify the Department when permit requirements are not met. Corrective actions must be taken as directed by the Department; (7) Disclosure of the location and condition of the additional soil treatment and dispersal system; and (8) A stipulation of acceptable and prohibited discharges. (9) Any other requirement determined by the Department to be necessary to ensure that public health and the environment are being adequately protected. 7.4 Operating Permits SSTS for which an operating permit has been issued, must be operated in accordance with the operating permit. 7.5 MSTS Maintenance MSTS and other establishments must be maintained this Section 22. 7.6 Grease Interceptors. All external grease interceptors must be routinely inspected to determine the volume of grease present. All external grease interceptors must be properly maintained to prevent clogging of downstream piping and system components. 7.7 Operation and Maintenance Manual. For all MSTS constructed after the effective date of this Chapter, the designer must complete an operation and maintenance manual and the manual must be submitted to the Department or the local unit of government before system operation. The manual shall include a copy of the plans and specifications, as -built drawings of the system, and information to properly operate the system. 7.8 Groundwater Monitoring. Groundwater shall be monitored in accordance with Section 11. 7.9 Noncompliance. Any operational noncompliance must be immediately corrected and reported by the owner or service provider to the Department. 29 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 8 INSPECTIONS 8.1 Required inspections. Inspections to determine compliance with this Chapter shall be performed by the Department or its authorized agent in the following circumstances: (1) Site inspections to verify and evaluate soil and site conditions and to determine the suitability of soils and system design prior to permit issuance. (2) Investigations to determine compliance of existing systems at the time of remodeling, of alteration, or of additions to a dwelling. (3) For all new SSTS construction or replacement. (4) Mound systems require a minimum of three construction inspections: (A) When the original soil under the mound has been roughened, but prior to placement of the sand fill. Enough of the proposed sand fill must be present to be viewed. (B) After placement of rock and piping, but prior to cover. (C) When the mound is completed. 8.2 Time of inspections. Installation inspections shall be made by the Department prior to any work being covered by backfill. 8.3 Inspection scheduling. The licensed installation business shall notify the Department a minimum of twenty-four (24) hours prior to the time work is ready for inspection or reinspection. 8.4 Work backfilled before inspection. Work which is backfilled prior to a required inspection may be ordered to be uncovered whenever the Department deems it necessary to determine compliance. 8.5 Correction orders. If upon inspection any part of the system is determined not to be in compliance with this Chapter, written notice shall be provided by the Department indicating the deficiency and the required corrections. Noted deficiencies shall be properly corrected and reinspected before any other work on the project is continued. 8.6 System placed into service No system shall be replaced or placed in service until a final inspection has been completed and the system installation has been approved. 8.7 Department access. The owner or occupant of a property shall provide access at a reasonable time to the Department or its authorized agent for the purpose of performing inspections required under this Chapter. 8.8 As-builts. The Contractor, upon completion of installation, shall file with the Department as -built drawings indicating the location of system components dimensioned from a permanent reference point. 8.9 Disclosure. If an inspection is conducted as a part of preparation of the disclosure required by Minnesota Statutes 115.55, subd. 6 and such inspection is conducted by a party who is not the property owner, such party must be licensed in accordance with MPCA rules and regulations and the notice of compliance or noncompliance provided to the property owner must also be provided to Washington County within thirty (30) days of the inspection. 8.10 Compliance inspection; new construction or replacement. (1) A compliance inspection for all new construction or replacement must be conducted: 30 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (A) to ensure compliance with applicable requirements; (B) unless the age of the system is less than 5 years, prior to the transfer of any real property; (C) to ensure compliance before issuance of a permit for the addition of a bedroom on property served by an SSTS; (D) by a qualified employee or licensed inspection business, authorized by the Department or local unit of government, who is independent of the owner and the installer; and (E) for an evaluation, investigation, inspection, recommendation, or other process used to prepare a disclosure if conducted by a party who is not the system owner. The disclosure action constitutes a compliance inspection and must be conducted according to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7082; (F) when deemed necessary by the Department to ascertain the compliance of an existing system. A licensed inspection business that inspects an existing SSTS is allowed to subsequently design and install a new SSTS for that property, provided the inspection business is also licensed to design and install. (2) A licensed inspection business working on behalf of the Department or local unit of government must not design or install a system if there is likelihood that the inspector or business will be responsible for permitting or inspecting the system or system site. (3) An licensed SSTS business may inspect an existing system which they installed once it has been independently inspected and found to be compliant. (4) A person working for or on behalf of the Department or local unit of government is not allowed to use the person's position to solicit business for private gain. 8.11 Certificate of compliance; notice of noncompliance. (1) SSTS in compliance with applicable requirements must be issued a certificate of compliance and systems found not in compliance must be issued a notice of noncompliance. SSTS not in compliance with Section 4.3 (1) or Section 4.7 must be repaired or replaced within 90 days from notice by the Department or as directed under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 145A. Systems out of compliance with other applicable requirements must be repaired or replaced according to this Chapter. Systems issued a notice of noncompliance for operational or monitoring deficiencies must immediately be maintained, monitored, or managed according to the operating permit. (2) The initial certificate of compliance must be issued if reasonable assurance is evident that the system was built according to applicable requirements as specified in the construction permit and an as -built as required by Section 8.8 is submitted to the Department. (3) A Management Plan, as described in Section 22.1, must accompany a compliance inspection report in order for a Certificate of Compliance to be issued by the Department or local unit of government. (4) The certificate of compliance for new construction and replacement must include the vertical separation distance report described in Section 8.13(3)B), and the management plan developed under Section 22.1. All certificates of compliance and notices of noncompliance for new construction and replacement must include property and property owner identification, date of inspection, system components, system location (dimensioned or drawn to scale), well setback distance, field check of soil conditions, SWF, as defined under part Section 2.2 (122), designations as applicable, and Class V designation as applicable. (5) A certificate of compliance or notice of noncompliance for new construction or replacement must be signed by a qualified employee certified as an inspector who is authorized by the Department or local unit of government. The certificate of compliance or notice of noncompliance for new construction and replacement must be submitted to the owner or owner's agent within 15 days. The certificate of compliance or notice of noncompliance for new construction and replacement must be submitted to the owner or owner's agent within 15 days after any compliance inspection. 31 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (6) A certificate of compliance or notice of noncompliance must include a certified statement from the qualified employee who conducted the compliance inspection and indicate whether the SSTS is in compliance with this Chapter. (7) If a compliance inspection for new construction or replacement indicates that the system is not in compliance with applicable requirements, the notice must contain a statement to this effect and specify the reason for noncompliance. (8) Certificates of compliance for new construction or a replacement system remain valid for five years from the date of issuance unless the Department or local unit of government finds evidence of noncompliance. 8.12 Compliance inspections; existing systems. (1) A compliance inspection of an existing system must be conducted: (A) Prior to the transfer of any real property, unless the age of the existing system is less than 5 years; (B) When deemed necessary by the Department to ascertain the compliance of an existing system. (2) A compliance inspection of an existing system must first determine whether the soil dispersal system, sewage tanks, or conditions pose an imminent threat to public health and safety. A determination must then be made as to whether the sewage tanks and soil dispersal area are failing to protect groundwater. The inspection must also verify compliance with Section 4.3 (3). (3) The Agency's inspection report form for existing SSTS supplemented with any necessary or locally required supporting documentation, must be used for the existing system compliance inspections in subitems (A) to (D). Allowable supporting documentation includes tank integrity assessments made within the past three years and prior soil separation assessments. (A) A tank integrity and safety compliance assessment must be completed by a licensed SSTS inspection, maintenance, installation or service provider business or a qualified employee inspector with jurisdiction. An existing compliant tank integrity and safety compliance assessment is valid for three years unless a new evaluation is requested by the owner or owner's agent or is required by the Department or local unit of government. (B) A soil separation compliance assessment must be completed by a licensed inspection business or a qualified employee inspector with jurisdiction. Compliance must be determined either by conducting new soil borings or by prior soil separation documentations made by two independent parties. The soil borings used for system design or previous inspections are allowed to be used. If the soil separation has been determined by two independent parties, a subsequent determination is not required unless requested by the owner or owner's agent or required by the Department or local unit of. (C) Determination of hydraulic performance and other compliance in Section 4.3(l) must be completed by either a licensed inspection business or a qualified employee inspector with jurisdiction. (D) A determination of operational performance and other compliance in Section 4.3 (4) and Section 4.4, must be completed by a licensed advanced inspection business, a qualified employee with an advanced inspector certification with jurisdiction, or a service provider. A passing report is valid until a new inspection is requested. (4) A certificate of compliance or notice of noncompliance for an existing system must be based on the results of the verifications in item 3. The certificate of compliance or notice of noncompliance for an existing system must be signed by a licensed inspection business or a qualified employee inspector with jurisdiction. The certificate or notice for an existing system must be submitted to the Department or local unit of government with jurisdiction and the property owner or owner's agent no later than 15 days after a compliance inspection. The completed form must also be submitted to the owner or owner's agent. The certificate of compliance for an existing system is valid for three years from the date of issuance, unless a new inspection is requested by the owner or owner's agent or is required by the Department or local unit of government. 32 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (5) If a compliance inspection for an existing system indicates that the system is noncompliant, the notice must be signed by a licensed inspection business or qualified employee inspector with jurisdiction, contain a statement of noncompliance and specify the reason for noncompliance or each component as specified in Section 8.13(3). 8.13 Periodically saturated soil disagreements. (1) If a documented discrepancy arises on the depth of the periodically saturated soil between licensed businesses for SSTS design or compliance purposes, all disputing parties must follow the procedure outlined in this subpart. (2) One or more of the methods in units (A) to (C) must be employed. (A) Obtain an opinion from a qualified employee of the Department or local permitting authority with jurisdiction, if the Department or local permitting authority is willing to provide an opinion. (B) Obtain an opinion from an SSTS technical evaluation committee, if a committee has been developed for this purpose and is available and willing to render an opinion. The committee must be created in cooperation with the commissioner. (C) Obtain an opinion from a Minnesota licensed professional soil scientist who is a certified SSTS designer or inspector and who is independent of, and agreed upon by, both parties. (D) If options under Section 8.13 (2)(A) or Section 8.13(2)(B) are not viable, an opinion must be rendered under Section 8.13(2)(C). (3) If opinions rendered in items Section 8.13 (1) or Section 8.14 (2) do not resolve the dispute, all initial and follow-up documents and information generated must be submitted to the Department or local unit of government. The Department or local unit of government shall take into consideration all information and opinions rendered and make a final judgment. The Department or local unit of government shall render findings of fact, conclusions of law, and findings setting forth the reasons for any final decisions it renders. (4) If a documented discrepancy arises on the depth of the periodically saturated soil between an SSTS licensed business and the Department or local unit of government for SSTS design or compliance purposes, all disputing parties shall follow the procedure outlined in this item. (A) The Department or local unit of government and the licensed business must meet at the disputed site in an attempt to resolve differences. (B) If the provision in Section 8.13 (4)(A) does not resolve differences, then one or more of the methods in Section 8.13 (2)(B) or Section 8.13 (2)(C), are allowed to be employed. (C) If opinions in Section 8.13 (4)(B) are not sought or do not resolve the dispute, the Department or local unit of government shall take into consideration all information and opinions rendered and make a final judgment. The Department or local unit of government shall render findings of fact, conclusions of law, and findings setting forth the reasons for any final decisions they render. (5) Upon resolution of a dispute, amendments to initial disputed documents containing the resolution shall be made and submitted to the Department and all other parties involved. 33 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 9 SITE EVALUATION AND SOIL TESTING 9.1 Design Phase I; Site Evaluation. Site evaluations consisting of preliminary and field evaluations according to parts this Section must be conducted for all proposed sites for SSTS, including both ISTS and MSTS. The site evaluation is considered the first phase of an SSTS design. 9.2 Preliminary Evaluation. A preliminary evaluation for individual subsurface sewage treatment systems shall consist of determination, location, or existence of the following : (1) Design flow, anticipated effluent concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil and grease, and anticipated presence of nondomestic waste from the dwelling, dwellings, or other establishments. (2) Proposed or existing: (A) Water supply wells within 100 feet of the proposed SSTS; (B) Existing and proposed buildings or improvements on the lot; and, (C) Buried water supply pipes within 50 feet of the proposed system. (3) Easements on the lot. (4) The ordinary high water level of public waters, if adjacent to the lot. (5) Floodplain designation and flooding elevation from published data or data that is acceptable to and approved by the Department or local unit of government or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, if applicable. (6) Property lines. (7) All required setbacks from the system. (8) The soil characteristics at the proposed soil treatment and dispersal areas as obtained by the soil survey report, including the soil map, map units, landscape position, parent material, flooding potential, slope range, periodically saturated soil level, depth to bedrock, texture, color, depth to redoximorphic features, and structure and consistence of soil horizons. (9) A geocode or property identification number. (10) Names of property owners. (11) The inner wellhead management zone or wellhead protection area of a public water supply, if applicable. 9.3 Field Evaluation. A field evaluation for an individual subsurface sewage treatment system shall consist of the following items: (1) Lot lines. Lot lines shall be confirmed in the field. .Lot improvements, required setbacks, and easements must be identified. (2) Surface features. The following surface features must be described: (A) The percent and direction of the slope of the proposed system location. (B) Vegetation types. (C) Any evidence of cut or filled areas or disturbed or compacted soil. (D) The flooding or run-on potential. (E) A geomorphic description. 9.4 Minimum Size, Soil Treatment Area. For new subdivision testing, enough soil observations must be conducted to assure that at least 10,000 square feet of suitable soil exists for each lot for long-term sewage treatment. On previously subdivided lots, enough area of suitable soil must be identified for two soil treatment and dispersal areas. Percolation tests are not required for subdivision or lot approval testing unless the permeability cannot be estimated or there is reason to believe the soil is not original or has been disturbed. 34 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 9.5 Soil observations. Complete soil testing on each individual lot must be conducted prior to permit issuance independent of any prior subdivision or lot approval testing. For permit issuance, a minimum of four (4) soil observations encompassing the proposed sewage treatment area are required. At least one soil observation must be performed in the portion of the soil treatment area anticipated to have the most limiting conditions. Larger areas may be required where conditions of use, soils, topography, or vegetation require. Soil observations must comply with the following requirements: (1) The soil observation must be conducted within or on the borders of the proposed site; (2) The soil observations must be performed in an exposed pit or by hand augering or probing. The use of flight augers is not allowed; (3) The soil observation method must allow observation of the different soil horizons that constitute the soil profile and, if determining the loading rate by use of Table VI an undisturbed soil sample must be observed; (4) Underground utilities must be located before soil observations are undertaken; (5) Required safety precautions must be taken before entering soil pits; (6) Soil observations must be conducted prior to any required percolation tests to determine whether the soils are suitable to warrant percolation tests and, if suitable, at what depth percolation tests shall be conducted; and (7) The minimum depth of the soil observations must be to the periodically saturated layer, to the bedrock, or three feet below the proposed depth of the system, whichever is less. 9.6 Soil descriptions for determination of limiting layers. Each soil profile observed at the proposed soil treatment and dispersal area must be evaluated under adequate light conditions with the soil in a moist unfrozen state for the characteristics in items (1) through (8): (1) The depth of each soil horizon measured from the ground surface. Soil horizons are differentiated by changes in texture, color, redoximorphic features, bedrock, structure, consistence, and any other characteristics that affects water movement or treatment of effluent; (2) A description of all soil colors for each horizon according to the Munsell Soil Color Charts, Revised Edition, Munsell Color Corporation (1992), or equivalent. The color charts are incorporated by reference, are available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system, and are not subject to frequent change; (3) A description of the soil texture, and structure using the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil classification system as specified in the Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, which is incorporated by reference under Section 2.2 (46); (4) Depth to bedrock. (5) Depth to periodically saturated soil for new construction or replacement as determined by redoximorphic features and other indicators, as determined in subitems (A) to (C): (A) In subsoil and parent material, redoximorphic features include: i. Distinct redoximorphic iron accumulation or distinct redoximorphic iron depletions; ii. A gleyed or depleted soil matrix or redoximorphic mottles having a color chroma of two or less or a depleted matrix or redoximorphic mottles having a color hue of 5Y and a chroma of three or less; or iii. Faint redoximorphic concentrations or faint redoximorphic depletions in subsoil or parent material with a hue of 7.5YR or redder. (B) In lower topsoil layers that are deeper than 12 inches from the surface and are immediately followed in depth by a periodically saturated horizon, redoximorphic features include: i. Soil colors with a redoximorphic chroma of two or less; or ii. Redoximorphic accumulations or depletions. (C) In the upper 12 inches of the topsoil layer, if it is immediately followed by a periodically saturated horizon, the depth of seasonal saturation is determined by one or more of the indicators in units (i) to (vi): i. Soil colors with a chroma of zero; 35 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations ii. Organic soil textures or mineral soil textures with an organic modifier; iii. Dominance of hydrophytic vegetation; iv. The soil treatment area at or near the elevation of the ordinary high water level of a surface water or in a concave hill slope position; V. Redoximorphic accumulations or depletions; or vi. The soil expressing indicators of seasonal saturation as determined in Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (2006 and subsequently amended). This field book is incorporated by reference, is available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system, and subject to frequent change. (6) Depth to periodically saturated soil for all existing systems, determined by redoximorphic features in item (5), except subitems (B), unit (i), and (C), units (i), (iii), and (iv), as measured outside the area of the system influence in an area of similar soil. (7) Depth of standing water in the soil observation excavation, measured from the soil surface, if observed. (8) Any other soil characteristics that needs to be described to design a system, such as hardpans or restrictive layers. These other characteristics must be classified according to the Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, which is incorporated by reference under Section 2.2 (46). 9.7 Determination of loading rate and absorption area size. The effluent loading and absorption area size must be determined by either item (1) or (2). (1) The loading rate based on an examination of soil texture, undisturbed soil structure, and soil consistence at the depth of either the proposed absorption area or the most restrictive layer within three feet of the proposed soil absorption area using the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil classification system as specified in the Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, which is incorporated by reference under Section 2.2 (46); or (2) The loading rate based on the percolation procedure described in subitems (A) to (H). (A) Each test hole must be six to eight inches in diameter, and have vertical sides. For mounds and at -grade systems, the bottom of each test hole must be in the upper 12 inches of the original soil. For trenches and seepage beds, the bottom of each test hole must be at the depth of either the proposed absorption area or the most restrictive layer within three feet of the proposed soil absorption area; (B) Soil texture descriptions for percolation test holes must note the depths from the ground surface where texture changes occur; (C) The bottom and sides of the hole must be carefully scratched to remove any smearing and to provide a natural soil surface into which water penetrates. The scarification must not result in the hole having a diameter of greater than eight inches; (D) All loose material must be removed from the bottom of the test hole and two inches of one- fourth to three -fourths inch gravel or clean sand must be added to protect the bottom from scouring; (E) The hole must be carefully filled with clear water to a minimum depth of 12 inches from the bottom of the test hole and maintained for no less than four hours for saturation to occur. The soil must then be allowed to swell for at least 16, but no more than 30, hours. In sandy soils, the saturation and swelling procedure is not required and the test is allowed to proceed if the initial filling of the hole with 12 inches of water seeps away in less than ten minutes; (F) In sandy soils, water depth must be adjusted to eight inches over the soil at the bottom of the test hole. From a fixed reference point, the drop in water level must be measured in inches to the nearest 1/16 inch at approximately ten-minute intervals. A measurement is also allowed to be made by determining the time it takes for the water level to drop one inch from an eight inch reference point. If eight inches of water seeps away in less than ten minutes, a shorter interval between measurements must be used, but water depth must not exceed eight inches. The test must continue until three consecutive percolation rate measurements do not 36 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations vary by more than ten percent. In other soils, the water depth must be adjusted to eight inches over the soil at the bottom of the test hole. From a fixed reference point, the drop in water level must be measured in inches to the nearest 1/16 inch at approximately 30-minute intervals and refilled between measurements to maintain an eight inch starting head. If water seeps away in less than 30 minutes, a shorter time interval between measurements must be used, but water depth must not exceed eight inches. The test must continue until three consecutive percolation rate measurements do not vary by more than ten percent. The percolation rate is also allowed to be determined by observing the time it takes the water level to drop one inch from an eight -inch reference point if a constant water depth of at least eight inches has been maintained for at least four hours prior to the measurement; (G) The time interval must be divided in minutes by the drop in water level in inches to obtain the percolation rate in minutes per inch. The percolation rates that are within the ten percent provision determined for each test hole must be averaged to determine the final percolation rate for that hole. The slowest final percolation rate for all holes within the soil dispersal area must be used for design; and (H) A percolation test must not be run where frost exists within 12 inches of the bottom of the percolation test hole. 9.8 Phase I; Site Evaluation Reporting. A written report on the site evaluation must be prepared and include the following: (1) Preliminary and field evaluation results from Sections 9.2 through 9.7 (2) Dates of preliminary and field evaluations. (3) Design calculations using the most current version of the design forms furnished by the University of Minnesota. (4) A map drawn to scale or dimension, with a north arrow, and including: (A) horizontal and vertical reference points of the proposed soil treatment and dispersal areas, soil observations, percolation tests, and pertinent distance from the proposed SSTS to all required setbacks, lot improvements, easements, ordinary high water mark of public waters, property lines, and direction and percent slope. (B) the location of any unsuitable, disturbed, or compacted areas. (C) the access route for system maintenance. (5) The estimated depth of periodically saturated soil layer, bedrock, or flood elevation, if appropriate. (6) The proposed elevation of the bottom of the soil treatment and dispersal system. (7) Anticipated construction related issues. (8) The name, address, telephone number, and certified statement of the individual conducting the site evaluation. (9) An assessment of how known or reasonably foreseeable land use changes are expected to affect system performance, including, but not limited to, changes in drainage patterns, increased impervious surfaces, and proximity of new water supply wells. (10) A narrative explaining any difficulties encountered during the site evaluation, including, but not limited to, identifying and interpreting soil and landform features and how the difficulties were resolved. (11) A notation of any differences between observed soil characteristics and those identified in the soil survey report. 9.9 Soil testing required. Applicants for subsurface sewage treatment system permits, site approvals or subdivision approvals will be required to submit soil test data from soil borings and percolation tests, or soil pits, for each proposed site or installation. The minimum testing shall be that necessary to verify suitable conditions for two complete soil dispersal and treatment areas. 37 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 9.10 Qualifications. All soil testing shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter and shall be conducted by appropriately licensed businesses and certified individuals in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7083. 9.11 Site Protection. Prior to and during construction or lot improvements, the proposed initial and replacement soil treatment and dispersal areas shall be protected from disturbance, compaction, or other damage by use of stakes and silt fence or snow fence. 9.12 Utilities. Underground utilities must be located before soil observations are undertaken. Required safety precautions must be taken before entering soil observation pits. 9.13 Mound soil testing. Where soil tests require a mound, testing and design must clearly show suitable area for installation of two (2) complete mounds. Where site conditions are such that the only backup mound will likely be disturbed, the Department, at its discretion, may require both mounds to be constructed at once. 9.14 Compliance. Designs for new construction or replacement SSTS must comply with all applicable requirements and any other applicable codes, rules, and laws. 9.15 Phase II Reporting. Phase II design reports must include detailed drawings, design flows, system component sizing and calculations, hydraulic and organic loading rates, setbacks, location and elevations for construction, and management plans as described in Section 22.1, and a certified statement. 38 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 10 MSTS SITE EVALUATION AND SOIL TESTING 10.1 Necessity of Soil and Site Evaluations. Soil and site evaluations must be conducted for MSTS design. The evaluations must be conducted according to this Section and Section 9 of this Chapter. Evaluations must identify and delineate an initial and replacement soil treatment and dispersal area with appropriate system boundaries. 10.2 Preliminary Evaluation. A preliminary evaluation for midsized subsurface sewage treatment systems shall consist of determining: (1) The design flow, anticipated effluent concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and oil and grease, and anticipated presence of nondomestic strength waste from the dwelling, dwellings, or other establishments. (2) Whether the location of water supply wells impacts the location of the system due to setback constraints. (3) Whether building improvements will be within 50 feet of the proposed soil treatment and dispersal area. (4) Whether buried water supply pipes will be within 50 feet of the proposed system. (5) Whether easements will be within 50 feet of the proposed system. (6) Whether the ordinary high water level of public waters will be within 500 feet of the proposed soil treatment and dispersal area and if so, a preliminary assessment of phosphorus impacts to the surface water. (7) Whether the system will be located in a floodplain and the system location in relation to the 100- year flooding elevation from published data if available or data that is acceptable to the Department or local unit of government. (8) The required setbacks from the proposed soil treatment and dispersal system. (9) The soil survey information on the proposed soil dispersal area, including the soil map, map units, landscape position, parent material, flooding potential, slope range, periodically saturated soil level, depth to bedrock, texture, color, and structure of soil horizons, and permeability of soil horizons. (10) A geocode or property identification number. (11) The names of the property owners; and (12) The location of the system on a United States Geological Survey quadrangle map of the proposed soil treatment and dispersal area and the area within one mile. 10.3 Field Evaluation. Before conducting a field evaluation, the designer shall confer with the Department to determine the requirements and scope of the evaluation, dependent upon system size, soil conditions, and other applicable factors. At a minimum, the requirements in this Section must be met: (1) Property Lines. Verifying property line location and soil test locations is the responsibility of the property owner. Site improvements, required setbacks, and easements must be identified, located, and marked. (2) Site Area. A general evaluation and description of the proposed soil dispersal area, including a general geomorphic description, current land use, and past land use, if known, must be provided. (3) Surface Features. The following surface features must be identified and described: (A) The dominant vegetation. (B) Evidence of disturbed or compacted soil or flooding or run-on potential. (C) Landscape position, including landform, slope gradient, slope direction, and surface morphometry as described in the Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils Version 2.0, September 2002, developed by the National Soil Survey Center and Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. The field book is incorporated by reference, is not subject to frequent change, and is available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system. (4) Soil Pits. 39 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (A) Soil pits are required to investigate the soil for MSTS design. The required number of soil pits to adequately define the limiting layer and soil dispersal system sizing must be determined by professional judgment based on the size of the area, and consistency of the soil, and must be approved by the Department. (B) The qualifying soil observation pits to be used for the MSTS design must be located on or near the borders of the proposed soil treatment and dispersal area. Soil observation pits must be dug outside the soil dispersal area, if possible. The soil must be observed and described to a depth of at least three feet below the proposed depth of the system. Other soil observation pits are allowed to supplement the required soil observation pit information. (C) Underground utilities must be located before soil observations are undertaken. Required safety precautions must be taken before entering soil observation pits. 10.4 Soil Description. The following soil observations must be made: (1) The soil properties and features described in items (A) to (M) must be described according to the Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, version 2, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture (September 2001), for each soil horizon at each qualifying pit. The field book is incorporated by reference under Section 2.2 (46). (A) Matrix soil color. (B) Soil features that have different colors from the matrix color, including, but not limited to, clay films, organic stains, silt coats, nodules, and concretions. (C) Abundance, size, color, and contrast of redoximorphic features. (D) Soil texture, with modifiers. (E) Grade, size, and shape of soil structure. (F) Moist soil consistence. (G) Abundance and size of rock fragments. (H) Abundance and size of roots. (I) Horizon boundary conditions. (J) Parent materials. (K) Pores, quantity and size. (L) Quantity of boulders and tree stumps affecting construction. (M) Any other characteristics of feature that affects permeability of the soil or treatment of sewage effluent. (2) The depth to bedrock, if encountered, must be determined by the definition in Section 2.2 (9). (3) The elevation of standing water evident in any soil pit must be identified. (4) The soil must not be described when frozen, at improper moisture content, or under poor light conditions. 10.5 Method. Hydraulic conductivity testing of the soil must be employed, along with a determination of the soil's texture, structure, and consistence, to determine the loading rate of effluent in the soil. The frequency of observations and measurements must be determined by the professional judgment of the designer, dependent on the variation in soil conditions and the system size, with the frequency of the observations and measurements approved by the Department. 10.6 Comparison with Soil Survey. All field soil information gathered must be compared with soil survey information. Any discrepancies shall be identified. 10.7 Site and Soil Information. 40 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Site and soil information gathered in Section 10.2 through Section 10.6 must be interpreted for suitability for MSTS siting, design, and construction, with consideration of the following: (1) Surface features impacts from precipitation, run-on, and interflow or any other item that could have potential to adversely impact the ability of the soil to accept water. (2) Cultural features, including, but not limited to, setbacks and easements. (3) Site conditions affecting system layout, distribution system requirements, and constructability. (4) Layers of coarse soil textures that affect treatment. (5) Disturbed, compacted, cut -filled, or other unnatural condition, if present. (6) The uniformity of the soil over the site. (7) Future surrounding land use changes. (8) Soil sizing factor or loading rate. (9) An approximation of the rise in groundwater from system operations as determined by groundwater mounding calculations. A narrative evaluation of the accuracy of the approximation must be provided. The approximation must be related to the requirements in Section 16.5 (7). 10.8 Flood Fringe. Systems proposed to be located in flood fringes must determine feasibility of relocating the system outside the floodplain. 10.9 Depth. The limiting layer in the soil shall be determined based on the depth of bedrock or periodically saturated soil if encountered. The depth of periodically saturated soil shall be determined according to Section 9.6 (5), and the depth to bedrock shall be as defined in Section 2.2 (9). 10.10 Site Protection. The proposed soil treatment and dispersal areas shall be protected from disturbance, compaction, or other damage by use of stakes and silt fence or snow fence. 10.11 Soil and Site Report. All information required in Section 10.2 through Section 10.10 must be submitted for review by the Department prior to final design. The submittal must also contain: (1) A map of the proposed soil dispersal area, drawn to scale, showing: (A) Features with a setback within 150 feet of the system; (B) Easements within 50 feet of the system; (C) Floodplains, wetlands, and surface waters, within 100 feet of the system; (D) Location and elevation of all soil pits, borings, and hydraulic tests; (E) Two -foot contour lines; (2) Dates and weather conditions during the field evaluation; (3) Elevations of the periodically saturated soil or bedrock; (4) Proposed depths of the system bottom; (5) Proposed soil loading rate; (6) System site boundaries; (7) Anticipated construction related issues; (8) The name, address, telephone number, and certified statement of the individual conducting the site evaluation; and (9) A narrative explaining any difficulties encountered during the site evaluation, such as, but not limited to, identifying and interpreting soil and landform features, and how the difficulties were resolved. 41 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 11 GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION 11.1 Necessity of Investigation. A preliminary groundwater evaluation must be conducted for all proposed MSTS according to this Section. 11.2 Preliminary Investigation. The following information must be ascertained from the best available information: (1) The size of the soil dispersal system, proposed loading rate, and system geometry; (2) The geocode(s) or parcel identification number(s) of the parcel(s) where the proposed soil dispersal area is to be located; (3) Any anticipated discharges from nondomestic sources to the proposed MSTS; (4) The location of the MSTS on a United States Geological Survey quadrangle topographic map, including the area within a one -mile radius of the proposed soil treatment system; (5) A determination of the general geology, periodic soil saturation, regional groundwater setting, and aquifers used for water supply and a description of the general site hydrology characteristics, including, but not limited to, identification and estimated depth measurements to geologic units and aquifers, and identification of groundwater confining strata; (6) A determination whether the proposed system is in a drinking water supply management area, inner wellhead management zone, source water protection area, or groundwater sensitive area; (7) An assessment of all water supply wells within a 300-foot radius of the proposed soil treatment area with a minimum assessment of well locations and casing depths from well construction log records. If no records exist, the well locations and casing depths must be estimated; (8) A determination or estimation of groundwater flow direction; and (9) An assessment of nitrogen impacts from the system. 11.3 Field or Further Investigation. The designer must consult with the Department to determine whether the Department will require a field or further groundwater investigation and, if so, the extent of the investigation. The field or further investigation must be conducted if information gained in Section 11.2 indicates that a proposed system is a potential contaminant threat to a regional water table, an aquifer, water supply well(s), or surface waters. The threats of concern include, but are not limited to, fecal organism contamination, nitrate contamination, or phosphorus impacts to surface waters. 11.4 Monitoring. The designer must consult with the Department to determine if effluent or groundwater monitoring is required and, if so, the extent of the monitoring. Monitoring must be conducted if information gained in Section 11.2 and 11.3 indicates that a proposed system is a potential contaminant threat to a regional water table, an aquifer, or a water supply well or impacts surface waters. The potential groundwater mound height must be monitored under all MSTS during operation. 11.5 Hydrological Interpretations. The information gathered in this part must be used to estimate or measure if the system adequately protects the groundwater and surface water as prescribed in Section 4.8. The interpretation must include an evaluation of whether contaminant plumes will intersect water supply well capture zones. 11.6 Groundwater Report. All information required in Section 11 must be submitted for review and approval of the Department prior to final design, including all applicable information delineated on a map. 42 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 12 SEWAGE FLOW DETERMINATION 12.1 Design Phase II: System Design. Completion of tasks outlined in Section 12 to Section 21 is considered the second phase of SSTS design. 12.2 Design Flow. The estimated design flow for any dwelling must provide for at least two (2) bedrooms. For multiple or multifamily dwellings, the design flow must be calculated according to Section 12.4 to 12.6. 12.3 Design Flow by Bedrooms. The estimated design flow for dwellings is determined by Table I. For more than six bedrooms, the design flow is determined by multiplying the number of bedrooms by 150 gallons per day. Table I Number of Bedrooms Gallons Per Da 2 300 3 450 4 600 5 750 6 900 12.4 Sum of design flow for existing dwellings. The design flow for MSTS serving existing dwellings is determined by the following calculation in conjunction with Section 12.3: Total flow from the ten highest flow dwellings + (total flow from the remaining dwellings X 0.45) 12.5 New housing developments. For new housing developments to be served by a common SSTS, the developer shall determine and restrict the total number of bedrooms for the development and determine the design flow by multiplying the total number of bedrooms by 150 gallons per day. If the ultimate development of phased or segmented growth meets or exceeds 10,000 gallons per day, the initial system or systems and all subsequent systems require a state disposal system permit. 12.6 Additional Capacity. If construction of additional dwellings or bedrooms, installation of water -using devices, or other factors likely to increase the flow volumes can be reasonably anticipated, the MSTS must be designed to accommodate the additional capacity as determined by the Department. 12.7 Design Flow Determination for Other Establishments Design sewage flow and waste concentration levels for other establishments with a flow of 5,000 gallons per day or less are determined by methods in item (1) or (2): (1) The design flow of sewage for other establishments is estimated using Table II. (2) The measured design flow of sewage for other establishments is determined by averaging the measured daily flows for a consecutive seven-day period in which the establishment is at maximum capacity or use. Table II — Estimated Design Sewage Flow from Other Establishments 43 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Dwelling Units (also see outdoor recreation) Unit Design Flow (gallons/day/unit) Hotel or luxury hotel Guest 55 Square Foot 0.28 Motel Guest 38 Square Foot 0.33 Rooming House Resident 45 Add for each non-resident meal 3.3 Daycare (no meals) Child 19 Daycare (with meals) Child 23 Dormitory Person 43 Labor Camp Person 18 Labor Camp, semi permanent Person 50 Commercial/Industrial Unit Design Flow (gallons/day/unit) Retail Store Square Foot 0.13 Customer 3.8 Toilet 590 Shopping Center Employee 11.5 Square Foot 0.15 Parking Space 2.5 Office Employees/8-Hour Shift 18 Square Foot 0.18 Medical Office* Square Foot 1.1 Practitioner 275 Patient 8 Industrial Building Employees/8-Hour Shift 17.5 Employees/8-Hour Shift with Showers 25 Laundromat Machine 635 Load 52.5 Square Foot 2.6 Barber Shop Chair 68 Beauty Salon Station 285 Flea Market Nonfood vendor/space 15 Limited food vender/space 25 With food vendor/space 50 Eating and Drinking Establishments Unit Design Flow (gallons/day/unit) Restaurant (does not include bar or lounge) Meal without alcoholic drinks 3.5 Meal with alcoholic drinks (open 16 hours or less) 8 Seat (open 16 hours or less) 30 Seat (open more than 16 hours) 50 Seat (open 16 hours or less, single service articles 20 Seat (open more than 16 hours, single service articles) 35 Restaurant — short order Customer 7 Restaurant drive-in Car Space 30 Eating and Drinking Unit Design Flow 44 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Establishments ( allons/da /unit) Restaurant — carry out, including caterers Square Foot 0.5 Institution Meals Meal 5.0 Food Outlet Square Foot 0.2 Dining Hall Meal 8.5 Coffee Shop Customer 7 Cafeteria Customer 2.5 Bar or lounge (no meals) Customer 4.5 Seat 36 Entertainment Establishments Unit_ Design Flow (gallons/day/unit) Drive-in Theater Car Stall 5 Theater/Auditorium Seat 4.5 Bowling Alley Alley 185 Country Club Member (no meals) 22 Member with meals and showers 118 Member (resident) 86 Fairground and Other Similar Gatherings Visitor 1.5 Stadium Seat 5 Dance Hall Person 6 Health Club/Gym Member 35 Outdoor Recreation and Related Lodging Facilities Unit Design Flow allons/da /unit Campground Campsite with sewer hook-up (perperson) 32 Campsite with sewer hook-u(per site/space) 100 Campsite without sewer hook-up, with central toilet or shower facility (per site) 50 Campsite without sewer hook-up, with central toilet or shower facility, served by central dump station (per site) 63 Permanent Mobile Home Mobile Home 225 Camp, day without meals Person 20 Camp, day and night with meals Person 45 Resort/Lodge Hotel Person 62 Cabin, resort Person 50 Retail Resort Store Customer 4 Park or Swimming Pool Guest 10 Visitor Center Visitor 13 45 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Design Flow Transportation Unit (gallons/day/unit) Gas Station/Convenience Store Customer 3.5 Service Station* Customer 11 Service Bay 50 Toilet 250 Square Foot 0.25 Car wash*(does not include car wash water) Square Foot 5 Airport, Bus Station, Rail Depot Passenger 5 Square Foot 5 Restroom 565 Institutional Unit Design Flow ( allons/da /unit) Hospital* Bed 220 Mental Health Hospital* Bed 147 Prison or Jail Inmate 140 Nursing Home, other adult congregate living Resident 125 Other Public Institution Person 105 School (no gym, no cafeteria, and no showers) Student 14 School (with cafeteria, no gym, and no showers) Student 18 School (with cafeteria, gym, and showers) Student 27.5 School (boarding) Student 95 Church Seat 4 Add for each meal prepared 5 Assembly Hall Seat 4 Miscellaneous Public Lavatory Use Design Flow ( allons/da /unit) 5 Public Shower Shower Taken 11 * Waste other than sewage is only allowed to be discharged into the system if the waste is suitable to be discharged to groundwater. 12.8 Employees in Design Flow Calculation. Unless otherwise noted in Table II, the flow values do not include flows generated by employees. A flow value of 15 gallons per employee per eight hour shift must be added to the flow amount for determining the design flow for other establishments. Design flow determination for establishments not listed in Table II shall be determined by the available information and approved by the Department. 12.9 Measured Flow The measured flow of sewage for existing Other establishments may be used to modify estimated flow values determined in this part if the length and frequency of the measured flow accurately represents the annual average water use, along with the peak weekly and daily water use. 46 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 12.10 Infiltration. The design flow for MSTS must also include 200 gallons of infiltration and inflow per inch of collection pipe diameter per mile per day with a minimum pipe diameter of two inches to be used for the calculation. Flow values are allowed to be further increased if the system employs treatment devices that are exposed to atmospheric conditions that will infiltrate precipitation. Flow estimates as calculated in this Chapter shall not be relied upon for the design of collection systems. 12.11 Waste Concentration. If concentrations from the sewage are expected to be higher than 170 mg/L BOD (or 125 mg/L of CBOD5), 60 mg/L TSS, or 25 mg/L of oil and grease,, or if the design is for an Other Establishment or MSTS, an estimated or measured average concentration must be determined and be acceptable to the Department. System design must account for concentrations of these constituents so as to not cause internal system malfunction, such as, but not limited to, clogging of pipes, orifices, treatment devices, or media. 47 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 13 SEWAGE TANKS 13.1 Sewage Tanks, General. Sewage tanks serving SSTS must meet or exceed the applicable requirements of this Section unless otherwise approved by a Minnesota licensed professional engineer and approved by the Department. 13.2 Tank Strength Requirements. Tanks, fittings, risers, and apertures must: (1) Be capable of supporting long-term vertical loads for the conditions in which the tank will be placed. These loads include, but are not limited to, saturated soil load, based on 130 pounds per cubic foot. (2) Be capable of withstanding a lateral load for the conditions the tank will be placed. (3) With proper maintenance and venting, not be subject to failure due to corrosion and degradation from sewage or sewage gases, including risers and maintenance hole covers. (4) Be structurally capable of withstanding exposure and stresses from freezing conditions. 13.3 Poured -in -place concrete Tanks. Poured -in -place concrete tanks must be designed to meet each requirement in Section 13.2, and be designed by a Minnesota licensed professional engineer. 13.4 Septic Tank Design. Septic tanks must: (1) Have a liquid depth of at least 30 inches. Any liquid depth that is greater than 84 inches must not be used when calculating the septic tank liquid capacity. (2) Have a minimum of six feet between the inlet and outlet of the tank, rather than between compartments, or have a minimum of six feet from the inlet of the first tank to the outlet of the last tank in series. (3) If site conditions warrant, the inlet and outlet are allowed to be located on walls that are not opposite each other along axis of the maximum dimension; however, the requirements of Section 13.4 (2) must be met. (4) Have an inlet invert at least two inches above the outlet invert. (5) Have a space between the liquid surface and the top of the inlet and outlet baffles of not less than six inches or 100 gallons, whichever is greater, for all liquid depths with an effluent screen and alarm or for liquid depth of less than 39 inches without an effluent screen and alarm. The space between the liquid surface and the top of the inlet and outlet baffles must not be less than eight inches for the liquid depths of 39 inches or more without an effluent screen and alarm. In addition, there must be at least one inch between the underside of the top of the tank and the highest point of the inlet and outlet baffles. 13.5 Minimum Tank Capacity. For dwellings, there shall be two (2) septic tanks in series with the liquid capacity based on the number of bedrooms in the dwelling; such tanks shall be as large as the capacities in Table III. The only exception to this requirement is for the upgrade of an existing compliant system if the primary tank capacity is met and there is no garbage disposal or sewage pump. System replacement shall require two (2) tanks in series. 48 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Table III — Minimum Septic Tank Capacity Number of Bedrooms Tank 1 Tank 2 Two or less 1,000 500 Three 1,000 1,000 Four to Five 1,500 1,000 Six to Seven 2,000 1,000 Eight to Nine 2,500 1,250 Ten or More Septic tank shall be sized as an MSTS with the second tank in series being at least 50 percent of the capacity of the first tank Multiple Family Dwelling containing two or more units Size shall be the sum of the individual dwelling unit requirements. 13.6 Common tanks. For systems serving ten (10) or fewer dwellings with a common septic tank, the liquid capacity must be determined by adding the capacities for each dwelling as determined in this section. 13.7 Septic tank capacity for multiple dwellings. For systems serving more than ten (10) dwellings with a common septic tank, the requirements of subpart (1) and (2) apply: (1) Total septic tank capacity for common tanks serving multiple dwellings under gravity flow to common tanks is determined by multiplying the design flow by 3.0; or (2) Total septic tank capacity for common tanks serving multiple dwellings under pressure flow to common tanks is determined by multiplying the design flow by 4.0. (3) Total septic tank liquid capacity for systems employing individual tanks at each dwelling discharging into a collection system must be determined: (A) By a Minnesota licensed professional engineer; or (B) According to the Prescriptive Designs and Design Guidance for Advanced Designers, incorporated by reference under part 7080.1550, subpart 2. 13.8 Septic tank capacity for other establishments. Total septic tank liquid capacity for other establishments with domestic strength waste as defined in Section 2.2 (32), is determined by multiplying the design flow by 3.0 if receiving sewage under gravity flow, by multiplying the design flow by 4.0 if receiving sewage under pressure flow, or in accordance with Section 13.12 (Prior to other treatment devices). Additional design considerations, such as equalization tanks, additional capacity, grease interceptors, or secondary treatment, are required for influent concentrations that exceed the levels identified in Section 5.2 (2)(A). 13.9 Holding Tank Capacity for Other Establishments. Holding tanks serving Other Establishments must provide storage of at least five times the design flow. 13.10 Effluent Filters Required An effluent screen with an alarm must be installed on the outlet of the last tank in series. 13.11 Tanks connected in series. Septic tanks must be connected in series. Each tank or compartment must contain at least 25 percent of the required total liquid capacity. The first tank must be equal to or larger than any subsequent tank in the series. 13.12 Prior to other treatment devices. Septic tank liquid capacity prior to other treatment devices must accord with the manufacturer's requirements, accepted engineering principles, or as identified in the product registration recommended standards and criteria. 49 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 13.13 Compartmentalization of Single Tanks. If septic tanks are compartmentalized, items (1) to (5) of this Section apply: (1) When septic tanks are divided into compartments, the volume of the first compartment must be equal to or larger than any succeeding compartments. Each compartment must contain at least 25 percent of the total required liquid capacity and have an inside horizontal dimension of at least 24 inches. (2) Flow between compartments can be achieved by an unbaffled transfer hole with a minimum size of 50 square inches located in the clarified liquid zone or a minimum of 12-square inch transfer hole located above the clarified liquid zone that is baffled according to Section 13.14. The final compartment of a tank that employs a transfer hole in the clarified zone shall not be used as a pump tank. (3) Septic tanks must have at least a two-inch drop between the invert of the inlet to the invert of the outlet. No liquid level drop is required between two compartments. (4) Adequate venting must be provided between compartments by baffles or by an opening of at least 12 square inches near the top of the compartment wall. (5) All compartmental walls must be designed to withstand the weight of the effluent against an empty compartment. 13.14 Septic Tank Baffles. All septic tanks must be baffled according to (1) to (7) of this Section. Effluent screens are allowed to be substituted for outlet baffles. (1) Baffles must be installed at each inlet and outlet of septic tanks. Outlet baffles are required on compartment walls if the transfer hole is at the liquid level. (2) Baffles must be resistant to corrosion or decay. Inlet baffles must not restrict the movement of solids. (3) Baffles must be integrally cast with the tank or affixed at the top and bottom with connectors that are not subject to corrosion or decay. Baffles for fiberglass reinforced polyester tanks are allowed to be either resin bonded or secured with suitable structural adhesive. Sanitary tees used as baffles must be affixed to the inlet or outlet pipes with a permanent waterproof adhesive. (4) The inlet baffle must extend at least six inches, but not more than 20 percent of the total liquid depth, below the liquid surface. The inlet baffle must extend above the liquid surface in compliance with Section 13.4 (5), and at least one inch above the crown of the inlet sewer. (5) The outlet baffle and any baffles between compartments must extend below the liquid surface a distance equal to 40 percent of the liquid depth, except that the penetration of the indicated baffles or sanitary tees for horizontal cylindrical tanks must be 35 percent of the total liquid depth. They must also extend above the liquid surface as required in Section 13.4(5). (6) There must be at least one inch between the underside of the top of the tank and the highest point of the inlet and outlet baffles. (7) The nearest point on the inlet baffles other than sanitary tees must be no less than 6 inches and no more than 12 inches from the end of the inlet pipe. The nearest point on the outlet baffle, other than sanitary tees, must not be closer than 6 inches and no more than 12 inches from the beginning of the outlet pipe of the baffle. Sanitary tees used as inlet or outlet baffles must be at least 4 inches in diameter. 13.15 Sewage Tank Access. Septic tanks shall have a minimum of two maintenance holes with a minimum diameter of 20 inches (least dimension). Maintenance holes must be placed over the inlet baffle and the outlet device (baffles or screen). The maintenance holes must be large enough to allow pumping without interference Enough maintenance holes must be provided so access can be gained within six feet of all walls for solids removal of each compartment. Inspection pipes of no less than six inches in diameter shall be provided over any baffles that are not otherwise accessible through a maintenance hole. 50 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 13.16 Pump Tank Access. Pump tanks must have a minimum of one maintenance hole with a minimum diameter of 20 inches (least dimension). Enough maintenance holes must be provided so access can be gained within six feet of the walls for solids removal. 13.17 Maintenance Hole Risers to Grade. All maintenance hole risers must extend through the tank cover above final grade. 13.18 Maintenance Hole Covers. Covers for maintenance holes must: (1) Be secured by being locked, being bolted or screwed, having a weight of at least 95 pounds, or other methods approved by the Department or local unit of government. Covers shall also be leak resistant; and be designed so the cover cannot be slid or flipped, which could allow unauthorized access to the tank. (2) Have a written and graphic label warning of the hazardous conditions inside the tank. (3) Be capable of withstanding a load that the cover is anticipated to receive. (4) Be made of a material suitable for outdoor use and resistant to ultraviolet degradation. 13.19 Concrete Tank Construction. All precast reinforced concrete sewage tanks must be constructed to meet the requirements of this chapter. Information on best practices for tank construction is found in the National Precast Concrete Association's best practices manual, Precast Concrete On -site Wastewater Tanks (2005). This manual is incorporated by reference, is available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system, and is not subject to frequent change. If a conflict exists between the manual and this chapter, this chapter applies. 13.20 Non -Concrete Tank Construction. All fiberglass -reinforced polyester and polyethylene tanks must be constructed to meet the requirements of this chapter. Information on best practices for these tanks is found in the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), Material and Property Standard for Prefabricated Septic Tanks, Standard PS 1-2006 (2006). This standard is incorporated by reference, is available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system, and is not subject to frequent change. If conflicts exist between the standard and this chapter, this chapter applies. 13.21 Precast Reinforced Concrete Tanks. Precast reinforced concrete tanks must: (1) Have a method to lift the tank for an ultimate load that is four times the working load;. (2) Undergo proper curing to achieve a compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch before transport, placement, or use; and (3) Have no pipe penetration points or openings in the exterior walls or tank bottom below the tank liquid level, unless designed for a specific operational purpose and approved by the Department 13.22 Other Tanks. Fiberglass -reinforced polyester or polyethylene tanks must be protected against deterioration during storage. 13.23 Location and installation of tanks: (1) Sewage tanks must not be located in areas that limit removal of solids and liquids from the tank according to Section 22. (2) Sewage tanks must be set back as specified in Table V in Section 16. (3) The top of sewage tanks must not be buried deeper than four feet from final grade for new dwellings and not exceed the tank manufacturer's maximum designed depth for the tank. The minimum depth of soil cover over the insulation on the top of the tank is six inches. 51 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (4) Sewage tanks must not be placed in floodways, drainage ways, or swales. Upslope drainage must be diverted away from the location of all tanks. A tank's final cover must be crowned or sloped to shed surface water. (5) Sewage tanks must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular traffic unless engineered for the anticipated load. (6) Sewage tanks must be placed on firm and evenly compacted soil and with the soil level in all directions. The bottom shall be excavated in a manner so the vertical load is borne by the tank walls and not the tank bottom. If the bottom of the tank excavation contains rocks, bedding material must be used according to manufacturer's instructions. The soil beneath the tank must be capable of bearing the weight of the tank and its contents. (7) Sewage tanks and risers must be installed according to manufacturer's requirements and in a structurally sound and watertight fashion. (8) If the top of a sewage tank is to be less than two feet from final grade, the lid of the tank must be insulated to an R-value of ten. Maintenance hole covers must be insulated to an R-value of ten. All insulating materials must be resistant to water absorption. (9) Sewage tanks placed below the level of the periodically saturated soil must employ a method to protect against flotation under periodic saturated soil conditions when the tank is empty. (10) Connections between the concrete tank and the building sewer or supply pipe must meet the requirements of American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Specification for Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures, Pipes, and Laterals, ASTM C923 (2002), or equivalent. The standard is incorporated by reference, is available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system, and is not subject to frequent change. (11) Joints of concrete tanks, concrete tank lids, and concrete risers must be sealed using a bonding compound that meets American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Specification for Joints for Concrete Pipe, Manholes, and Precast Box Sections Using Preformed Flexible Joint Sealants, ASTM C990 (2003). The standard is incorporated by reference, is available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system, and is not subject to frequent change. 13.24 Tank Assessment (1) General (A) All sewage tanks must be watertight, including at all tank and riser joints, riser connections, and pipe connections. (B) An assessment of all models of sewage tanks to be used must be conducted to determine: i. the structural integrity of the tank design; and ii. the adequacy of the manufacturing process of watertightness. (C) Sewage tanks, including riser joints, riser connections, and pipe connections must be designed, manufactured, and installed to be watertight under normal use. (2) Structural Integrity of Design Test. The structural integrity of each model of tank and all poured - in -place tanks must be verified by calculation, proof testing, or a licensed professional engineer to determine the horizontal and vertical loads that the tank can withstand when empty. Tanks must be reverified for structural integrity if the design, materials, or construction methods are modified. A licensed professional engineer shall certify in writing if different manufactured models are similar enough so that the structural integrity information for one model is valid for other models. Verifications must be submitted to the commissioner. (3) Watertightness Test (A) At least one tank per year, per model must be tested for watertightness. All poured -in -place tanks shall be tested for watertightness. Records of testing must be maintained by the manufacturer for three years and must be available to the commissioner and local unit of government if requested. Tanks must be tested and meet or exceed the applicable requirements of subitems (i), (ii), or (iii): i. When empty, a tank must maintain a vacuum of at least two inches of mercury for five minutes, without loss of pressure; 52 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations ii. Concrete tanks must hold water for one hour, without loss, after the tank has been filled with water to the top of the tank, let stand for 24 hours, and then refilled to the same level; or iii. Fiberglass reinforced polyester or polyethylene sewage tanks must hold water without loss for one hour after being filled. (B) Sewage tanks that do not pass the tests listed in item A must not be used until repaired and retested. The repair and retest procedure must be repeated until the tank passes the test or the tank must not be used. 13.25 Tank Identification. (1) Sewage tanks must be marked near the outlet with: (A) The manufacturer's name. (B) The model number. (C) The liquid capacity. (D) The date of manufacture. (E) The maximum depth of burial. (2) The tank manufacturer or manufacturer's agent shall provide the information in Section 13.25(1) to the installer in writing. (3) The tank inlet or outlet must be clearly marked. (4) The installer shall submit the information in Section 13.25 (1) with the as -built drawing. 13.26 Sewage Tanks for MSTS, General. All holding or treatment tanks or vessels, including lined vessels and grease interceptors serving MSTS, must conform to the applicable requirements of this Section, except as modified in Section 13.26 through 13.30, or as designed by a professional engineer and approved by the Department or local unit of government. 13.27 MSTS Septic Tank Capacity. Septic tank capacity for MSTS or Other Establishments shall be determined by: (1) Total septic tank liquid capacity for a common tank serving multiple dwellings under gravity flow to the common tank is determined by multiplying the design flow by 3.0. (2) Total septic tank liquid capacity for a common tank serving multiple dwellings under pressure flow to the common tank is determined by multiplying the design flow by 4.0. (3) Common multiple septic tanks must be connected in series. Individual tanks connected in series or any compartment of a tank must have a capacity of more than one-fourth of the required to total liquid capacity. (4) For MSTS that have individual septic tanks at each dwelling, the individual tanks must meet the requirements of Section 13.5. (5) Total septic tank liquid capacity prior to other treatment devices shall be according to manufacturer's requirements or accepted standards. (6) Holding tanks serving Other Establishments must provide storage of at least five times the design flow. (7) An effluent screen or pressure filter must be used on all systems. If multiple septic tanks are used, the effluent screen must be placed in the last tank in the series and be provided with an alarm. Lint filters are recommended if the sewage contains laundry waste. (8) Total septic tank liquid capacity for systems employing individual tanks at each dwelling discharging into a collection system must be determined: (A) By a Minnesota licensed professional engineer; or (B) According to the Prescriptive Designs and Design Guidance for Advanced Designers, incorporated by reference under Section 5.2(4) of this Chapter. (9) Total septic tank capacity for other establishments with domestic strength waste is determined by multiplying the design flow by 3.0 if receiving sewage under gravity flow, by multiplying the design flow by 4.0 if receiving the sewage flow under pressure flow, or according to Section 13.8, 53 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Additional design considerations, such as equalization tanks, additional capacity, or secondary treatment, are required for influent concentrations that exceed the levels identified in Section 5.2(2)(A) 13.28 MSTS Tank Geometry. The maximum liquid depth of septic tanks to determine liquid capacity must be no greater than 84 inches. The length -to -width ratio and the length -to -depth ratio must facilitate settling of solids. 13.30 MSTS Tank Testing. All tanks used for MSTS must be tested for watertightness in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080.20102, Subp. (3). The test shall be conducted to include the watertightness of all connections and risers. 13.31 MSTS Liners. Liners used as watertight barriers for treatment devices must be designed and constructed according to liner requirements developed by the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. If conflicts exist between this Chapter and those requirements, this Chapter applies. Compacted soil liners must not be used as watertight barriers for treatment devices. Liners must be tested and must hold water without loss for 24 hours after being filled to the top of the liner. 54 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 14 DISTRIBUTION OF EFFLUENT 14.1 General. Distribution of effluent for SSTS must meet or exceed the requirements of this Section and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080.2050. 14.2 Supply Pipes. (1) The supply pipe extending from the septic tank to the undisturbed soil beyond the tank excavation must meet the strength requirements of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Schedule 40 Pipe, contained in Standard Specifications for Poly(Vinyl Chloride)(PVC) Plastic Pipe, Schedule 40, 80, 120, ASTM D1785 (2006). The schedule is incorporated by reference, is available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system, and is not subject to frequent change. (2) Supply pipes must: (A) Be made from materials resistant to breakdown from sewage and soil. (B) Be watertight, including all joints. (C) Be durable throughout the design life. (D) Not deflect, buckle, crush, or longitudinally bend. (E) Be resistant to pressures, fatigue, and strain for the application. (F) Be installed according to American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Practice for Underground Installation of Thermoplastic Pipe for Sewers and Other Gravity -Flow Applications, ASTM D2321 (2005). The standard is incorporated by reference, is available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system, and is not subject to frequent change. (G) Be designed, installed, and protected to minimize the danger of freezing in the pipe. (H) Not be closer than six inches from final grade. Pipes susceptible to freezing shall be insulated. (I) Be setback from the water supply wells and water service pipes according to Minnesota Rules, Chapters 4715 and 4725. (3) The minimum slope for gravity supply pipes is one percent ('/8-inch per linear foot). There is no maximum slope. Pipe restraints must be used for slopes greater than 20 percent or where fluid velocities in the pipe exceed 15 feet per second. For pressure systems, a minimum slope of one percent for drainback or other frost protection measures must be employed. (4) Access to each supply pipe must be provided for cleanout. The access point must be accessible from final grade. 14.3 Gravity Distribution (1) Serial distribution must be used to distribute effluent to individual trenches in a soil treatment and dispersal system. If the necessary elevation differences between trenches for serial distribution cannot be achieved by natural topography or by varying the excavation depths, parallel distribution must be used. Serial distribution must not create a pressure head on trenches at lower elevations. (2) If drop boxes are used for serial distribution, Subitems (A) to (F) apply. (A) The drop box must be watertight and constructed of durable materials not subject to corrosion or decay. (B) The invert of the inlet supply pipe must be at least one inch higher than the invert of the outlet supply pipe to the next drop box. (C) The invert of the outlet supply pipe to the next drop box must be no greater than two inches higher than the crown of the distribution pipe serving the trench in which the box is located. (D) When sewage tank effluent is delivered to the drop box by a pump, the pump discharge must be directed against a wall or side of the box on which there is no outlet or directed against a deflection wall, baffle, or other energy dissipater. The discharge rate into the drop box must not result in surfacing of sewage from the drop box. The supply pipe must drain after the pump shuts off. 55 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (E) The drop box must be covered by a minimum of six inches of soil. If the top of the box is deeper than six inches, access must be provided above, at, or within six inches of finished grade. (F) The drop box must be placed on firm and settled soil. (3) If valve boxes are used, all requirements in Section 14.3(2) apply. (4) Distribution boxes must meet the standards in items (A) to (F). (A) The box must be watertight and constructed of durable materials not subject to corrosion or decay. (B) The distribution box must be covered by a minimum of six inches of soil. If the top of the box is deeper than six inches, access must be provided above, at, or within six inches of the finished grade. (C) The inverts of all outlets must be set and maintained at the same elevation. (D) The inlet invert must be either at least one inch above the outlet invert or sloped such that an equivalent elevation above the outlet invert is obtained within the last eight feet of the inlet pipe. (E) Each trench line must be connected separately to the distribution box and must not be subdivided. Distribution boxes must not be connected to one another if each box has distribution pipes. (F) When sewage tank effluent is delivered by pump, a baffle wall must be installed in the distribution box or the pump discharge must be directed against a wall, baffle, side of the box on which there is no outlet, or directed against a deflection wall, baffle, or other energy dissipater. The baffle must be secured to the box and extend at least one inch above the crown of the inlet pipe. The discharge rate into the drop box must not result in surfacing of sewage from the drop box. Pressure must not build up in the box during pump discharge. (5) Nonpressurized distribution pipes must meet the requirements of items (A) to(C)below. (A) Distribution pipes used for gravity distribution must be at least four inches in diameter. (B) Distribution pipes used for gravity distribution must have at least one row of holes of no less than one-half inch in diameter spaced no more than 40 inches apart. (C) Distribution pipes for gravity distribution must be laid level or on a uniform slope oriented away from the distribution device of no more than four inches per 100 feet. 14.4 Pressure Distribution (1) Pressurized distribution pipes must conform to the requirements of Sections 14.2(2) (A,C,D and E) (2) Pressure distribution pipes and associated fittings must be properly joined together. The pipe and connections must be able to withstand a pressure of at least 40 pounds per square inch. (3) The distribution network must be designed so there is less than a ten percent variance in flow for all perforations. (5) (4) Perforations must be no smaller than'/8-inch diameter and no larger than'/4-inch diameter. The number of perforations, perforation spacing, and pipe size for pressure distribution must be in accordance with Table IV below. The friction loss in any individual perforated lateral must not exceed 20 percent of the average pressure head on the perforations. Perforation holes must be drilled straight into the pipe and not at an angle. Pressurized distribution laterals must be installed level. Perforation holes must be free of burrs. Holes must be spaced no more than three feet apart. A method to introduce air into the pipe after dosing must be provided. The pipes must completely drain after the pump turns off. (6) Pressure distribution laterals must be spaced no further than 36 inches apart in seepage beds and mound absorption beds, and no further than 24 inches from the outside edge of the bed. (7) Pressure distribution laterals must be connected to a header or manifold pipe that is of a diameter such that the friction loss in the header or manifold will be no greater than five percent of the average head at the perforations. The header of manifold pipe must be connected to the supply pipe from the pump. 56 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (8) Perforated laterals must not be installed closer than 12 inches from the edges of the absorption bed and perforated laterals must terminate no closer than 12 inches from the ends of the absorption bed. (9) Pressure distribution ceanouts must be provided to check the system for proper operation and cleaning of plugged perforations. Cleanouts must be accessible from final grade. (10) Existing systems with gravity distribution which are retrofitted with an advanced treatment device meeting treatment level A or B in Minnesota Rules 7083.4030, must monitor the system to determine the presence of even distribution over the absorption area. If even distribution is not occurring, pressure distribution must be employed. Table IV — Maximum Number of Perforations Per Lateral 1/4-Inch Holes Perforation Pipe Diameter (Inches) Spacing 1 11/4 1 %2 2 &3 2.0 10 13 18 30 60 2.5 8 12 16 28 54 3.0 8 12 16 25 52 7/32-Inch Holes Perforation Pi e Diameter (Inches) Spacing 1 11/4 1'/2 21OU 2.0 11 16 21 34 68 2.5 10 14 20 32 64 3.0 9 14 19 30 60 3/16-Inch Holes Perforation Pi e Diameter (Inches) Spacing 1 11/4 1'/2 2 3 2.0 12 18 26 46 87 2.5 12 17 24 40 80 3.0 12 16 22 37 75 1/8-Inch Holes Perforation Pi e Diameter (Inches) Spacing 1 11/4 1'/z 2 3 2.0 21 33 44 74 149 2.5 20 30 41 69 135 3.0 20 29 38 64 128 14.5 Distribution of Effluent for MSTS. For MSTS, distribution of effluent into a soil treatment and dispersal area must comply with all parts of Section 14, or be designed by a registered professional engineer and approved by the Department. 14.6 Pressure Distribution Required for MSTS MSTS must employ pressure distribution except as allowed under Section 14.4(10). 14.7 MSTS Zones Required The distribution system for MSTS must be designed to dose and rest zones in accordance with operational requirements. 57 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 15 DOSING OF EFFLUENT 15.1 General. When pumping or dosing is necessary, it must comply with this Section. 15.2 Pump Tanks. (1) Pump tanks shall meet or exceed the requirements of Section 13.2 or 13.3. All dosing chambers must be vented. Pump tanks shall have a maintenance hole with a minimum diameter of 20 inches (least dimension) which allows access and removal of any plumbing or other device. These maintenance holes shall meet or exceed the requirements of Section 13.17 and Section 13.18 of this Chapter. (2) The pump, pump controls, and pump discharge line must be installed to allow access for servicing or replacement without entering the pump tank. (3) The pump tank must either include an alternating two -pump system or have a minimum total capacity of 500 gallons for design flow values of 600 gallons per day or less or 100 percent of the design flow for design flow values of greater than 600 gallons per day. (4) An SSTS with a pump must employ an alarm device to warn of failure. (5) The inlet of pumps must be elevated at least four inches from the bottom of the pump tank or protected in some other manner to prevent the pump from drawing excessive settled solids. (6) Electrical installations must comply with applicable laws and ordinances including the most current codes, rules, and regulations of public authorities having jurisdiction and with Minnesota Rule, Chapter 1315.0200, which incorporates the National Electrical Code. (7) MSTS and Other Establishments must include an alternating two -pump system and have a minimum capacity of 50 percent of the design flow. 15.3 Pumps for Gravity Distribution. If a pump is used to lift effluent into a gravity distribution system, the following apply: (1) The pump must discharge at least 10 gallons per minute but no more than 45 gallons per minute. (2) The pump must be constructed and fitted with sound, durable, and corrosion -resistant materials. (3) The pump must have sufficient dynamic head for both the elevation difference and friction loss. 15.4 Pumps for Pressure Distribution. Pumps used for pressure distribution must meet the following requirements: (1) Pumps must be constructed and fitted with sound, durable, and corrosion -resistant materials. (2) The pump discharge capacity must be based on the perforation discharges for a minimum average head of: (A) 1.0 foot for'/4-inch and 3/16-inch perforations for dwellings; (B) 2.0 feet for 1/8-inch perforations for dwellings (C) 2.0 feet for'/4-inch and 3/16-inch perforations for MSTS and other establishments; and, (D) 5.0 feet for 1/8-inch perforations for MSTS and other establishments. (3) Perforation discharge is determined by the following formula: Q =19.65 cd2hv2 Where: Q = Discharge in Gallons Per Minute (GPM) c = 0.6- = coefficient of discharge d = perforation diameter in inches h = head in feet 15.5 Pump Discharge Head. The pump discharge head must be at least five feet greater than the head required to overcome pipe friction losses and the elevation difference between the pump and the distribution device. 58 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 15.6 Maximum Dose Volume. The quantity of effluent delivered for each pump cycle must be no greater than 25 percent of the design flow and at least four times the volume of the distribution pipes plus the volume of the supply pipe. 59 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 16 TREATMENT AND DISPERSAL 16.1 General. Treatment and dispersal of all sewage for new construction or replacement SSTS must in compliance with this Section and Section 17 to Section 21. 16.2 General Technical Requirements for All Systems. All new construction or replacement SSTS must be designed to meet or exceed the following provisions: (1) All treatment and dispersal methods must be designed to conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. (2) Treatment and dispersal processes must prevent sewage or sewage effluent contact with humans, insects, or vermin. (3) Treatment and dispersal of sewage or sewage effluent must be in a safe manner that adequately protects from physical injury or harm. (4) An unsaturated zone in the soil must be maintained between the bottom of the soil treatment and dispersal system and the periodically saturated soil or bedrock during loading of effluent. (5) Soil treatment and dispersal systems must not be designed in floodways. Soil treatment and dispersal systems installed in flood fringes must meet the requirements of Section 18.2. All soil treatment systems located in areas subject to excessive run-on must have a diversion constructed upslope from the system. (6) SSTS components must be setback in accordance with Table V. (7) No component of an SSTS is allowed to be located under or within the structure or other impermeable surface. (8) Flow measurement must be employed for all single family dwellings and other establishments with a pump tank, all single family dwellings with a Type III, IV, V systems, and all multi -family dwellings. 60 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Table V — Minimum Setback Distances (Feet) Feature Sewage Tank Soil Treatment and Dispersal Area Water supply wells less than 50 feet deep and not encountering at least 10 feet of impervious material 50 100 Any other water supply well or buried suction pipe 50 50 Buried pipe distributing water under pressure 10 10 Occupied buildings and buildings with basements or crawl spaces 10 20 Non -occupied structures, deck post footings 5 10 Property lines 10 10 Above ground and in -ground swimming pools 10 10 The Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL)of: 7� Natural Environment Lakes 150 150 Recreational Development Lakes 75 75 General Development Lakes 75 75 Unclassified Body of Water 75 75 Transition Rivers/Streams 150 150 Tributary Rivers/Streams 150 150 St. Croix River -Rural Districts 150 150 St. Croix River -Urban Districts 100 100 Blufflines: St. Croix River Blufflines 40 40 Shoreland Blufflines 20 20 16.3 Other Technical Requirements for Systems. The following items are required for specific designs as determined in Section 17 to Section 21. (1) Employ components registered under Minnesota Rules 7083.4070 and 7083.4080 that are installed, used and operated according to the conditions placed on the registration. (2) Employ structural components and joint sealants that meet or exceed the system's expected design life. (3) For acceptable treatment of septic tank effluent by soil, the soil treatment and dispersal systems must meet the following requirements: (A) A minimum three-foot vertical soil treatment and dispersal zone must be designed below the distribution media that meets the following criteria: i. The zone must be above the periodically saturated soil and bedrock. The zone must be continuous and not be interrupted by seasonal zones of saturation. ii. Any soil layers that are any of the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textures classified as sand with 35 to 50 percent rock fragments must be credited at only one-half their thickness as part of the necessary treatment zone. Soil layers regardless of soil texture, with greater than 50 percent rock fragments must not be credited as part of the necessary treatment zone. Layers that are given full, partial, or no credit must, in any layering arrangement in the soil profile, be cumulatively added to determine the amount of soil treatment zone in accordance with other soil treatment zone provisions. iii. The entire treatment zone depth must be within seven feet from final grade. 61 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (B) The distribution system or media must not place a hydraulic head greater than 30 inches above the bottom of the absorption area. (4) The system's absorption area must be in original soil. (5) The system's absorption area and mound absorption ratio must be sized according to the Table VI Loading Rate for Determining Bottom Absorption Area and Absorption Ratios Using Detailed Soil Descriptions, or by using Table Vla if not using detailed soil descriptions. Soils with a loading rate less than 0.45 gallons per day per square foot cannot be used in a Type I or Type II system for new construction. Table VI Loading Rates for Determining Bottom Absorption Area and Absorption Ratios Using Detailed Soil Descriptions*. Treatment Level Treatment Level C Treatment Levels Treatment Levels A, C A, A-2, B, and B-2 A-2, B, and B-2 Soil Structure and Absorption Area Mound Absorption Absorption Area Mound Absorption USDA Soil Texture Grade Loading Rate Ratio Loading Rate Ratio*** (gpd/ftz) (gpd/ftz) Sand, coarse sand, loamy sand, loamy Single grain, coarse sand, fine sand, granular, blocky, or very fine sand, loamy ** 1.0 ** 1.0 fine sand, loamy very Prismatic structure; fine sand, 35-50% rock Weak grade fragments Sand, coarse sand, Single grain, loamy sand, loamy granular, blocky, or coarse sand, <35% rock prismatic structure; 1.2 1.0 1.6 1.0 fragments weak grade Fine sand, very fine Single grain, sand, loamy fine sand, granular, blocky, or loamy very fine sand, prismatic structure; 0.6 2.0 1.0 1.6 >35% rock fragments weak grade Sandy loam, coarse Granular, blocky, or sandy loam, fine sandy Prismatic structure; 0.78 1.5 1.0 1.6 loam, very fine sandy weak to strong grade loam Sandy loam, coarse sandy loam, fine sandy Platy with weak loam, very fine sandy grade or massive 0.68 1.8 0.87 1.8 loam Granular, blocky, or Loam prismatic structure; 0.6 2.0 0.78 2.1 weak to strong grade Platy with weak Loam grade or massive 0.52 2.3 0.68 2.4 Granular, blocky, or Silt loam, silt prismatic structure; 0.5 2.4 0.78 2.1 weak to strong grade Silt loam, silt Platy with weak 0.42 2.9 0.65 2.5 grade or massive Granular, blocky, or Clay loam, sandy clay prismatic structure; 0.45 2.6 0.6 2.7 loam, silty clay loam moderate to strong grade 62 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Clay, sandy clay, silty clay *Only includes soil horizons with <50% rock fragments, with very friable and friable consistence, and loose non - cemented sands. Soil horizons with >50% rock fragments must not come in contact with soil dispersal system media. ** Conduct percolation test and size under Table VIa. May need to be designed as a Type III System under Section 19 of this Chapter. *** Assume a hydraulic loading rate to the sand at 1.6 gpd/ft2. Table VIa Loading Rates for Determining Bottom Absorption Area and Absorption Ratios using Percolation Tests Treatment Level C Treatment Level C Treatment Levels A, Treatment Levels A, Percolation Rate Absorption Area Mound Absorption A-2, B, and B-2 A-2, B, and B-2 (Minutes Per Inch) Loading Rate Ratio Absorption Area Mound Absorption (gpd/ Loading Rate d/ft2) Ratio <0.1 - 1.0 - 1.0 0.1 to 5 1.2 1.0 1.6 1.0 0.1 to 5 (fine sand 0.6 2.0 1.0 1.6 and loamy fine sand 6 to 15 0.78 1.5 1.0 1.6 16 to 30 0.6 2.0 0.78 2.0 31 to 45 0.5 2.4 0.78 2.0 46 to 60 0.45 2.6 0.6 2.6 >60* - - - - ** Soil with too high a percentage of clay for installation of a Type I, or Type II system. Systems in soils with this Percolation Rate must be a Type 111, Type IV or Type V system. (6) If drainfield rock medium is employed, a durable, nonwoven geotextile fabric must be used to cover the distribution rock medium. The fabric must be of sufficient strength to undergo installation without rupture. The fabric must permit passage of water without passage of overlying soil material into the rock medium. (7) All excavation into the absorption area, or surface preparation of the upper 12 inches of the absorption area, must be in a manner to expose the original soil structure in an unsmeared and uncompacted condition. Excavation is only allowed when the soil moisture content is at or less than the plastic limit and is not frozen or freezing. (8) Excavation equipment or other vehicles must not be driven on the excavated or prepared absorption area. Foot traffic on these areas must be minimized and not cause compaction. The exposed areas must be immediately covered with the media or designed coverage materials. If the areas are exposed to direct rainfall, they must be allowed to dry and must be re -prepared according to Section 17.3(3)(J ). (9) A minimum of six inches of topsoil borrow shall be placed over the system. (10) A close -growing, vigorous vegetative cover must be established over the soil treatment and dispersal system and other vegetatively disturbed areas. The sodding, seeding, or vegetation establishment shall begin immediately after the placement of the topsoil borrow. If the climatic season does not allow immediate establishment of vegetation, the soil treatment and dispersal system must be protected from erosion and excessive frost and a vegetative cover must be established as soon as favorable climatic conditions exist. The vegetative cover established must not interfere with the hydraulic performance of the system and shall provide adequate frost and erosion protection. Trees, shrubs, deep-rooted plants, or hydrophytic plants must not be planted on the system. 63 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (11) Sewage tank effluent concentrations to the soil dispersal system must not exceed a BOD concentration of 170 mg/L, a CBOD5 concentration of 125mg/L, a TSS concentration of 60 mg/L, or an oil and grease concentration of 25 mg/L. (12) The distribution media must not be in contact with soils that have any sand soil texture containing 50 percent or more rock fragments or any soils that have a percolation rate of less than 0.1 minutes per inch. (13) The contour loading rate for soil dispersal systems must be between 1 and 12 gallons per lineal foot per day 16.4 Nitrogen BMP. At a minimum, systems designed under this Chapter with a design flow of greater than 2,500 gallons per day, which impact water quality of an aquifer, as defined in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725.0100, subpart 21, must employ best management practices for nitrogen reduction developed by the Commissioner to mitigate water quality impacts to groundwater. 16.5 Final treatment and dispersal for MSTS: (1) General. Final treatment and dispersal must be according to applicable design requirements of this Chapter, except as modified in this Section. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parts 144 and 146, prescribe additional design regulations applicable to certain systems. At a minimum, flow amounts to be used for the purpose of this Section must be derived from Table I or II in Section 12 of this Chapter. (2) Setbacks. MSTS must meet all setbacks in Table V. (3) Minimal Soil and Site Conditions. The site proposed to support the soil treatment and dispersal system must: (A) Have the upper 18 inches of the absorption area: i. Be original soil; ii. Have a soil loading rate of greater than zero as listed in Table VI or Table VIa, in Section 16.3; iii. Be above the periodically saturated soil or bedrock; (B) Not be a wetland or floodway; (C) Not be in an area in which surface runoff from precipitation will concentrate (concave hillslope); and (D) Allow the system to be placed on contour. (4) Inspection Pipes. Inspection pipes must be located to adequately assess the hydraulic performance of the entire soil dispersal system. (5) Soil Absorption Area Sizing (A) Effluent loading rates to the soil shall be no greater than loading rates prescribed in: i. Table VI, or Table VIa in Section 16.3, if the absorption area receives treatment level C effluent as described in Minnesota Rules 7083.4030. ii. Section 21. (6) If the absorption area receives effluent not as described in Section 16.5 (5)(A), the absorption area shall be increased by 50 percent of the amount derived in Table VI or VIa, and zoned for dosing and resting. (7) System Geometry, Lawn Area Sizing, and Groundwater Mounding. The system geometry and lawn area sizing shall be sized to prevent groundwater mounding from violating the unsaturated zone beneath the soil system according to Section 16.5 (9) for proper hydraulic functioning, and for concentration reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus, if applicable. (8) Reserve Land Area. Additional set -aside land area of 100 percent of the size determined in Section 16.5 (5) to 16.5(7) is required for systems whose absorption area receives effluent meeting treatment level A or B in part Minnesota Rules, 7083.4030 or designed in accordance with Section 21. Additional land area of 50 percent of the size determined in Section 16.5 (5) to 16.5(7) is 64 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations required for systems whose absorption area receives treatment level C in part Minnesota Rules, 7083.4030. The reserve land area must be identified and protected for future use if necessary. Replacement MSTS proposed on sites that cannot meet this requirement are allowed to be exempted by the Department. (9) Soil Treatment Zone. For treatment of effluent by soil to meet the performance criteria in Section 4.8 (3) of this Chapter, the soil treatment and dispersal systems must meet the requirements below: (A) For soil treatment and dispersal systems that receive treatment level A-2, B-2, or C effluent as described in Minnesota Rules, 7083.4030, the soil treatment zone requirements must meet Section 16.3 (3). The required three-foot vertical separation must be maintained during operation after accounting for groundwater mounding. (B) For soil treatment and dispersal systems that receive treatment level A or B effluent as described in Minnesota Rules, 7083.4030, the soil treatment zone requirements must meet or exceed the requirements of Section 16.3 (3), unless modified in Table VI in Section 16.3 (5), with a minimum vertical separation of two feet. The required vertical separation must be maintained during operation after accounting for groundwater mounding. (C) The minimum vertical separation can be determined by the method described in Section 21.1(3) to meet provisions of Section 4.8 (3). (D) An observation well to measure the height of the periodically saturated soil beneath the operating system must be installed and monitored according to the operating permit. (10) Nitrogen Reduction. MSTS systems must employ nitrogen mitigation methods to achieve compliance with Section 4.8 (4), and must be monitored in accordance with Section 11.4 of this Chapter. (11) Phosphorus Reduction. Phosphorus mitigation methods must be employed to achieve compliance with Section 4.8 (5), if natural processes are found inadequate. (12) Design Report. All information required in this Section shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department prior to system construction, including all applicable information delineated on a map. 16.6 Collection Systems. The collection system for the collection of sewage from multiple buildings or multiple other establishments discharging into an MSTS must be designed: (1) According to the Prescriptive Designs and Design Guidance for Advanced Designers, incorporated by reference under Section 5.2(4); or (2) By a Minnesota licensed professional engineer. 16.7 Construction Requirements. MSTS construction must be according to applicable construction requirements of this Chapter. 16.8 MSTS Design Standards. The design standards for new construction or replacement MSTS are provided to meet many of the public health and environmental outcomes in Section 4. In some cases, specific design methods must be employed in addition to the standards provided in this Chapter. 16.9 Prohibited Discharges. MSTS must not receive storm water or other sources of clean water. 16.10 Component Longevity. All structural components of the system and sealants must be designed to operate throughout the system's design life. 16.11 Flow Measurement Device. A flow measure device must be employed on all MSTS. 65 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 16.12 System Access. The system must be designed with sufficient access and ports to monitor the system as applicable. 16.13 Registered Products. MSTS must employ components registered under parts 7083.4000 to 7083.4110 or have sufficient regulatory oversight in the operating permit. 16.14 Designer Inspections. The MSTS designer must observe critical periods of the system construction. The designer shall prepare a report of observed construction activities and submit the report to the Department prior to the final inspection. 66 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 17 TYPE I SYSTEMS 17.1 Type I Systems. Systems designed according to this Section are considered Type I Systems, as defined in Section 2.2 (132). Systems in soils with a loading rate less than 0.45 gallons per day per square foot must not be used in a Type I system for new construction. 17.2 Trenches and Seepage Beds (1) Characteristics. To qualify as a trench or seepage bed system, the system must meet or exceed the following requirements: (A) Employ flow values in Section 12. (B) Meet or exceed applicable technical requirements of Section 13, Section 14, and Section 15. (C) Meet or exceed the requirements of Sections 16.2 and 16.3. (2) General. Seepage bed placement must be limited to areas having natural slopes of less than six (6) percent. Absorption areas for seepage beds must not be placed in soils with a loading rate of less than 0.45 gallons per day per square foot or as shown in Table VI or VIa. Seepage beds must not be located in floodplains. (3) Sizing of Trenches and Seepage Beds (A) The trench bottom absorption area is calculated by dividing the design flow by the appropriate soil loading rate in Table VI or Table VIa. (B) If gravity distribution is used in seepage beds, the seepage bed absorption area is calculated by dividing the design flow by the soil loading rate and then multiplying that value by 1.5. (C) If pressure distribution is used in seepage beds, the seepage bed absorption area is determined by dividing the design flow by the soil loading rate in Table VI or Table VIa. (D) The minimum sidewall absorption is six (6) inches. The bottom absorption area is allowed to be reduced, for gravity distribution trenches only, by the following: Sidewall Absorption- Sizing Inches Equivalent 12-17 20% 18-23 34% 24 40% (E) A 40 percent reduction is not allowed with a loading rate of 1.2 gallons per day per square foot. (4) Design and Construction of Trenches and Seepage Beds (A) Trenches must be no more than 36 inches wide. Any excavation wider than 36 inches is a seepage bed. A seepage bed must not be wider than 12 feet if gravity distribution is used and 25 feet if pressure distribution is used. Natural, undisturbed soil must exist between multiple trenches and seepage beds. Multiple seepage beds must be spaced at one-half the bed width. (B) A vertical inspection pipe at least four inches in diameter must be installed and secured in the distribution medium of every trench and seepage bed. The inspection pipe must be located at an end opposite from where the sewage tank effluent enters the medium. The inspection pipe must have three -eighths inch or larger perforations spaced vertically no more than six inches apart. At least two perforations must be located in the distribution medium. Perforations must not be located above the geotextile cover or wrap. The inspection pipe must extend to the bottom of the distribution medium, be secured, and be capped flush with or above finished grade. 67 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (C) The top and bottom of the distribution medium must be level along the contour. Sidewalls must be as vertical as practical and not intentionally sloped. (D) The minimum depth of soil cover, including topsoil borrow, over the distribution medium is 12 inches. (E) Trenches or seepage beds must be backfilled and crowned above finished grade to allow for settling. The top six inches of the backfill must have the same texture as the adjacent soil. (F) Trenches and seepage beds in which the distribution media is in contact with soils that are sand, loamy sand, fine sand, or loamy fine sand or soils with a percolation rate of 0.1 to 5 minutes per inch must employ one or more of the following measures: i. Employ pressure distribution according to Section 14.4; ii. Divide the total dispersal area into multiple units that employ serial distribution, with each dispersal unit having no greater than 15 percent of the required bottom absorption area; iii. Have a vertical separation distance of at least five feet. 17.3 Mounds (1) Mound System Requirements. To qualify as a mound system, the system must meet or exceed the following requirements: (A) Employ flow values in Section 12. (B) Meet or exceed applicable technical requirements of Section 13, Section 14, and Section 15. (C) Meet or exceed the requirements of Sections 16.2 and 16.3. (2) Location of Mounds (A) The upper 18 inches of the original soil mound absorption area must have a minimum loading rate of 0.45 gallons per day per square foot and a mound absorption ratio greater than zero, but no more than 2.6 in Table VI or Table VIa. The upper 18 inches of the absorption area must also be above the periodically saturated soil or bedrock. (B) For previously developed sites, the upper 12 inches of the original soil mound absorption area must have a mound absorption ratio of greater than zero in Table Vlor Table VIa. The upper 12 inches of the absorption area must also be above the periodically saturated soil or bedrock. (C) Setbacks must be according to Table V. Setbacks must be measured from the original soil absorption area. (D) On slopes of one percent or greater and where the original soil mound absorption ratio is 2.6 or greater in Table VI or Table VIa, mounds must not be located where the ground surface contour lines that lie directly below the long axis of the distribution media bed represent a swale or draw, unless the contour lines have a radius of curvature greater than 100 feet. Mounds must never be located in swales or draws where the radius of curvature of the contour lines is less than 50 feet. (E) In no case shall mounds be placed on slopes greater than 12 percent. (3) Mound Design and Construction (A) The mound distribution media bed area consists of bottom area only and must be calculated by dividing the design flow by 1.0 gallons per square foot per day. (B) Mound distribution media bed width is determined according to Section 16.3 (13) and must be no wider than ten feet. (C) Clean sand must be used to elevate the mound distribution media bed and must consist of sound, durable material that conforms to the following requirements: 68 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Sieve Size Percent Passing No.4 95-100 No.8 80-100 No.10 0-100 No.40 0-100 No.60 0-40 No.200 0-5 Clean sand must also contain less than three percent deleterious substances and be free of organic impurities. (D) The original soil mound absorption area is determined by multiplying the original soil mound absorption length by the original soil mound absorption width. The original soil absorption width is calculated by multiplying the mound distribution media bed width by the mound absorption ratio. The mound absorption ratio of the upper 18 inches of soil for new construction, or 12 inches of soil for previously developed sites, in the proposed original soil mound absorption area shall be determined according to Table VI or Table VIa. (E) The required original soil absorption width for mounds constructed on slopes from zero to one percent must be centered under the mound distribution media bed width. The required original mound soil absorption width constructed on slopes greater than one percent must be measured downslope from the upslope edge of the mound distribution media bed width and measured in the direction of the original land slope and perpendicular to the original contours. (F) The side slopes on the mound must not be steeper than three horizontal units to one vertical unit and shall extend beyond the required absorption area, if necessary. (G) Distribution of effluent over the mound distribution media bed must be by level perforated pipe under pressure according to Section 14 and Section 15. (H) The supply pipe from the pump to the original soil absorption area must be installed before surface preparation of the original mound soil absorption area. The trench excavated for the supply pipe must be carefully backfilled and compacted to prevent seepage of effluent. (1) Vegetation in excess of two inches in length and dead organic debris including leaf mats must be removed from the original soil mound absorption area. Trees must be cut nearly flush with the ground and stumps must not be removed. (J) The original soil mound absorption area must be roughened by backhoe teeth, moldboard, or chisel plow. The soil must be roughened to a depth of eight inches. Discing is allowed if the upper eight inches of soil has a texture of sandy loam or coarser. If plowed, fixrrows must be thrown uphill and there must not be a dead furrow in the original soil mound absorption area. A rubber tired tractor is allowed for plowing or discing. Rototilling or pulverizing the soil is not allowed. The original soil must not be excavated or moved more than one foot from its original location during soil surface preparation. (K) All surface preparation must take place when the upper 12 inches of soil has a moisture content of less than the plastic limit and soil conditions allow field testing of soil properties and these properties are maintained throughout the installation. (L) Prior to placement of six inches of clean sand, vehicles must not be driven on the original soil mound absorption area before or after the surface preparation is completed. The clean sand must immediately be placed on the prepared surface. (M) If rainfall occurs on the prepared surface, the site must be allowed to dry below the plastic limit and roughened as described in Section 17.3 (3)(J). (N) The clean sand must be placed by using a construction technique that minimizes compaction. If the clean sand is driven on for construction, a crawler or track -type tractor 69 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations must be used. At least six inches of sand must be kept beneath equipment to minimize compaction of the prepared surface. (0) A minimum of 12 inches of clean sand must be placed in contact with the bottom area of the mound distribution media bed and must be uniformly tapered to cover the entire original soil absorption area. Other sandy materials are allowed to be used outside of this area to complete construction of the mound. (P) The top of the clean sand layer upon which the mound distribution media bed is placed must be level in all directions. (Q) A vertical inspection pipe at least four inches in diameter must be installed and secured at the distribution medium and sand interface. The inspection pipe must have three -eighths inch or larger perforations spaced vertically no more than six inches apart. At least two perforations must be located in the distribution medium. Perforations must not be located above the permeable synthetic fabric, if used. The inspection pipe must extend to the bottom of the distribution medium, be secured, and be capped, flush with or above finished grade. (R) On slopes of one percent or greater, the upslope edge of the mound absorption bed must be placed on the contour. (S) The sidewalls of the mound absorption bed must be as vertical as practical and not intentionally sloped. (T) A minimum of six inches of sand, sandy loam or loam material must be placed on the top of the mound absorption bed and sloped upwards towards the center of the mound a minimum of ten horizontal units to one vertical unit. (U) Construction vehicles must not be allowed on the distribution media until backfill is placed. (V) A minimum of six inches of topsoil borrow must be placed over the entire mound. (W) A vegetative cover must be established over the entire area of the mound. The mound shall be protected until a vegetative cover is established by use of erosion control. The established vegetative cover shall not interfere with the hydraulic performance of the system and shall provide adequate frost and erosion protection. 17.4 At -Grade Systems (1) At -Grade Systems. To qualify as an at -grade system, the system must meet or exceed the following requirements: (A) Employ flow values in Section 12. (B) Meet or exceed the applicable technical requirements of Section 13, Section 14, and Section 15. (C) Meet or exceed the requirements of Sections 16.2 and 16.3. (2) Location of At -Grade Systems (A) The upper 12 inches of the absorption area must have a loading rate of 0.45 gallons per day per square foot or greater as shown in Table VI or Table VIa. (B) At -grade systems must not be installed in areas with slopes greater than 12 percent. (C) Setbacks must be according to Table V. Setbacks must be measured from the original soil absorption area. (3) Design and Construction of At -Grade Systems (A) The at -grade absorption width must be determined by dividing the contour loading rate, according to Section 16.3 (13), by the soil loading rate, and must not exceed a width of 15 feet. The at -grade absorption width for slopes of one percent or greater does not include any width of the media necessary to support the upslope side of the pipe. (B) The at -grade absorption length must be calculated by dividing the design flow by the soil loading rate found in Table VI or VIa, for the upper 12 inches of soil and dividing by the absorption bed width. 70 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Table VII At -Grade Contour Loading Rates Contour Perc Loading Soil Loading Rate Rate Texture Other Characteristics in Rate (m i) upper 48 inches (GPD/ft) No textural change 6 <0.1 0.00 Coarse Sand Saturated soil <3' 5 Bedrock<4' No textural change 8 Sand Layers of other textures 7 0.1 to 5.0 1.60 Loamy Sand Fine Banding 4 Saturated soil <3' S Sand Bedrock<4' S Strong to moderate structure 7 No textural change Weak structure Sand y 6 6 to 15 1.00 Loam Layers of other textures Platy or massive structure Saturated soil <3' S Bedrock<4' Strong to moderate structure 6 Loam No textural change Silt Loam Weak structure Silt 5 16 to 60 0.6-0.78 Clay Loam Layers of other textures y Sandy Clay Platy or massive structure Silty Clay Saturated soil <3' 4 Bedrock<4' Strong to moderate structure 3 No textural change Weak structure Clay 61 120 0.0-0.3 Sandy Clay Layers of other textures 2 >120 Silty Clay Platy or massive structure Saturated soil <3' 2 Bedrock<4' (C) At -grade systems must employ pressurized distribution by meeting or exceeding the applicable requirements of Section 14.4 and Section 15 except where modified by this section. At -grade systems located on slopes of one percent or greater require only one distribution pipe located on the upslope edge of the distribution media, with the absorption bed width being measured from the distribution pipe to the downslope edge of the media. Multiple distribution pipes are allowed to be used to provide even distribution, if necessary, based on site conditions. (D) The upslope edge of an at -grade absorption bed must be installed along the natural contour. (E) At -grade materials must be placed using construction techniques that minimize compaction. 71 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (F) Six inches of loamy or sandy cover material must be installed over the distribution media. Cover must extend at least five feet from the ends of the rock bed and be sloped to divert surface water. Side slopes must not be steeper than four horizontal units to one vertical unit. Six inches of topsoil borrow must be placed on the cover material. (G) One vertical inspection pipe of at least four inches in diameter must be installed along the downslope portion of the absorption bed. The inspection pipe must have three -eights inch or larger perforations spaced vertically no more than six inches apart. Perforations must not exist above the distribution medium. The inspection pipe must extend to the absorption bed and soil interface, be secured, and be capped, flush with or above finished grade. (H) A vegetative cover must be established over the entire area of the at -grade. The at -grade shall be protected until a vegetative cover is established by use of erosion control. The established vegetative cover shall not interfere with the hydraulic performance of the system and shall provide adequate frost and erosion protection. 72 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 18 TYPE II SYSTEMS 18.1 Type II Systems. Systems designed according to this Section are considered Type II systems. Systems in soils with a loading rate less than 0.45 gallons per day per square foot must not be used in a Type II system for new construction. 18.2 Floodplain Areas (1) General. SSTS must be designed under this part if the system is proposed to be located in a floodplain. A system located in a floodplain must meet or exceed the following requirements: (A) Employ flow values in Section 12. (B) Meet or exceed applicable technical requirements of Section 13, Section 14, and Section 15, except as modified in this part. (C) Meet or exceed the requirements of Sections 17.2 to 17.4. (D) Meet or exceed requirements of Section 16.2 and 16.3, except as modified in this part. (E) Meet the requirements of Section 18.2 (2) to Section 18.2 (11). (2) State and Local Requirements. The allowed use of systems in floodplains must be according to state and local floodplain requirements. (3) Location of System. An SSTS must not be located in a floodway and, whenever possible, placement within any part of the floodplain should be avoided. If no alternative exists, a system is allowed to be placed within the flood fringe if the requirements of Section 18.2 (4) to Section 18.2 (11) are met. (4) Openings. There must be no inspection pipe or other installed opening from the distribution media to the soil surface. (5) Highest Feasible Area. An SSTS must be located on the highest feasible area of the lot and must have the location preference over all other improvements, except the water supply well. If the ten- year flood data are available, the bottom of the distribution media must be at least as high as the elevation of the ten-year flood. (6) Pump. If a pump is used to distribute effluent to the soil treatment and dispersal system, provisions shall be made to prevent the pump from operating when inundated with floodwaters. (7) Raising Elevation. When it is necessary to raise the elevation of the soil treatment system to meet the vertical separation distance requirements, a mound system as specified in Section 17.3 is allowed to be used with the following additional requirements: (A) The elevation of the bottom of the mound bed absorption area must be at least on -half foot above the ten-year flood elevation, if ten-year flood data are available. (B) In no case shall the sand fill for the mound exceed 48 inches below the mound bed absorption area. (C) Inspection pipes must not be installed unless the top of the mound is above the 100-year flood elevation. (D) The placement of clean sand and other fill must be done according to any community adopted floodplain management ordinance. (8) Inundation of Top. When the top of a sewage tank is inundated, the dwelling must cease discharging sewage into it. (9) Backflow. Backflow prevention of liquid into the building when the system is inundated must be provided. If a holding tank is used, the system must be designed to permit rapid diversion of sewage into the holding tank when the system is inundated. (10) Holding Tank. If a holding tank is used to serve a dwelling, the holding tank's capacity must equal 100 gallons times the number of bedrooms times the number of days between the ten-year stage on the rising limb of the 100-year flood hydrograph and the ten-year stage on the falling limb of the hydrograph, of 1,000 gallons, whichever is greater. The holding tank must be accessible for removal of tank contents under flooded conditions. 73 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (11) Water Level Above Top. Whenever the water level has risen above the top of a sewage tank, the tank must be pumped to remove all solids and liquids after the flood has receded and before use of the system is resumed. 18.3 Privies (1) Privies Allowed. Privies shall only be considered when there is no water supplied to the dwelling. (2) Pit Privies and Vault Privies. Pit privies shall not be installed where the bottom of the pit is less than three feet above the saturated soil or bedrock. A vault privy shall be used in areas not meeting the three foot separation. The vault of a vault privy shall be constructed in the same manner as a sewage tank in accordance with Section 13. (3) Setbacks. Privies shall be set back from surface waters, buildings, property lines, and water supply wells as prescribed in Table V. (4) Privy Sizing. Pits or vaults shall be of sufficient capacity for the dwelling they serve, but shall have at least 50 cubic feet of capacity. The sides of the pit shall be curbed to prevent cave-in. The privy shall be constructed so as to be easily maintained and it shall be insect proof. The door and seat shall be self -closing. All exterior openings, including vent openings, shall be screened. (5) Vented. Privies shall be adequately vented. (6) Maintenance. When the privy is filled to within one foot of the top of the pit, the solids shall be removed. (7) Abandonment. Abandoned pits shall have the solids removed and be filled with clean earth and slightly mounded to allow for settling. Removed solids shall be disposed of in accordance with Section 22. 18.4 Holding Tanks (1) Holding Tanks Residential Use. Holding tanks may be installed on previously developed sites, for use on a temporary basis for periods of up to 12 months, during which time measures are taken to provide municipal sewer service or the installation of an approved system as provided in this Chapter. Holding tanks may also be considered on a permanent basis on previously developed seasonal sites where occupancy is no more than 180 days per year, water use is no more than 75 gallons per day and a development agreement has been submitted and approved by the Department. Development Agreement shall be recorded against the property in the office of Property Records and Taxpayer Services. (2) Holding Tanks Non -Residential Use. Holding tanks may be considered on a permanent basis for non-residential, low water use establishments with a sewage flow of 150 gallons per day or less, subject to approval by the Department. Holding Tanks Required. Holding tanks must be used for floor drains for vehicle parking areas and existing facilities potentially generating hazardous waste. (3) Holding Tank RequirementsTo qualify as a holding tank, the system must: (A) Meet or exceed the requirements of Section 13.2 or 13.3 (B) Meet or exceed the requirements of Section 16.2(6). (C) Meet or exceed the requirements of Section 16.3 (2). (4) Watertightness All tanks used as holding tanks must be tested once placed at the final location for watertightness as specified in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080.2010. (5) Holding Tank Access. A cleanout pipe of at least six inches in diameter must extend to the ground surface and be provided with seals to prevent odor emissions and exclude insects and vermin. A maintenance hole of at least 20 inches in least dimension must extend through the cover to a point within 12 inches, but no closer than six inches, below finished grade. If the maintenance hole is covered with less than six inches of soil, the cover must be secured according the Section 13.18. (6) Holding Tank Sizing. For a dwelling, the minimum size is 1,000 gallons or 400 gallons times the number of bedrooms, whichever is greater. For other establishments, the minimum capacity shall be at least five times the design flow. Tank sizing for floodplain areas must be calculated according to Section 18.2 (9). 74 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (7) Location. Holding tanks must be located in an area readily accessible to the pump truck under all weather conditions and where accidental spillage during pumping will not create a nuisance and must meet the setback requirements of Table V. (8) Alarm Required. Holding tanks must have an alarm device to minimize the chance of accidental sewage overflow unless regularly scheduled pumping is used. An alarm device shall identify when the holding tank is at 75 percent capacity. (9) Maintenance Contract. A contract for disposal and treatment of the septage shall be maintained by the owner with a licensed Maintainer. 75 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 19 TYPE III SYSTEMS 19.1 Type III Systems. A system that deviates from the requirements in Section 17 is considered a Type III system. A system in soils with a loading rate of less than 0.45 gallons per day per square foot may be installed on previously developed sites as a Type III system. Deviations from the standards in Section 17 of the Chapter must be submitted to the Department or for approval or denial. However, no deviation is allowed from the following standards; and, at a minimum a Type III system must: (1) Employ design flow values set forth in Section 12. (2) Meet the requirements of Section 13. (3) Meet or exceed technical requirements in Section 14. (4) Meet the requirements in Section 15 with mound and at -grade systems required to have pressure distribution. (5) Provide flow measurement. (6) Meet the requirements of Section 16.2 and 16.4. (7) Meet the requirements of Section 16.3 (1), Section 16.3 (2), Section 16.3 (3), Section 16.3 (6), Section 16.3 (7), Section 16.3 (8), and Section 16.3 (9). (8) Follow the absorption loading rates in Table VI or Table VIa. (9) For previously developed sites, if the site cannot accommodate a soil treatment and dispersal system sized in accordance with Table VI or Table VIa, a smaller soil treatment and dispersal system is allowed to be constructed if it employs flow restriction devices that do not allow loadings in excess of those in Table VI or Table VIa. In those cases where a loading rate or mound absorption ratio is not listed in Table VI or Table VIa, an alternative loading rate or absorption ratio must be proposed. 19.2 Flow Restriction Device. Absorption areas sized smaller than a Type I system must employ flow restriction devices that to not allow absorption area loadings in excess of those in Table VI or Table VIa. This provision does not apply to the original soil, clean sand absorption area of a mound system. 19.3 Previously Developed Sites. Type III systems may be used on previously developed sites only when a Type I or Type II system cannot be installed or is not the most suitable treatment. 19.4 Type III Systems Allowed. Type III systems will be allowed for undeveloped lots only when two Type I or Type II soil treatment and dispersal areas have been identified on the lot, in addition to the area utilized by the Type III soil treatment and dispersal area. The lot must be able to accommodate long-term sewage treatment in addition to the area utilized by the Type III system. 19.5 Graywater Systems (1) General. Graywater Systems shall be classified as a Type III system and must meet or exceed the following requirements: (A) Employ 60 percent of the flow values in Section 12. (B) Meet or exceed applicable requirements of Section 13, Section 14, and Section 15, except as modified in this part. (C) Meet or exceed the requirements of Section 17. (D) Meet or exceed the requirements of Section 16.2 and Section 16.3. (2) Toilet Waste. Toilet waste must not be discharged to a graywater system. 76 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (3) Sewage Tanks. The liquid capacity of a graywater septic tank serving a dwelling must be based on the number of bedrooms existing and anticipated in the dwelling served and shall be at least as large as the capacities given in Table VIII. Table VIII — Minimum Septic Tank Capacity for raywater Systems Number of Bedrooms _ Tank 1 Tank 2 Two or less 1,000 500 Three 1,000 500 Four to Five 1,000 1,000 Six to Seven 1,000 1,000 Eight to Nine 1,500 1,000 Ten or More Septic tank shall be sized as: (2,000 + ((# of bedrooms - 9) X 150)). 77 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 20 TYPE IV SYSTEMS 20.1 General. A system designed according to this part is considered a Type IV System. This system must: (1) Employ design flow values set forth in Section 12. (2) Meet or exceed applicable technical requirements of Section 13, Section 14, and Section 15. (3) Meet or exceed the requirements of Section 16.2. (4) Meet or exceed the requirements of Section 16.3except as modified in this part. (5) Meet or exceed the requirements of Table IX. (6) Meet soil dispersal requirements of Section 17, except that the reductions in Section 17.2(3)(D)) are not applicable. 20.2 Previously Developed Sites. Type IV systems may be used on previously developed sites only when a Type I or Type II system cannot be installed or is not the most suitable treatment. 20.3 Type IV Systems Allowed. Type IV systems will be allowed for undeveloped lots only when two Type I or Type II soil treatment and dispersal areas have been identified on the lot, in addition to the area utilized by the Type IV soil treatment and dispersal area. The lot must be able to accommodate long-term sewage treatment in addition to the area utilized by the Type IV system. Table IX TREATMENT COMPONENT PERFORMANCE LEVELS AND METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION BY TEXTURE GROUP'. Texture Grou 2 All Sands and Sandy Loam, Clay, Clay Loam Vertical Separation (inches) Loamy Sands Loam, Silt Loam 12 — 173 Treatment Level A, Uniform Distribution, Timed Dosing 3 Treatment Level B Uniform Treatment Level B, 18 - 35 Distribution, Timed Dosing Uniform Distribution Treatment Level —36+3 A-2 or B-2 Uniform , Treatment Level A-2 or B-2, Uniform Distribution, Distribution, Treatment Level C Treatment Level C ' The treatment component performance levels correspond with those established for treatment components under the product testing requirements in Table III of Minnesota Rules, 7083.4030. 2 With less than 50 percent rock fragments. 3 Additional vertical separation distance is required as determined in Section 16.3(3). 20.4 Soil Loading Rates. The absorption area and mound absorption ratio must be sized according to Table VI or Table VIa. 78 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 21 TYPE V SYSTEMS 21.1 Type V Systems. A system designed according to this part is considered a Type V system. The system must: (1) Employ design flow values set forth in Section 12. (2) Meet the requirements of Section 16.2. (3) Be designed with vertical separation that ensures adequate sewage dispersal and treatment. Design factors to consider include, but are not limited to, effluent quality, loading rates, groundwater mounding if loading rates are in excess of those in Table VI or Table VIa, loading methods, and soil conditions. SSTS must not contaminate underground waters or zones of periodic saturation with viable fecal organisms. 21.2 Previously Developed Sites. Type V systems may be used on previously developed sites only when a Type I or Type 11 system cannot be installed or is not the most suitable treatment. 21.3 Type V Systems Allowed. Type V systems will be allowed for undeveloped lots only when two Type I or Type 11 soil treatment and dispersal areas have been identified on the lot, in addition to the area utilized by the Type V soil treatment and dispersal area. The lot must be able to accommodate long-term sewage treatment in addition to the area utilized by the Type V system. 79 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 22 MAINTENANCE 22.1 Management Plans Required. All new and replacement SSTS must be operated in accordance with the management plan submitted, reviewed and approved by the Department prior to issuance of a construction permit. At a minimum, management plans must include the following: (1) maintenance requirements, including frequency; (2) operational requirements, including which tasks the owner can perform and which tasks a licensed service provider or maintainer must perform; (3) monitoring requirements; (4) requirements that the owner notify the Department when the management plan requirements are not met; (5) disclosure of the location and condition of the additional soil treatment and dispersal area on the lot or serving that residency; and (6) other requirements determined by the Department. 22.2 General. SSTS and all components must be maintained in compliance with this Chapter and manufacturer requirements. 22.3 Frequency of Assessment. The owner of an SSTS or the owner's agent shall regularly, but in no case less frequently than every three years: (1) Assess whether sewage tanks leak below the designed operating depth and whether sewage tank tops, riser joints, and riser connections leak through visual evidence of major defects. (2) Measure or remove the accumulation of scum, grease, and other floating materials at the top of each septic tank and compartment, along with the sludge, which consists of solids denser than water. 22.4 Maintenance Permit and Reporting. Prior to performing the maintenance required in Section 22.3 (2) a maintenance permit must be obtained by the licensed maintenance business from the Department. A valid maintenance permit must be on the site where the maintenance activities are being performed. A completed pumping record must be provided to the Department within 90 days of the maintenance activity. 22.5 Removal of Material. (1) All solids and liquids must be removed by pumping from all tanks or compartments in which the top of the sludge layer is less than 12 inches from the bottom of the outlet baffle or transfer hole or whenever the bottom of the scum layer is less than three inches above the bottom of the outlet baffle or transfer hole. Total sludge and scum volume must not be greater than 25 percent of the tank's liquid capacity. (2) Removal of accumulated sludge, scum, and liquids from septic tanks and pump tanks must be through the maintenance hole. The removal of solids from any location other than the maintenance hole is not a compliant method of solids removal from a sewage tank, and this method does not fulfill the solids removal requirements of this Section or a management plan. Liquid and solids removal from cleanout pipes is allowed for holding tanks. (3) After removal of solids and liquids, from a system installed after the effective date of this Chapter, the maintenance hole cover must be secured as described in Section 13.18(1). Covers secured by screws shall be refastened in all screw openings. (4) After removal of solids and liquids from a system installed prior to the effective date of this Chapter maintenance hole covers must be sound, durable, and of adequate strength as specified in Section 13.18(3), and: (A) Be buried with a minimum of 12 inches of soil cover or, if the cover is currently at or above the ground surface or within 12 inches from final grade, be secured by a method that was deemed secure prior to the effective date of this Chapter. 80 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations (B) Meet the requirements of Section 13.18(1) if the cover is to be raised at or above the ground surface or within 12 inches from final grade. 22.6 Pump Tank Maintenance Pump tanks must be maintained according to this part. Sludge must be removed if within one inch of the pump intake. 22.7 Privies. When a privy is filled to one half of its capacity, the solids must be removed. Abandoned pits must have the sewage solids and contaminated soil removed and must be filled with clean earth and slightly mounded to allow for settling. Removed solids shall be disposed of according to Sections 22.9 and 23. 22.8 Additives. Additives, which are products added to the sewage or to the system with the intent to lower the accumulated solids in sewage, must not be used as a means to reduce the frequency of proper maintenance and removal of sewage solids from the sewage tanks as specified in this Section. The use of additives does not fulfill the solids removal requirement of this Section or a management plan. Additives that contain hazardous materials must not be used in an SSTS. 22.9 Septage. Septage or any waste mixed with Septage must be disposed of in accordance with state, federal, or local requirements for septage and other wastes. If septage is disposed of into a sewage or septage treatment facility, a written agreement must be provided between the accepting facility and the maintenance business. 22.10 Land Spreading of Septage Land application of septage must be done in accordance with Section 23 of this Chapter. 22.11 Use of Soil Treatment Site. Activities on the current soil dispersal system or the reserve soil dispersal system, as defined in Section 2.2 (65) and described in Section 9.4, that impair the current or future treatment abilities or hydraulic performance of the soil dispersal system are prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, covering all or part of the soil treatment system with an impermeable surface as determined by the Department. 22.10 System Remediation. Any maintenance activity used to increase the acceptance of effluent to a soil treatment and dispersal system must: (1) Not be used on a system failing to protect groundwater as defined in Section 4.3 (2), unless the activities meet the requirements of Section 20 or Section 21. (2) Not decrease the separation to the periodically saturated soil or bedrock. (3) Not cause preferential flow from the soil treatment and dispersal system bottom to the periodically saturated soil or bedrock. (4) Be conducted by an appropriately certified qualified employee or an appropriately licensed business as specified in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7083.0790. Any substance added with the intent to increase the infiltration rate of the soil treatment and dispersal system must not contain hazardous substances. 81 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 23 LAND APPLICATION OF SEPTAGE 23.1 Allowed Septage Application This section applies to land application domestic septage only. 23.2 Permits and Licenses Required (1) A Permit from this Department is required for each parcel of land to which septage is applied. (2) Land spreading must be conducted by a licensed maintainer business. 23.3 Permit Application (1) An application for a Permit to land apply septage on a specific parcel of land shall made to the Department on forms provided by the Department. At a minimum the application must contain the following information:The geocode for the proposed receiving site; (2) The name and address of the landowner; (3) A signed copy of the agreement with the landowner for land application on the specified parcel of land; (4) A map to scale of the parcel showing the exact location within the parcel where land application is being proposed; (5) Soils information at each land application site. Soil information shall include soil observation logs and a soil survey map of each site; (6) Information regarding the nutrient suitability for land application of the proposed site, including current soil nutrient levels and proposed nutrient loading rates; (7) Information regarding the drainage, slope, absorption rates, and separation distance from saturated soil conditions, bedrock, or other restrictive layer of the proposed site. (8) The proposed application rates, volumes of septage to be applied, method of application, incorporation, date(s) of application and limiting conditions to application; (9) The cover crop and/or proposed cropping information; (10) A description of the pathogen and vector control methods to be used; (11) A description of how public access to the site will be controlled; (12) Documentation from the local unit of government indicating that the proposed activity is allowed. 23.4 Duration of Permit A Permit shall be valid for a period of no longer than two years from the date of issuance. 23.5 Maximum Volume The maximum volume of septage that can be applied to each acre of land in each land application site must be determined using the following equation: AAR=N/0.0026 Where: AAR = Annual Application Rate in gallons per acre per 365 days N = amount of Nitrogen in pounds per acre per 365 days needed by the crop or vegetation to be grown on the land The maximum allowable volume of domestic septage shall also take into account any nitrogen fertilizer applied in association with the septage. 82 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 23.6 Requirements for Land Application Sites To be approved as a site for land application of domestic septage, the following minimum requirements must be met: (1) The site shall: (A) Be a non-public site; (B) Not be in a shoreland area; (C) Be located in an Agricultural Zoning District. No land application is allowed in residential, institutional or commercial/industrial zones; (D) Contain soils that are not rapidly permeable at the application depth; (E) Not be located in a floodway or floodplain; (F) Not contain slopes greater than 12 percent; and (G) Not be classified as Very High Sensitivity or High Sensitivity of groundwater pollution according to the "Prairie du -Chien -Jordan Aquifer" map (Plate 6) of the Geologic Atlas of Washington County (1990), developed by the Minnesota Geologic Survey of the University of Minnesota. The Geologic Atlas of Washington County (1990) is incorporated by reference, and is not subject to frequent change. (2) Unless limed, septage shall either be injected or incorporated within six hours of surface application to a minimum depth of six inches. No significant amount of septage shall be present at the land surface after septage is injected or incorporated. (3) Be protected from unauthorized access. (4) Septage shall not be applied such that ponding or runoff occurs. (5) Septage must not be applied unless the soil has dried adequately from previous applications or rainfall so that ponding does not occur. (6) Septage shall not be applied by spray irrigation or other methods that will cause aerosols to drift from the application site. 23.7 Soil Suitability For the land application site to be suitable, the soil on the site must meet the following requirements: (1) Have medium or fine surface textures with a soil hydraulic loading rate less than or equal to 0.78 gpd/fe (percolation rate slower than 5 minutes per inch). Land application must not be performed on sand or peat surface textures; (2) Have a three foot vertical separation from the application depth to saturated soil conditions or bedrock; (3) Have six inches of available water holding capacity between the application depth and satured soil conditions or bedrock; (4) Have at least one horizon in the upper five feet that has a soil hydraulic loading rate less than 0.6 or fine sand (percolation rate slower than 10 minutes per inch) . Table X Daily surface application rates of domestic septage on non -frozen, non -snow covered sites Maximum Daily Soil Texture Application Rates — Gallons/Acre/Day Coarse Sand, Sand, Loamy Coarse Sand 0 Fine Sand, Very Fine Sand, Loamy Sand, Loamy Fine Sand, Loamy Very 10,000 Fine Sand Sandy Loam, Coarse Sandy Loam, Fine Sandy Loam, Very Fine Sandy 10,000 Loam. Loam, Silt Loam, Silt Sandy Clay Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Sandy Clay, 10,000 Silty Clay, Clay 0 83 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 23.8 Required Application Methods (1) Land application methods must comply with Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40, Part 503 for pathogen reduction, vector attraction, and for maximum volume of septage that may be applied to any site during a 365 day period. (2) When soils are snow covered or frozen, the application rate is limited to 10,000 gallons per acre or less, and application is only allowed on slopes of 2 percent or less. Each area of the site may only be covered once. (3) Septage must not be applied on areas with ponding water. (4) Land application sites shall not be used for crops for direct human consumption unless the waiting periods on Table XI below are followed: Table XI Restricted Activity Waiting Period Food crops whose harvested part may touch the soil/septage 14 months melons, squash, tomatoes, etc. Food crops with harvested parts below the surface (potatoes, 38 months carrots, etc.) Feed, food, or fiber crops that do not touch the soil surface (field 30 days corn, sweet corn, hay, flax, etc.) Turf harvest 1 year Grazing of animals 30 days Public access to land High potential for exposure 1 year Low potential for exposure 30 days 23.9 Slope Restrictions Incorporated Injected Slope Surface Application within 48 hours Frozen Soil <2% Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed 2-6% Allowed Allowed Not Allowed Allowed 6-12% Not Allowed Allowed Not Allowed Allowed >12% Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed Conditionally Allowed* *The Department may approve land application of domestic septage through injection on sites previously used for crop production with slopes exceeding twelve percent (12%) on a case -by case basis. The Department may impose any conditions necessary to protect public health, public safety and the environment. 84 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 23.10 Setback Requirements Table XII Setbacks to Physical Features Setback Distances in Feet Surface Incorporated Application within 48 Injected hours Private drinking water well 200 Public drinking water well* 1000 Irrigation well 50 25 25 Occupied building (residences) 200 200 100 Residential developments 600 600 300 Commercial subdivision 600 600 300 Recreation area 600 600 300 Public contact sites 600 600 300 Property line 50 50 50 Road right-of-way 50 50 50 Down gradient lakes, rivers, streams, Slope 0 % to 6 % 200 50 50 wetlands, intermittent streams, or tile inlets Slope 6 % to 12 % Not Allowed 100 100 connected to these surface water Winter (0 % to 2 %) 600 Not Not features**, and Applicable Applicable sinkholes Grassed Water Ways*** Slope 0 % to 6 % 100 33 33 Slope 6 % to 12 % Not Allowed 33 33 Shoreland Area Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed *There may be special requirements if the land application site is within a wellhead protection area. "Intermittent stream means a drainage channel with definable banks that provides for runoff flow to any of the surface waters listed in the above table during snow melt or rainfall events. ***Grassed waterways are natural or constructed and seeded to grass as protection against erosion. Separation distances are from the centerline of grassed waterways. For a grassed waterway which is wider than the separation distances required, application is allowed to the edge of the grass strip. 85 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations 23.11 Reporting Requirements The permittee must submit to the Department an annual report. The reporting year will run from September 1 of each year through August 31 of the following year. Such report shall be submitted to the Department no later than November 1 of each year. The following information is required to be included in the report: (1) Daily land application activities, including, but not limited to: (A) Each site where septage was applied, the date of application, permit number for the site, and Geocode of the site; (B) The exact location on the site septage was applied, and the number of acres which received septage; (C) The total volume of septage applied to each land application site; (D) The method of application used for each land application site; (E) Vector attraction reduction and pathogen reduction method used. If lime stabilization is used, records must indicate the pH of each load; (F) A description of any additional management practices and site restrictions that were used. (2) Any other analysis of information as required by the Department in the Permit. 86 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 24 SYSTEM ABANDONMENT 24.1 Tank Abandonment. All systems with no future intent for use must be abandoned according to this Section. Tank abandonment procedures for sewage tanks, cesspools, leaching pits, drywells, seepage pits, vault privies, and pit privies must meet the requirements of Section 24.1(1) to Section 24.1(3). (1) All solids and liquids must be removed and disposed of according to Section 22 by a licensed maintenance business. (2) All electrical devices and devices containing mercury must be removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. (3) Abandoned tanks or any other underground cavities must be removed or remain in place and crushed with the remaining cavity filled with soil or rock material. (4) The removed tank or tank fragments and any soil visually contaminated with sewage shall be disposed in accordance with Section 24.3. 24.2 Future Discharge. Access for future discharge to the system must be permanently denied. 24.3 Removal of System. If soil treatment and dispersal systems are removed, contaminated materials shall be properly handled to prevent human contact. Contaminated materials include distribution media, soil or sand within three feet of the system bottom, distribution pipes, tanks, and contaminated soil around leaky tanks. Contaminated material also includes any soil that received sewage from a surface failure. Contaminated materials disposed of offsite must be disposed of according to Section 24.3(1) to 24.3(2). (1) If contaminated material is to be spread or used on site within one year of contact with sewage, the material must be placed in an area meeting the soil and setback requirements described in Table V in Section 16 and Section 16.3 (3) of this Chapter and the material must be covered with a minimum of six inches of uncontaminated soil and protected from erosion. After one year following contact with sewage, the material is allowed to be spread in any location meeting the setback requirement of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725.4450, covered with a minimum of six inches of uncontaminated soil, and protected from erosion. After one year following contact with sewage, the material is allowed to be used to fill in the abandoned in place sewage tanks. (2) Contaminated pipe, geotextile fabric, or other material must be dried and disposed of in a mixed municipal solid waste landfill. (3) The person or business abandoning the system must complete and sign a record of abandonment that states the system was abandoned according to this Section. A description of the abandonment procedure must be recorded including a map of the remaining in -place components and location of the components removed. The record must be sent to the Department or local unit of government within 90 days of abandonment. 24.4 MSTS Abandonment. MSTS no longer in use must be abandoned according to this Section 24. 87 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 25 PRODUCT REGISTRATION 25.1 Product Registration in Compliance with State Rules. All product registration shall be in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7083.4000 to 7083.4120. 25.2 Registered Products Approved by the Local Unit of Government. Technology and products employed in system design shall adequately protect the public health and the environment as determined by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7083, and be approved for use by the Department. 88 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations SECTION 26 ENFORCEMENT 26.1 Misdemeanor. It is hereby declared unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to violate any term or provision of this Ordinance. Any violation of this Ordinance shall be a misdemeanor. Each day that a violation is allowed to continue shall constitute a separate offense. Citations may be issued by the Department pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Washington County Administrative Ordinance. 26.3 Corrective Actions Required. In the event of a violation or threatened violation of this Chapter, the Department, may institute appropriate civil actions including but limited to a request for injunctive relief to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such violations or threatened violations. In addition, written notice in the form of a license complaint may be made to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 26.3 Public Health Nuisance Control. In cases where a public health nuisance has been determined to exist, the Department may institute enforcement action under the Local Public Health Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 145A; the Washington County Public Health Nuisance Ordinance, or subsequent revisions thereof: and the Washington County Administrative Ordinance. SECTION 27 SEPARABILITY 27.1 Separability. It is hereby declared to be the intent that the several provisions of this regulation are separable in accordance with the following: (1) If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of the regulation to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect other provisions of this regulation not specifically included in said judgment. (2) If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge invalid the application of any provision of this regulation to a particular property, building or structure, such judgment shall not affect the application of said provision to any other property, building or structure not specifically included in said judgment. SECTION 28 REPEAL 28.1 Repeal. Chapter Four, Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations, of the Washington County Development Code as adopted by the County Board September 23, 2009 is hereby repealed and superseded by this Ordinance. SECTION 29 EFFECTIVE DATE 29.1 Effective Date of Ordinance. The regulations contained in this Chapter shall become effective immediately upon passage by the County Board and publication according to law. 89 Washington County Development Code Effective April 28, 2015 Chapter Four Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations Passed by the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Minnesota, this 28th day of April .2015. Gary Kriesel, C ' Board of County Commissioners Attest: _-Y//—z " - �/ / Molly- Rourke IF ` WasOgton County Administrator Ordinance prepared by: Washington County Department of Public Health and Environment 14949 62"d Street North PO Box 6 Stillwater, MN 55082-0006 Approved as to form: 7/ George Ituprian Assistant Washington County Attorney 90 Washington County Development Code BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 201 9-064 DATE April 28, 2015 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Miron DEPARTMENT Public Health and Environment SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Bigham RESOLUTION ADOPTING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM REGULATIONS (ORDINANCE # 191 AND REPEALING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM REGULATIONS (WASHINGTON COUNTY ORDINANCE #179). WHEREAS, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) revised Minnesota Rules, Chapters 7080 through 7083, Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Program, on March 14, 2011; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7082, Section 7082.0050, Subpart 1, Paragraph B requires that the County update its ordinance, and WHEREAS, the current Washington County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS) Regulations is Washington County Ordinance #179 which was adopted on September 23, 2009, and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2015 the Department of Public Health and Environment held a workshop with the Washington County Board of Commissioners to review proposed changes to the SSTS Regulations ordinance, and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015 the Washington County Board of Commissioners referred the proposed SSTS Regulations ordinance to the Planning Advisory Commission for review and a public hearing, and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2015 Washington County Planning Advisory Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of SSTS Regulations ordinance, with minor modifications, and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2015 the Washington County Board of Commissioners conducted a public hearing pursuant to Minn. Stat. 375.51 to consider adopting a new SSTS Regulations ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Washington County Board of Commissioners hereby adopts Washington County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Regulations, Ordinance #196 , to take effect upon the passage of this resolution and its publication according to law, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said SSTS Ordinance #I(LE shall be incorporated and codified in the Washington County Development Code as Chapter 4, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washington County Board of Commissioners hereby repeals Washington County SSTS Ordinance #179 o take effect on the date SSTS Ordinance #196 takes effect. ATTEST: YES NO / BEARTH X COUNTY BIGHAM X _ KRIESEL g MIRON u WEIK x — July 2002 http://washnettforms/CountyBd/Resolution. dot Appendix F — Stormwater Review Checklist and Permit APPENDIX T16L,O City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, Minnesota 55038 (651) 762-6316 CITY OF HUGO/RICE CREEK WATERSHED PERMIT xx-xx Expires on XX/XX/2018 Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the City of Hugo and the Rice Creek Watershed District policies and standards, and based upon the statements and information contained in the permit application, letters, maps, and plans submitted by the applicant and other supporting data, all of which are made part hereof by reference, permission is hereby granted to the Permittee named below to conduct the activity described below. If an extension to the permit is needed, the Permittee should submit a written request to the City at least 2 weeks prior to the expiration date. Name of Project Project Description Project Location Permittee Name Permittee Company Permittee Address (No. & Street, City, State, Zip Code) Permittee Phone No. Permittee Fax No. Permitee Cell No. Permittee E-Mail In accordance with the attached plan received at the City on (date received): Authorized Signature: Stephanie Hatten, Water Resources Engineer Date of Issuance: XXXX Page 1 of 2 City of Hugo IiH Li'',« STIPULATIONS 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, Minnesota 55038 (651) 762-6316 The permit will be issued with the following stipulations as conditions of the permit. By accepting the permit, the Permittee agrees to these stipulations: GENERAL 1. An as -built survey of all stormwater BMPs (ponds, rain gardens, trenches, swales, etc) is to be submitted to the City for verification of compliance with the approved plans. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL STIPULATIONS 2. Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to grading activities and maintained through project completion. These features can include sediment logs, erosion blankets, sod, riprap, silt fence and temporary or permanent vegetation. Hay bales are no longer recommended due to the impedance of water flow. 3. All exposed soils, including stockpiles, shall be stabilized within 14 days if not being actively worked and after the completion of grading. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be stabilized within 7 days. 4. The City Inspector may require additional erosion control features, dependent on site condition. 5. Refer to the MPCA "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" manual at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/gzgha87 for BMP's. 6. Please contact Steve Duff, the City's Senior Engineering Technician, at 651-248-5016 if you have questions or to discuss site stabilization practices. GENERAL PROVISIONS The project shall be in accordance with the plans most recently submitted and approved by the City as part of the record of this project. 2. This permit is not assignable by the Permittee, except with the written consent of the City. 3. The Permittee shall grant access to the site at all reasonable times during and after construction to authorized representatives of the City for inspection of the work authorized hereunder. 4. In all cases where the Permittee, by performing the work authorized by this permit, shall involve the taking, using, or damaging of any property rights or interests of any other person or persons, or of any publicly owned lands or improvements thereon or interests therein, the Permittee, before proceeding, shall obtain the written consent of all persons, agencies, or authorities concerned, and shall acquire all property, rights and interests needed for the work. 5. This permit is permissive only. No liability shall be imposed on the City or any of its officers, agents, or employees, officially or personally, on account of the granting hereof or on account of any damage to any person or property resulting from any act or omission of the Permittee or any of its agents, employees, or contractors. This permit shall not be construed as estopping or limiting any legal claims or right of action of any person against the Permittee, its agents, employees, or contractors, for any damage or injury resulting from any such act or omission, or as estopping or limiting any legal claim or right of action of the City against the Permittee, its agents, employees, or contractors for violation of or failure to comply with the permit or applicable provisions of law. 6. Any stormwater management facilities approved as part of this permit shall be properly maintained in perpetuity to assure that they continue to function as originally designed. 7. After vegetation is in place and erosion control features have been removed, notify the City Inspector. Once the Inspector verifies that site conditions comply with all permit requirements, your cash surety will be returned to the remitter. Page 2 of 2 WSB Ui City of Hugo Stormwater Management Review Huco Project Name:_ WSB Project No. Reviewed By:_ Date: Uihmittalc Raraivarl Which Year's Rules is Proiect Review Followi Procedural ❑ O / M Agreement ❑ Signed Plans ❑ Permits ❑ NPDES ❑ Health Dept ❑ Mn/DOT ❑ County ❑ Successful Bidder Signature City Doing Work: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Surety Provided ❑ Escrow Provided Site Plan ❑ Easements ❑ Maintenance Access Grading Plan ❑ Datum ❑ Certified Retaining Wall Design ❑ Floodplain Elevation ❑ Basin NWL and HWLs ❑ EOF Locations and Elevations ❑ 4:1 Slope Max ❑ Driveway Slopes ❑ Building Elevations 0 Grading Limits Utility Plan ❑ Storm Sewer Design ❑ Detail Plates for Public Sewer ❑ Utility Crossing Elevations ❑ Casting Types ❑ Cleanouts Erosion Control Plan ❑ SWPPP ❑ Silt Fence ❑ CB Inlet Protection ❑ Rock Entrance ❑ Street Sweeping ❑ Restoration ❑ Erosion Control Contact Person Stormwater Management Plan ❑ Delineation Map ❑ Modeling Calculations ❑ 2, 10, 100, Snowmelt ❑ Model Direct Connected Impervious Separate ❑ Off -site drainage included ❑ Wetlands shown on plans and wetland permitting completed ❑ Pretreatment ❑ Skimmer ❑ Soil Borings ❑ Design Infiltration Rate Determination ❑ Seasonal High Water Elevation Water Quality Sequencing: Required Water Quality Volume: Provided Water Quality Volume: Required Vs. Provided Water Quality Volume: ❑ Surplus ❑ Deficit Credit Provided For Pond Bench Toward Infiltration Requirement: ❑ Yes ❑ No Rate Control ❑ Peak Discharge Rates Limited to 0.1 cfs/ac for 100-year ❑ Peak Discharge Rates < Existing Freeboard ❑ Groundwater Separation ❑ Building Opening: ❑ At least 3' above 100-yr HWL; or ❑ At least 2' above 100-yr HWL with following documentation: Provide flood storage volume within the freeboard area that is at least 50% of the flood storage volume below the 100-yr HWL; and 25% outlet obstruction does not increase the 100-yr HWL by more than 1'; and Adequate EOF from basin to provide assurance that 1' freeboard will be maintained for proposed low opening ❑ Low Floor Elevation: ❑ 4' above the currently observed groundwater elevations in the area ❑ 2' above the elevation of any known historic high groundwater elevations ❑ 2' above the critical 100-yr HWL ❑ 1' above EOF ❑ For landlocked basins low floor must be 1' above the EOF or 1' above the HWL resulting of back to back 100-yr rainfalls and the 100-yr snowmelt Re.gulatory Benefit ❑ Verified Compliance with RCWD Rules and Hugo Policies for Stormwater Management ❑ Other: Appendix G — Wellhead Protection Plan APPENDIX kib City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, MN 55038 HUGO 2015 WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN ........................... Part 2 ............................ :: • :- • •I1 M - 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 WSB Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: (763) 541-4800 - Fax: (763) 541-1700 &Assoc wsbeng.com Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 Wellhead Protection Plan Part 2 City of Hugo, Minnesota Table of Contents PublicWater Supply Profile.........................................................................................................................................................3 PublicWater Supply Wells............................................................................................................................................................4 DocumentationList..........................................................................................................................................................................5 ExecutiveSummary..........................................................................................................................................................................6 Chapter One: Data Elements and Assessment...................................................................................................................8 Chapter Two: Impact of Changes on Public Water Supply Wells...........................................................................17 Chapter Three: Issues, Problems, and Opportunities.................................................................................................21 Chapter Four: Wellhead Protection Goals........................................................................................................................24 Chapter Five: Objectives and Plans of Action..................................................................................................................25 Chapter Six: Evaluation Program..........................................................................................................................................34 Chapter Seven: Alternative Water Supply Contingency Strategy.........................................................................35 Appendix A - Tables Table 1: Monthly Precipitation Table 2: Potential Contaminant Source Inventory Table 3A: Public Wells Table 313: Private Wells Table 4: Septic Systems Table 5: Water Appropriations Permits within the DWSMA Table 6: Water Usage Table 7: Annual Water Withdrawal Table 8: Projected Water Use Appendix B - Figures Figure 1: Public Land Survey System Map Figure 2: DWSMA Vulnerability Figure 3: Bedrock Geology Map Figure 4A: Soil Cover Figure 413: Soil Permeability Figure 5: Erodible Lands Figure 6: Public Waters and Wetlands Figure 7: Major and Minor Watersheds Figure 8: Shoreland Classifications and Floodplains Figure 9: Existing Land Use Figure 10: Current Zoning Figure 11: 2030 Future Land Use Plan Figure 12: Potential Contaminant Source Inventory Figure 13: Water Supply System Figure 14: Private Wells Figure 15: Septic Systems Figure 16: Sanitary Sewer System Figure 17: Gas and Oil Pipeline Routes Figure 18: Current Transportation Routes Figure 19: Stormwater Conveyance System City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 11 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 Appendix C -Water Quality Reports Appendix D - Inner Wellhead Management Zone Appendix E- Wellhead Protection Plan Part 1 City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 2 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PROFILE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, Minnesota 55038 Phone: (651) 762-6300 Fax: (651) 762-6374 WELLHEAD PROTECTION MANAGER Scott Anderson Public Works Director City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, Minnesota 55038 Phone: (651) 762-6326 Fax: (651) 762-6374 E-Mail: snderson@ci.hugo.mn.us CONSULTANT/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Leslee Storlie, EIT WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Ave. S, Suite 300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Phone: (763) 231-4874 E-Mail: lstorlie@wsbeng.com Breanne Rothstein, Planner WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Ave. S, Suite 300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Phone: (763) 231-4863 E-Mail: brothstein@wsbeng.com GENERAL INFORMATION Unique Well Number(s): 523948, 654497, 671642, 686272, 773400 Size of Population Served by Municipal Water: Approximately 14,000 County: Washington City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 3 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELLS Local Well Name Unique Number Aquifer Casing Depth ft Well Depth ft Date Constructed Well No. 2 523948 Prairie du Chien -Jordan 137 261 1993 Well No. 3 654497 Jordan 219 315 2000 Well No. 4 671642 Jordan 219 293 2002 Well No. 5 686272 Jordan 210 275 2007 Well No. 6 773400 Jordan 265 355 2010 City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 4 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 DOCUMENTATION LIST Step Date Performed Part I Approval Notice Received from MDH December 2, 2013 Scoping 2 Meeting Held (4720.5349, subp. 1) March 11, 2014 Scoping Decision Notice Received (4720.5340, subp. 2) April 4, 2014 Remaining Portion of Plan Submitted to Local Government Units December 5, 2014 (LGUs) (4720.5350, subp. 1 & 2) Review Considered (4720.5350, subp. 3) December -February 2015 Public Hearing Conducted (4720.5350, subp. 4) February 16, 2015 Remaining Portion WHP Plan Submitted (4720.5360, subp. 1) March 3, 2015 Approved Review Notice Received TBD City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 5 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Wellhead Protection Plan (the Plan) for the City of Hugo (City) addresses the five municipal water supply wells used by the City (Wells No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) and the associated source water aquifers (the Prairie du Chien and Jordan - the aquifers from which the municipal wells pump water). Part 1 of the Plan was completed and approved in September of 2013 by Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) respectively. The Plan (Part 1) presented: the delineation of the Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA); the drinking water supply management area (DWSMA); and the vulnerability assessments for the system's wells and aquifers within the DWSMA. The location of the protection area is shown in Figure 1, Appendix B, while the vulnerability of the DWSMAs are shown in Figure 2, Appendix B. Water supply wells covered by this delineation and this Part 2 Plan Update are listed on page 4. The vulnerability assessment for the aquifers within the DWSMA was performed using available information and indicates that the vulnerability of the aquifers used by the system varies from moderate to very high. The results of the aquifer vulnerability assessment determine what types of potential contamination sources must be managed within the DWSMA as determined by the MDH: Moderate vulnerability areas - wells and tanks High/Very High vulnerability areas - all land uses and potential contaminant sources (including wells and tanks) This document includes the following information: • A review of data elements identified by the MDH as applicable to the DWSMA. • Results of an inventory of potential contaminant sources within the DWSMA. • Review of changes, issues, problems, and opportunities related to the public water supply and the identified potential contaminant sources. • A discussion of potential contaminant source management strategies and the goals, objectives, and action plans associated with these management strategies. • A review of the wellhead and source water protection evaluation program and Hugo's alternative water supply contingency strategy. The goals and objectives of this Plan focus on: managing potential contaminant sources within the DWSMA; reducing the potential contaminant pathways to the source water aquifer that may be provided by private wells; and educating property owners and water supply users. The City of Hugo's WHP team has identified the following goals for implementation of this Plan: Goal 1: The City will work to maintain or improve the current level of water quality so that the municipal water supply will continue to meet or exceed all applicable state and federal water quality standards. Goal 2: The City will work to continue to supply sufficient water quantity for system users and emergency needs. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 6 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 Goal 3: The City will provide and promote activities that protect the source water aquifer which provides water to the municipal system. This will include increased public education of the Wellhead and Source Water Protection Program and groundwater -related issues, as well as management of the identified potential contaminant sources and conveyance mechanisms within the DWSMA. Goal 4: The City will continue to collect data to support future wellhead and source water protection efforts. Implementation of these goals will be achieved through direct management efforts within the following areas to prevent future contamination of the aquifer and increase awareness of groundwater protection: A. Well Management B. Public Education C. Storage Tank Management D. Septic Systems (ISTS) E. Stormwater Management F. Hazardous Waste Management G. Data Collection H. Water Conservation I. Land Use Planning and Zoning J. Implementation K. Evaluation The effectiveness of the Plan must be evaluated to determine whether the implementation activities are consistent with the Plan's intent. Monitoring will be on -going and a written evaluation of the Plan and associated activities will be conducted every two and one half years that the Plan is in effect. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 7 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 CHAPTER ONE DATA ELEMENTS AND ASSESSMENT (4720.5200) Hugo currently uses the following wells to provide the City's drinking water: • Well 2 - unique number 523948 • Well 3 - unique number 654497 • Well 4 - unique number 671642 • Well 5 - unique number 686272 • Well 6 - unique number 773400 The Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) delineated in the Wellhead Protection Plan (the Plan) area delineation study is fully located in the City of Hugo. The DWSMA is found in Township 31, Range 21W, Sections 8-9, 15-21, and 27-34 as shown in Figure 1, Appendix B. WELLHEAD PROTECTIONAREA DELINEATION CRITERIA See the Part 1 of the Plan for documentation regarding how the following delineation criteria were applied to determine the boundaries of the Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA): 1. Time of Travel - 10 years 2. Aquifer Transmissivity - geologic information, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Metro Model, Metropolitan Council's (MetCouncil) Metromodel 2.0, pumping test at City of Centerville Well 2 (Prairie du Chien aquifer), and pumping test at the City of Hugo Well 6 (Jordan aquifer). 3. Daily Volume of Water Pumped - Pumping information from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) appropriations permit 1975-6218. The annual pumped volumes were converted to a daily volume pumped for each well. 4. Hydrologic/Flow Boundaries - Surface water features, geological boundaries, and high capacity wells. 5. Groundwater Flow Field - MODFLOW. REQUIRED DATA ELEMENTS In accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4720.5200 and the Scoping 2 letter received by the City on April 4, 2014, the following data elements and their assessments are required to be included in the City of Hugo's Plan are presented in this Section: 1) Precipitation 2) Geology and hydrogeology 3) Soils 4) Water resources 5) Land use 6) Public utility services 7) Surface water quantity 8) Surface water quality 9) Groundwater quantity City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 8 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 10) Groundwater quality 1. PRECIPITATION Due to a portion of Hugo's DWSMA is classified as highly or very highly vulnerable to contamination, precipitation must be evaluated. As shown on Table 1, Appendix A, there are three Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) precipitation gauging stations near Hugo. These stations are located in Lino Lakes, Hazel Park in St. Paul, and in Bayport. As outlined in the Part 1 Plan (Appendix E), the Jordan aquifer is hydraulically connected to the Prairie du Chien with a high likelihood of flow between the two geologic units. Portions of the Hugo DWSMA are considered highly and very highly vulnerable because of geologic sensitivity and the presence of tritium above 1 Tritium Unit (T.U.) in groundwater pumped by City of Hugo wells. This data is used to age -date groundwater and the results indicate relatively young, locally recharged water. The groundwater age classification, combined with the higher vulnerability portions of the DWSMA, make precipitation an important component to consider in relation to management of land use in the DWSMA. Precipitation in the form of overland flow can act as a contaminant transport mechanism through runoff and infiltration. Contaminants may be displaced through the soil matrix in the direction of the source water aquifer, through the municipal storm sewer system, or across impermeable surface features during rain events. 2. GEOLOGY As discussed in the Part 1 Plan, the geology in the vicinity of Hugo is a complex series of glacial sediment strata over Paleozoic sedimentary bedrock. The drift beneath Hugo is sediment from at least two glacial episodes, some of it deposited in and around meltwater lakes. The thickness of the unconsolidated sediment varies greatly but can be generalized to approximately 50 to 200 feet (ft) thick. There are a number of sand and gravel layers within the glacial sediment that yield water, but the exact location, depth, extent, capacity, and sustainability of these layers is not consistent or well documented. Wells constructed in the drift can be expected to produce 200-1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at relatively low construction cost, but carry the risk of drying up during periods of drought or interfering with other nearby wells. The Paleozoic sedimentary rocks around the Twin Cities Metro area have three primary aquifers: the Prairie du Chien -Jordan; the Franconia -Ironton -Galesville (FIG); and the Mt. Simon -Hinckley. Each of these is separated by a confining layer that essentially separates the aquifers. The eroded edge of the Prairie du Chien -Jordan aquifer is located just north and west of Hugo. According to Part 1 Plan (Appendix E), there appears to be some hydraulic connection between the Jordan aquifer and the Prairie du Chien with a high likelihood of leakage between the two. Further, modeling indicates that groundwater flow in the Prairie du Chien -Jordan aquifer is parallel to the edge of the rock unit (NE to SW). Figure 3, Appendix B shows the existing geology in the area near the DWSMA. Well No. 2 is completed in the Prairie du Chien Group and Jordan Sandstone, and Wells No. 3, 4, 5, and 6 are completed in the Jordan Sandstone. The well logs are located in Part 1 of this Plan. There are no known boreholes in the City of Hugo or known surface geophysical studies. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 9 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 3. SOIL CONDITIONS Surficial soil types within the DWSMA are shown on Figure 4A, Appendix B. Since portions of the Hugo municipal wells and source water aquifer within the DWSMA are classified as vulnerable and highly vulnerable, surficial soil characteristics must be evaluated. Issues related to surficial soil characteristics or the surficial soil types also may have an effect on the management strategies developed for the DWSMA. The soil make up affects how water and potential contaminants move from the surface into the ground potentially affecting Hugo's water supply. As outlined on Figure 4A, Appendix B, the surficial geology in the City of Hugo's DWSMA consists primarily of fine loam and coarse loam, but also includes loam, sandy, and sandy over loam. City staff is aware that all types of land development and land use activity may have an impact on the source water aquifer due to surface water infiltration through the permeable soil column in the City of Hugo's DWSMA. Figure 4B, Appendix B shows the level of permeability of the soil cover in the DWSMA, and shows a wide range of variability between 0.5 inches per hour in some areas and greater than 6 inches per hour in other areas. In the areas of the DWSMA with highest vulnerability, the soils have relatively high permeability rates, making those areas more susceptible to potential contamination. Most of the area in Hugo's DWSMA has low susceptibility for erosion, as outlined on Figure 5, Appendix B; however there are a few exceptions within the southeast portion of the DWSMA. Erosion has the potential of changing the infiltration rate of the material that is eroded as well as the area lower in elevation where the material is deposited. Rapid erosion is also capable of transporting contaminants some distance both vertically and horizontally. Potential contamination sources should be monitored closely in areas susceptible to rapid erosion. 4. WATER RESOURCES Since portions of Hugo's DWSMA are classified as high or very high vulnerability, surface water resources must be evaluated based on their potential influence and impact to Hugo's water supply. The Public Waters Inventory Map shown in Figure 6, Appendix B displays public waters and wetlands in the DWSMA. Surface water management is one factor for maintaining a water supply of high quality. Figure 7, Appendix B indicates the location of major and minor watersheds. Surface water management is important since the DWSMA has landlocked depressions and surface water features that can contribute to groundwater recharge. Management of surface water can mitigate the risk of introducing contaminants into the regional groundwater system, where it can affect deeper aquifers over time. Figure 8, Appendix B indicates the location of shoreland districts and floodplains in the DWSMA. With the abundance of water resources in the DWSMA, implementation of Hugo's Surface Water Management Plan and the management strategies contained in this plan are critical to the protection of the surface water and groundwater resources. The City of Hugo and the Rice Creek Watershed District have many standards and regulations to protect the quality of surface water resources. 5. LAND USES It is important to understand land use to determine key areas for concern in managing a wellhead protection area. For example, knowledge about the location of future development or areas of City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 10 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 redevelopment within the DWSMA may reveal a need to closely manage the activity within more sensitive areas. Additionally, any existing land uses that currently pose a potential threat to the City's water supply would need to be highlighted to increase awareness of any concerns. Since the Hugo municipal wells and the source water aquifer within the DWSMA are classified as high and very high vulnerability, current land use must be evaluated to determine if it could potentially apply to the Plan. Figure 9, Appendix B shows the DWSMA superimposed over the existing land use maps from the Washington County land use data. There is a mix of land uses located within the DWSMA, including mostly agricultural, undeveloped or vacant land, but also including lakes, golf courses, parks, single- family residential, multi -family residential, and some industrial and commercial land. Figure 10, Appendix B indicates the existing zoning within the DWSMA. The majority of the land used for commercial and industrial purposes is located along the railroad tracks and U.S. Highway 61. Portions of the DWSMA located along U.S. Highway 61 are considered high vulnerability, and special attention should be paid to existing and future land uses in those areas, as identified on Figures 9 and 11, Appendix B. A potential contaminant source inventory (PCSI) was completed within the DWSMA boundary. Data was extracted from existing databases including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) What's in my Neighborhood (WIMN) and the County Well Index (CWI) and then verified. Data points collected from the MPCA WIMN database were first properly located through site investigation, aerial photography, and additional research. Special investigation was considered for those points located through zip code centroid measures as classified by the MPCA WIMN database. Once the points were assigned to the proper locations, the list of sites was reduced by assigning the vulnerability of the DWSMA to each data point and removing those sites that did not fit the criteria for the vulnerability setting. Next, material and facility codes were added to the sites and a table and map (Table 2, Appendix A and Figure 12, Appendix B) were produced to display the locations and types of potential contaminants throughout the DWSMA. Data points were also collected from the CWI and through field survey. These wells were included in all vulnerability types and were coded with the appropriate material and facility codes. Facility codes were established based on the existing land use type for the parcel containing the well. Figure 13, Appendix B contains the location of the water distribution system and City wells. Figure 14, Appendix B contains private wells within the City. Tables for both of these public and private wells are also included in Appendix A as Tables 3A and 3B. Septic system information was collected from the City database based on building permit records. The database was reduced to only include those septic systems that are located within a high or very high vulnerability section of the DWSMA. Table 4, Appendix A includes the list of septic systems while Figure 15, Appendix B includes a display of the septic system locations. In addition, the MDH completed and provided survey results for the Inner Wellhead Management Zone (IWMZ) that surrounds each municipal well at a 200 ft radius. Results of this survey remain as submitted by the MDH and are included in Appendix D. Provided below is a summary of PCSI results: • Public and Private Wells. There are 165 known private wells and 6 public wells located within the DWSMA according to the County Well Index and the PCSI field survey. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 111 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 • Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTSs). 49 known septic systems are located within the high and very high vulnerability sections of the DWSMA. • Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG). 27 sites were identified within the high vulnerability portion of the DWSMA as a HWG. Of the 27 sites, nine are considered active while the remaining 18 are inactive. • Leak Sites. There are seven areas classified by the MPCA WIMN database as leak sites within the moderate and high vulnerability sections. Of these sites, six are inactive leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) and one is an inactive spill site. • Storage Tanks. 13 storage tanks were classified within the DWSMA using the MDH requirements based on vulnerability. Four ASTs were identified within the DWSMA, three of which are active. Nine classified USTs were identified within the DWSMA: five are classified as active, while four are classified as inactive. • Other. Additionally, identified within the DWSMA was one inactive Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup site, one active storm water outlet, one active petroleum brownfield site, and one active solid waste management site. • IWMZ Results. Located within 200 ft of the municipal wells are buried sanitary sewer pipes, buried storm sewer pipes, a grave site, and operating wells. Management strategies have been identified and included within Chapter 5 to address the PCSI results. 6. PUBLIC UTILITYSERVICES Since portions of Hugo's DWSMA are classified as highly or very highly vulnerable, public utilities were evaluated to determine their potential influence and impact on Hugo's drinking water supply. Large portions of Hugo in the DWSMA do not have municipal utilities, therefore best practices regarding ISTS management and well management are particularly important. Water System The City of Hugo's distribution system consists of trunk water mains (8-24 inches in diameter), lateral water mains (6-8 inches in diameter), service pipes, valves, and hydrants. The majority of the City's water mains are ductile iron pipe, although older areas of the City have cast iron water mains. The City currently has over 550 hydrants, and that number is steadily increasing with the growth of the City. The City is capable of producing over 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of water or over four million gallons (MG) per day. In 2013, the average usage was 1.06 million gallons per day. The City pumped over 386 million gallons for the year. The City of Hugo currently has two water storage facilities in the form of elevated tanks. Elevated tanks serve two purposes; the first is to provide adequate water pressure in the distribution system and the second is to provide storage for the City's daily water demand and fire protection. The two elevated tanks in Hugo have a storage capacity of 2.0 MG; the tower serving the southern pressure zone has a capacity of 0.5 MG and the tower serving the northern pressure zone has a capacity of 1.5 MG. Figure 13, Appendix B indicates the location of the City's public water utility system. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 12 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 Over the last 10 years, two major well maintenance activities have occurred. In 2004, Well No. 3 was rehabilitated and redeveloped. In 2013, Well No. 2 was rehabilitated. Public Works staff checks pump oil, bearings, and packing monthly. Staff checks the pump oil in the spring and fall of each year. Well pumps are inspected by a well contractor to insure proper operation. Well functions inspected include voltage, flow rate, vibration, water level, and other maintenance issues. Fire hydrants are flushed twice a year and gate valves are exercised periodically. Storage tanks are inspected every five years and repainted as necessary. In addition, well pumps are pulled and serviced, rebuilt, or replaced as necessary. Overall, the water distribution system is in good condition. The City's wells and distribution mains are regularly rehabilitated or replaced. Sanitary Sewer System Hugo's sanitary sewer system is a collection system that covers approximately half of the DWSMA and is located mostly on the western side of the City where the majority of industrial and commercial land uses exist. In total, the system services approximately 3,600 gross acres. The existing system located in the DWSMA is shown on Figure 16, Appendix B. The system carries approximately one million gallons of effluent sanitary sewer per day, and consists of ten lift stations. The remaining residential lands are served with ISTSs. The City's long-term plans include the extension of sewer and water services as the City develops to the east, and anticipates the extension of sewer and water facilities through the entire DWSMA, as development occurs. Over time, this will reduce the number of ISTS systems and individual wells, which will reduce the number of potential contaminant sources. Overall, the sewer system is in good condition, with low infiltration and inflow. The City's lift stations are relatively new, with six of the ten constructed since 2000. Gas and Oil Pipelines Gas and oil pipelines are located within the DWSMA and are included as potential contaminant sources. Figure 17, Appendix B indicates the locations of known, major oil and gas lines in the city. Transportation Routes The primary transportation routes located in the DWSMA are shown on Figure 18, Appendix B. U.S. Highway 61 is the route with the highest traffic volume, and is also the location of most of the City's industrial and commercial uses. Management strategies focused on this portion of the DWSMA will have the greatest impact in reducing potential contaminants infiltrating the water supply, especially in areas where the DWSMA is designated as highly or very highly vulnerable. Public Drainage/Stormwater System Hugo's public drainage and stormwater conveyance system within the DWSMA is mapped on Figure 19. 7. SURFACE WATER QUANTITY Figure 6, Appendix B indicates the public waters and public water wetlands located in the DWSMA. There are no streams within the DWSMA where low, mean, and high flows have been established. There are three lakes in the DWSMA where the DNR has established ordinary high water marks (OHW). Egg Lake has an OHW elevation of 926.5 ft, Oneka Lake has an OHW of 931.2 ft, and Rice Lake has an established OHW of 922.5 ft above sea level. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 13 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 There is one known appropriations permit for surface water pumping from Hardwood Creek in the DWSMA. The purpose of this permit (#1989-6505) is for livestock watering and allowed up to 0.4 MG to be pumped annually. A list of all water appropriations permits issued in the City of Hugo is located in Table 5, Appendix A. There are no known water use conflicts, including those cause by groundwater pumping. B. SURFACE WATER QUALITY Due to the high and very high vulnerability of the source aquifer, the quality of surface water was reviewed. Water quality data is available with the DNR but is not being monitored for drinking water protection purposes. Surface waters are shown in Figure 6, Appendix B. There are no waterbodies in the DWSMA that are on the 2014 Impaired Waters List (MPCA). According to the MPCA website, there are 27 surface water quality monitoring sites in Hugo, and nine are located in the DWSMA. Three lakes (Oneka, Egg, and Rice Lake) and two streams (Hardwood and Clearwater Creek) are found within the Hugo DWSMA that contain water quality monitoring data. In 2012, Oneka Lake contained Chlorophyll a (Chl-a) that ranged from 2.6 to 14.1 micrograms per liter (ug/L), dissolved oxygen (DO) ranging from 5.87 to 10.20 miligrams per liter (mg/L), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) ranging from 0.302 to 1.22 mg/L and total phosphorus ranging from 0.018 to 0.062 mg/L. According to the MPCA, the overall condition of the lake is good. Rice Lake was sampled once in 2011 and contained a Chl-a concentration of 11.8 ug/L and total phosphorus of 0.236 mg/L. Overall, the MPCA has not ranked the condition of the lake because there is not enough data available at this time. Egg Lake was sampled through 2002 and contained Chl-a concentrations of 2.6 to 14.1 ug/L, DO levels from 5.97 to 10.2 mg/L, TKN ranging from 0.302 to 1.22 mg/L, and TP concentrations from 0.018 to 0.062 mg/L. According to the MPCA, the overall condition of the lake is good. 9. GROUNDWATER QUANTITY Table 5, Appendix A lists all the water appropriation permits located within the City of Hugo's DWSMA. The City of Hugo currently operates five water supply wells. As outlined in Part 1 of the Plan (Appendix E) and depicted on the DNR State Water Use Database System under permit no. 1975-6218. Annual average pumping rates from the Comprehensive Water Supply Plan (2000 to 2007) are listed in Table 6, Appendix A. Table 7, Appendix A illustrates the annual withdrawal from 2009 to 2013 by the City of Hugo. Water use over the past five years has remained relatively stable and has not increased significantly. Projections of future pumping rates were determined only for Hugo municipal wells in the Comprehensive Water Supply Plan, based on population projections from the MetCouncil's 2006 system statement and the Hugo Comprehensive Plan and are located in Table 8, Appendix A. Historically, the overall average daily demand for water in Hugo has increased from 0.33 million gallons per day in 2000 to 1.05 million gallons per day in 2007 and is based on the increase in City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 14 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 population in Hugo. The total daily per capita water usage was 121.6 gallons in 2007, which included all residential, commercial, and industrial use of water. Demand projections conducted in 2008 indicated the need for 1.78 MGD in 2010 and 2.95 MGD in 2020. While the City has not experienced the planned growth anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan, it is still accurate to report the future need for increased water with an increase in the population, which would result in additional new wells to be constructed. The exact number of new wells will depend on controlling increased per capita demand through water conservation practices, the number of new residents living in Hugo, and the type and size of businesses who may need water for commercial or industrial practices. In addition, to assist in analyzing the groundwater quantity and trends in groundwater levels, the City of Hugo has installed data loggers in two monitoring wells. Groundwater levels are recorded monthly. Currently, there are no known water use conflicts identified while pumping different groundwater wells within the City. 10. GROUNDWATER QUALITY The City of Hugo produces an annual report on the quality of its drinking water called the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). The 2013 CCR, which outlines the results of quality monitoring done on the City's drinking water, is included in Appendix C. The attached CCR shows that the City is in compliance with maximum contaminant levels set by the state and federal Safe Drinking Water Rules for the contaminants analyzed. The water supplied by the City meets all Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. There are no known areas of groundwater contamination located in the DWSMA. Based on the October 2014 MDH Bacteriological/Disinfectant Residual Monthly Report (included in Appendix C), the distribution system sampling locations test results indicated a presence of chlorine residual and an absence of coliform bacteria. In addition, according to the MDH Sample Analysis for your Public Water Supply Reports (included in Appendix C), testing was completed for inorganic and organic contaminants and radiochemicals proving that these concentrations were less than the regulated levels. According to Part 1 of the Plan (Appendix E), the vulnerability of the City's wells and groundwater source varies. This assessment was determined through the analysis of DNR geologic sensitivity rating, casing integrity, casing depth, pumping rate, isolation distance from contaminant sources, and chemical and isotopic information. Low permeability material overlying the aquifer aid in protecting the City's groundwater supply by reducing the time in which it takes to allow water moving vertically from the surface to the aquifer. However, areas closer to Wells No. 2, 3, and 5 are considered to be of more moderate to high vulnerability as described in Part 1 of the Plan (Appendix E). In addition, according to Part 1, tritium has been detected above 1 T.U. increasing the vulnerability rating in the vicinity of the City wells and across the DWSMA. Non -municipal owned wells, particularly those that are completed in or penetrate the aquifers used for the municipal water supply, are a source of concern for potential contamination within the City's DWSMA. Unmaintained, damaged, poorly constructed, or unused/abandoned wells could provide a direct route for contaminants to enter the aquifers utilized by the City of Hugo as their drinking water supply. Management strategies are discussed in Chapter Five, which focus on activities that have the most potential to impact the aquifer system the City of Hugo is using for its drinking water supply. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 15 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 There are no known groundwater tracer studies that have been completed. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 16 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 CHAPTER TWO IMPACT OF CHANGES ON PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELLS (4720.5220) In accordance with Minnesota Rules 4720.5220 a wellhead protection plan must identify and describe expected changes that may occur during the next ten years to: 1. The physical environment 2. Land use 3. Surface water 4. Groundwater L POTENTIAL CHANGES IDENTIFIED AND IMPACT OF SUCH CHANGES A. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The City of Hugo is expected to grow in population over the next 10 years. According to the Comprehensive Plan, Hugo is expected to double in population from 2010 to 2030. Such growth will have an impact on the physical environment. It is anticipated that additional water infrastructure, sanitary sewer infrastructure, stormwater management practices, and the conversion of land from agriculture to residential will accompany this growth. While development brings increased water demand, it also brings opportunity for source water protection by eliminating ISTSs and wells, wetland and shoreland buffers for improvement of surface water quality, and upgrades to the stormwater management systems. B. LAND USE An existing land use map for the year 2008 and a future land use map for the year 2030 are shown on Figure 9 and Figure 11, respectively. Comparison of the year 2008 and the future 2030 land use indicates that significant changes are planned in Hugo over the next 10 to 20 years. Within the DWSMA, there is currently approximately 1,200 acres of agricultural or farmstead property, 200 acres of commercial/industrial land, and 1,150 acres of residential. Another 2,230 acres is classified as undeveloped, which also could consist of some agricultural land. 360 acres is parkland or golf course and 600 acres is classified as water. New development planned in the DWSMA includes mostly single-family and multi -family residential in the western portion. The 2030 land use plan guides land in the eastern portion of the DWSMA, including the area of highest vulnerability, as agricultural, rural residential. The DWSMA is planned to accommodate a total of 1,900 acres of single-family residential, 800 acres of medium density,135 acres of mixed use, and 1,900 acres of large lot/agricultural land. The majority of land guided for commercial and industrial use is currently being used as such, however, there is some land along U.S. Highway 61 and Frenchman Road (approximately 170 acres) guided for new commercial. The Frenchman Road commercial area is located in an area of high vulnerability of the aquifer; therefore, a management strategy should be examined to mitigate potential contamination in this area. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 17 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 C. SURFACE WATER The City of Hugo is rich with surface water resources that serve many recreational and environmental benefits. As the City develops, it is anticipated that surface water quality will not degrade due to: the City's protective shoreland and wetland ordinances; state requirements with regards to stormwater management; and build -out of a stormwater conveyance and ponding/infiltration system. As agricultural land gets converted into residential land, standards will be implemented that properly manage and pre -treat stormwater run-off, with the desired outcome of improving surface water quality over time. A GROUNDWATER The MetCouncil and the MnDNR have determined that water level in the Metro area groundwater systems have been gradually falling over the last few decades. The MnDNR is implementing groundwater monitoring conditions to appropriations permits in order to monitor this change more closely. Hugo is aware that decreasing regional groundwater levels will affect the long term sustainability of the source aquifers even though there are potential recharge areas within Hugo's DWSMA. The City of Hugo currently monitors the groundwater levels monthly to meet the MnDNR water appropriations requirements. To reduce the need for additional wells, the City has a policy of encouraging water conservation through education of its residents and an increasing block rate structure. The location of the IWMZ are located in Appendix D. E. INFLUENCE OF EXISTING WATER AND LAND GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS There are a number of existing rules and regulations at the Federal, State, County, and Local levels related to managing wells, storage tanks, hazardous waste, surface water, groundwater, and other land use issues within the system's DWSMA. Federal and State Regulations All tank operators and owners must comply with both federal and state regulations for USTs. At the federal level, UST operators and owners must comply with 40 CFR Part 280- 282. At the state level, operators and owners must comply with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7150. Enforcement of state and federal regulations is the responsibility of the MPCA. The existing federal and state regulations provide adequate controls to manage USTs within the DWSMA. Above ground storage tanks (ASTs) which store liquid substances that may pollute the waters of the state are regulated by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7151, if the site capacity is less than one million gallons. AST regulations are also enforced by the MPCA. Existing regulations provide adequate controls to manage storage tanks within the DWSMA. In addition to the MPCA, the state and local fire marshal also regulates tanks. In accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program, the MPCA has regulations ensuring the protection of surface water City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 18 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 bodies. Upon new development or large expansion projects, developers and cities are required to manage stormwater runoff in a way that protects the quality and quantity of surface water, and in areas with high vulnerability aquifers, these policies serve the purpose of protecting groundwater as well. Washington County Regulations The Washington County Development Code has land use ordinances in place that can aid in the regulation of possible contamination sites, including standards for ISTS. The County adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in May of 2009 which outlines the County's role in addressing land and public infrastructure issues within the County. The Comprehensive Plan describes overall objectives and policies that are designed to guide the County toward the accomplishment of its visions by the year 2030 and has specific information relating to surface water management and sustainable communities including contaminated sites and other green infrastructure. Additionally, Washington County adopted the Land and Water Legacy Program and Conservation Priorities Plan in August of 2010, which is intended to provide direction for using funds to improve water quality of lakes, rivers and streams, protect drinking water sources, preserve naturally sensitive areas and protect land along water bodies from development. It also helps the county to most effectively determine how to allocate funds towards projects that have maximum ecological benefits. Washington County (the County), among others, collects and maintains data related to surface water and groundwater. This information can be utilized by communities throughout the County to gain a deeper understanding of the groundwater conditions in their jurisdiction. Funding programs for sealing unused water wells are also available through the County, as well as numerous education and outreach opportunities. The County also supports the Washington Conservation District in its programs to assist County residents in protecting and conserving natural resources. Washington Conservation District also has education programs and cost -share programs for projects that improve surface water quality and encourage good development practices. City of Hugo The City of Hugo has regulations related to the construction of new wells. In the areas that are served by municipal sewer and water services, wells may only be constructed by a conditional use permit, which limits the number of new wells constructed inside the urban service area. Hugo also requires sealing of unused wells by a licensed well driller. With regard to septic systems, the City requires abandonment of such systems upon access and connection to sanitary sewer services, which should reduce the number of systems in the City over time. The City of Hugo also has a wetland protection ordinance and a shoreland management ordinance, both of which are intended to protect the quality of the surface water, and provide for improvement of groundwater in areas with highly vulnerable watersheds. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 19 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 Rice Creek Watershed District The entire Hugo DWSMA falls within the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), which was established in January of 1972 by the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources at the request of citizens, county boards, and cities. The RCWD aims to conserve and restore water resources within the District. A Board of Managers appointed by the county commissioners of Anoka, Ramsey and Washington Counties governs the RCWD. The RCWD manages lakes, streams, groundwater and wetlands through the issuance of permits, monitoring water quality, promoting best management practices, helping municipalities fulfill EPA mandates and administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). It also has a set of rules related to activities including floodplain and wetland alteration, drainage systems, and erosion and sediment control that protect the public's health and welfare as well as water resources. The rules of the RCWD are enforceable under Minnesota State Statute. The RCWD also updated its Watershed Management Plan in 2010 which serves as the basis for all district activities. F. ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS With existing cost -share programs and grant opportunities, the City of Hugo will have resources available to regulate the public water supply's source water and implement the management strategies found herein. Funds to support ongoing wellhead and source water protection efforts will come from the City's water utility fund, Washington County, and MDH grants. Wellhead and source water protection activities will be evaluated on an annual basis, and any changes in the focus of the tasks will also be evaluated to determine if additional funding will be necessary to accommodate the changes. The City of Hugo intends to work in conjunction with Washington County and RCWD to protect the surface water and source water resources as much as possible when it is beneficial and logistically feasible. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 20 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 CHAPTER THREE ISSUES, PROBLEMS, AND OPPORTUNITIES (4720.5230) L LAND USE ISSUES, PROBLEMS, AND OPPORTUNITIES A. SOURCE WATER AQ UIFER Part 1 of the Plan determined that the WHPA and corresponding DWSMA for the source aquifer range from moderate to very high vulnerability to contamination and, therefore, some locations are more likely to be affected by land use activities. Land use and zoning regulations can protect the quality of the aquifers by discouraging types of construction or activity that may cause contamination. The City of Hugo has land use and zoning ordinances in place that could be revised in the future if needed to address potential contaminant sites. Additionally, Hugo has a Comprehensive Plan in place that includes policies for managing growth, the allowable land uses, water supplies, and wells. Policies identified in the Comprehensive Plan will help protect the City's source water aquifer. The DWSMA is entirely located within the City limits, which provides the City with the opportunity to implement management strategies that protect their source water. Given the anticipated growth in the City of Hugo, additional high capacity wells in the City are planned and may impact the delineated WHPAs and necessitate an update of the DWSMA. The City will work with the Wellhead Protection Consultant to amend this Plan as required by the MDH when additional municipal wells are installed. A summary of the IWMZ information is included in Appendix D. B. GROUNDWATER QUALITY Groundwater pumped from the Jordan and Prairie du Chien aquifers by the Hugo municipal wells is currently free of pathogens and disease -causing organisms. In addition, Hugo's public water supply currently meets or exceeds state and federal water quality requirements. For aesthetic purposes, the City treats the water, by chemical addition at the wellheads, to prevent precipitation of iron and manganese in the distribution system. The presence of tritium in some of the wells (discussed previously) is not a health risk, but an indication of the relative age of the aquifer. Well water quality sampling will need to continue so that possible contamination can be identified. There are numerous private wells within the DWSMA and will need to continue to be regulated. Coordination with other local government units (LGUs) in the DWSMA and MDH and DNR to share and maintain information on wells and potential contaminants will be a challenge and an opportunity. Education of landowners, especially those with private wells, ISTS, or other contaminant sources such as storage tanks, will be important in the control of contamination affecting the groundwater quality. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 211 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 C. DRINKING WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT AREAS Land uses found within the DWSMA include agricultural, single family residential, multi -family residential, commercial, office, industrial, institutional, parks/recreational and open space. Potential contaminant sources identified are of concern, need to be monitored and are shown on Table 2, Appendix A and mapped on Figure 12, Appendix B. Some opportunities identified include: • Tracking the potential contaminant source and updating the list of potential contaminant sources as new information becomes available. • Landowner education and proper well management. • Routinely monitoring for land use and potential contaminant source changes within the IWMZ, 200 foot radius around well, in consideration of State Well Code requirements. • Place high priority on new and existing wells identified in the IWMZ and One Year Time of Travel Area for the implementation of best management practices. I. ISSUES, PROBLEMS, AND OPPORTUNITIES DISCLOSED AT PUBLIC MEETINGS AND IN WRITTEN COMMENTS At the beginning of the wellhead protection amendment process, the City of Hugo sent a notification to other LGUs of its intention to amend their wellhead and source water protection efforts. After approval by the MDH, Hugo sent copies of the Part 1 report to the LGUs. The City received a comment letter for the WHP Plan Part 2 from the MetCouncil, and they had no recommended changes. II. ISSUES, PROBLEMS, AND OPPORTUNITIES RELATED TO THE DATA ELEMENTS Part 1 and Part 2 of the Plan have utilized current local and regional information available for compiling and assessing data elements. At a minimum, this Plan will be revised or updated every 10 years as required by the Wellhead Protection Rules and the most recent and accurate data will be utilized at that time. To support on -going wellhead protection efforts, the City will collect data on wells, water quality and land use within its DWSMA. Due to limited resources to independently collect the full range of data and recreate the necessary databases, the City will continue to mainly rely on databases maintained by the State and County agencies to obtain and verify data, as needed. Accessing data on gas and oil pipelines is a challenge, due to the private companies holding that data and being concerned about sharing the data. The City will continue to work closely with those companies with infrastructure, namely Koch and Connexus, to ensure coordination with future well planning and wellhead management. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 22 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 III. ISSUES, PROBLEMS, AND OPPORTUNITIES RELATED TO STATUS & ADEQUACY OF OFFICIAL CONTROLS, PLANS, AND OTHER LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS Numerous controls, plans, and programs exist that may be used to achieve the wellhead protection goals identified in this Plan. State and LGUs currently enforce land use ordinances, zoning laws, sewer ordinances, well permits, and groundwater use appropriation permits. It is anticipated that most local issues may be adequately addressed through these existing processes and adopting of best management practices. As part of the management strategies for this plan, it is recommended that future land use planning and well siting take into account the area of highly or very highly vulnerability when siting development that is likely to include potential contaminants. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 23 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 CHAPTER FOUR WELLHEAD PROTECTION GOALS (4720.5240) In accordance with Minnesota Rules 4720.5240 this section must address goals for present and future water use and land use to provide a framework for determining plan objectives and related actions. Goals outlined in this part were selected based on the information gathered and compiled from the data elements, delineations of the WHPAs and DWSMAs, results of the vulnerability assessments, results of the PCSI, expected changes in land and water uses, identified issues, problems, and opportunities, and evaluation of this information. The public water supply is considered to be moderately, highly and very highly vulnerable. Therefore, the goals and objectives of this Plan will focus on managing potential contaminant sources within the DWSMA, reducing the potential contaminant pathways to the source water aquifer that may be provided by private wells, educating property owners and water supply users, and considering policies that control future siting of potential contaminants. The City of Hugo's WHP team has identified the following goals for implementation of this Plan: Goal 1: The City will work to maintain or improve the current level of water quality so that the municipal water supply will continue to meet or exceed all applicable state and federal water quality standards. Goal 2: The City will work to continue to supply sufficient water quantity for system users and emergency needs. Goal 3: The City will provide and promote activities that protect the source water aquifer that provides water to the municipal system. This will include increased public awareness of the wellhead and source water protection program and groundwater -related issues, and management of the identified potential contaminant sources and conveyance mechanisms within the DWSMA. Goal 4: The City will continue to collect data to support future wellhead and source water protection efforts. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 24 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 CHAPTER FIVE OBJECTIVES AND PLANS OF ACTION (4720.5250) L OBJECTIVES Given the issues, problems, and opportunities discussed in Chapter Three and the goals stated in Chapter Four, the Plan delegates direct management efforts to the following areas to prevent future contamination of the aquifer and increase awareness of groundwater protection: A. Well Management B. Public Education C. Storage Tank Management D. Septic Systems (ISTS) E. Stormwater Management F. Hazardous Waste Management G. Data Collection H. Water Conservation L Planning and Zoning J. Implementation K. Evaluation Each activity shall only be implemented in the sections of the DWSMA that are of the vulnerability level that is applicable to that specific action item per MDH requirements. In general, action items shall follow the basic rule for activities relating to the following areas: Low vulnerability areas - wells Moderate vulnerability areas - wells and tanks High vulnerability areas - all land uses and potential contaminant sources, including wells and tanks A Plan of Action A. WELL MANAGEMENT Objective A]: Take measures to promote proper sealing of abandoned, unused, unmaintained, or damaged wells. Action Al.l : Make property owners aware of potential technical and financial resources that are available to assist them in securing grant funding for properly sealing wells. Who: City Staff Cooperators: Washington Count Time Frame: On -going Estimated Cost: $1,500 each year of mailing/posting How: Use the City's website, newsletters, or direct mailings to make well owners aware of well sealing cost -share programs. Provide information to realtors to pass along to property owners preparing to sell. Action A1.2: Seek funding when available and feasible to locate and/or seal wells located on City property. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 25 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 Who: City Staff Cooperators: Washington County, Consultant Time Frame: On -going, when grant funding is available Estimated Cost: $2,000 (grant application); additional cost for sealing TBD. How: If wells are discovered on City owned property, grant funding shall be sought after to properly seal the well. Objective A2: Take measures to identify properties with abandoned, unused, unmaintained, or damaged wells and potential cross connections between private wells and the City's water system. Action A2: Identify properties with potential water supply cross connections or wells that pose a hazard to the public water supply. Who: City Staff or Consultant Cooperators: MDH, Washington Count Time Frame: 3 to 5 years Estimated Cost: $5,000 to $6,000 research effort, remaining work dependent on results How: Through mapping and field investigation, as well as historical records. When possible, the list of parcels likely to have wells will be incorporated into the City Building Officials records or shared with other jurisdictions in the DWSMA. When the application is made to rebuild or demolish an existing building, the records can be reviewed to determine if a well search is required. Objective A3: Educate the public about proper well management. Action A3: Provide links to MDH and County well management websites on the City's website, include information in the City's newsletter or other direct mailings. Who: City of Hugo Public Works staff or consultant Cooperators: Department of Health Time Frame: Ongoing Estimated Cost: $1,500 each year of mailing/posting How: Use the City's website, newsletters, direct mailings, local newspaper, public access, or social media sites. Objective A4: Investigate "unlocated" or undocumented wells within the City and DWSMA when grant funding is available. Action A4: Provide data to MDH, County well management, and the Minnesota Geological Survey regarding the measured location of "unlocated" and undocumented wells, and investigate the "as - built" construction of wells without construction records. Who: City Staff Cooperators: MDH Time Frame: 5 to 7 years Estimated Cost: unknown How: Apply for grant funding to investigate the location of unlocated wells through Objective A2, surface measurements, and inspections. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 26 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 Objective A5: Incorporate Wellhead Protection initiatives into City Plans Action A5: The City will use this WHP Plan as a resource when updating its Comprehensive Plan, Local Water Management Plan, Water Supply Plan, and other relevant plans. Who: City Staff and Consultant Cooperators: Time Frame: When other plans are revised Estimated Cost: Varies per plan How: WHP initiatives will be addressed and incorporated into the City's various plan updates. Objective A6: Identify New High -Capacity Wells within the DWSMA. Action A6: The City will identify new high -capacity wells that are proposed for construction in or near the City's DWSMA, and/or major changes to groundwater appropriations for existing high - capacity wells, to determine whether the pumping of wells will alter the current boundaries of the DWSMA delineations or other portions of the City's WHP Plan. Who: City Staff and Consultant Cooperators: MDH, MnDNR Time Frame: 3 to 5 years Estimated Cost: $3,000- $5,000 How: City will request to be notified of new permits or changes to existing appropriation permits for high capacity wells near the DWSMA. If determined to potentially be impactful, City Staff, Consultant, and MDH will be requested to evaluate whether proposed pumping will change the boundaries of the DWSMA delineated for the City's wells or if the vulnerability of the aquifer will be affected. Objective A7: Continue to monitor the water quality from City's wells (existing and new) to ensure water quality standards are met Action A7: Examine and review the annual water quality reports to ensure maximum levels of contaminants are not changing Who: City Staff Cooperators: MDH Time Frame: When reports are available Estimated Cost: No additional cost - staff time How: Staff will review water quality reports and provide summaries about changes over time. Objective A8: Work with residents and businesses to assist in sealing unused wells. Action A8: Work with available grant funding for the proper sealing of unused wells. Who: I City Staff or Consultant City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 27 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 Cooperators: MDH Time Frame: Annually Estimated Cost: $2,000 for grant application, project cost unknown How: Apply for grant funding through the MDH. B. PUBLICEDUCATION Objective 131: Develop a public support and understanding for the WHP program through the use of websites, newsletters, and handouts. Action B1.1: Include information about WHP and groundwater protection in the City newsletter, perhaps in conjunction with the City's MS4 permitting requirements. Who: City Staff or Consultant Cooperators: MDH, Minnesota Rural Water Association (MRWA) Time Frame: Ongoing, when applicable Estimated Cost: $500 each mailing/posting How: Identify and obtain existing educational materials available from MDH and other sources. Write newsletter articles describing wellhead protection and include contact information and website addresses for existing educational resources. Action 131.2: Provide information about the WHP Plan and links to other WHP related resources on the City's website. Who: City Staff or Consultant Cooperators: MDH, MRWA Time Frame: Ongoing, when applicable Estimated Cost: $500 each year of mailing/posting How: Provide a summary of WHP goals and implementation. Provide links to WHP related web sites including MDH, Chisa o County, MDA, and EPA. Action B1.3: Educate property owners of agricultural lands on the issues related to agricultural activity and how these issues affect or relate to the protection of the aquifer. Who: City Staff or Consultant Cooperators: MDH, MRWA Time Frame: 5 years Estimated Cost: $500 each mailing/posting How: Coordinate with Washington County, MDH, and MRWA to provide best management practices, handouts, and other resources for dissemination through the City newsletter, website, or other means. C. STORAGE TANK MANAGEMENT Objective Cl: Notify owners of storage tanks located within the DWSMA that the tank is in a source water protection area, and educate the owners of properties containing the storage tanks of the importance of spill prevention. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 28 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 Action Cl: Update list of storage tank owners and contact each property owner and make them aware of their placement within the City's wellhead protection area, proper management of storage tanks, and what to do if there is a spill. Who: City Staff or Consultant Cooperators: MDH Time Frame: 3 years Estimated Cost: $3,000 How: Send mailings out to property owners notifying them about the DWSMA delineation and the importance of spill prevention and reporting requirements. Provide contact numbers for appropriate government agencies to each property owner. D. SEPTIC SYSTEMS (ISTS) Objective D1: Coordinate with Washington County to educate property owners about the need for having onsite sewage treatment systems that comply with environmental standards and other regulations. Action D1: Support County's efforts to educate property owners about ISTS systems and proper maintenance of them. Who: Washington Count Cooperators: City Staff Time Frame: Ongoing Estimated Cost: Staff time How: Provide assistance to Washington County as requested. Continue to discuss requirements in building department. Objective D2: Cooperate with Washington County to maintain a septic system inventory. Action D2: Build off the inventory in this report to maintain an accurate inventory of septic system locations, especially in the DWSMA. Who: City of Hugo Building and Planning department Cooperators: City of Hugo Administration and Public Works Time Frame: Ongoing Estimated Cost: $1,500 How At the time of building or demolition permit, keep a tracking record of new or removed ISTS. Periodically review and revise database. E. STORMWA TER MANAGEMENT ObjectiveEl: Educate the public on proper stormwater management, turf management, proper lawn care practices and water conservation Who: I City Staff or Consultant Cooperators: I MDH, RCWD, MRWA City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 29 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 Time Frame: On -going Estimated Cost: $500 each year of mailing/posting How: In conjunction with the SWPPP and MS4 reporting requirements, include articles on the website, in city newsletters on the importance of lawn care and water conservation. Objective E2: Cooperate with other agencies and programs to manage stormwater quality. Who: City Staff or Consultant Cooperators: RCWD, MPCA, MDH, MRWA Time Frame: On -going Estimated Cost: unknown How: When applicable and economical, the City work to assist government agencies to promote proper management of stormwater quality within the City. F. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT Objective Fl: Educate the public on the proper disposal of hazardous waste items. Action Fl: Provide event information on the household hazardous waste collection day with Washington County near Hugo. Who: City Staff Cooperators: Washington Count Time Frame: On -going Estimated Cost: $500 How: Include information on the City's website, in the City's newsletter, distribute direct mailers, or include water billing inserts to encourage residents within the DWSMA, and throughout the City, to participate in the County's household hazardous waste collection day. Objective F2: Educate those living within the DWSMA of proper hazardous waste management. Action F2: Provide event information to the residents regarding the City Wide Clean Up or Household Hazardous Waste Event in conjunction with Washington County. Who: City of Hugo Administration and Public Works department Cooperators: Department of Health, Washington Count Time Frame: 2 years Estimated Cost: $1,000 How: Include information on the City's website or in the City's newsletter to encourage residents and business owners within the DWSMA, and throughout the City, to participate in the City Wide Clean Up and the benefits of proper household hazardous waste management in regards to wellhead protection. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 30 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 G. DATA COLLECTION Objective Gl: Continue to collect and maintain local geologic and hydrogeologic data in order to improve and augment current information and to provide additional data for future revisions to this Plan. Action GLI: Monitor static and pumping levels in municipal wells. Who: City Staff Cooperators: Time Frame: On -going Estimated Cost: Staff time How: Conduct routine collection of groundwater levels in the municipal wells, which will provide data for the evaluation of groundwater elevation trends over time. A decreasing trend in static water levels in the municipal wells may be cause for the City to pursue more restricted water use measures and /or more effective methods to control public water supply use. This data can also be used to verify the groundwater flow field in the source water aquifer. Action G1.2: Cooperate and support future data collection efforts by other agencies. Who: City Staff Cooperators: MPCA, DNR, MDH, USGS, RCWD Time Frame: On -going Estimated Cost: Unknown, based on requests How: Provide assistance to agencies as requested. Objective G2: Maintain up to date information about wells and potential contaminant sources within the DWSMA. Action G2: In cooperation with existing state or local agencies and programs, maintain the database of wells, ISTS, storage tanks, and shallow disposal wells within the DWSMA that was developed as part of this Plan. Who: City Staff or Consultant Cooperators: MDH Time Frame: On going Estimated Cost: Ongoing How: An inventory of wells and potential contaminant sources was performed as part of the development of this Plan. Database will be reviewed periodically and updated as information becomes available. H. WATER CONSERVATION Objective H1: Implement a community -wide water conservation program. Action HI A: Implement conservation measures included in the Water Supply Plan as part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 311 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 Who: City of Hugo Staff and Consultant Cooperators: MDH, MnDNR Time Frame: When applicable Estimated Cost: $500 for education, cost of additional activities will vary How: Educate the public to encourage users to voluntarily incorporate water saving habits and tools into their lifestyles, improve the exiting water system's operation and maintenance procedures and incorporate costs associated with water conservation programs, adjusting water rate structure, and ensure that all customers are paying for the water they use through audits and meter replacement or calibration. Action 1-11.2: Implement a water pricing model and watering restrictions that encourages water conservation Who: City Staff and Consultant Cooperators: MDH Time Frame: 3 years Estimated Cost: $2,500 How: Work with the City Council to structure water pricing and water restrictions in the summer to encourage limited watering, especially during peak times. L LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING Objective Il : Eliminate or reduce the potential pollution risks to the source water aquifer and minimize the risk of altering the WHPA and DWSMA. Action I1.1: Include a review of this Plan as part of the normal zoning and planning review process. Who: City Staff Cooperators: Time Frame: On -going Estimated Cost: Staff time How: Copies of this Plan will be distributed to city staff and they will review this Plan and incorporate it as part of their project planning review process. Action I1.2: Consider establishment of a wellhead protection overlay district to ensure the development of compatible land uses within the high and very high vulnerable areas of the DWSMA. Who: City of Hugo Planning staff Cooperators: City of Hugo Building staff Time Frame: On -going Estimated Cost: $10,000 if fully implemented; $2,000 to consider implementation How: Copies of this Plan will be distributed to city staff and they will review this Plan and incorporate it as part of their project planning review process. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 32 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 J. IMPLEMENTATION Objective Jl : Track and report WHP activities to aid in implementing WHP objectives. Action Jl: Complete and submit an annual report on completed WHP activities. Who: City Staff Cooperators: Consultant Time Frame: Annually Estimated Cost: $500 How: Prepare an internal report of completed implementation activities. K. EVALUATION Objective Kl: Evaluate Plan Action Kl : Complete an evaluation report every two and one half years Who: City Staff Cooperators: Consultant Time Frame: Every two and one half years Estimated Cost: $2,000 How: Prepare a written report using the MDH WHP Program Evaluation form or a format selected by the City. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 33 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 CHAPTER $IX EVALUATION PROGRAM (4720.5270) The success of the Plan must be evaluated in order to determine whether the implementation activities are accomplishing the intent of the Plan. Monitoring will be ongoing and a written evaluation of the Plan and associated activities will be conducted every two and one half years that the Plan is in effect. The evaluation activities will include the following items: • Track the implementation of the goals, objectives, activities, and tasks discussed in Chapter Five of this Plan; • Determine the effectiveness of specific management strategies regarding the protection of City's municipal water supply; • Identify possible changes to these strategies which may improve their effectiveness; and • Determine the adequacy of financial resources and staff availability to carry out the management strategies planned for each year. The City will continue to coordinate with the MDH in the annual monitoring of the City's municipal water supply to determine if the management strategies presented in this Plan are having an impact on water quality. In addition, water quality problems that may still be occurring will be identified. At the end of each evaluation period (every two and one half years) City Staff will make a written report regarding progress in implementing the Plan, as well as an evaluation of the costs and benefits of the Plan activities. This report may be completed using the MDH Wellhead Protection Program Evaluation form. A copy of the report will be sent to the MDH Source Water Protection Unit in St. Paul. The City will also keep a copy of the report in its records. The intent of the evaluation is to compile a complete and comprehensive study of the implementation of the source management strategies for use when the City updates or revises this Plan. As required by the Wellhead Protection Rules, this Plan will be updated every 10 years at a minimum. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 34 1 P a g e Wellhead Protection Plan - Part 2 June 2015 CHAPTER SEVEN ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY CONTINGENCY STRATEGY (4720.5280) A contingency plan is put into effect to establish, provide, and keep updated certain emergency response procedures and information for the public water supply, which may become vital in the event of a partial or total loss of public water supply services as a result of a natural disaster, chemical contamination, civil disorder, or human -caused disruption. In March of 2010, the City completed its Water Emergency and Conservation Plan as part of its Comprehensive Plan update. The City also currently has an emergency interconnect with the City of Lino Lakes with a rated capacity of 5,000 gpm or 7.2 MG per day. As required, the plan was submitted to the DNR Waters -Water Permit Programs and the MetCouncil for review and approval. The plan has been adopted by the City and incorporated in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the Water Emergency and Conservation Plan and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan are available from the City. City of Hugo, MN WSB Project No. 1904-231 35 1 P a g e Appendix A: Tables TableA:i MonthlyTrecipitation NWS@tation 218037 Location Stillwater ,MN 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 5Lyr[bvg Yearly Jan 0.5 0.96 0.56 0.88 1.55 0.89 2010 36.18 Feb 0.74 1.66 1.69 1.25 1.46 1.36 2011 31.72 Mar 0.73 2.63 1.38 2.32 0.77 1.57 2012 28.87 Apr 2.17 3.2 3.21 5.58 6.92 4.22 2013 35.81 May 3.69 3.54 6.26 5.72 4.17 4.68 2014 35.6 Jun 5.3 5.31 3.84 9.77 10.9 7.02 Average 33.64 Jul 3.68 6.53 5.95 1.57 2.55 4.06 Aug 5.95 5.02 1.23 0.74 2.86 3.16 Sep 5.71 0.87 0.58 1.57 2.46 2.24 Oct 1.98 0.91 1.17 3.89 1.96 1.98 Nov 2.25 0.38 0.9 0.75 1.07 Dec 3.48 0.71 2.1 1.77 2.02 NWS@tation 217477 Location Vadnais3ieights,UMN 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 5Lfr[bvg Yearly Jan 0.47 0.79 0.23 0.79 1.13 0.68 2010 33.32 Feb 0.43 0.96 2.39 0.97 0.97 1.14 2011 32.23 Mar 0.72 1.77 2.46 1.49 0.22 1.33 2012 29.36 Apr 1.31 3.62 2.72 3.6 5.85 3.42 2013 32.52 May 3.09 4.24 8.2 7.04 4.62 5.44 2014 31.89 Jun 5.88 3.62 3.43 7.99 9.48 6.08 Average 31.86 Jul 4.17 10.39 5.21 2.99 2.32 5.02 Aug 5.64 4.52 1.07 0.58 2.93 2.95 Sep 5.27 0.67 0.39 1.44 2.62 2.08 Oct 1.69 0.8 1.27 3.74 1.75 1.85 Nov 2.18 0.24 0.72 0.45 0.90 Dec 2.47 0.61 1.27 1.44 1.45 NWS19tation 218477 Location St.iiPaul,WN 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 SGNyr[bvg Yearly Jan 0.47 0.79 0.23 0.88 1.17 0.71 2010 33.32 Feb 0.43 0.96 2.39 1.28 1.29 1.27 2011 32.23 Mar 0.72 1.77 2.46 2.15 0.52 1.52 2012 29.36 Apr 1.31 3.62 2.72 5.2 5.32 3.63 2013 35.17 May 3.09 4.24 8.2 6 3.59 5.02 2014 34.71 Jun 5.88 3.62 3.43 8.67 11.83 6.69 Average 32.96 Jul 4.17 10.39 5.21 2.73 3.12 5.12 Aug 5.64 4.52 1.07 1.35 4.03 3.32 Sep 5.27 0.67 0.39 1.2 1.72 1.85 Oct 1.69 0.8 1.27 3.79 2.12 1.93 Nov 2.18 0.24 0.72 0.43 0.89 Dec 2.47 0.61 1.27 1.49 1.46 City of Mahtomedi,MN WSB Project No. 1786-86 Page 1 of 1 Table 2 -Potential Contaminant Source Inventory Excludes Septic Systems and Wells FIGUREID MPCA©D NAME ADDRESS CITY ACTIVITY STATUS PCSRNATERIAL FACIUTY[LODE PARCEUID3JUMBER VULNERABILITY 0 MNS000164384 HealthPartners- Wilson Tool 12909 Farnham Ave White Bear Lake Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Active HWG 6511 163-3103121110002 High 1 53305 Wilson Tool International 12912 Farnham Ave White Bear Lake Tank Site Active AST4000 3350 163-310312111000E High 2 MND006451165 Wilson Tool International Inc 12912 Farnham Ave N White Bear Lake Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Active HWG 3350 163-310312111000E High 3 MND006452221 Water Gremlin Hugo 5041130th St N White Bear Lake Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 2100 163-3103121110014 High 4 MND043849512 Truex Inc 5243130th St N White Bear Lake Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 3350 163-3103121110004 High 5 MNS000121350 Lake Area Painting Inc 5241130th St N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Active HWG 2130-01 163-3103121110004 High 6 MND134387182 Kotoski Bros Boat Works 5241130th St N White Bear Lake Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 2114 163-3103121110004 1111gh 7 19055 Glacier International Inc 5211 N 130th St Hugo Tank Site Inactive UST-F000 3350 163-3103121110004 High 8 MNR000107615 Lake Area Painting Decorating Inc 5103130th St Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 2130-01 163-3103121110013 High 9 7291 Metropolitan Steel Fabricators 5212 N 130th St Hugo Leak Site Inactive LUST 3340 163-3003121440004 High 10 MND066522103 Metropolitan Steel Fabricators 5212 130th St N White Bear Lake Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 3340 163-3003121440004 High 11 MND981093453 Roadmaster Custom Coaches &Trailers Inc 5118130th St N White Bear Lake Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 3370 163-3003121440004 High 12 MND985667872 Dyna Glass Inc 5118 N 130th St Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 2110 163-3003121440004 High 13 MND985686526 Pinnacle Finishing 5100130th St N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 2130 163-3003121440004 High 14 8118 Glacier International 6511 N 130th St Hugo Leak Site Inactive LUST 3350 163-2803121340001 High 15 MN0000293563 Bever & Sons Inc 7131132nd St N White Bear Lake Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 2453 163-2803121440003 1111gh 16 MNS000164681 DryTech Restoration & Construction Servic 13419 Fenway Blvd N Ste 104 Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Active HWG 7000 163-300312141001E High 17 MNS000166868 Coating Solutions Inc 13525 Fenway Blvd N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Active HWG 2130 163-300312114000E High 18 MNR000078329 Como tube & Supplies Inc- Hugo 13575 Fenway Blvd N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Active HWG 4320 163-3003121140003 High 19 MNR000077636 Loadmaster Lubricants LLC 13615 Fenway Blvd Ct N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Active HWG 4320 163-2903121230041 High 20 1701 Johnson J R Supply 5226 N Frenchman Rd Hugo Leak Site Inactive LUST 2120 163-2003121320025 Moderate 21 MND982613119 First State Bank Hugo 14431 Forest Blvd N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 2200 163-2003121310005 High 22 MND985771088 Lindy George H DDS 14475 Forest Blvd N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Active HWG 6511 163-2003121310023 High 23 MND982636979 Quality Turf Maintenance - Hugo 5377145th St N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 2453 163-2003121320023 High 24 MND982634271 Lindy George H Dds 14491 Forest Blvd N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 6511 163-2003121310023 High 25 MND985699099 Uni Green Inc 5517145th St N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 2453 163-2003121320019 1111gh 26 MNR000028894 InkMark of Saint Paul 5501145th St N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 3220 163-2003121320013 High 27 15967 Lavalle Property 5297145th St N Hugo Leak Site Inactive LUST 9000 163-190312114001E Moderate 28 MNR000029512 Toms Wholesale Auto 14529 Forest Blvd N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Active HWG 2110 163-2003121240051 High 29 125277 Former Carpenter Steak House 14559 Forest Blvd N Hugo Tank Site Active UST -FOOD 2500 163-2003121240042 High 30 MNS000IGIS62 Old Antique Store 14583 Forest Blvd N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 2100 1163-2003121210013 163-2003121240041 High 31 MND022826481 Hugo Feed Mill 5582146th St N Hugo lHazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 3110-01 163-2003121240065 High 32 MN0000855718 Hugo city of- Upper 146th St 5524 Upper 146th St N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Active SROUT 6200 163-200312124000E High 33 MNR000108555 Erickson Printing Inc 14667 Forest Blvd N Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 3220-01 163-2003121240034 High 34 4260 Conoco Sixty -One Stop Inc 14815 Forest Blvd N Hugo Tank Site Active UST-F000 2116 Moderate 35 1656 Grangers Inc 14797 Forest Blvd Hugo Leak Site Inactive SPL 2110 163-2003121210013 Moderate 36 4259 Key Automotive 14797 Forest Blvd N Hugo Tank Site Inactive UST-F000 2110-01 163-2003121210013 Moderate 374141 Huglo/winthro Elementary School 14895 Francesca Ave Hugo Tank Site Active UST-FO00 6000 163-2003121120021 Moderate 38 124708 Hugo Lift Station L-3 4350145th St N Hugo Tank Site Active UST-W000 4346 163-1903121130007 Moderate 39 124038 Oneka Elementary School 4888 Heritage Highway N Hugo Tank Site Inactive UST-FOOO 6100 163-1803121130001 High 40 VP1390 15171 Freeland 15171 Freeland Ave Hugo Voluntary Investigation & Cleanup (VIC) Inactive PCs-VIC 1100-01 163-1703121430013 Moderate 41 3330 Imperial Tool Inc 5701152nd St N Hugo Petroleum Brownfield Active PCS-BMS 3000 163-1703121430003 Moderate 42 11671 Atkinson Dean A 5654152nd St Hugo Tank Site Inactive AST-F000 2100 163-1703121420007 Moderate 43 4357 American Structural Metals Inc 15152 Freeland Ave N Hugo Tank Site Active UST-F000 3000 163-170312142000E Moderate 44 PBR000612 National Recycling Inc 15717 Forest Blvd N Hugo Solid Waste, Permit by Rule Active SWIMS 4346 163-170312113000E Moderate 45 18586 Metropolitan Steel Fabricators 5212 N 130th St Hugo Tank Site Inactive UST-F000 3340 163-3003121440004 High 46 121669 Como tube & Supplies Inc - Hugo 13575 Fenway Blvd N Hugo Tank Site Active AST-F000 4320 163-3003121140003 High 47 19633 Southern Auto Sales 14529 Forest Blvd N Hugo Leak Site Inactive LUST 2110 163-2003121240051 High 48 17828 Southern Auto Sales 14529 Forest Blvd N Hugo Leak Site Inactive LUST 2110 163-2003121240051 High 49 121639 Loadmaster Lubricants LLC 13615 Fenway Blvd Ct N Hugo Tank Site Active AST4000 4320 163-2903121230041 High 50 MNRNE33GF Loadmaster Lubricants LLC 13615 Fenway Blvd Ct N Hugo Industrial Stormwater Permit Inactive SROUT 4320 163-2903121230041 High 51 MNRNE38ZI Loadmaster Lubricants LLC 13615 Fenway Blvd Ct N Hugo Industrial Stormwater Permit Active SROUT 14320 163-2903121230041 High 52 MNR000103390 Mendez Auto Body 14529 Highway 61 Hugo Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG Inactive HWG 2110 163-2003121240052 High Table 3A - Public Wells FIGURE3D UNIQUENUMBER NAME PCSWATERIAL FACILITYLXODE VULNERABILITY PARCEL313114UMBER 0 00686272 HUGO 5 WEL 6200 High 163-180312141005 1 00523948 HUGO 2 WEL 6200 High 163-3003121430003 2 00654497 HUGO 3 WEL 6200 High 163-2003121220007 3 00208521 HUGO 1 WEL 6200 High 163-2003121230025 4100671642 IHUG04 IWEL 16000 IModerate 163-2003121220007 5100773400 IHUG06 IWEL 16000 IModerate 163-3203121320006 Table 3B - Private Wells FIGURE31D UNIQUEMUMBER NAME STATUS PCSWATERIAL FACILITYIXODE PARCELI]DrNUMBER VULNERABILITY 0 00182149 STRUMPFER, GARY A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121220002 High 1 00411626 WILSON TOOL CO. S WEL 3350 163-3103121110006 High 2 00544293 KUPCHO, DONALD A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121130031 High 3 00439142 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140003 High 4 00439243 KREY, SHANE A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121240001 Moderate 5 00512487 PETERSON, KEITH A WEL 9000-01 163-2803121320001 High 6 00448290 LEMAY, BRUCE & MARY A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121130033 High 7 00110336 SCHTOUCHAM, GEORGE A WEL 1100-01 163-1603121410001 High 8 00506071 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140017 High 9 00516357 CHAMBERLAIN, RONALD A WEL 1100-01 163-2903121410003 High 10 00480705 SCHMIDT, JCAN A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121440001 Moderate 11 00440009 BELL, DAVID & CATHERINE A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121410005 Moderate 12 00427660 JOHNSON, CRAIG A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121410007 Moderate 13 00494957 PELTIER, THEDORA A WEL 1100-01 163-2903121440001 High 14 00512357 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140022 High 15 00512325 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140025 High 16 00163708 HAUBLE, MABEL A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121230006 High 17 00506052 BRICKS UNLIMITED A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121320002 Moderate 18 00124392 MONITOR, HENRY C. A WEL 1100-01 163-2003121130019 Moderate 19 00504189 J.R. JOHNSON SUPPLY INC. A WEL 2123 163-1903121140011 High 20 00448314 TOUPAI, RICH A WEL 1100-00 163-3203121220004 High 21 00404269 METROPOLITAN STEEL A WEL 3340 163-3003121440016 High 22 00427613 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121410009 High 23 00496784 SMITH, MARK A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121130021 High 24 00208526 MICHALETY, ROBERT A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121130013 High 25 00163717 BAKULA, RICHARD A WEL 1100-01 163-0903121410001 Moderate 26 00130896 VAIL, RICHARD A WEL 1100-01 163-1603121140007 High 27 00182806 CAL INLAND INC. A WEL 2100 163-1703121130008 Moderate 28 00485988 HANSON, STEVEN A WEL 1100-01 163-1603121110001 High 29 00112696 ANDERSON, ROBERTA. A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121440005 Moderate 30 00527750 PULED, FRANK A WEL 9000 163-0803121440003 Moderate 31 00441753 J.R. JOHNSON GREENHOUSE A WEL 3000 163-1903121120004 High 32 00465999 PASTERICK, CHRIS A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140009 High 33 00404192 MINNESOTA ADHESIVES A WEL 3000 163-1703121430007 Moderate 34 00427658 COPELAND, MICHAEL A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121420030 High 35 00S12355 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140026 High Table 3B - Private Wells 36 00512392 MILLER, CHRIS A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140004 High 37 00469841 HAUBLE, DONALD A WEL 1100-01 163-320312123000E High 38 00141730 BEYERSBERGEN, PETER A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121330004 High 39 00S12318 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121110015 High 40 00512350 KOSTOCK, BRENT A WEL 1100-01 163-2103121210002 Moderate 41 00163718 PELOQUIN, JOHN A WEL 1100-01 163-1703121340001 Moderate 42 00248688 AMERICAN STRUCTURAL ME A WEL 3000 163-1703121430020 Moderate 43 00153490 RUST, WILLIAM A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121440001 Moderate 44 00162148 BAILEY, LOUIS A WEL 1100-01 163-2903121140005 High 45 00493212 MELANCON, KURT A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121230003 High 46 00512317 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140005 High 47 00163771 PECHONIS, NICHOLAS A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121130002 High 48 00663539 OLSON, PHILIP A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121440002 Moderate 49 00448286 A WEL 3000 163-3103121440001 Moderate 50 00423824 HARTMANN, STEVEN JOSEPH A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121410004 Moderate 51 00542572 CZECK, AMBROSE A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121320001 Moderate 52 00506072 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140026 High 53 00208523 TIEDENS, MARVIN A WEL 9000-02 163-2803121230001 High 54 00138120 A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121330006 High 55 00162118 MARSHALL, ED A WEL 1100-01 163-1703121240002 Moderate 56 00107049 JESPERSON, M.C. S WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140067 High 57 00161830 PETERSON, ELMER A WEL 1100-01 163-1703121420004 Moderate 58 00175017 PLATENBERG, GARY A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121410004 Moderate 59 0040S713 GULLIVAN, MIKE A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121410010 High 60 00506076 DORDAL, LELAND A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140013 High 61 0046S9S2 HAMLIN, JEFF A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121130022 High 62 00512358 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140026 High 63 00138116 CARLSON, NORM A WEL 2100 163-1703121420003 Moderate 64 00550991 WEBER, JIM A WEL 1100-01 163-0903121440001 Moderate 65 00674743 ARCAND, HOWARD A WEL 9000-01 163-2903121430001 High 66 00512393 BRATLAND, ARDEN A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121130019 High 67 00427625 DYNA GLASS A WEL 3000 163-3103121110002 High 68 00561775 ONEKO RIDGE GOLF COURSE A WEL 5000 163-3203121310001 Moderate 69 00450649 A WEL 3000 163-3103121440001 Moderate 70 00450417 A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121330001 Moderate 7100112471 A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121440001 Moderate 72 00512477 LOWELL, PETE A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140011 High Table 3B - Private Wells 73 00138255 FORD, DANIEL A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121410003 High 74 00512072 ANDERSON, BOB A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121440003 Moderate 75 00544452 BAIERD, DONALD A WEL 3000 163-1703121120003 Moderate 76 00420335 A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121220002 High 77 00447839 A WEL 1100-01 163-0903121440002 Moderate 78 00701585 CLARK, DAVID A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121130004 Moderate 79 00249268 GLAMOS WIRE PRODUCTS 2- S WEL 3000 163-1703121420008 Moderate 80 00248689 AMERICAN STRUCTURAL ME A WEL 3000 163-1703121430019 Moderate 81 00248249 AMERICAN STRUCTURAL ME A WEL 3000 163-1703121430022 Moderate 82 00153221 ROBOKOFF, WALTER J. A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121330005 High 83 00412853 WEISNER, CARY A WEL 1100-01 163-2003121420002 Moderate 84 00435108 A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121330004 Moderate 85 00427698 BEAVER, JIM & KAREN A WEL 9000 163-2803121430004 High 86 00130802 TOTAL PACKAGING, INC. A WEL 3000 163-3103121110005 High 87 00130853 A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121330014 High 88 00465951 HANSON, BOB A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121130032 High 89 00138108 MARVIN, JEFFREY A. A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121330007 High 90 00494973 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140026 High 91 00494974 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140016 High 92 00496799 CAFF, PAM A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140012 High 93 00153451 HUMMEL, FRED F. A WEL 1100-01 163-1603121140002 High 94 00169269 STEVENS, LEE A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121410001 High 95 00512356 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140026 High 96 00249301 TWIN PINE MHP 2 A WEL 1100-03 163-1703121430009 Moderate 97 00512416 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140023 High 98 00249300 TWIN PINE MHP 1 A WEL 1100-3 163-1703121430008 Moderate 99 00404155 REGAL PLASTIC PRODUCTS I A WEL 3000 163-1703121430007 Moderate 100 00448268 BUMER, DEAN & JOYCE A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140007 High 101 00112662 METRO. STEEL FABRICATORS A WEL 3340 163-3003121440016 High 102 00208529 PELTIER, DAVID A WEL 1100-01 163-3203121110002 High 103 00110526 WEBER, GARY A WEL 1100-01 163-1603121140006 High 104 00506073 WEBER, PETER A WEL 1100-01 163-0903121440004 Moderate 105 00195667 WILSON TOOL CO. A WEL 3350 163-3103121110006 High 106 00440026 OGBURN, PHILLIP A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121320003 High 107 00435146 SIVULA, JOEL & DEB A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121440002 High 108 00448312 BOLZ, JOHN & LAURA A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140006 High 109 00606906 MEIS, CHUCK A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121130004 Moderate Table 3B - Private Wells 110 00196259 NELSON, DENNIS T. A WEL 1100-01 163-1603121340004 Moderate 11100603906 A WEL 9000 163-2803121130003 Moderate 112 00405717 DUNLON, R. JR. A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121410006 Moderate 113 00512417 STEELE A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140024 High 114 00248251 GLAMOS WIRE PRODUCTS 1- S WEL 3000 163-1703121430011 Moderate 115 00196268 PELTIER, KEVIN & JEAN A WEL 1100-01 163-2903121440002 High 116 00483201 LAVALLE, MARVIN A WEL 9000 163-1903121410003 Moderate 117 00413574 ATKINSON, DEAN A WEL 1100-01 163-2903121410003 High 118 00676806 HOLM, DAVE & KAREN A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121230002 High 119 00448304 BERNARD, SCOTT A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121130034 High 120 00153248 HYLLE, PAUL & BRENDA A WEL 9000-01 163-2803121240001 High 121 00532367 A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121420003 High 122 00609529 BALD EAGLE SPORTS ASSOC. S WEL 9000 163-3303121320001 Moderate 123 00163756 JESKA,AL A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121230005 High 124 00208524 VASELAKAS, GEORGE A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121130012 High 125 00208525 RIECH, DONALD A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121130003 High 126 00523616 LUND, MARK E. A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121130020 High 127 00437312 DREWRY, TOM A WEL 1100-01 163-3403121230001 Moderate 128 00548280 BAUER, SUSAN & ROGER A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121310002 High 129 00407085 SCHEERER, WALTER A WEL 1100-01 163-2903121140005 High 130 00512448 A WEL 1100-01 163-3103121140010 High 131 00556143 ONEKA RIDGE GOLF COURSE A WEL 5000 163-3203121310001 Moderate 132 00599997 SMITH, CRAIG A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121430008 High 133 00608010 MERSCH, RANDY A WEL 9000-02 163-1503121210002 Very High 134 00690434 A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121210004 High 135 00667979 LINDEN, BEN & NICOLE A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121230008 High 136 00712531 A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121210008 High 137 00706695 A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121210006 High 138 00700637 A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121210010 High 139 00700607 FARRINGTON, ANDY A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121430005 High 140 00634732 CAIN, MARK A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121430009 High 141 00698136 A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121210002 High 142 00678139 HUMENANSKY, BRIAN A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121210003 High 143 00690759 A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121210013 High 144 00693982 A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121420003 High 145 00786988 CITY OF HUGO A WEL 6000 163-3203121320006 Moderate 146 00507726 GRANGER, DARRYL A WEL 1100-01 163-2003121210034 Moderate Table 3B - Private Wells 147 00507708 ORTEN, DAVID A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121230006 High 148 00676412 GUZZETTA, RITA & DAN A WEL 1100-01 163-310312112001E High 149 00700636 A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121210011 High 150 00717247 A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121210007 High 151 00695747 A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121210005 High 152 00698123 A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121210009 High 153 00648895 A WEL 9000 163-3303121120001 Moderate 154 00697130 VINING,JIM A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121230003 High 155 00647914 GIARUSHI, ALI A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121310002 High 156 OOS97123 A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121430007 High 157 00678150 STAEDT, BRIAN A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121430006 High 158 00722239 A WEL 1100-01 163-2803121430010 High 159 00716393 PELOQUIN, VERN A WEL 9000 163-1703121330003 Moderate 160 00712569 A WEL 1100-01 163-3303121210012 High 161 Field Located WEL 3600 163-3103121110014 High 162 Field Located WEL 5000 163-3203121310001 Moderate 163 Field Located WEL 5000 163-3203121310001 Moderate 164 Field Located I I IWEL 15000 163-3203121310003 IModerate Table 4 - Septic Systems FIGURED NAME ADDRESS CITY ACTIVITY PCS9FAATERIAL FACILITYMODE PARCE1.31DINUMBER VULNERABILITY 0 MELANCON,KURT C & NOVAK- 6480 125TH ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 11000-01 163-3303121230003 High 1 HOLM,DAVID L & KAREN L 6460 125TH ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 9000 163-3303121230002 High 2 FLUGER,STEVEN H & JUDITE P 6570 125TH ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 9000 163-3303121240001 High 3 KING,JOHN M & KATHERINE C 12789 GREYSTONE CT N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121210010 High 4 ESCH,BRIAN E & DONNA L 12791 GREYSTONE AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121210011 High 5 CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121220007 High 6 12823 GREYSTONE AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121210012 High 7 12841 GREYSTONE CT N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121210008 High 8 LEE,SHARON M 12849 GREYSTONE AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121210013 High 9 DUFRESNE,ROBERT L & DIANE L 12844 GREYSTONE AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121210004 High 10 12833 GOODVIEW AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121220002 High 11 12867 GREYSTONE CT N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121210007 High 12 HUMENANSKY,BRIAN S & MELANIE 12914 GREYSTONE AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121210003 High 13 FRY,DAVID & MONICA 12861 GOODVIEW AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121220003 High 14 LI,DOMINIC & WENDY L 12917 GREYSTONE AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121210006 High 15 EDWARDS,JANET E TRS 12968 GREYSTONE AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121210002 High 16 KOENEMAN,KEN & DARLING,NANCY K 12973 GREYSTONE AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-3303121210005 High 17 7325 132ND ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2703121330001 High 18 13110 HENNA AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2703121330002 High 19 STAEDT,BRIAN M & DEBORAH 0 13140 HADLEY CIR N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121430006 High 20 RUPPERT,CLINTON N & JODY 1 13175 GOODVIEW AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121330014 High 21 LEE,NENG 6475 132ND ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121330003 High 22 KIRCHOFFNER,DANIEL D & DIANE 6315 132ND ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121330001 High 23 SIVULA,JOEL E & DEBRA M 7194 132ND ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121440002 High 24 HAGLE,DENNIS S & BENSON BECKY 13292 GOODVIEW AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2903121410001 High 25 BAHM,RAYMOND A & BONITA K 6310 132ND ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121320003 High 26 KEATE,LYNN T & LAURIE A 13327 GOODVIEW AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121320004 High 27 HOHN,JASON B & ABBIE M 6854 132ND ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121420003 High 28 COHEN,JERRY D & SUSAN DEY 6788 132ND ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121310004 High 29 GRIEMAN,EDWARD G & LORRAINE 6606 132ND ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 9000 163-2803121310003 High 30 GIARUSHI,ALI S/WORKMAN,MONICA 6720 132ND ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 9000 163-2803121310002 High 31 PARKER,ROBERT A & SUE ELLEN 6520 132ND ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 9000-01 163-2803121320001 High 32 NELSON,SUSAN E 6644 132ND ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 9000 163-2803121310001 High 33 6918 132ND ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 9000 163-2803121420004 High 34 CONNOLLY,JAMES 1 & BARBARA 13475 GOODVIEW AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121320002 High 35 MANKE,JAMES C & ANNE M 13514 GOODVIEW AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1000-01 163-2903121140006 High 36 VINING,JAMES D 6451 EGG LAKE RD CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121230003 High 37 FLAHERTY,ELIZABETH & QUICKSELL 6477 EGG LAKE RD CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121230004 High 38 6425 EGG LAKE RD CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121230002 High 39 13543 GOODVIEW AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121230001 High 40 HOCKING,DALE W & COLLEEN M 6539 EGG LAKE RD CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121230005 High 41 WRICH,MARK S & DANA M 6549 EGG LAKE RD CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2803121230007 High 42 KNEBEL,MARY NORBERTA-PAMELA B 13580 GOODVIEW AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-2903121140007 High 43 LINDEN,NICOLE J & BENJAMIN J 6444 EGG LAKE RD N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 9000 163-2803121230008 High 44 ANDERSON,KAREN J CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-1803121430002 High 45 FRANE,JOSEPH M & JOANNE M 7095 ONEKA LAKE BLVD CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-1603121140005 High 46 7286 157TH ST N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 9000 163-1603121110001 High 47 HAYEK,LYNN B & MATTHEW F 15936 HARROW AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-1603121110004 High 48 WETTERLING,DANIEL G &MARY L 15978 HARROW AVE N CITY OF HUGO Individual Sewage Treatment System ISTS 1100-01 163-1603121110005 High Permit Permittee 1975-6218 HUGO, CITY OF 1975-6218 HUGO, CITY OF 1975-6218 HUGO, CITY OF 1975-6218 HUGO, CITY OF 1975-6218 HUGO, CITY OF 1975-6218 HUGO, CITY OF 1978-6246 LACASSE, CYRIL 1989-6505 VALLEY PAVING INC 1991-6157 MINNESOTA PIPELINE CO 1994-6183 C W HOULE INC 1995-6039 ONEKA RIDGE GOLF COURSE 1995-6039 ONEKA RIDGE GOLF COURSE 1995-6148 C W HOULE INC 2004-3040 MINNESOTA PIPELINE CO 2008-0754 TWIN PINE MOBILE HOME PARK 2008-0754 TWIN PINE MOBILE HOME PARK 2010-0445 HUGO, CITY OF Table 5: Water Appropriation Permits in City of Hugo Use ID Usename Category Permit Volume (MG) Permit GPM Permit Resource Name Acres Well Num Well Depth XUTM YUTM 211 Municipal Waterworks Waterworks 650.0 5,825 CJDN 208521 320 211 Municipal Waterworks Waterworks 650.0 5,825 OPDCCJDN 523948 261 211 Municipal Waterworks Waterworks 650.0 5,825 CJDN 654497 315 211 Municipal Waterworks Waterworks 650.0 5,825 CJDN 671642 219 211 Municipal Waterworks Waterworks 650.0 5,825 CJDN 686272 275 211 Municipal Waterworks Waterworks 650.0 5,825 CJDN 773400 355 290 Major Crop Irrigation Major Crop Irrigation 13.3 400 60 OSTPOPDC 141720 203 275 Livestock Watering Special Categories .4 200 HARDWOOD CREEK 276 Pipeline and Tank Testing Special Categories 2.0 800 OSTP 554123 162 252 Temporary Construction (dewatering) Temporary 16.0 440 281 Golf Course Irrigation Non -Crop Irrigation 61.0 700 125 QBAA 544462 175 500672 4996953 281 Golf Course Irrigation Non -Crop Irrigation 61.0 700 125 QBAA 544463 175 500645 4997030 252 Temporary Construction (dewatering) Temporary 21.0 600 253 Temporary Pipeline/Tank Testing Temporary .7 800 OSTP 554123 162 212 Private Waterworks Waterworks 8.7 400 OPDC 249300 185 212 Private Waterworks Waterworks 8.7 400 OPDC 249301 185 283 Landscaping/Athletic Fields Non -Crop Irrigation 7.1 150 12 OPDC 713255 201 502576 4999620 TableMANaterMsageM Unique0 Number0 WellOName0 20091MG)CJ 20101MG)[A 20111MG)IJ 20121MG)ld 20131MG)Ld 523948 2 132.0 117.2 122.8 133.6 56.4 654497 3 103.3 88.0 82.0 112.1 92.5 671642 4 101.3 85.3 65.6 106.5 97.5 686272 5 76.6 79.8 78.4 85.9 84.1 773400 6 56.3 Totals 413.2 370.3 348.8 438.1 386.8 Source: 2009 to 2011- DNR State Water Use Database; 2012 to 2013 - City of Hugo. TableffOCAnnualWaterWithdrawl Year Total Water Pumped (MG) Percent Unmetered/ Unaccounted Average Demand (MGD)* Maximum Demand MGD * Residential gallons/ ca ita/da Total gallons/ capita/day 1998 86.027 11.7% 0.23 0.21 86.9 121.8 1999** 82.196 0.23 2000 1122.178 4.7% 0.33 0.32 76.3 95.2 2001 142.413 4.9% 0.39 0.37 1.423 72.1 90.3 2002 149.200 10.1 % 0.41 0.37 1.569 67.6 89.4 2003 197.387 4.2% 0.54 0.52 1.639 88.1 114.5 2004 187.521 5.4% 0.51 0.49 1.566 82.7 107.9 2005 204.608 16.8% 10.56 0.52 1.880 175.2 197.4 2006 293.055 3.4% 10.80 0.77 3.090 193.7 1128.2 2007 1381.933 16.5% 11.05 0.98 4.149 178.12 1121.6 Data collected from 2009 Comprehensive Plan *Average demand in parentheses is based on gallons sold per day. Maximum day demand is based on gallons pumped in a day. It is not possible to measure the gallons sold on the highest water pumped day. **1999 water demand was not available. MG - Million Gallons MGD - Million Gallons per Day C/I/I- Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Table 8: Projected Water Use Year Population Served Average Day Demand (MGD) Maximum Day Demand (MGD) Projected Demand (MGY) 2008 10,951 1.25 4.49 455.4 2009 13,296 1.51 5.44 552.9 2010 15,640 1.78 6.41 650.4 2011 16,666 1.90 6.84 693.1 2012 17 692 2.02 7.27 735.7 2013 18 718 2.13 7.67 778.4 2014 19 744 2.25 8.10 821.0 2015 20 770 2.37 8.53 863.7 2016 21796 2.48 8.93 906.3 2020 29 000 2.95 10.62 1 076.9 2030 40 000 4.20 15.12 1 533.0 MGu - Million Gallons per Uay MGY - Million Gallons per Year From Hugo's 2009 Comprehensive Plan Appendix B: Figures T31 T31 T31 T37 R21 T3-1=R22� R21 S7 R2�1-S8 S12 - R21 S9 S10 T31� R21� S11 L � T31 R22 ' 31 I.A. R�21 1S�t St= T31 R21 61 T31 R21 S14 z a o�T31 R21 'S7.9�d T311R22�� N E S24 - ake Oneka �- [)�I1` Frenc hma n Rd ❑ - Rice Lake N T31 R�21 S20 T31 R2,1� S21 T31 R21 S22 S23 #h St N i T31 R22 F9 �S25 137th St N r fs T31 R21 a f T31 R21'�' T31 R�21 T31_R27 S30 � S29 S28 S27 T31 R21 � S26 =32nd=St= - L I _ 130th�Srt.N .� T31 R22 S36 T31-R21 T31 R21 Bald T31 R21 T31 R21 h =N T31`R2:1` S35 S31 S32 S33 J i� S34�- Y.' Eagle Lake �tb�M 1rN T30 Benson T30 al' R21 S6 T30 �- Ro22 S2nth= Park Pond = R22 S1 - - t- ; T30 � Sections ' R21-S,5 � ® DWSMA City Boundary Li 0 3 :1 A 3 a i 3 3 0 A Figure 1 - Public Land Survey System Map N A C-HUGO Wellhead Protection Plan A l� SB City of Hugo, M N �■�■■■� 1 inch - 3,000 feet ��''''"&�"'� 1"� .,• Fr "'tan Rd At Bald Eagle k r Lake it-HUGO ED Oneka \-ake�\vaN Egg Lake 140th 4N F9g < r `�k0 n 1 PwI d Q 3 d 130th St N 0 0 0 Benson Park Pond "I Oneka Lake La 137thISt N I� 132nd St ml 125th S't N — — :� Sty - �'- I -Round Lake •— — 1-20th St Very High Vulnerability C High Vulnerability CModerate Vulnerability u Q DWSMA City Boundary Figure 2 - DWSMA Vulnerability Wellhead Protection Plan City of Hugo, MN N A A TSB 1 inch - 3,000 feet iAssarer ',1r "'It chman Rd N m 1 j Bald Eagle Lake 1 1 1 C-HUGO Oneka Lake 157th1 St N , C� F— INZ Oneka \aRice Lake Egg Lake 140th St-N 140th St N 8<137th St NZ . Q 132nd St N 130th St N > o 0 c� Sunset Lake 125th 3t N 122�d St N i DWSMA .�...�...�..._..-129th'S L,.._.I City Boundary Bedrock Geology Benson Park Pond Jordan Sandstone 117th St N Prairie du Chien Group St. Peter Sandstone LaKe Figure 3 - Bedrock Geology Map Wellhead Protection Plan City of Hugo, MN N A TSB 1 inch = 3,000 feet h QE'S' 'IHPP3. f%li. . �' I Bald Eagle Lake C-HUGO 65th-&- --------------------- 0 w Oneka Lake St N 61 a) L/ CZ) One 0 Pr( Ri Lake 0 Egg Lake 140 N 1 D.th--S -N F9 9<a keRoN 137th St N C-D 11'3-2n St;N 1 l0th -St- > 'D 0 0 A Ogg% OR.h N DWSMA City Boundary Solis Coarse -Loamy Fine -Loamy Loamy Benson Park Pond Sandy Sandy or Sandy -Skeletal Sandy Over Loamy Other (Water or Urban Land), Figure 4A - Soil Cover Wellhead Protection Plan City of Hugo, MN N A /� TSB 1 inch = 3,000 feet &AI'& iw A Bald Eagle Lake C-HUGO a 1 73 N 130t -E Benson Park Pond Figure 413 - Soil Permeability Wellhead Protection Plan City of Hugo, MN N z > 0 St N DWSMA City Boundary Permeability (in/hr) 0 AZ� 0.5 h- - tN 1 2 3 5 Greater Tha n 6 F- N A /� TSB 1 inch A .. e 7�� Oneka Lake 61 Q Fr 1 e Oneka �.aK Rice %Rd- Lake Egg ti�`Lake �1 140N F99�ake j Bald y('! Eagle Lake Benson Park Pond C-HUGO 137th St N - L ' `1-570 St N �l z — a' _ d a� 1 125th►St N ? DWSMA L... I City Boundary Highly Erodible Land ;l 0 Potentially Highly Erodible Land Non -Highly Erodible Land Figure 5 - Erodible Lands Wellhead Protection Plan City of Hugo, MN N A TSB 1 inch = 3,000 feet &AS''&iwP A% dr 01-1117, 65t.h-5t-b > S On 157th St A z E 0 Lake 137th St N p I -A p" W z Le 132nd St 130th St N onset —T L e 777 -2-5-t-h-S"t N Bald St Eagle a Round Andy/ L/ake F-771 N Benson DWSMA Park Pon 117th St N I City Boundary QK Public Waters Wetlands C-HUGO 7 6� Oneka VA Rd Figure 6 - Public Waters and Wetlands Wellhead Protection Plan City of Hugo, MN N A /� TSB 1 inch = 3,000 feet &AS'& iw- 1 I I 1 1 1 Frelnchman Rd N 1 j Bald Eagle Lake I 1 1 C-HUGO 61 Oneka \- *e15VI Egg Lake 140th St N F r 4e+,, n 1 PwI d a> 3 a� 130th St N 0 0 (7 Benson Park Pond 117th St N Oneka Lake 157th1 St N a> d E 0 Z -74 140th St N 137th St N A ,, .k md 132nd St N Figure 7 - Major and Minor Watersheds Wellhead Protection Plan City of Hugo, MN Sunset Lake 3t N DWSMA 1 City Boundary Major Watersheds ....J20th St N Minor Watersheds Browns Creek CClearwater Creek F Bald Eagle Lake Hardwood Creek N A A TSB 1 inch = 3,000 feet h�QE'S'fYl'IHPP3. f%li. I Ichr6 Bald Eagle Lake it-HUGO ,j[x'O'ox000OF- 0,0 Oneka i. Lake -LI 157tt St N z %A /�// � ------------------ T Oneka Ric( Rd Al Lake Egg L IK L A 140t, St"L 11� z 130th -0 Benson 1� Na Park Pond 137thiSt N 1� z 32n t N 11 2nd St F4 — L7 Sunset k Lake St N 122nd Round Lake t IN DWSMA � City Boundary Shoreiand Overlay 100-Year Floodplain M 500-Year Floodplain —.1 L Figure 8 - Shoreland Classifications and Floodplains N A Wellhead Protection Plan A WSB City of Hugo, MN 1 inch = 3,000 feet 17777� Oneka Lake N Egg Lake Farmstead 1.4Utl - / Single Family Detached r,Y St N - Manufactured - Housing Park 1 Single Family Attached 3 , Multifamily 1 z Retail and Other Q 132nd St N Commercial a3i ■ Office 130th St N v o Mixed Use AMR t7 Residential Industrial and Utility ■ Institutional Bald 125th St N Eagle Park, Recreational Lake, i or Preserve - Golf Course f j - Major Highway 12Oth-St-N---- Agricultural Undeveloped e Pa o . Water DWSMA City Boundary Figure 9 - Existing Land Use N i Wellhead Protection Plan A WSB C-HUGO City of Hugo, MN 1 inch = 3,000 feet i Bald Eagle Lake C-HUGO llll tl ,11 111111 � 111111 NR�I��TrrT. F�130th,S Oneka Lake Figure 11 - 2030 Future Land Use Plan Wellhead Protection Plan City of Hugo, MN N 157thi St N 140th St N ■ DWSMA _ City Boundary Future Land Use Agricultural Large Lot Residential - Very Low Density Low Density Residential -Medium Density Residential Business Park - Commercial - Industrial - Mixed Use - Public / Quasi - Public N A WSB 1 inch = 3,000 feet 6.c—Pw,,1- 1 44 0 39 A, i42 43 — It,,- 40 61 37 35 34 eka LaKe 0*4 32 433 Fre�6 hman Rd N 27 ��29 �_. ® 26 25 47 i 20 22 21 24 O Egg Lake 18� 46 a 17 F16;'e ,+ � Le r �639AP7 45 3 1T 5 U4 A�2 Bald Eagle Lake 1 _ FFI Benson `- Park Pond 4d/re C-HUGO 130th St N 4 N Q 3 aD �a 0 0 0 Z N Q 3 0 a 0 0 AN Oneka Lake Lak �� Cy Y G4 AP 157th1 St N Z d a' Z Q' Above Ground A Storage Tank Hazardous Waste Generator Leaking ® Underground Storage Tank 13�t N Potential Contamination Site v Spill Stormwater Outlet Solid Waste N 0 Management Storage Underground Storage Tank DWSMA 20tM,�St N—��—. Very High High CModerate `• ! City Boundary Figure 12 - Potential Contaminant Source Inventory N A Wellhead Protection Plan City of Hugo, MN ��B 1 inch = 3,000 feet h,aTT1+,� �a Oneka make FreryCh ao ma^ Rd S I <ake 130th St N T' f r Benson Park Pond C-HUGO FL z I I LI Cad 0 c07 O OLJ O �i 140th St N EL�' � ) l � Private Wells h-=t=1 DWSMA City Boundary Figure 14 - Private Wells Wellhead Protection Plan City of Hugo, MN z a' N A TSB 1 inch I 1 Bald Eagle Lake i M P1 Oneka 8 Lake 0 0 157th1 St N Q -� -- ° 61 Z a R 6N z Oneka t aKe O Frenchman Rd N Rake Egg `- Lake �y�v St N 1 Qth=St= L140th F 9y <dke RqN 137th St N ° °� y O O L O 000000 a=i 0'5 ° o0 0 132nd St N O 130th St N Z 0 300 0 00 - _- as 0 0� n o 000 a - �$ c0 125th St N St N C " • Septic Systems II — —120th.St N------ DWSMA a F` Benson U _, , � Very High „ High Park Pon! 112th=-t_N C Moderate t...�.� City Boundary it-HUGO Figure 15 - Septic Systems Wellhead Protection Plan City of Hugo, MN N i A TSB 1 inch - 3,000 feet 165tM St N i 7M7.1", o I� f 61 � R E E Orne,ka-\-' - - 2 Fr j chrnan.RRice d . LakT�i N I� g L14OfiM St N C1 D.th=St=N cFg 9 Make. 137th St N $ Q 132nd StEl N 3 m 130th St Nf 5 j Bald 125th 3t N - — ('! Eagle Lake R f y Benson +L Park Pond r Sanitary Sewer System j 1.1 1, h=-t = i DWSMA 1 City Boundary C-HUGO Figure 16 - Sanitary Sewer System Wellhead Protection Plan City of Hugo, MN N A A TSB 1 inch = 3,000 feet h QE'S' 'IHPP3. f%li. H i W-1-1-� 16 ... . ... .. . ... MI 04- HUGO 0 0 3. 170th St N 6-5th-St- IN (D -6 Oneka Lake 157t]St N Ififf A-1 41 Im. INS in _moon (1) > 0 :mmr" �i ; E �//h1IU�� ■ 140th St IN ME 137th St IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN _ I�1L■ �- I 130th St IN > 0 0 [_Ap•ro ppximate Locatio 'f ipeline Mann DWSMA City Boundary Figure 17 - Gas and Oil Pipeline Routes N Wellhead Protection Plan i� llitw; City of Hugo, MN 1 inch = 3,333 feet Ail lie •, e '-T—JO C-HUGO imalvk1w7l N N �d ke RdN -- I0 Z — Q 3�_ m S.t N > 0 Benson Park Pond 137thiSt N Figure 18 - Current Transportation Routes Wellhead Protection Plan City of Hugo, MN a a� E L 0— x 132nd Sunset Lake St N gt N = d �k Railroad ^-A2Uth St,N— US Highways County Highways Local Roads DWSMA City Boundary N A AWSB 1 inch = 3,000 feet &AN,&PW,.Im. Li 0 o 00 'o r .r 1G&A St N N d Q m 1 S 1S7t St= a u - 61 z ^'1 k Onea E 3 r _ Fr Rice = g d Lak- A ~ 1400 C1 D.th=St=N gg <a /• _ k e R � 1 � t-N m Z L�Ai Ell y d Q N 132nd StEI — 130th St N 't L m j Bald 1254h St N Eagle Lake lj - t- ��122n1 I S Qtt. - t N f Benson Public Ditches Park Pond ''''r �� — Stormwater Mains =1-1th=-t== DWSMA City Boundary 19"HUGO Figure 19 - Stormwater Conveyance System Wellhead Protection Plan N i 1� SB City of Hugo, MN 1 inch = 3,000 feet h ,f Appendix C: Water Quality Reports CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPOF_ PWSID: 1820007 City of Hugo 2013 Drinking Water Report The City of Hugo is issuing the results of monitoring done on its drinking water for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2013. The purpose of this report is to advance consumers' understanding of drinking water and heighten awareness of the need to protect precious water resources. Source of Water The City of Hugo provides drinking water to its residents from a groundwater source: five wells ranging from 261 to 355 feet deep,that draw water from the Prairie Du Chien -Jordan aquifer. The water provided to customers may meet drinking water standards, but the Minnesota Department of Health has also made a determination as to how vulnerable the source of water may be to future contamination incidents. If you wish to obtain the entire source water assessment regarding your drinking water, please call 651-201-4700 or 1-800-818-9318 (and press 5) during normal business hours. Also, you can view it on line at www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/swa. Call 651-762-6326 if you have questions about the City of Hugo drinking water or would like information about opportunities for public participation in decisions that may affect the quality of the water. Results of Monitoring No contaminants were detected at levels that violated federal drinking water standards. However, some contaminants were detected in trace amounts that were below legal limits. The table that follows shows the contaminants that were detected in trace amounts last year. (Some contaminants are sampled less frequently than once a year; as a result, not all contaminants were sampled for in 2013. If any of these contaminants were detected the last time they were sampled for, they are included in the table along with the date that the detection occurred.) Key to abbreviations: MCLG—Maximum Contaminant Level Goal: The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety. MCL—Maximum Contaminant Level: The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology. MRDL—Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level. MRDLG—Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal. AL —Action Level: The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirement which a water system must follow. 90th Percentile Level —This is the value obtained after disregarding 10 percent of the samples taken that had the highest levels. (For example, in a situation in which 10 samples were taken, the 90th percentile level is determined by disregarding the highest result, which represents 10 percent of the samples.) Note: In situations in which only 5 samples are taken, the average of the two with the highest levels is taken to determine the 90th percentile level. CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPOF _ PWSID: 1820007 ppm—Parts per million, which can also be expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/1). ppb—Parts per billion, which can also be expressed as micrograms per liter (pg/1). nd—No Detection. N/A —Not Applicable (does not apply). Level Found Contaminant MCLG MCL Typical Source of Contaminant Range Average (units) (2013) /Result* Barium (ppm) 2 2 N/A .03 Discharge of drilling wastes; Discharge from metal refineries; Erosion of natural deposits. Fluoride (ppm) 4 4 .85-1.7 1.05 State of Minnesota requires all municipal water systems to add fluoride to the drinking water to promote strong teeth; Erosion of natural deposits; Discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories. Haloacetic Acids 0 60 nd-1.3 1.3 By-product of drinking water disinfection. HAA5 ppb Nitrate (as 10.4 10.4 nd-.86 .86 Runoff from fertilizer use; Leaching from Nitrogen) (ppm) septic tanks, sewage; Erosion of natural deposits. TTHM (Total 0 80 .2-6.2 6 By-product of drinking water disinfection. trihalomethanes) (ppb) *This is the value used to determine compliance with federal standards. It sometimes is the highest value detected and sometimes is an average of all the detected values. If it is an average, it may contain sampling results from the previous year. Contaminant (units) MRDLG MRDL **** ***** Typical Source of Contaminant Chlorine 4 4 .1-1.6 .37 Water additive used to control microbes. (ppm) ****Highest and Lowest Monthly Average. *****Highest Quarterly Average. Contaminant 90% # sites (units) MCLG AL Level over AL Typical Source of Contaminant Copper (ppm) 1.3 1.3 .26 0 out of Corrosion of household plumbing systems; (07/12/2011) 20 Erosion of natural deposits. Lead (ppb) 0 15 .9 0 out of Corrosion of household plumbing systems; (07/12/2011) 20 Erosion of natural deposits. If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. City of Hugo is responsible for providing high quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes 2 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPOF_ PWSID: 1820007 before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. Monitoring may have been done for additional contaminants that do not have MCLs established for them and are not required to be monitored under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Results may be available by calling 651- 201-4700 or 1-800-818-9318 during normal business hours. Compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations During the year, we failed to take a sample and/or submit information on Total Coliform Bacteria during the required testing period(s) of September 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013. Because we did not monitor or failed to monitor completely during the compliance period(s), we did not know whether Total Coliform Bacteria were present in your drinking water, and we are unable to tell you whether your health was at risk during that time. During the year, we failed to take a sample and/or submit information on Chlorine during the required testing period(s) of September 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013. Because we did not monitor or failed to monitor completely during the compliance period(s), we did not know whether Chlorine were present in your drinking water, and we are unable to tell you whether your health was at risk during that time. The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally -occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, which may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife. Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be naturally -occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses. Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, and septic systems. Radioactive contaminants, which can be naturally -occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities. In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prescribes regulations which limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. Food and Drug Administration regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled water which must provide the same protection for public health. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the Environmental Protection Agency's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791. Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who 3 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPOF4- PWSID: 1820007 have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791. M 00 O\ LLI M 7 � z m w V a a U c� a� E In z z 0 f ❑❑ K Z w LLI mz� a 0 m J f 0 4 ❑ ❑x J O w LLI < tR M V IL IL h � m LL c p go U J ❑M�/� L 7 g z 4)Cj$29 O 4 W E * x �n C N p �WRI mN cNQ0.� } wa: co } O J r W w—o a O = W G U. O Lu j ! 0 N 0. V K z G 00 M O a N W0 J LL osU) � a mE mom LLm a E 0Oa w `o W w �v oW 0 .. a 0 O O O Fm zm co LL N W J u) w >_ O mWF,U m J F, W 0. a z tq LL d 0 ' O 0 0 O wm i mF—,o z w Y � Z =W0— O 1 pm0 E N �w aO ( W- Y LU N m W t LL p 7 O ul I mmW wwz �3Q ;I z I F i } a O mv)w w 0LU ga c~> S� waJ mN0 7 U z mv)a T Vi 00.Wz LU m J w 0 d } 2Nw� z Q i '1 W `, m o t•- m� O L� a, a O r O r O O r W J a v`/ r W a W w J W m W a 0 T) zd J a U) a w m z 0 Q U 0 w J a a w m w I i 0 0 4 � is D N I � 0 U R 1/.27/114 Protecting, maintaining and improving the health of all Minnesotans To: Community Water Supply Owner/Operator From: Community Water Supply Unit Section of Drinking Water Protection Subject: - Sample Analysis Results for your Public Water Supply Attached are the results of analyses performed on water samples collected from your public water supply. These results show that your system is in compliance with maximum contaminant levels set by the state and federal Safe Drinking Water Rules for the contaminants analyzed. These results must be kept in your files for a minimum of ten (10) years. Analyses are attached for the contaminant groups checked below. ❑ Coliform Bacteria ❑ N itrate ❑ N itrite ❑ Inorganics ❑ Other ❑ Volatile Organics ❑ Trihalomethanes/Haloacetic Acids ❑ Synthetic Organics �e a 7rA`1A If you have any questions concerning these results, please contact your Department of Health district engineer. Bemid'i Rochester Todd Johnson 218/308-2110 Paul Halvorson 507/206-2724 Duluth St. Cloud Mike Luhrsen 218/302-6178 Jon Groethe 320/223-7339 Kim Larsen 320/223-7330 Fergus Falls Dave Schultz 320/223-7328 Steve Pederson 218/332-5146 St. Paul Mankato Bassam Banat 651/201-3973 Mark Sweers 507/344-2736 Lucas Martin 651/201-4144 Amy Lynch 507/344-2713 Isaac Bradlich 651/201-3971 Marshall John Blomme 507/537-7308 Rev. 12/2012 O:\DwpCpws/Checkbox Letters/Generic Checkbox Letter General Information: 651-201-5000 • Toll-free:888-345-0823 • TTY:651-201-5797 • www.health.state.mn.us An equal opportunity employer Final Report PWSID: 1820007 Program Code: HC System Name: Hugo City: Hugo Dale Received: 01/29/14 07:37 Rep. Temp. (°C): 13.6 Collector Name: Tom Smith Collector ID: None Minnesota Department of Health Public Health Laboratory Environmental Laboratory Section 601 Robert St. N., P.O. Box 64899 St. Paul, MN 55164-0899 651-201-5300 Type: B MDH Sample Number: 14AO814-01 Location to: E06 Collect Date: 01/27/14 Field Residual Chlorine Result: None Sampling Point: Well #6 Entry Point Collect Time: 10:20 Field Fluoride Result: None Matrix: Drinking Water Field pH Result: None Field PO4 Result: None Results were produced by the Minnesota Department of Health, except where noted. Radlochemical Parameters Reporting Counting Analyte Result Limit Uncertainty Units Batch Prepared Analyzed Init. Method Qualifiers Gross Alpha <3.00 3.0 1.4255 pCi/L 134C0157 03/12/14 16:09 03/25/14 00:00 JJF EPA 900.0 NA Radium-226 <1.00 1.0 0.1433 pCi/L 134130113 02/11/14 10:28 04/03/14 00:00 SAP EPA 903.0/904.0 Radium-228 <1.00 1.0 0.5230 pCi/L 13413011113 02/11/1410:28 03/05/1414:23 SAP EPA 903.0/904.0 FINAL REPORT Report ID: 04162014141735 Generated: 4/16/2014 2:17:34PM The results in this report apply only to the samples analyzed. This report must not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. cam' �✓. � - ( c�-- Paul Moyer, Environmental Laboratory Manager Public Health Laboratory, Minnesota Department of Health I I Page 1 of 3 1 Minnesota Department of Health Final Report Public Health Laboratory Environmental Laboratory Section 601 Robert St. N., P.O. Box 64899 St. Paul, MN 66164-0899 651-201-5300 PWSID: 1820007 Results were produced by Minnesota Department of Health, except where noted. Batch 64C0157 - Radiochemistry Alpha/Beta Prep Blank (1134100157-BLK1) Prepared: 03/12/14 16:09 Analyzed: 03/25/14 00:00 Reporting Spike Source RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC %REC Limits RPD Limit Init. Qualifiers Gross Alpha < 3.0 pCi/L JJF LCS (B4C0157-8S1) Prepared: 03/12/14 16:09 Analyzed: 03/25/14 00:00 Reporting Spike Source RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC %REC Limits RPD Limit Init. Qualifiers Gross Alpha 56.3 3.0 pCi/L 52.91 106 60-120 JJF Duplicate (84C0157-DUP1) Source: 14AO630-03 Prepared: 03/12/14 16:09 Analyzed: 03/25/14 00:00 Reporting Spike Source RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC %REC Limits RPD Limit Init. Qualifiers Gross Alpha 0.7 3.0 pCi/L < 54 20 JJF QT Matrix Spike (B4C0157-MS1) Source: 14AO630-02 Prepared: 03112114 16:09 Analyzed: 03/25/14 00:00 Reporting Spike Source RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC %REC Limits RPD Limit Init. Qualifiers Gross Alpha 65.1 3.0 pCi/L 52.91 < 119 70-130 JJF Matrix Spike Dup (B4C0157-MSD1) Source: 14AO630-02 Prepared: 03112114 16:09 Analyzed: 03/25/14 00:00 Reporting Spike Source RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC %REC Limits RPD Limit Init. Qualifiers Gross Alpha 57.5 3.0 pCi/L 52.91 < 105 70-130 12 20 JJF Data Qualifiers and Definitions QT RPD between sample duplicates not within acceptance limits. Analyte concentration within range for RER comparison and RER within acceptance lim Work Order Comments Samples were received In proper condition. FINAL REPORT Report ID: 04162014141735 Generated: 4/16/2014 2:17:34PM Authorized by: The results in this report apply only to the samples analyzed. _ f/f This report must not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. Paul Moyer, Environmental Laboratory Manager Public Health Laboratory, Minnesota Department of Health Page 3 of 3 N R E i0 T A MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SECTION OF DRINKING WATER PROTECTION MEHiOFHEAITH Report of Analytical Results ^f 625 Robert St. N. St. Paul MN 55155 P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul MN 55164 - 0975 Final Report - Client Copy The following are the results of your annual nitrate sample analysis required for compliance with federal rule, CFR 141.23. System Name: Hugo PWSID: 1820007 Date Collected: 4/28/2014 Sample #: 14D1769-01 Date Received: 4/29/2014 Sample Point ID: E02 Date Analyzed: 5/2/2014 Collected by: Rick Kieffer Sampling Poin ll _ ' ` W ITT fij ANALYSIS RESULTS: Maximum Contaminant Contaminant Result Level (MCL) Units ti r� �.rL�tr�rrGiti�csrtfi call <.05 10.4 mg/L Date Collected: 4/28/2014 Sample #: 14D1769-02 Date Received: 4/29/2014 Sample Point ID: E03 Date Analyzed: 5/2/2014 Collected by: Rick Kieffer Sampling Point f I tr .4W6 ' ANALYSIS RESULTS: Maximum Contaminant Contaminant Result Level (MCL) Units �Ifilt�n�C1�: .72 10.4 mg/L Date Collected: 4/28/2014 Sample #: 14D1769-03 Date Received: 4/29/2014 Sample Point.ID: E04 Date Analyzed: 5/2/2014 Collected by: Rick Kieffer Sampling Point: ;tt ANALYSIS RESULTS: Maximum Contaminant Contaminant Result Level (MCL) Units vWWW O rft .lftm'4a i; Tdte4 .88 10.4 mg/L HUGO WATER SUPERINTENDENT Date Report Generated: 5/12/2014 14669 FITZGERALD AVENUE NORTH HUGO MN 55038-9301 M I H M E S 0 T 0 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SECTION OF DRINKING WATER PROTECTION DEPARTMENTOFHEALTi1 Report of Analytical Results �. 625 Robert St. N. St. Paul MN 55155 P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul MN 55164 - 0975 Final Report - Client Copy The following are the results of your annual nitrate sample analysis required for compliance with federal rule, CFR 141.23. System Name: Hugo PWSID: 1820007 Date Collected: 4/28/2014 Sample #: 14D1769-04 Date Received: 4/29/2014 Sample Point ID: E05 Date Analyzed: 5/2/2014 Collected by: Rick Kieffer Sampling Point:Iiti4 ANALYSIS RESULTS: Maximum Contaminant Contaminant Result Level (MCL) Units .l <.05 10.4 mg/L Date Collected: 4/28/2014 Sample #: 14D1773-01 Date Received: 4/29/2014 Sample Point ID: E06 Date Analyzed: 5/2/2014 Collected by: Rick Kieffer Sampling Point: ANALYSIS RESULTS: Maximum Contaminant Contaminant Result Level (MCL) Units PItJ1�C9�1i7!_ <.05 10.4 mg/L COMMENTS: The result(s) above show that your system is in compliance with maximum contaminant levels set by the state and federal Safe Drinking Water Rules for the contaminant analyzed. These results must be kept in your files for a minimum of ten (10) years. If you have any questions concerning these results, call Cindy Swanson at 651/201-4656. HUGO WATER SUPERINTENDENT Date Report Generated: 5/12/2014 14669 FITZGERALD AVENUE NORTH HUGO MN 55038-9301 M I N N E S 0 T A Final Report DEPARTMENToFHEALTH PWSID: 1820007 Program Code: IQ System Name: Hugo City: Hugo Date Received: 04/29/14 07:28 Collector Name: Rick Kieffer Rep. Temp. (°C): 19.1 Collector ID: None MDH Sample Number: 14131764-01 Minnesota Department of Health Public Health Laboratory Environmental Laboratory Section 601 Robert St. N., P.O. Box 64899 St. Paul, MN 55164-0899 651-201-5300 Type: X Location ID: S02 Collect Date: 04/28/14 Field Residual Chlorine Result: None ( Collect Time: 09:51 Field Fluoride Result: None Matrix: Drinking Water Field pH Result: None Field PO4 Result: None Results were produced by the Minnesota Department of Health, except where noted. General Chemistry Parameters Analyte Result ReportingLimit Units Batch Prepared Analyzed Init. Method Qualifiers < 0.05 mg/L B4E0044 05/02/14 08:22 05/02/14 11:24 KAC SM4500-NO3 F MDH Sample Number: 14D1764-02 Location ID: S03 Collect Date: 04/28/14 Field Residual Chlorine Result: None Sampling Point: Well #3 Collect Time: 09:00 Field Fluoride Result: None Matrix: Drinking Water Field pH Result: None Fleld PO4 Result:None Results were produced by the Minnesota Department of Health, except where noted. General Chemistry Parameters Analyte Result ReportingLimit Units Batch Prepared Analyzed Init. Method Qualifiers Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen, Total 0.75 0.05 mg/L B4E0044 05/02/14 08:22 05/02/14 11:25 KAC SM4500-NO3 F FINAL REPORT Report ID: 05052014160140 Generated: 5/5/2014 4:01:40PM Authorized by: Paul Moyer, Environmental Laboratory Manager Public Health Laboratory, Minnesota Department of Health The results in this report apply only to the samples analyzed. This report must not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. 1 of 3 Minnesota Department of Health Final Report Public Health Laboratory Environmental Laboratory Section 601 Robert St. N., P.O. Box 64899 St. Paul, MN 55164-0899 651-201-5300 PWSID: 1820007 Results were produced by Minnesota Department of Health, except where noted. Batch B4E0044 - General Chemistry Prep Blank (B4E0044-BLK1) Prepared: 05/02/14 08:22 Analyzed: 05/02/14 11:05 Reporting Spike Source RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC %REC Limits RPD Limit Init. Qualifiers Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen, Total < 0.05 mg/L KAC LCS (B4E0044-BS1) Prepared: 05/02/14 08:22 Analyzed: 05/02/14 11:06 Reporting Spike Source RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC %REC Limits RPD Limit Init. Qualifiers Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen, Total 4.9 mg/L 4.99 98 90-110 KAC Duplicate (B4E0044-DUP1) Source: 14D1742-01 Prepared: 05/02/14 08:22 Analyzed: 05/02/14 11:08 Reporting Spike Source RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC %REC Limits RPD Limit Init. Qualifiers Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen, Total < 0.05 mg/L < 10 KAC Duplicate (B4E0044-DUP2) Source: 14D1742-02 Prepared: 05/02/14 08:22 Analyzed: 05/02/14 11:11 Reporting Spike Source RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC %REC Llmits RPD Limit Init. Qualifiers Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen, Total < 0.05 mg/L < 10 KAC Matrix Spike (B4E0044-MS1) Source: 14D1743-01 Prepared: 05/02/14 08:22 Analyzed: 05/02/14 11:13 Reporting Spike Source RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC %REC Limits RPD Limit Init. Qualifiers Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen, Total 5.6 mg/L 4.99 98 90-110 KAC Work Order Comments Samples were received in proper condition. FINAL REPORT Report ID: 05052014160140 Generated: 5/5/2014 4:01:40PM Authorized by: The results /n this report apply only to the samples analyzed. This report must not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. Paul Moyer, Environmental Laboratory Manager Public Health Laboratory, Minnesota Department of Health Page 3 of 3 MINNES0TA 1 DEPARTMENioFNEAITH PWSID: 1820007 System Name: Hugo City: Hugo Date Received: 04/29/14 07:28 Rep. Temp. (°C): 19.1 Final Report Program Code: IQ Collector Name: Rick Kieffer Collector ID: None Minnesota Department of Health Public Health Laboratory Environmental Laboratory Section 601 Robert St. N., P.O. Box 64899 St. Paul, MN 55164-0899 651-201-5300 Type: X MDH Sample Number: 14D1768-01 Location ID: S07 Collect Dale: 04/28/14 Field Residual Chlorine Result: None glntVYlI Collect Time: 08:21 Field Fluoride Result: None Matrix: Drinking Water Field pH Result: None Field PO4 Result: None Results were produced by the Minnesota Department of Health, except where noted. General Chemistry Parameters Analyte Result ReportingLimit Units Balch Prepared Analyzed Init. Method Qualifiers gy ad < 0.05 mg/L B4E0044 05/02/14 08:22 05/02/14 11:31 KAC SM4500-NO3 F FINAL REPORT Report ID: 05062014 85551 Generated: 5/6/2014 8:55:50AM Authorized by: The results in this report apply only to the samples analyzed. This report must not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. Paul Moyer, Environmental Laboratory Manager Public Health Laboratory, Minnesota Department of Health Page 1 of 2 Appendix D: Inner Wellhead Management Zone • i s 6 Environmental Health Division Drinking Water Protection Section INNER WELLHEAD MANAGEMENT ZONE (IWMZ) - P.O. Box 64975 Minnesota StPaul Minnesota 55164-0975 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCE INVENTORY (PCSI) REPORT IH6Hrtinr xif LL}N . PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION PWS ID NAME ADDRESS 1820007 COMMUNITY Hugo Hugo Water Superintendent, 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North, Hugo, MN 550389301 FACILITY (WELL) INFORMATION NAME FACILITY ID UNIQUE WELL NO. COUNTY Well #2 IS THERE A WELL LOG OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION S02 INFORMATION AVAILABLE? 523948 ❑ YES (Please attach a copy) Washington ❑ NO ❑ UNDETERMINED PWS ID /FACILITY ID 1820007 S02 UNIQUE WELL NO. 523948 PCSI CODE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCE ISOLATION DISTANCES (FEET) LOCATION Minimum Distances Sensitive Well' Within 200 Ft. / N / U Dist. from Well Est. � ( ) Community Non- communityY Agricultural Related *AC1 Agricultural chemical buried piping 50 50 N *AC2 Agricultural chemical multiple tanks or containers for residential retail sale or use, no single tank or container exceeding, but aggregate volume exceeding 56 gal. or 100 lbs. dry weight 50 50 N ACP Agricultural chemical tank or container with 25 gal. or more or 100 lbs. or more dry weight, orequipment filling or cleaning area without safeguards 150 150 N ACS Agricultural chemical storage or equipment filling or cleaning area with safeguards 100 100 N ACR Agricultural chemical storage or equipment filling or cleaning area with safeguards and roofed 50 50 N ADW Agricultural drainage well2 (Class V well - illegal') 50 50 N AAT Anhydrous ammonia tank (stationary tank) 50 50 N A131 Animal building, feedlot, confinement area, or kennel, 0.1 to 1.0 animal unit (stockyard) 50 20 100/40 N A62 Animal building or poultry building, including a horse riding area, more than 1.0 animal unit 50 50 100 N ABS Animal burial area, more than 1.0 animal unit 50 50 N FWP Animal feeding or watering area within a pasture, more than 1.0 animal unit 50 50 100 N AF1 Animal feedlot, unroofed, 300 or more animal units (stockyard) 100 100 200 N AF2 Animal feedlot, more than 1.0, but less than 300 animal units (stockyard) 50 50 100 N AMA Animal manure application use discretion use discretion N REN Animal rendering plant 50 50 N MS1 Manure (liquid) storage basin or lagoon, unpermitted or noncertified 300 300 600 N MS2 Manure (liquid) storage basin or lagoon, approved earthen liner 150 150 300 N MS3 Manure (liquid) storage basin or lagoon, approved concrete or composite liner 100 100 200 N MS4 Manure (solid) storage area, not covered with a roof 100 100 200 N OSC Open storage for crops use discretion use discretion N SSTS Related AA1 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system, average flow greater than 10,000 gal./day 300 300 600 N AA2 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system serving a facility handling infectious or pathological wastes, average flow 10,000gal./day or less 150 150 300 N AA3 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system, average flow 10,000 gal./day or less 50 50 100 N AA4 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system serving multiple family residences or a non-residential facility and has the capacity to serve 20 or more persons per day Class V well)' 50/300/1504 50/300/1504 100/600/3004 N CSP Cesspool 75 75 150 N AGG Dry well, leaching pit, seepage pit 75 75 150 N *FD1 Floor drain, grate, or trough connected to a buried sewer 50 50 N *FD2 Floor drain, grate, or trough if buried sewer is air -tested, approved materials, serving one building, or two or less single-family residences 50 20 N *GW1 Gray -water dispersal area 50 50 100 N LC1 Large capacity cesspools (Class V well - illegal)2 75 75 150 N 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1 1820007 S02 UNIQUE WELL NO. 523948 PCSI CODE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCE ISOLATION DISTANCES (FEET) LOCATION Minimum Distances Sensitive Well' Within 200 Ft. Y / N / U Dist. from Well Est. � ( ) Community Non- community MVW I Motor vehicle waste disposal (Class V well - illegal)' illegal illegal N PR1 Privy, nonportable 50 50 100 N PR2 Portable (privy) or toilet 50 20 N *SF1 Watertight sand filter; peat filter; or constructed wetland 50 50 N SET Septic tank 50 50 N HTK Sewage holding tank, watertight 50 50 N SS1 Sewage sump capacity 100 gal. or more 50 50 N SS2 Sewage sump capacity less than 100 gal., tested, conforming to rule 50 20 N *ST1 Sewage treatment device, watertight 50 50 N SB1 Sewer, buried, approved materials, tested, serving one building, or two or less single-family residences 50 20 N SB2 Sewer, buried, collector, municipal, serving a facility handling infectious or pathological wastes, open -jointed or unapproved materials 50 50 Y 180 N SB2 Sewer, buried, collector, municipal, serving a facility handling infectious or pathological wastes, open -jointed or unapproved materials 50 50 Y 87 N *WB1 Water treatment backwash holding basin, reclaim basin, or surge tank with a direct sewer connection 50 50 N *WB2 Water treatment backwash holding basin, reclaim basin, or surge tank with a backflow protected sewer connection 20 20 N Land Application SPT I Land spreading area for sewage, septage, or sludge 50 50 100 N Solid Waste Related COS Commercial compost site 50 50 N CD1 Construction or demolition debris disposal area 50 50 100 N *HW1 Household solid waste disposal area, single residence 50 50 100 N LF1 Landfill, permitted demolition debris, dump, or mixed municipal solid waste from multiple persons 300 300 600 N SVY Scrap yard 1 50 50 1 N SWT Solid waste transfer station 50 50 N Storm Water Related SD1 Storm water drain pipe, 8 inches or greater in diameter 50 20 Y 53 N SWI Storm water drainage well' (Class V well - illegal') 50 50 N SM1 Storm water pond greater than 5000 gal. 50 35 N Wells and Borings *EB1 Elevator boring, not conforming to rule 50 50 N *EB2 Elevator boring, conforming to rule 20 20 N MON Monitoring well record dist. record dist. N WEL Operating well record dist. record dist. N UUW Unused, unsealed well or boring 50 50 N General *CR1 Cistern or reservoir, buried, nonpressurized water supply 20 20 N PLM Contaminant plume 50 50 N *CW1 Cooling water pond, industrial 50 50 100 N DC1 Deicing chemicals, bulk road 50 50 100 N *ET1 Electrical transformer storage area, oil -filled 50 50 N GRV Grave or mausoleum 50 50 N GP1 Gravel pocket or French drain for clear water drainage only 20 20 N *HS1 Hazardous substance buried piping 50 50 N HS2 Hazardous substance tank or container, above ground or underground, 56 al. or more, or 100 lbs. or more dry weight, without safeguards 150 150 N HS3 Hazardous substance tank or container, above ground or underground, 56 al. or more, or 100 lbs. or more dry weight with safeguards 100 100 N HS4 Hazardous substance multiple storage tanks or containers for residential retail sale or use, no single tank or container exceeding 56 gal. or 100 lbs., but aggregate volume exceeding 50 50 N HWF Highest water or flood level 50 N/A N *HG1 Horizontal ground source closed loop heat exchanger buried piping 50 50 N *HG2 Horizontal ground source closed loop heat exchanger buried piping and orizontalpiping, approved materials and heat transfer fluid 50 10 N waste disposal well (Class V well)' illegal' illegal' N ltl,ndustrial terceptor, including a flammable waste or sediment 50 50 N 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1 1820007 S02 UNIQUE WELL NO. 523948 PCSI CODE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCE ISOLATION DISTANCES (FEET) LOCATION Minimum Distances Sensitive Well' Within 200 Ft. Y / N / U Dist. from Well Est. � ( ) Community Non- community OH1 Ordinary high water level of a stream, river, pond, lake, reservoir, or drainage ditch holds water six months or more 50 35 N *PP1 Petroleum buried piping 50 50 N *PP2 Petroleum or crude oil pipeline to a refinery or distribution center 100 100 N PT1 Petroleum tank or container, 1100 gal. or more, without safeguards 150 150 N PT2 Petroleum tank or container, 1100 gal. or more, with safeguards 100 100 N PT3 Petroleum tank or container, buried, between 56 and 1100 gal. 50 50 N PT4 Petroleum tank or container, not buried, between 56 and 1100 gal. 505 20 N Put Pit or unfilled space more than four feet in depth 20 20 N PC1 Pollutant or contaminant that may drain into the soil 50 50 100 N SP1 Swimming pool, in -ground 20 20 N *VH1 Vertical heat exchanger, horizontal piping conforming to rule 50 10 N *VH2 Vertical heat exchanger (vertical) piping, conforming to rule 50 35 N *WR1 Wastewater rapid infiltration basin, municipal or industrial 300 300 600 N *WA1 Wastewater spray irrigation area, municipal or industrial 150 150 300 N *WS1 Wastewater stabilization pond, industrial 150 150 300 N *WS2 Wastewater stabilization pond, municipal, 500 or more gal./acre/day of leakage 300 300 600 N *WS3 Wastewater stabilization pond, municipal, less than 500 gal./acre/day of leakage 150 150 300 N *WT1 Wastewater treatment unit tanks, vessels and components (Package plant) 100 100 N *WT2 Water treatment backwash disposal area 50 50 100 N Additional Sources (If there is more than one source listed above, please indicate here). Potential Contamination Sources and Codes Based on Previous Versions of this Form none found within 200' of this well. * New potential contaminant source. A sensitive well has less than 50 feet of watertight casing, and which is not cased below a confining layer or confining materials of at least 10' in thickness. z These sources, known as Class V underground injection wells, are regulated by the federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 3 These sources are classified as illegal by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725. 4 Isolation distance is determined by average flow per day or if a facility handles infectious or pathological wastes. 5 A community public water -supply well must be a minimum of 50 feet from a petroleum tank or container, unless the tank or container is used for emergency pumping and is located in a room or building separate from the community well; and is of double -wall construction with leak detection between walls; or is protected with secondary containment. This form is based on the new isolation distances in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725, related to wells and borings adopted August 4, 2008, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4720, related to wellhead protection. 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1820007 S02 I UNIQUE WELL NO. 1 523948 SETBACK DISTANCES I I All potential contaminant sources must be noted on sketch. Record the distance and approximate compass bearing of each potential contaminant source from the well, and identify the source using the "Source Code". Unlabeled points on the map are unsealed wells. 0° 3150 450 SD1 2 270° - 900 225 �35° SB2 1800 Were the isolation distances maintained for the new sources of contamination? Y N N/A Is the system monitoring existing nonconforming sources of contamination? Y N N/A Reminder Question: Were the wellhead protection measure(s) implemented? INSPECTOR I Freitag, John I DATE 1 5 - 1 - 2012 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1 1820007 S02 UNIQUE WELL NO. 523948 RECOMMENDED WELLHEAD PROTECTION (WHP) MEASURES WHP MEASURE IMPLEMENTED? Y or N DATE VERIFIED COMMENTS 9/7/2003 - Location for PCSI Type SBA (bearing = 0, distance = 0 , inventory date: 6/17/1998) could not be determined. 9/7/2003 - Location for PCSI Type GPR (bearing = 0, distance = 0 , inventory date: 6/17/1998) could not be determined. For further information, please contact: Minnesota Department of Health Drinking Water Protection Section Source Water Protection Unit P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0975 Section Receptionist: 651-201-4700 Division TDD: 651-201-5797 or MN Relay Service @ 1-800-627-3529 and ask for 651-201-5000 11/14/2014 • i s 6 Environmental Health Division Drinking Water Protection Section INNER WELLHEAD MANAGEMENT ZONE (IWMZ) - P.O. Box 64975 Minnesota StPaul Minnesota 55164-0975 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCE INVENTORY (PCSI) REPORT IH6Hrtinr xif LL}N . PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION PWS ID NAME ADDRESS 1820007 COMMUNITY Hugo Hugo Water Superintendent, 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North, Hugo, MN 550389301 FACILITY (WELL) INFORMATION NAME FACILITY ID UNIQUE WELL NO. COUNTY Well #3 IS THERE A WELL LOG OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION S03 INFORMATION AVAILABLE? 654497 ❑ YES (Please attach a copy) Washington ❑ NO ❑ UNDETERMINED PWS ID /FACILITY ID 1820007 S03 UNIQUE WELL NO. 654497 PCSI CODE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCE ISOLATION DISTANCES (FEET) LOCATION Minimum Distances Sensitive Well' Within 200 Ft. / N / U Dist. from Well Est. � ( ) Community Non- communityY Agricultural Related *AC1 Agricultural chemical buried piping 50 50 N *AC2 Agricultural chemical multiple tanks or containers for residential retail sale or use, no single tank or container exceeding, but aggregate volume exceeding 56 gal. or 100 lbs. dry weight 50 50 N ACP Agricultural chemical tank or container with 25 gal. or more or 100 lbs. or more dry weight, orequipment filling or cleaning area without safeguards 150 150 N ACS Agricultural chemical storage or equipment filling or cleaning area with safeguards 100 100 N ACR Agricultural chemical storage or equipment filling or cleaning area with safeguards and roofed 50 50 N ADW Agricultural drainage well2 (Class V well - illegal') 50 50 N AAT Anhydrous ammonia tank (stationary tank) 50 50 N A131 Animal building, feedlot, confinement area, or kennel, 0.1 to 1.0 animal unit (stockyard) 50 20 100/40 N A62 Animal building or poultry building, including a horse riding area, more than 1.0 animal unit 50 50 100 N ABS Animal burial area, more than 1.0 animal unit 50 50 N FWP Animal feeding or watering area within a pasture, more than 1.0 animal unit 50 50 100 N AF1 Animal feedlot, unroofed, 300 or more animal units (stockyard) 100 100 200 N AF2 Animal feedlot, more than 1.0, but less than 300 animal units (stockyard) 50 50 100 N AMA Animal manure application use discretion use discretion N REN Animal rendering plant 50 50 N MS1 Manure (liquid) storage basin or lagoon, unpermitted or noncertified 300 300 600 N MS2 Manure (liquid) storage basin or lagoon, approved earthen liner 150 150 300 N MS3 Manure (liquid) storage basin or lagoon, approved concrete or composite liner 100 100 200 N MS4 Manure (solid) storage area, not covered with a roof 100 100 200 N OSC Open storage for crops use discretion use discretion N SSTS Related AA1 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system, average flow greater than 10,000 gal./day 300 300 600 N AA2 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system serving a facility handling infectious or pathological wastes, average flow 10,000gal./day or less 150 150 300 N AA3 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system, average flow 10,000 gal./day or less 50 50 100 N AA4 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system serving multiple family residences or a non-residential facility and has the capacity to serve 20 or more persons per day Class V well)' 50/300/1504 50/300/1504 100/600/3004 N CSP Cesspool 75 75 150 N AGG Dry well, leaching pit, seepage pit 75 75 150 N *FD1 Floor drain, grate, or trough connected to a buried sewer 50 50 N *FD2 Floor drain, grate, or trough if buried sewer is air -tested, approved materials, serving one building, or two or less single-family residences 50 20 N *GW1 Gray -water dispersal area 50 50 100 N LC1 Large capacity cesspools (Class V well - illegal)2 75 75 150 N 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1 1820007 S03 UNIQUE WELL NO. 654497 PCSI CODE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCE ISOLATION DISTANCES (FEET) LOCATION Minimum Distances Sensitive Well' Within 200 Ft. Y / N / U Dist. from Well Est. � ( ) Community Non- community MVW I Motor vehicle waste disposal (Class V well - illegal)2 illegal illegal N PRI Privy, nonportable 50 50 100 N PR2 Portable (privy) or toilet 50 20 N *SF1 Watertight sand filter; peat filter; or constructed wetland 50 50 N SET Septic tank 50 50 N HTK Sewage holding tank, watertight 50 50 N SS1 Sewage sump capacity 100 gal. or more 50 50 N SS2 Sewage sump capacity less than 100 gal., tested, conforming to rule 50 20 N *ST1 Sewage treatment device, watertight 50 50 N SB1 Sewer, buried, approved materials, tested, serving one building, or two or less single-family residences 50 20 N SB2 Sewer, buried, collector, municipal, serving a facility handling infectious or pathological wastes, open -jointed or unapproved materials 50 50 N *WB1 Water treatment backwash holding basin, reclaim basin, or surge tank with a direct sewer connection 50 50 N *WB2 Water treatment backwash holding basin, reclaim basin, or surge tank with a backflow protected sewer connection 20 20 N Land Application SPT I Land spreading area for sewage, septage, or sludge 50 50 100 N Solid Waste Related COS Commercial compost site 50 50 N CD1 Construction or demolition debris disposal area 50 50 100 N *HW1 Household solid waste disposal area, single residence 50 50 100 N LF1 Landfill, permitted demolition debris, dump, or mixed municipal solid waste from multiple persons 300 300 600 N SVY Scrap yard 1 50 50 1 N SWT Solid waste transfer station 50 50 N Storm Water Related SDI Storm water drain pipe, 8 inches or greater in diameter 50 20 N SWI Storm water drainage well' (Class V well - illegal') 50 50 N SM1 Storm water pond greater than 5000 gal. 50 35 N Wells and Borings *EB1 Elevator boring, not conforming to rule 50 50 N *EB2 Elevator boring, conforming to rule 20 20 N MON Monitoring well record dist. record dist. N WEL Operating well record dist. record dist. N UUW Unused, unsealed well or boring 50 50 N General *CR1 Cistern or reservoir, buried, nonpressurized water supply 20 20 N PLM Contaminant plume 50 50 N *CW1 Cooling water pond, industrial 50 50 100 N DC1 Deicing chemicals, bulk road 50 50 100 N *ET1 Electrical transformer storage area, oil -filled 50 50 N GRV Grave or mausoleum 50 50 Y 75 N GP1 Gravel pocket or French drain for clear water drainage only 20 20 N *HS1 Hazardous substance buried piping 50 50 N HS2 Hazardous substance tank or container, above ground or underground, 56 al. or more, or 100 lbs. or more dry weight, without safeguards 150 150 N HS3 Hazardous substance tank or container, above ground or underground, 56 al. or more, or 100 lbs. or more dry weight with safeguards 100 100 N HS4 Hazardous substance multiple storage tanks or containers for residential retail sale or use, no single tank or container exceeding 56 gal. or 100 lbs., but aggregate volume exceeding 50 50 N HWF Highest water or flood level 50 N/A N *HG1 Horizontal ground source closed loop heat exchanger buried piping 50 50 N *HG2 Horizontal ground source closed loop heat exchanger buried piping and horizontal piping, approved materials and heat transfer fluid 50 10 N IWD Industrial waste disposal well (Class V well)' illegal' illegal' N IWS Interceptor, including a flammable waste or sediment 50 50 N OH1 Ordinary high water level of a stream, river, pond, lake, reservoir, or drainage ditch holds water six months or more 50 35 N 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1 1820007 S03 UNIQUE WELL NO. 654497 PCSI CODE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCE ISOLATION DISTANCES (FEET) LOCATION Minimum Distances Sensitive Well' Within 200 Ft. Y / N / U Dist. from Well Est. � ( ) Community Non- community *PP1 Petroleum buried piping 50 50 N *PP2 Petroleum or crude oil pipeline to a refinery or distribution center 100 100 N PT1 Petroleum tank or container, 1100 gal. or more, without safeguards 150 150 N PT2 Petroleum tank or container, 1100 gal. or more, with safeguards 100 100 N PT3 Petroleum tank or container, buried, between 56 and 1100 gal. 50 50 N PT4 Petroleum tank or container, not buried, between 56 and 1100 gal. 505 20 N PU1 Pit or unfilled space more than four feet in depth 20 20 N PC1 Pollutant or contaminant that may drain into the soil 50 50 100 1 N SP1 Swimming pool, in -ground 20 20 N *VH1 Vertical heat exchanger, horizontal piping conforming to rule 50 10 N *VH2 Vertical heat exchanger (vertical) piping, conforming to rule 50 35 N *WR1 Wastewater rapid infiltration basin, municipal or industrial 300 300 600 N *WA1 Wastewater spray irrigation area, municipal or industrial 150 150 300 N *WS1 Wastewater stabilization pond, industrial 150 150 300 N *WS2 Wastewater stabilization pond, municipal, 500 or more gal./acre/day of leakage 300 300 600 N *WS3 Wastewater stabilization pond, municipal, less than 500 gal./acre/day of leakage 150 150 300 N *WT1 Wastewater treatment unit tanks, vessels and components (Package plant) 100 100 N *WT2 Water treatment backwash disposal area 50 50 100 N Additional Sources (If there is more than one source listed above, please indicate here). Potential Contamination Sources and Codes Based on Previous Versions of this Form none found within 200' of this well. * New potential contaminant source. I A sensitive well has less than 50 feet of watertight casing, and which is not cased below a confining layer or confining materials of at least 10' in thickness. z These sources, known as Class V underground injection wells, are regulated by the federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 3 These sources are classified as illegal by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725. 4 Isolation distance is determined by average flow per day or if a facility handles infectious or pathological wastes. 5 A community public water -supply well must be a minimum of 50 feet from a petroleum tank or container, unless the tank or container is used for emergency pumping and is located in a room or building separate from the community well; and is of double -wall construction with leak detection between walls; or is protected with secondary containment. This form is based on the new isolation distances in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725, related to wells and borings adopted August 4, 2008, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4720, related to wellhead protection. 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1820007 S03 I UNIQUE WELL NO. 1 654497 SETBACK DISTANCES I I All potential contaminant sources must be noted on sketch. Record the distance and approximate compass bearing of each potential contaminant source from the well, and identify the source using the "Source Code". Unlabeled points on the map are unsealed wells. 0° 3150 450 270° 900 225 �35° 1800 Were the isolation distances maintained for the new sources of contamination? Y N N/A Is the system monitoring existing nonconforming sources of contamination? Y N N/A Reminder Question: Were the wellhead protection measure(s) implemented? INSPECTOR I Freitag, John I DATE 1 5 - 1 - 2012 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1820007 S03 UNIQUE WELL NO. 654497 RECOMMENDED WELLHEAD PROTECTION (WHP) MEASURES WHP MEASURE IMPLEMENTED? Y or N DATE VERIFIED COMMENTS (5-1-2012) There is a gravel pocket at an unknown distance and bearing. For further information, please contact: Minnesota Department of Health Drinking Water Protection Section Source Water Protection Unit P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0975 Section Receptionist: 651-201-4700 Division TDD: 651-201-5797 or MN Relay Service @ 1-800-627-3529 and ask for 651-201-5000 11/14/2014 • i s 6 Environmental Health Division Drinking Water Protection Section INNER WELLHEAD MANAGEMENT ZONE (IWMZ) - P.O. Box 64975 Minnesota StPaul Minnesota 55164-0975 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCE INVENTORY (PCSI) REPORT IH6Hrtinr xif LL}N . PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION PWS ID NAME ADDRESS 1820007 COMMUNITY Hugo Hugo Water Superintendent, 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North, Hugo, MN 550389301 FACILITY (WELL) INFORMATION NAME FACILITY ID UNIQUE WELL NO. COUNTY Well #4 IS THERE A WELL LOG OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SO4 INFORMATION AVAILABLE? 671642 ❑ YES (Please attach a copy) Washington ❑ NO ❑ UNDETERMINED PWS ID /FACILITY ID 1820007 SO4 UNIQUE WELL NO. 671642 PCSI CODE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCE ISOLATION DISTANCES (FEET) LOCATION Minimum Distances Sensitive Well' Within 200 Ft. / N / U Dist. from Well Est. � ( ) Community Non- communityY Agricultural Related *AC1 Agricultural chemical buried piping 50 50 N *AC2 Agricultural chemical multiple tanks or containers for residential retail sale or use, no single tank or container exceeding, but aggregate volume exceeding 56 gal. or 100 lbs. dry weight 50 50 N ACP Agricultural chemical tank or container with 25 gal. or more or 100 lbs. or more dry weight, orequipment filling or cleaning area without safeguards 150 150 N ACS Agricultural chemical storage or equipment filling or cleaning area with safeguards 100 100 N ACR Agricultural chemical storage or equipment filling or cleaning area with safeguards and roofed 50 50 N ADW Agricultural drainage well2 (Class V well - illegal') 50 50 N AAT Anhydrous ammonia tank (stationary tank) 50 50 N A131 Animal building, feedlot, confinement area, or kennel, 0.1 to 1.0 animal unit (stockyard) 50 20 100/40 N A62 Animal building or poultry building, including a horse riding area, more than 1.0 animal unit 50 50 100 N ABS Animal burial area, more than 1.0 animal unit 50 50 N FWP Animal feeding or watering area within a pasture, more than 1.0 animal unit 50 50 100 N AF1 Animal feedlot, unroofed, 300 or more animal units (stockyard) 100 100 200 N AF2 Animal feedlot, more than 1.0, but less than 300 animal units (stockyard) 50 50 100 N AMA Animal manure application use discretion use discretion N REN Animal rendering plant 50 50 N MS1 Manure (liquid) storage basin or lagoon, unpermitted or noncertified 300 300 600 N MS2 Manure (liquid) storage basin or lagoon, approved earthen liner 150 150 300 N MS3 Manure (liquid) storage basin or lagoon, approved concrete or composite liner 100 100 200 N MS4 Manure (solid) storage area, not covered with a roof 100 100 200 N OSC Open storage for crops use discretion use discretion N SSTS Related AA1 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system, average flow greater than 10,000 gal./day 300 300 600 N AA2 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system serving a facility handling infectious or pathological wastes, average flow 10,000gal./day or less 150 150 300 N AA3 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system, average flow 10,000 gal./day or less 50 50 100 N AA4 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system serving multiple family residences or a non-residential facility and has the capacity to serve 20 or more persons per day Class V well)' 50/300/1504 50/300/1504 100/600/3004 N CSP Cesspool 75 75 150 N AGG Dry well, leaching pit, seepage pit 75 75 150 N *FD1 Floor drain, grate, or trough connected to a buried sewer 50 50 N *FD2 Floor drain, grate, or trough if buried sewer is air -tested, approved materials, serving one building, or two or less single-family residences 50 20 N *GW1 Gray -water dispersal area 50 50 100 N LC1 Large capacity cesspools (Class V well - illegal)2 75 75 150 N 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1 1820007 SO4 UNIQUE WELL NO. 671642 PCSI CODE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCE ISOLATION DISTANCES (FEET) LOCATION Minimum Distances Sensitive Well' Within 200 Ft. Y / N / U Dist. from Well Est. � ( ) Community Non- community MVW I Motor vehicle waste disposal (Class V well - illegal)2 illegal illegal N PRI Privy, nonportable 50 50 100 N PR2 Portable (privy) or toilet 50 20 N *SF1 Watertight sand filter; peat filter; or constructed wetland 50 50 N SET Septic tank 50 50 N HTK Sewage holding tank, watertight 50 50 N SS1 Sewage sump capacity 100 gal. or more 50 50 N SS2 Sewage sump capacity less than 100 gal., tested, conforming to rule 50 20 N *ST1 Sewage treatment device, watertight 50 50 N SB1 Sewer, buried, approved materials, tested, serving one building, or two or less single-family residences 50 20 N SB2 Sewer, buried, collector, municipal, serving a facility handling infectious or pathological wastes, open -jointed or unapproved materials 50 50 Y 58 N *WB1 Water treatment backwash holding basin, reclaim basin, or surge tank with a direct sewer connection 50 50 N *WB2 Water treatment backwash holding basin, reclaim basin, or surge tank with a backflow protected sewer connection 20 20 N Land Application SPT I Land spreading area for sewage, septage, or sludge 50 50 100 N Solid Waste Related COS Commercial compost site 50 50 N CD1 Construction or demolition debris disposal area 50 50 100 N *HW1 Household solid waste disposal area, single residence 50 50 100 N LF1 Landfill, permitted demolition debris, dump, or mixed municipal solid waste from multiple persons 300 300 600 N SVY Scrap yard 1 50 50 1 N SWT Solid waste transfer station 50 50 N Storm Water Related SDI Storm water drain pipe, 8 inches or greater in diameter 50 20 N SWI Storm water drainage well' (Class V well - illegal') 50 50 N SM1 Storm water pond greater than 5000 gal. 50 35 N Wells and Borings *EB1 Elevator boring, not conforming to rule 50 50 N *EB2 Elevator boring, conforming to rule 20 20 N MON Monitoring well record dist. record dist. N WEL Operating well record dist. record dist. Y 146 UUW Unused, unsealed well or boring 50 50 N General *CR1 Cistern or reservoir, buried, nonpressurized water supply 20 20 N PLM Contaminant plume 50 50 N *CW1 Cooling water pond, industrial 50 50 100 N DC1 Deicing chemicals, bulk road 50 50 100 N *ET1 Electrical transformer storage area, oil -filled 50 50 N GRV Grave or mausoleum 50 50 N GP1 Gravel pocket or French drain for clear water drainage only 20 20 N *HS1 Hazardous substance buried piping 50 50 N HS2 Hazardous substance tank or container, above ground or underground, 56 al. or more, or 100 lbs. or more dry weight, without safeguards 150 150 N HS3 Hazardous substance tank or container, above ground or underground, 56 al. or more, or 100 lbs. or more dry weight with safeguards 100 100 N HS4 Hazardous substance multiple storage tanks or containers for residential retail sale or use, no single tank or container exceeding 56 gal. or 100 lbs., but aggregate volume exceeding 50 50 N HWF Highest water or flood level 50 N/A N *HG1 Horizontal ground source closed loop heat exchanger buried piping 50 50 N *HG2 Horizontal ground source closed loop heat exchanger buried piping and horizontal piping, approved materials and heat transfer fluid 50 10 N IWD Industrial waste disposal well (Class V well)' illegal' illegal' N IWS Interceptor, including a flammable waste or sediment 50 50 N OH1 Ordinary high water level of a stream, river, pond, lake, reservoir, or drainage ditch holds water six months or more 50 35 N 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1 1820007 SO4 UNIQUE WELL NO. 671642 PCSI CODE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCE ISOLATION DISTANCES (FEET) LOCATION Minimum Distances Sensitive Well' Within 200 Ft. Y / N / U Dist. from Well Est. � ( ) Community Non- community *PP1 Petroleum buried piping 50 50 N *PP2 Petroleum or crude oil pipeline to a refinery or distribution center 100 100 N PT1 Petroleum tank or container, 1100 gal. or more, without safeguards 150 150 N PT2 Petroleum tank or container, 1100 gal. or more, with safeguards 100 100 N PT3 Petroleum tank or container, buried, between 56 and 1100 gal. 50 50 N PT4 Petroleum tank or container, not buried, between 56 and 1100 gal. 505 20 N PU1 Pit or unfilled space more than four feet in depth 20 20 N PC1 Pollutant or contaminant that may drain into the soil 50 50 100 1 N SP1 Swimming pool, in -ground 20 20 N *VH1 Vertical heat exchanger, horizontal piping conforming to rule 50 10 N *VH2 Vertical heat exchanger (vertical) piping, conforming to rule 50 35 N *WR1 Wastewater rapid infiltration basin, municipal or industrial 300 300 600 N *WA1 Wastewater spray irrigation area, municipal or industrial 150 150 300 N *WS1 Wastewater stabilization pond, industrial 150 150 300 N *WS2 Wastewater stabilization pond, municipal, 500 or more gal./acre/day of leakage 300 300 600 N *WS3 Wastewater stabilization pond, municipal, less than 500 gal./acre/day of leakage 150 150 300 N *WT1 Wastewater treatment unit tanks, vessels and components (Package plant) 100 100 N *WT2 Water treatment backwash disposal area 50 50 100 N Additional Sources (If there is more than one source listed above, please indicate here). Potential Contamination Sources and Codes Based on Previous Versions of this Form none found within 200' of this well. * New potential contaminant source. I A sensitive well has less than 50 feet of watertight casing, and which is not cased below a confining layer or confining materials of at least 10' in thickness. z These sources, known as Class V underground injection wells, are regulated by the federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 3 These sources are classified as illegal by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725. 4 Isolation distance is determined by average flow per day or if a facility handles infectious or pathological wastes. 5 A community public water -supply well must be a minimum of 50 feet from a petroleum tank or container, unless the tank or container is used for emergency pumping and is located in a room or building separate from the community well; and is of double -wall construction with leak detection between walls; or is protected with secondary containment. This form is based on the new isolation distances in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725, related to wells and borings adopted August 4, 2008, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4720, related to wellhead protection. 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1820007 SO4 I UNIQUE WELL NO. 1 671642 SETBACK DISTANCES I I All potential contaminant sources must be noted on sketch. Record the distance and approximate compass bearing of each potential contaminant source from the well, and identify the source using the "Source Code". Unlabeled points on the map are unsealed wells. 0° 315° 45° 270° 90° SB2 225 �35° 180° Were the isolation distances maintained for the new sources of contamination? Y N N/A Is the system monitoring existing nonconforming sources of contamination? Y N N/A Reminder Question: Were the wellhead protection measure(s) implemented? INSPECTOR I Freitag, John I DATE 1 5 - 1 - 2012 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1 1820007 SO4 UNIQUE WELL NO. 671642 RECOMMENDED WELLHEAD PROTECTION (WHP) MEASURES WHP MEASURE IMPLEMENTED? Y or N DATE VERIFIED COMMENTS (5-1-2012) There is a gravel pocket at an unknown distance and bearing. For further information, please contact: Minnesota Department of Health Drinking Water Protection Section Source Water Protection Unit P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0975 Section Receptionist: 651-201-4700 Division TDD: 651-201-5797 or MN Relay Service @ 1-800-627-3529 and ask for 651-201-5000 11/14/2014 • i s 6 Environmental Health Division Drinking Water Protection Section INNER WELLHEAD MANAGEMENT ZONE (IWMZ) - P.O. Box 64975 Minnesota StPaul Minnesota 55164-0975 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCE INVENTORY (PCSI) REPORT IH6Hrtinr xif LL}N . PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION PWS ID NAME ADDRESS 1820007 COMMUNITY Hugo Hugo Water Superintendent, 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North, Hugo, MN 550389301 FACILITY (WELL) INFORMATION NAME FACILITY ID UNIQUE WELL NO. COUNTY Well #5 IS THERE A WELL LOG OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION S05 INFORMATION AVAILABLE? 686272 ❑ YES (Please attach a copy) Washington ❑ NO ❑ UNDETERMINED PWS ID /FACILITY ID 1820007 S05 UNIQUE WELL NO. 686272 PCSI CODE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCE ISOLATION DISTANCES (FEET) LOCATION Minimum Distances Sensitive Well' Within 200 Ft. / N / U Dist. from Well Est. � ( ) Community Non- communityY Agricultural Related *AC1 Agricultural chemical buried piping 50 50 N *AC2 Agricultural chemical multiple tanks or containers for residential retail sale or use, no single tank or container exceeding, but aggregate volume exceeding 56 gal. or 100 lbs. dry weight 50 50 N ACP Agricultural chemical tank or container with 25 gal. or more or 100 lbs. or more dry weight, orequipment filling or cleaning area without safeguards 150 150 N ACS Agricultural chemical storage or equipment filling or cleaning area with safeguards 100 100 N ACR Agricultural chemical storage or equipment filling or cleaning area with safeguards and roofed 50 50 N ADW Agricultural drainage well2 (Class V well - illegal') 50 50 N AAT Anhydrous ammonia tank (stationary tank) 50 50 N A131 Animal building, feedlot, confinement area, or kennel, 0.1 to 1.0 animal unit (stockyard) 50 20 100/40 N A62 Animal building or poultry building, including a horse riding area, more than 1.0 animal unit 50 50 100 N ABS Animal burial area, more than 1.0 animal unit 50 50 N FWP Animal feeding or watering area within a pasture, more than 1.0 animal unit 50 50 100 N AF1 Animal feedlot, unroofed, 300 or more animal units (stockyard) 100 100 200 N AF2 Animal feedlot, more than 1.0, but less than 300 animal units (stockyard) 50 50 100 N AMA Animal manure application use discretion use discretion N REN Animal rendering plant 50 50 N MS1 Manure (liquid) storage basin or lagoon, unpermitted or noncertified 300 300 600 N MS2 Manure (liquid) storage basin or lagoon, approved earthen liner 150 150 300 N MS3 Manure (liquid) storage basin or lagoon, approved concrete or composite liner 100 100 200 N MS4 Manure (solid) storage area, not covered with a roof 100 100 200 N OSC Open storage for crops use discretion use discretion N SSTS Related AA1 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system, average flow greater than 10,000 gal./day 300 300 600 N AA2 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system serving a facility handling infectious or pathological wastes, average flow 10,000gal./day or less 150 150 300 N AA3 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system, average flow 10,000 gal./day or less 50 50 100 N AA4 Absorption area of a soil dispersal system serving multiple family residences or a non-residential facility and has the capacity to serve 20 or more persons per day Class V well)' 50/300/1504 50/300/1504 100/600/3004 N CSP Cesspool 75 75 150 N AGG Dry well, leaching pit, seepage pit 75 75 150 N *FD1 Floor drain, grate, or trough connected to a buried sewer 50 50 N *FD2 Floor drain, grate, or trough if buried sewer is air -tested, approved materials, serving one building, or two or less single-family residences 50 20 N *GW1 Gray -water dispersal area 50 50 100 N LC1 Large capacity cesspools (Class V well - illegal)2 75 75 150 N 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1 1820007 S05 UNIQUE WELL NO. 686272 PCSI CODE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCE ISOLATION DISTANCES (FEET) LOCATION Minimum Distances Sensitive Well' Within 200 Ft. Y / N / U Dist. from Well Est. � ( ) Community Non- community MVW I Motor vehicle waste disposal (Class V well - illegal)2 illegal illegal N PR1 Privy, nonportable 50 50 100 N PR2 Portable (privy) or toilet 50 20 N *SF1 Watertight sand filter; peat filter; or constructed wetland 50 50 N SET Septic tank 50 50 N HTK Sewage holding tank, watertight 50 50 N SS1 Sewage sump capacity 100 gal. or more 50 50 N SS2 Sewage sump capacity less than 100 gal., tested, conforming to rule 50 20 N *ST1 Sewage treatment device, watertight 50 50 N SB1 Sewer, buried, approved materials, tested, serving one building, or two or less single-family residences 50 20 N SB2 Sewer, buried, collector, municipal, serving a facility handling infectious or pathological wastes, open -jointed or unapproved materials 50 50 Y 161 N *WB1 Water treatment backwash holding basin, reclaim basin, or surge tank with a direct sewer connection 50 50 N *WB2 Water treatment backwash holding basin, reclaim basin, or surge tank with a backflow protected sewer connection 20 20 N Land Application SPT I Land spreading area for sewage, septage, or sludge 50 50 100 N Solid Waste Related COS Commercial compost site 50 50 N CD1 Construction or demolition debris disposal area 50 50 100 N *HW1 Household solid waste disposal area, single residence 50 50 100 N LF1 Landfill, permitted demolition debris, dump, or mixed municipal solid waste from multiple persons 300 300 600 N SVY Scrap yard 1 50 50 1 N SWT Solid waste transfer station 50 50 N Storm Water Related SDI Storm water drain pipe, 8 inches or greater in diameter 50 20 Y 146 N SDI Storm water drain pipe, 8 inches or greater in diameter 50 20 Y 75 N SWI Storm water drainage well' (Class V well - illegal') 50 50 N SM1 Storm water pond greater than 5000 gal. 50 35 N Wells and Borings *EBI Elevator boring, not conforming to rule 50 50 N *EB2 Elevator boring, conforming to rule 20 20 N MON Monitoring well record dist. record dist. N WEL Operating well record dist. record dist. Y 57 UUW Unused, unsealed well or boring 50 50 N General *CR1 Cistern or reservoir, buried, nonpressurized water supply 20 20 N PLM Contaminant plume 50 50 N *CW1 Cooling water pond, industrial 50 50 100 N DC1 Deicing chemicals, bulk road 50 50 100 N *ET1 Electrical transformer storage area, oil -filled 50 50 N GRV Grave or mausoleum 50 50 N GP1 Gravel pocket or French drain for clear water drainage only 20 20 N *HS1 Hazardous substance buried piping 50 50 N HS2 Hazardous substance tank or container, above ground or underground, 56 al. or more, or 100 lbs. or more dry weight, without safeguards 150 150 N HS3 Hazardous substance tank or container, above ground or underground, 56 al. or more, or 100 lbs. or more dry weight with safeguards 100 100 N HS4 Hazardous substance multiple storage tanks or containers for residential retail sale or use, no single tank or container exceeding 56 gal. or 100 lbs., but aggregate volume exceeding 50 50 N HWF Highest water or flood level 50 N/A N *HG1 Horizontal ground source closed loop heat exchanger buried piping 50 50 N *HG2 Horizontal ground source closed loop heat exchanger buried piping and horizontal piping, approved materials and heat transfer fluid 50 10 N IWD Industrial waste disposal well (Class V well)' illegal' illegal' N IWS Interceptor, including a flammable waste or sediment 50 50 N 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1 1820007 S05 UNIQUE WELL NO. 686272 PCSI CODE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCE ISOLATION DISTANCES (FEET) LOCATION Minimum Distances Sensitive Well' Within 200 Ft. Y / N / U Dist. from Well Est. � ( ) Community Non- community OH1 Ordinary high water level of a stream, river, pond, lake, reservoir, or drainage ditch holds water six months or more 50 35 N *PP1 Petroleum buried piping 50 50 N *PP2 Petroleum or crude oil pipeline to a refinery or distribution center 100 100 N PT1 Petroleum tank or container, 1100 gal. or more, without safeguards 150 150 N PT2 Petroleum tank or container, 1100 gal. or more, with safeguards 100 100 N PT3 Petroleum tank or container, buried, between 56 and 1100 gal. 50 50 N PT4 Petroleum tank or container, not buried, between 56 and 1100 gal. 505 20 N Put Pit or unfilled space more than four feet in depth 20 20 N PC1 Pollutant or contaminant that may drain into the soil 50 50 100 N SP1 Swimming pool, in -ground 20 20 N *VH1 Vertical heat exchanger, horizontal piping conforming to rule 50 10 N *VH2 Vertical heat exchanger (vertical) piping, conforming to rule 50 35 N *WR1 Wastewater rapid infiltration basin, municipal or industrial 300 300 600 N *WA1 Wastewater spray irrigation area, municipal or industrial 150 150 300 N *WS1 Wastewater stabilization pond, industrial 150 150 300 N *WS2 Wastewater stabilization pond, municipal, 500 or more gal./acre/day of leakage 300 300 600 N *WS3 Wastewater stabilization pond, municipal, less than 500 gal./acre/day of leakage 150 150 300 N *WT1 Wastewater treatment unit tanks, vessels and components (Package plant) 100 100 N *WT2 Water treatment backwash disposal area 50 50 100 N Additional Sources (If there is more than one source listed above, please indicate here). Potential Contamination Sources and Codes Based on Previous Versions of this Form none found within 200' of this well. * New potential contaminant source. A sensitive well has less than 50 feet of watertight casing, and which is not cased below a confining layer or confining materials of at least 10' in thickness. z These sources, known as Class V underground injection wells, are regulated by the federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 3 These sources are classified as illegal by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725. 4 Isolation distance is determined by average flow per day or if a facility handles infectious or pathological wastes. 5 A community public water -supply well must be a minimum of 50 feet from a petroleum tank or container, unless the tank or container is used for emergency pumping and is located in a room or building separate from the community well; and is of double -wall construction with leak detection between walls; or is protected with secondary containment. This form is based on the new isolation distances in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725, related to wells and borings adopted August 4, 2008, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4720, related to wellhead protection. 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1820007 S05 I UNIQUE WELL NO. 1 686272 SETBACK DISTANCES I I All potential contaminant sources must be noted on sketch. Record the distance and approximate compass bearing of each potential contaminant source from the well, and identify the source using the "Source Code". Unlabeled points on the map are unsealed wells. 0° 3150 D12 450 SD1 270° 90° 225 �35° 180° Were the isolation distances maintained for the new sources of contamination? Y N N/A Is the system monitoring existing nonconforming sources of contamination? Y N N/A Reminder Question: Were the wellhead protection measure(s) implemented? INSPECTOR I Freitag, John I DATE 1 5 - 1 - 2012 11 /14/2014 PWS ID / FACILITY ID 1 1820007 S05 UNIQUE WELL NO. 686272 RECOMMENDED WELLHEAD PROTECTION (WHP) MEASURES WHP MEASURE IMPLEMENTED? Y or N DATE VERIFIED COMMENTS (5-1-2012) There is a gravel pocket at an unknown distance and bearing. For further information, please contact: Minnesota Department of Health Drinking Water Protection Section Source Water Protection Unit P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0975 Section Receptionist: 651-201-4700 Division TDD: 651-201-5797 or MN Relay Service @ 1-800-627-3529 and ask for 651-201-5000 11/14/2014 Appendix E: Wellhead Protection Plan Part 1 Amendment to the Wellhead Protection Plan Part I Delineation of Wellhead Protection Area Drinking Water Supply Management Area Delineation Well and Drinking Water Supply Management Area Vulnerability Assessments September 2013 Prepared for The City of Hugo U Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. Table of Contents Page Glossaryof Terms.................................................................................................................................................... i Acronyms................................................................................................................................................................ ii 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Assessment of the Data Elements..................................................................................................................... 2 3. General Descriptions........................................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 Description of the Water Supply System................................................................................................ 3 3.2 Description of the Hydrogeologic Setting.............................................................................................. 3 4. Delineation of the Wellhead Protection Area................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Delineation Criteria................................................................................................................................. 6 4.2 Method Used to Delineate the Wellhead Protection Area...................................................................... 8 4.2.1. Fractured Rock Delineation....................................................................................................... 8 4.2.2. Porous Media Delineations........................................................................................................ 9 4.3 Results of Model Calibration and Sensitivity Analysis........................................................................11 4.3.1. Calibration............................................................................................................................... 11 4.3.2. Sensitivity Analysis................................................................................................................. 11 4.4 Addressing Model Uncertainty............................................................................................................. 14 5. Delineation of the Drinking Water Supply Management Area...................................................................... 14 6. Vulnerability Assessments.............................................................................................................................. 14 6.1 Assessment of Well Vulnerability........................................................................................................ 15 6.2 Assessment of the Drinking Water Supply Management Area Vulnerability......................................15 7. Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................... 15 8. References...................................................................................................................................................... 16 List of Tables Table 1: Water Supply Well Information..........................................................................................................1 Table 2: Assessment of Data Elements.............................................................................................................. 2 Table 3a: Description of the Hydrogeologic Setting at Well No. 2 (523948)..................................................... 4 Table 3b: Description of the Hydrogeologic Setting at Wells No. 3-6............................................................... 5 Table 4: Description of WHPA Delineation Criteria......................................................................................... 6 Table 5: Annual Volume of Water Discharged from Water Supply Wells......................................................... 7 Table 6: Hydraulic Conductivity Values Used in Sensitivity/Fracture Flow Analyses .................................... 13 Table of Contents - Continued List of Figures Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Location of City and Surrounding High -Capacity Wells Used in the Groundwater Flow Model Figure 3: Prairie du Chien -Jordan Potentiometric Surface Map Figure 4: Local Model Domain Figure 5: Local Model Grid Figure 6: Local Model Grid In Vicinity of City Wells Figure 7: Local Model Calibration Figure 8: Local Model Calibration — Layer 3 Figure 9: Local Model Calibration — Layer 4 Figure 10: Simulated Groundwater Equipotential Contours and Calibration Well Locations Figure 11: 1-, 5- and 10-Year Flowpaths for Calibrated Model Figure 12: Uncertainty Analysis 10 Year Capture Zones Figure 13: Fracture Flow Delineation Boundaries Figure 14: Combined Wellhead Protection Area Boundaries Figure 15: Drinking Water Supply Management Area Delineation Figure 16: Drinking Water Supply Management Area Geologic Sensitivity Assessment Figure 17: Drinking Water Supply Management Area Geologic Vulnerability Assessment List of Appendices Appendix A: Fracture Flow Delineation Results - Techniques 3 and 4 Appendix B: Other High Capacity Wells Included in Model Glossary of Terms Data Element. A specific type of information required by the Minnesota Department of Health to prepare a wellhead protection plan. Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). The area delineated using identifiable land marks that reflects the scientifically calculated wellhead protection area boundaries as closely as possible (Minnesota Rules, part 4720.5100, subpart 13). Drinking Water Supply Management Area Vulnerability. An assessment of the likelihood that the aquifer within the DWSMA is subject to impact from land and water uses within the wellhead protection area. It is based upon criteria that are specified under Minnesota Rules, part 4720.5210, subpart 3. Emergency Response Area (ERA). The part of the wellhead protection area that is defined by a one- year time of travel within the aquifer that is used by the public water supply well (Minnesota Rules, part 4720.5250, subpart 3). It is used to set priorities for managing potential contamination sources within the DWSMA. Inner Wellhead Management Zone (IWMZ). The land that is within 200 feet of a public water supply well (Minnesota Rules, part 4720.5100, subpart 19). The public water supplier must manage the IWMZ to help protect it from sources of pathogen or chemical contamination that may cause an acute health effect. Wellhead Protection (WHP). A method of preventing well contamination by effectively managing potential contamination sources in all or a portion of the well's recharge area. Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA). The surface and subsurface area surrounding a well or well field that supplies a public water system, through which contaminants are likely to move toward and reach the well or well field (Minnesota Statutes, part 103I.005, subdivision 24). Well Vulnerability. An assessment of the likelihood that a well is at risk to human -caused contamination, either due to its construction or indicated by criteria that are specified under Minnesota Rules, part 4720.5550, subpart 2. 11 Acronyms ATP - Aquifer Test Plan CFR - Calculated Fixed Radius CWl - County Well Index DNR - Minnesota Department of Natural Resources EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency FSA - Farm Security Administration MDA - Minnesota Department of Agriculture MDH - Minnesota Department of Health MGS - Minnesota Geological Survey MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation MnGEO - Minnesota Geospatial Information Office MPCA - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NRCS - Natural Resource Conservation Service SWCD - Soil and Water Conservation District SWUDS — State Water Use Database System UGE - Upgradient Extensions UMN - University of Minnesota USDA - United States Department of Agriculture USGS - United States Geological Survey 1. Introduction Leggette, Brashears and Graham, Inc. (LBG) has developed Part I of the wellhead protection (WHP) plan for the City of Hugo (City) (public water supply identification number 1820007). The work was performed in accordance with the Minnesota Wellhead Protection Rule (MR), parts 4720.5100 to 4720.5590. This work is an amendment to the previous WHP plan for the City that was completed in 2002. City Wells No. 5 and 6 have been added since the previous plan was completed. The results of the development of this amended WHP plan are presented in the text below, on Tables 1 through 6, Figures 1 through 17, and in Appendices A and B, which are listed in the Table of Contents. This report presents delineations of the wellhead protection area (WHPA) and drinking water supply management area (DWSMA), and the vulnerability assessments for the public water supply well and DWSMA. Figures 14 and 15 show the boundaries of the WHPAs and the DWSMAs, respectively. These are based on WHPAs that are defined by a 10-year time of travel. Figure 14 also shows the emergency response area (ERA), which is defined by a 1-year time of travel. This report also lists the technical information that was used to prepare this portion of the WHP plan in accordance with the MR. Information pertaining to the Aquifer Test Plan (ATP) and the well vulnerability sheets can be obtained from the (Minnesota Department of Health) MDH. The City Wells included in the WHP plan are listed in Table 1. Table 1- Water Supply Well Information City of Hugo Local Casing Casing Well Date Well Number Type Diameter Depth Depth Constructed/ Aquifer Vulnerability Name (inches) (feet) (feet) Reconstructed Well Prairie du No. 2 523948 Primary 24x18 137 261 1993 Vulnerable Chien - Jordan Well 654497 Primary 24xl8 219 315 2000 Vulnerable Jordan No. 3 Well 671642 Primary 24x18 219 293 2002 Vulnerable Jordan No. 4 Well 686272 Primary 30x24 210 275 2007 Vulnerable Jordan No. 5 Well 773400 Primary 30x24 265 355 2010 Not Vulnerable Jordan No. 6 LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. 2 2. Assessment of the Data Elements Table 2 presents the assessment of the data elements as outlined in the MDH's scoping letter relative to the present and future implications of planning items that are specified in MR, part 4720.5210. Table 2 - Assessment of Data Elements Data Element Present Implications and Future Data Source (See Selected References for Numbered Citations) 3 Cl r.0, = �. 3 = 3 Precipitation H H H H MN Climatology Working Group, City Geology Maps and geologic descriptions H H H H Mossler, 1998 and 2000 Subsurface data H H H H Mossler, 1998 and 2000 Borehole geophysics H H H H MGS Surface geophysics H H H H None Available Maps and soil descriptions M H H H NRCS Water Resources Watershed units L M L M National Hydrography Dataset (USGS) List of public waters L H L L DNR, National Hydrography Dataset (USGS) Land Use Parcel boundaries map L H L L Washington County GIS Data Political boundaries map L H L L ESRI Data PLS map L H L L ESRI Data Public Utility Services Transportation routes and corridors L M M M ESRI Storm/sanitary sewers and PWS system map M L L City, County Public drainage systems map or list L L ESRI Data Records of well construction, maintenance, and use H H H H City, CWl, MDH Files Surface Water Quantity Stream flow data M H M USGS, DNR, Metropolitan Council Ordinary high water mark data L L FEMA, DNR Permitted withdrawals L L DNR Protected levels/flows L L DNR Water use conflicts L L DNR Groundwater Quantity Permitted withdrawals H H H H DNR LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Present and Future Implications Data Source Data Element, ,,, (See Selected References for Numbered Citations) Groundwater use conflicts H H H H DNR Water levels H H H H DNR, MPCA, MDH, City Surface Water Quality Monitoring data summary L M MDH, MPCA, MDA, DNR, City Groundwater Quality Monitoring data H H H H MPCA, MDH, USGS Isotopic data H H H H MPCA, MDH. USGS, UMN Tracer studies H H H H None Available Contamination site data H H H M City, MPCA and MDA MPCA and MDA H H H MPCA and MDA spills/release reports Definitions Used for Assessing Data Elements: High (H) — The element has a direct impact. Moderate (M) — The element has an indirect or marginal impact. Low (L) — The element has little if any impact. Shaded — The element was not required by MDH for preparing the WHP Part 1 plan. 3. General Descriptions 3.1 Description of the Water Supply System The City, shown on Figure 1, obtains its drinking water supply from five primary wells, City Wells No. 2 through 6. The wells are shown on Figure 2 and Table 1 summarizes information regarding them. 3.2 Description of the Hydrogeologic Setting The hydrologic settings for the Prairie du Chien and Jordan Sandstone aquifers are described in Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH), 2002. A summary of the hydrologic conditions at the City Wells is presented in Tables 3a and 3b. LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Table 3a - Description of the Hydrogeologic Setting at Well 2 (523948) Aquifer Attribute Descriptor Data Source Aquifer Material Dolomite/Sandstone Well No. 2 well log (523948) Primary Porosity 0.05 for Prairie du Chien Group Approximate value recommended by MDH. Aquifer Thickness 128 Well No. 2 well log (523948) Stratigraphic Top Elevation 814 feet MSL Well No. 2 well log (523948) Stratigraphic Bottom Elevation 686 feet MSL Well No. 2 well log (523948) Hydraulic Confinement Confined Well No. 2 well log (523948) The aquifer test plan was approved on March 5, 2013, and the Prairie du Reference Value/Range (OPDC): reference value for the Chien 15,000 ftz/day transmissivity of the Prairie du (OPDC) Transmissivity (T) (12,240 — 39,780 ft2/day) Chien Aquifer was determined from a pumping test conducted at City of Centerville Well No. 2 (512748) on March 9-11, 1998. The reference value for the Reference Value/Range (OPDC): hydraulic conductivity of the 147 ft/day Prairie du Chien Aquifer was Hydraulic (120 — 390 ft/day) determined from a pumping test Conductivity (K) conducted at City of Centerville Well No. 2 (512748) on March 9- 11, 1998. 5th Order trend surface analysis Groundwater Flow Flow to the west southwest. performed on CWI head data using Field Hydraulic Gradient: 1.5 x 10-3 feet/ft ESRI Spatial Analyst for model area shown on Figure 3. LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Table 3b - Description of the Hydrogeologic Setting at Wells No 3-6 (523948) Aquifer Attribute Descriptor Data Source Well No. 3 well log (654497) Aquifer Material Sandstone Well No. 4 well log (671642) Well No. 5 well log (686272) Well No. 6 well l0 773400 Primary Porosity 0.20 Value recommended by MDH guidance. Well No. 3 well log (654497) Aquifer Thickness 68-102 feet Well No. 4 well log (671642) Well No. 5 well log (686272) Well No. 6 well l0 773400 Well No. 3 well log (654497) Stratigraphic Top 686-720 feet MSL Well No. 4 well log (671642) Elevation Well No. 5 well log (686272) Well No. 6 well l0 773400 Well No. 3 well log (654497) Stratigraphic 590-643 feet MSL Well No. 4 well log (671642) Bottom Elevation Well No. 5 well log (686272) Well No. 6 well l0 773400 Jordan Well No. 3 well log (654497) (CJDN) Hydraulic Confined Well No. 4 well log (671642) Confinement Well No. 5 well log (686272) Well No. 6 well l0 773400 The aquifer test plan was approved on March 5, 2013. The reference Reference Value/Range (CJDN): value for the transmissivity of the Transmissivity (T) 1,800 ft2/day Jordan Aquifer was determined (1,800 — 10,800 ftz/day) from a pumping test conducted at City of Hugo Well No. 6 (773400) on October 28-November 5, 2010. The reference value for the Reference Value/Range (CJDN): hydraulic conductivity of the Hydraulic 20 ft/day Jordan Aquifer was determined Conductivity (K) (20 —120 ft/day) from a pumping test conducted at City of Hugo Well No. 6 (773400) on October 28-November 5, 2010. Groundwater Flow Flow to the west southwest. 5th Order trend surface analysis Field Hydraulic Gradient: 1.5 x 10-3 feet/ft performed on CWl head data for model area shown on Figure 3. LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. J 4. Delineation of the Wellhead Protection Area 4.1 Delineation Criteria The boundaries of the WHPA for the City are shown in Figure 14. Table 4 provides descriptions of how the delineation criteria that are specified under MR, part 4720.5510 were included in the model. Table 4 - Description of WHPA Delineation Criteria Criterion Descriptor How the Criterion was Addressed The rivers provide boundary conditions to the Flow Boundary Mississippi and St. regional model that extends to these natural Croix Rivers boundaries. They were included in the model and set the regional groundwater flow. Other High -Capacity The pumping amounts were determined based on Flow Boundary Wells (Appendix B the averaged 2007-2011 pumped volumes. The Table pumping amounts of these high -capacity wells were included in the methods used for the delineation. Pumping information was obtained from the Daily Volume of Water Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Pumped See Table 5 Appropriations Permit 1975-6218. The annual pumped volumes were converted to a daily volume pumped by a well. The model calibration process addressed the Groundwater Flow Field See Figure 10 relationship between the calculated versus observed groundwater flow field. The aquifer test plan was approved on March 5, Reference Value 2013, and the reference value for the transmissivity (OPDC): of the Prairie du Chien Aquifer was determined 15,000 ft2/day from a pumping test conducted at City of Aquifer Transmissivity Centerville Well #2 (512748) on March 9-11, 1998. Reference Value The reference value for the transmissivity of the (CJDN): Jordan Aquifer was determined from a pumping test 1,800 ft2/day conducted at City of Hugo Well #6 (773400) on October 28-November 5, 2010 Time of Travel 10 years The public water supplier selected a 10 year time of travel. Information provided by the City and from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) SWUDS database were used to identify the maximum volume of water pumped annually by each well over the previous five-year period. The rates used in the delineation from the previous five years are summarized in Table 5. Because there are no historical data for Well No. 6, the maximum value from the other City Wells was applied. In this case, the 132 million gallon per year (MGY) from Well No. 2 in 2009 was used. The total volume illustrated in Table 5 (587.7 MGY) is more than 45% greater than the highest single -year demand over the period of record (402 MGY in 2008), indicating a conservative delineation volume. The maximum daily volume of discharge used as an input parameter in the model was calculated by dividing the greatest annual pumping volume by 365 days. LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. 7 Table 5 - Annual Volume of Water Discharged from Water Supply Wells Well Name Unique Number Total Annual Withdrawal (million gallons/year[MGYI) Maximum Withdrawal 2007 - 2011 (MGY) Withdrawal used in Previous WHP Plan (MGY) Withdrawal used in Current WHP Plan (MGY) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Well No. 2 523948 127.1 119.5 132 117.2 122.8 132 95.2 132 Well No. 3 654497 125.1 104.2 103.3 88 82 125.1 150 125.1 Well No. 4 671642 118.8 101.3 85.3 85.3 65.6 118.8 150 118.8 Well No. 5 686272 13.1 76.6 79.8 79.8 78.4 79.8 n/a 79.8 Well No. 6 773400 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 n/a 132* Totals 384.1 401.6 400.4 370.3 348.8 455.7 395.2 587.7 - Source: The DNR State Water Use Database System (SWUDS) Permit Number 1975-6218. * Projected use for Well No. 6 equals the maximum annual pumping at any other system well between 2007 and 2011 (Well No. 2). LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. 4.2 Method Used to Delineate the Wellhead Protection Area Figure 14 shows the WHPA delineated for the City Wells using both the results of the porous media modeling and fracture flow delineations. The effects of fracture flow (i.e., secondary porosity) are evaluated separately from the porous media modeling as the data and capability of the model program are not sufficient to account for the potential variability in flow through fractured rock. The WHPA is a composite of all the areas identified using both methods described in this report that potentially contribute recharge to the aquifers used by the City Wells within a 10-year time of travel. 4.2.1. Fractured Rock Delineation The WHPA for the City Wells was determined using the "Guidance for Delineating Wellhead Protection Areas in Fractured and Solution -Weathered Bedrock in Minnesota" (MDH, 2012). This guidance was developed by MDH to address the increased variability in flow velocities and directions in geologic settings with secondary porosity. The guidance is a modified volumetric analysis and does not use a model based on flow equations. In accordance with the guidance, Delineation Techniques 3 and 4 were used to delineate the WHPA. These techniques were chosen, in part, because they are recommended for aquifers characterized by locally confined conditions where the ratio of the well discharge to the discharge vector is less than 3000. Specifically, Technique 3 was used for Well No.2 because it is open to both a porous media aquifer (CJDN) and a fractured or solution -weathered bedrock aquifer (OPDC), and Technique 4 was used for Wells No. 3 through 6 because they are open solely in a porous media aquifer, the Jordan. Input parameters used in the calculation of the CFR and the results of the fracture flow analysis are summarized in Appendix A. The fracture -flow analysis is essentially a calculation that establishes a fixed -radius capture zone based on the 5-year volume of water pumped. The initial fixed radii were calculated for the five City Wells. Special considerations had to be made for Wells No. 3 and 4 due to the initial fixed radii overlapping. As a result, revised radii were calculated for those wells using the MDH Calculated Fixed Radius Tool. The radii were then extended upgradient in the direction of groundwater flow (also plus or minus 10 degrees) to create a conservative wellhead capture area that accounts for the uncertainties related to fracture flow. This upgradient extension approximates an additional 5 years of flow, or a combined 10- year capture zone. Appendix A presents the input and output from MDH's Calculated Fixed Radius tool used to determine the fracture flow delineation for Wells No. 2 through 6. Figure 13 illustrates the initial fixed and revised radii, and the resulting fracture flow WHPA delineation. After the uncertainty analysis and the fracture flow analysis were completed, the capture zones delineated for each of the analyses were plotted together. The outline of this concatenation created a final composite WHPA capture zone, shown on Figure 14, for use in delineating the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. W 4.2.2. Porous Media Delineations The porous media delineations of the WHPA for the City Wells were completed using an existing regional MODFLOW model, Metromodel 2.0, that was provided by the Metropolitan Council (Metro Council, 2009). MODFLOW is a 31), cell -centered, finite difference, saturated flow model developed by the USGS (Harbaugh et al., 2000). The regional Metromodel consists of nine layers that represent the major aquifers and aquitards within the seven -county metropolitan area. These layers represent, from top to bottom, the following units: (1) surficial aquifer of glacial deposits; (2) St. Peter Sandstone or Quaternary Buried Artesian Aquifer; (3) Prairie du Chien Group; (4) Jordan Sandstone; (5) St. Lawrence Formation (aquitard); (6) Franconia Formation; (7) Ironton -Galesville Aquifer, (8) Eau Claire Formation (aquitard); and (9) Mt. Simon Sandstone. The regional groundwater model was calibrated to steady-state water levels and river base flows. A local -scale model, limited to parts of Washington and Ramsey Counties, was extracted from the regional seven -county model and is shown on Figure 5. The local model and all of the modeling for this amendment was completed using GMS (Aquaveo, 2013), a pre- and post -processor for MODFLOW. The local model was created using the technique of local grid refinement where a smaller, more refined grid is used within the regional model. The heads computed from the regional model then provide the boundary conditions for the local model as specified heads. The size of the domain and the general flow -field characteristics of the model were based on the Metromodel and the results of the original delineation. The base of the local model is variable at an elevation of approximately 100 meters (m) above mean sea level (amsl). There are the same nine layers in the model to represent the bedrock units and unconsolidated materials as in the Metromodel. These layers correspond to the approximate vertical extent of the various stratigraphic units observed in the vicinity of the City. Layer 1 represents the unconsolidated materials, primarily clay till and sand units. Layer 2 represents unconsolidated materials in some areas and St. Peter Sandstone, where present. Layers 3, and 4 are comprised primarily of the Prairie du Chien Group and Jordan Sandstone, respectively. Layer 5 is the St. Lawrence Formation, which is an aquitard that effectively eliminates any influence from deeper layers of the model on the area of interest. The model grid was refined around the City Wells (Figure 6). Variable grid spacing was used, ranging from 12 meters near the city wells to 100 meters at the edge of the grid. This grid spacing provided better definition in the area of the flow field where simulating the influence of pumping from the wells was critical. Changes were made to the original Metromodel defined characteristics in the area of interest around the City Wells. Site specific information allowed for more accurate definition of aquifer characteristics. These changes were confined primarily to the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers in the area of the City. The conductivities of the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers were modified to be in line with the values from the Aquifer Test Plan. Also, the thicknesses of the aquifers had to be slightly changed to match the data from the well logs for the City Wells. A zone, shown in Figure 4, was also created for modifying the horizontal and vertical conductivities of the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers in the vicinity of the City Wells and their capture zones. These conductivities replaced those used in the Metromodel for that area. Finally, the bed conductance values for several of the lakes LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. 10 in the domain were decreased as unreasonably high volumes of water were recharging the local aquifers from these lakes. In addition to the previously mentioned changes, the following modifications were incorporated in the refined models: • The pumping rates from Table 5 were assigned to the City Wells. • The pumping rates from Table 1 in Appendix B were assigned to the permitted high -capacity wells located within the local model boundary. A series of 20 particles were launched at each well. Porosities of 5 percent and 20 percent were used for the Prairie du Chien Group and the Jordan Sandstone, respectively. As part of the sensitivity analysis, groundwater pathline analyses were performed to delineate the 1-, 5- and 10-year capture zones and ultimately the "PA. The pathline analysis consisted of using MODPATH, a flowpath calculation program, to determine the capture zone for each of the City Wells. This was completed by tracing 20 flow paths from each well for a 10-year travel time. A significant change from the original WHPA delineation is a decrease of the effective porosity of the Prairie du Chien from 0.09 to 0.05, slightly lower than the average value for the Prairie du Chien as described in the MDH fracture flow guidance document (MDH, 2012). Wells No. 3 through 6 are open only to the Jordan aquifer; however, the Jordan aquifer is hydraulically connected to the Prairie du Chien with a high likelihood of leakage between the two as documented in the Aquifer Test Plan and other WHP Plans completed in the area. Well No. 2 is completed in both the Prairie du Chien and Jordan. This aquifer leakage requires that a fracture -flow delineation be completed for the contributing water from the Prairie du Chien. The vertical hydraulic conductivities in the calibrated model were large enough that a significant portion of the flow in the Jordan aquifer (over 50 percent) could be coming from the Prairie du Chien. Thus increasing the vertical conductivity was not necessary to have a conservative value for the volume of leakage from the Prairie du Chien aquifer to the Jordan aquifer. A pathline analysis was completed and resulting capture areas were determined. By using the capture areas illustrated on Figure 12, daily volumes contributing to each well from the Prairie du Chien were obtained from the FLOWBUDGET module in Modflow. Well No. 2 is primarily completed in the Prairie du Chien aquifer, extending only approximately 10 ft (3 m) into the Jordan aquifer. Therefore the entire projected pumping rate for Well No. 2 was used for the fracture flow delineation. For Wells No. 3-6, the capture zone for each well was delineated and the flow across the boundary between the Prairie du Chien and the Jordan aquifer was totaled. These calculated volumes, shown in Table 7, were then used in the fracture -flow delineation. The resulting WHPA boundaries (Figure 14) are a composite of the 10-year capture zones calculated using this model for the base case parameters, the parameter values used in the sensitivity analysis, and the fractured flow delineation, and are discussed in the following section. The model input files are available upon request at the MDH. LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. 11 4.3 Results of Model Calibration and Sensitivity Analysis The goal of numerical model calibration is to obtain a reasonable correlation between the simulated model results and observed field data. The calibration process is generally completed by running a series of steady-state simulations (simulations where the flow magnitude and direction are constant with time), comparing calculated heads to the measured heads at wells within the model domain while changing the model parameters until the best match between the two is achieved. After a model is reasonably calibrated a sensitivity analysis is used to determine the impact that changes to an input parameter have on the output of the model. In areas where there is a great deal of uncertainty in the physical parameters, either as a consequence of lack of data or based on the uncertainty associated with the interpretation of available data (i.e. pumping test analyses), a number of models are generally run to observe the effect on the model results over the range of potential values for each of the significant parameters. While none of the individual capture zones delineated as part of this analysis should be considered the "correct" one, it is assumed that the actual capture zone is encompassed by the resulting concatenation of analysis zones. 4.3.1. Calibration The goal of numerical model calibration is to obtain a reasonable correlation between the simulated model results and observed field data. The calibration process is generally completed by running several steady-state simulations and comparing calculated hydraulic heads to the measured head data at known calibration points within the model domain. The calibration plot, showing measured versus simulated hydraulic head values, for the local model is illustrated on Figure 7. The plot shows that the simulated values and measured head values generally compare quite favorably. There is some bias in the data as there are a large number of measurement points in a small area of the southwestern portion of the domain (i.e. the City of North Oaks) that does not calibrate as well as the rest of the model. Some of these points could be removed from the calibration data set so as to not over -represent a single area; however a normalized root mean squared error of less than 15 percent is generally an acceptable target for a model and the result for this model is approximately 13 percent. Therefore neither the removal of data points nor further calibration away from the area of interest was deemed necessary. The calibration results specific to Layers 3 and 4 in the model are presented in Figures 8 and 9. Layers 3 and 4, corresponding to the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers, are the model layers of interest in the vicinity of the City Wells. It can be seen that these layers follow the same trend as the model with approximately the same error. More extensive observation data collected within the same general time period and more accurate, site - specific transmissivity values throughout the model domain would improve calibration and model confidence. The groundwater flow field and hydraulic heads in the area of the City for the calibrated model are shown on Figure 10. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year capture zones predicted using the calibrated, base -case model are shown on Figure 11; however, due to the uncertainty and variability associated with the physical characteristics of the aquifers, a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis was completed as part of the modeling effort. 4.3.2. Analy Lis Sensitivity is the amount of change in model results caused by the variation of a particular input parameter. For example, changing the hydraulic conductivity of an area can change the calculated head values in and around the area of the modified model as compared to the heads in unmodified model. LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. 12 Because of the relative simplicity of the area of interest in this model, the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers, the size and orientation of the modeled capture zone may be sensitive to any of the input parameters: The pumping rate determines the volume of the aquifer that donates water to the well. Increasing the pumping rate will expand the capture zone, for a given thickness, and decreasing it will make the capture zone smaller. • Results — The pumping rate was defined by Minnesota Rules and therefore is not a variable for consideration in this analysis. The value for the pumping rate at the new well, Well No. 6, was chosen to be as high as the highest of the other wells as there was no historical data to base a rate on and it also ensures that Well No. 6 could replace any of the other wells, should the need arise. The direction of groundwater flow and gradient can often be variable and change significantly with changing conditions such as fluctuations in local surface water elevations or the pumping rates in local wells • Results — The regional flow direction and gradient were determined through the modeling process and closely resemble the flow direction and gradient determined through mathematical analysis of the measured heads in the area. The models were calibrated to hydraulic heads, and the local refined model calibration mirrored the regional calibration. Based on the regional observation data, the characteristics of the flow field and the use of the aquifers of interest there is not likely to be a significant change to the flow field. The horizontal hydraulic conductivity influences the size and shape of the capture zone. The pumping test at Hugo Well No. 6, which is only open to the Jordan aquifer, suggested high confidence that the hydraulic conductivity of the Jordan aquifer was approximately 20 ft/d. However, tests at nearby wells indicate much higher conductivities may exist in the Jordan aquifer in the vicinity of the Hugo wells. A 2008 pumping test at City Well No. 5, which is only open to the Jordan, suggests a conductivity of 62.7 ft/d, while a test conducted in 2000 at City Well No.1 (also open only to the Jordan) by SEH indicated a conductivity greater than 100 ft/d in that area. A test performed on the combined Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers at Lino Lakes Well No. 5 in 2005 resulted in a representative transmissivity of 12,500 ft2/d. Using a conductivity value for the Prairie du Chien aquifer obtained from a 1998 test at Centerville Well No. 2 the conductivity of the Jordan aquifer was calculated to be approximately 65 ft/day at Lino Lakes Well No. 5. Finally, a 2001 test at White Bear Township Well No. 3 indicated conductivities of between 250 and 300 ft/day for the combined Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers. A 1997 pumping test at Centerville Well No. 2 likely provides the best estimate for the hydraulic conductivity of the Prairie du Chien aquifer in this area of 147 ft/d. However, if the conductivity for the Jordan aquifer determined at Hugo Well No. 6 is correct, the test performed at Lino Lakes Well No. 5 would yield a conductivity value for the Prairie du Chien of approximately 239 ft/day. Applying the results of the Hugo Well No. 6 test to the results of the combined Prairie du Chien/Jordan test at White Bear Twp, Well No. 3 yields a conductivity for the Prairie du Chien of 300 to 390 ft/day. Since the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers are the uppermost bedrock encountered in much of the Hugo area, the high and highly variable conductivities estimated by these tests are consistent with weathered bedrock conditions. Based on this information the uncertainty of the hydraulic conductivity LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. 13 is great. Several runs were performed for the range of hydraulic conductivity derived from the pumping tests performed on wells in Hugo as well as those in surrounding communities. Since the pumping tests used to determine much of the range of conductivities in the area were completed on wells specifically either in the Prairie du Chien or Jordan aquifers, the potential does exists that both aquifers could have high or low conductivities in a given area. • Results - A change in the hydraulic conductivity of either aquifer shifts the location of the capture zones. Since the transmissivity of the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers, obtained from numerous tests on wells in each of the two aquifers separately as well as at wells open to both aquifers, showed a great deal of variability the values were attached with a low level of confidence. As a result, all of the potential combinations of hydraulic conductivity were examined during the uncertainty analysis. The range of hydraulic conductivity considered in the sensitivity analysis runs is given in Table 3b and the values used for each of the runs in the uncertainty analysis are presented in Table 6. The vertical conductivity values were chosen to be consistent with values used in the Metromodel for the low end of the range and approximately equal to half of the horizontal conductivity for the high end of the range. Table 6 - Hydraulic Conductivity Values Used in Sensitivity/Fracture Flow Analyses Simulation Number Prairie du Chien Group Conductivity (ft/d) Jordan Sandstone Conductivity (ft/d) Flow From Prairie du Chien (m3/d) Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical Well No. 2 Well No. 3 Well No. 4 Well No. 5 Well No. 6 1 * 120.1 1.0 19.0 0.7 1368 1100 820 530 880 2 390.1 1.0 19.0 0.7 1368 1150 830 540 880 3 120.1 100.4 19.0 0.7 1368 1180 830 550 915 4 390.1 100.4 19.0 0.7 1368 1181 830 550 920 5 120.1 1.0 120.1 0.7 1368 580 425 220 450 6 390.1 1.0 120.1 0.7 1368 630 475 280 525 7 120.1 100.4 120.1 0.7 1368 730 490 290 580 8 390.1 100.4 120.1 0.7 1368 826 700 360 730 9 120.1 1.0 19.0 9.5 1368 1200 820 530 900 10 390.1 1.0 19.0 9.5 1368 1160 830 550 890 11 120.1 100.4 19.0 9.5 1368 1320 1090 730 1270 12 390.1 100.4 19.0 9.5 1368 1550 985 610 1210 13 120.1 1.0 120.1 49.9 1368 700 520 270 550 14 390.1 1.0 120.1 49.9 1368 860 730 350 700 15 120.1 100.4 120.1 49.9 1368 1090 820 560 970 16 390.1 100.4 120.1 49.9 1368 1310 900 600 1020 Notes: * Base Case Model - Conductivities were determined through testing and analysis as summarized in the Aquifer test Plan. - The flow from the Prairie du Chien was calculated using the Flow Budget Analysis tool in MODFLOW. - The maximum volume of flow from Layer 3 (Prairie du Chien) to Layer 4 (Jordan) within the 10-year capture zone was used in the fracture flow analysis - m3/d: cubic meters per day LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. 14 The aquifer thickness and porosity influence the size and shape of the capture zone by limiting the water -bearing volume within a given area of aquifer. Decreasing or increasing either thickness or porosity forces a proportional decrease or increase in the areal extent of the capture zone. Results - The thickness of the aquifers around the wells in the model was adjusted to reflect the approximate thickness from the well logs, where necessary and these thicknesses were relatively consistent among the City Wells. The porosity values used in the model are consistent with the material or conservative. 4.4 Addressing Model Uncertainty Using computer models to simulate groundwater flow always requires that simplifying assumptions be made. Local geology can be highly variable and information from well logs and pumping tests indicates that this is likely the case near the Hugo Wells. Unfortunately, existing information is not detailed enough to define this degree of variability and interpretation of log and test data is often inconsistent. For models of the scale used in this study, the information and computational ability does not exist to precisely delineate the WHPA. To account for this, a number of models are run to examine the various potential WHPAs for the wells, given the range of the input data mentioned previously. MODFLOW models were used to delineate the capture zones for the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers that supply water to the City's Wells. As described previously, the hydraulic conductivity was the single variable identified that would cause the greatest change in the WHPAs for the City's Wells. Capture areas were delineated for the assessed range of aquifer conductivities for a time -of -travel period of 10 years and are shown on Figure 12. As the only one set of conductivities can be evaluated in each run, 16 runs were required to include all variations in input parameters. The WHPAs for the City's wells consist of a composite of the porous media aquifer delineations for the different input parameters used in the sensitivity analysis and the fractured rock delineation. This provides a conservative approach to addressing model uncertainty and produces a WHPA that will likely be most protective of public health. 5. Delineation of the Drinking Water Supply Management Area The boundaries of the DWSMA were defined by the public water supplier using the following features (Figure 15): • Property or parcel boundaries, and • Public Land Survey coordinates. Because surface water is not hydraulically connected to the aquifers, a conjunctive delineation was not necessary. 6. Vulnerability Assessments The Part I wellhead protection plan includes the vulnerability assessments for the public water supply well and DWSMA. These vulnerability assessments are used to help define potential contamination sources within the DWSMA and to select appropriate measures for reducing the risk that they present to the public water supply. LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. 15 6.1 Assessment of Well Vulnerability Review of site -specific data from the CWI and data presented in the previous model report indicates that significant low permeability material overlies the buried sand and Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers in many parts of the DWSMA, but not all. Areas closer to City Wells No. 2, 3 and 5 are considered more moderate to high vulnerability. The well vulnerability assessment was conducted in accordance with the MDH guidance document, Assessing Well Vulnerability for Wellhead Protection (MDH, 1997). The vulnerability of a well is scored based on the following six categories: DNR geologic sensitivity rating, casing integrity, casing depth, pumping rate, isolation distance from contaminant sources, and chemical and isotopic information. The assessment of geologic sensitivity is useful metric when estimating the relative vertical downward travel time of contaminants from grade level to the water table or source aquifer. A Level-3 DNR geologic sensitivity assessment was used for the City wells. The Level-3 DNR geologic sensitivity rating is an empirical value determined by dividing the cumulative thickness of low permeability units above the aquifer by 10 (DNR, 1991). The resulting score is termed the "L-score". A higher L-score indicates more low -permeability material above the aquifer, and therefore a lower vulnerability. A low L-score represents higher vulnerability. For example, a rating of L-1 has a higher vulnerability than L-9, because there is less low -permeability material present above the aquifer. A Level-3 assessment was conducted since the aquifers are overlain by varying thicknesses of clay. As mentioned above, points are also assigned to casing integrity and depth, pumping rate, isolation distance to contaminant sources, and chemical data, in addition to the geologic sensitivity. Vulnerability assessment rating sheets and vulnerability scores for Wells No. 2 through 6 were obtained from the MDH and reviewed by LBG. The rating sheets can be obtained from MDH upon request. 6.2 Assessment of the Drinking Water Supply Management Area Vulnerability In the proposed DWSMA, the groundwater that supplies the City wells is from the buried Prairie du Chien and Jordan Aquifers. Both are overlain by significant glacial deposits consisting of till, sands and gravels. A Level-3 assessment was conducted for all CWI wells located in the vicinity of the DWSMA delineation. The geologic sensitivity "L-scores" were calculated by MDH using a Geographic Information System tool that utilizes lithology information from the MN CWI. Figure 16 illustrates the geologic sensitivity for the DWSMA as determined by mapping L-scores from the 96 well logs across the DWSMA. Several wells were excluded from this analysis and include those wells where "drift" was logged in the borehole. Since drift is an ambiguous geologic term and does not specifically indicate clay or sand, those logs were eliminated from the sensitivity analysis and noted on Figure 16 as "insufficient data". Geologic sensitivity near the City wells ranges from low near Wells No. 4 and 6, moderate near Wells No. 3 and 5 and high near Well No. 2. Since tritium has been detected above 1 T.U, the vulnerability rating in the vicinity of the City wells and across the DWSMA increased by one category compared to the sensitivity rating (Figure 17). 7. Recommendations Upon completion of this Part I WHP Plan amendment, the following recommendations are provided for the City to consider for better understanding the hydrogeologic conditions of the source aquifers and refinement of future WHPA delineations. LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. 16 • Identify existing or install new observation wells at strategic locations in areas of the DWSMA to better characterize the hydraulic connection between the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers. • Incorporate water quality, hydraulic, and other relevant data that will be obtained by future studies by the USGS and other as part of the White Bear Lake research. • Obtain more area -specific hydraulic conductivity data in the area of the City Wells to reduce model uncertainty and potentially to size of the capture zones and DWSMA. This can be completed by conduct additional pumping tests on the City Wells or other existing high capacity wells. • Collect water samples from City Well water, surface water and precipitation and conduct stable isotope analyses of these to evaluate the mixture of surface water and groundwater. • Continue collecting groundwater samples for analysis of regulated contaminants and provide the data to the MDH. 8. References Aquaveo, 2013. Groundwater Modeling System (GMS, version 9.0) [Computer Software], Provo, UT, Aquaveo, LLC. Geologic Sensitivity Project Workgroup (1991), Criteria and guidelines for assessing geologic sensitivity of ground water resources in Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters, St. Paul, Minn., 122 p. Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, M.G. (2000), MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground -water model --user guide to modularization concepts and the ground -water flow process, Open -File Report, 00-92, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va., 121 p. Minnesota Department of Health (2010), Minnesota public land survey system quarter -quarter sections (derived from section corners), computer file, St. Paul, Minn. Minnesota Department of Health (2012), Guidance for delineating wellhead protection areas in fractured and solution -weathered bedrock in Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn., 81 p. Metromodel 2.0, 2009. (hgp://www.metrocouncil. org/environment/WaterSupply/metrogroundwatermodeldatasets.htm) Minnesota Department of Health, 1997. Assessing Well and Aquifer Vulnerability for Wellhead Protection. Draft document, February 1997, pp. 23. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1991. Criteria and Guidelines for Assessing Geologic Sensitivity of Ground Water Resources in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Appropriation Permit Program Website (www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt section/appropriations/wateruse.html) LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. 17 Minnesota Geologic Survey, 2000. Bedrock Geology and Structure of the Twin Cities Seven County Metropolitan Area, Map M-104. Pollock, D.W., 1994, User's Guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT, Version 3: A particle tracking post -processing package for MODFLOW, the U.S. Geological Survey finite -difference ground -water flow model: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 94-464, 6 ch. Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc., 2002, Part I Wellhead Protection Plan. Wellhead Protection Area Drinking Water Supply Management Area Delineations and Vulnerability Assessments, City of Hugo, Minnesota LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Figures III��I� I f, � � ,_,. I:,r R■ � � - '},�t I'� � r „ � .�C•� � 1�` �'-w � L� 'jj�ti 1 .4� � .� . � y�' .�. t CRIfl '� S" � `r ''� '� oi'°� f�,,,. •.� � .� ^ r• � .��( l 1°r�'"' x.;• ( � ra i'- _4,. 3 t_ �'a: � I ) 9kry� � 1�y ,' ' - -s 5 ,.� r'• -��' ,•,f+� . 243 -F 97 Ij 35 - cou 242 X cn i - 4• 1-• r a �k t - 6 y -_.'+ICII GI _:�i9YYT ` r , i I .1 P. r y�� r City of Hugo l6ir4ir Ono\La "N r a. r ° 10 r any' 9 1 I QiA UR.x ,C i_ r .�y. • 7':..Lf9 ^ - •.` j1. �.� ♦• �®�� f �'°� l 94� �S�s'.ZI I�� pia •'��1�fNL�� 1t" I�} �•r �, ,.� �� .� �� l�ly.�- �}rl • '•fir' a t.� c 1 1� 'r"'� i ,'� ti f� .�► • )w• gq •®��iG'',!�''��,�. .• �a� �r ' {�(�'• ' e -- SIIr� �,iwaQ �� SAS' r d Aft.. `y1� �al5 t��•_'fa•4 �•YJIIiS f �� 1 `1} r 94 .°- 7-County Metro Area ■ City of Hugo Boundary 'Prepared sit Miles Source: ESRI Online Imagery: Copyright 2010 National Geographic Society. By: CITY OF • HUGO, MINNESOTAEnvironmental Professional Groundwater and Engineering Services 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 SITE LOCATION St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 a• �� N m_ O z z G tr �` Jyf{�wu'd E-alre iEagre I J,,�,") + - � � _� AILI Y t - a VLi yl i1 a PL- x�a Hugo 5 671642 - &#Hugo 4 �, 654497 — r EHugo 3 f f t� _��K23948 i o _ Hugo 2 773400 °= Hugo 6 r 1` n 1 ^-- t •µr � EAR` fir•. 41 polM - �„ t �- City Well 7-County Metro Area High -Capacity Well Used in Groundwater Flow Model ❑ Local Model Domain Site 0 2 Miles Source: ESRI Online Imagery: Copyright 2010 National Geographic Society. MN DNR Appropriations Database (SWUDS). Prepared By: CITY OF HUGO �r L LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. HUGO, MINNESOTA Professional Groundwater and LOCATION OF CITY AND SURROUNDING HIGH -CAPACITY WELLS $ Environmental Engineering Services 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 USED IN THE GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL FILE: g3hugowhp01c.MXD I DATE: 9/12/2013 1 FIGURE: 2 (651)490-1405 Z - rv;- ?7 r, 7 r '�• �• g70 �_ i, r goo +• �tCD ago t • rn 11 ' • 00 17 ' -- Hugo 5 , • z� •t• 6711642 t Hugo 4 J �654497 • N +� 'Hugo3M•� •� , •Y� � `_ � .ram `r '� ��• 523948t;,ry .• . J. ' '1 __�� o " •• • `."-"Hu 10 2' _ ! 773400�; � •�'.�1' � '� -Hugo 60 �. `• i .' .*I - —v1 �;._� ^`-\\ -•�- • ' \\\ '�e_/ �' •lam-• • •-•''• .. �• •• n0STP Platteville-Glenwood Formation � City Well 7-County Metro Area Prairie du Chien - Jordan CWI Well Location St. Peter Sandstone Potentiometric Surface Contour (feet amsl) OPDC Prairie du Chien Group Groundwater Flow Direction CJDN Jordan Sandstone 0 2 Sit ❑ Local Model Domain CSLF St. Lawrence Formation Miles Ironton Galesville Source: ESRI Online Imagery: Copyright 2010 National Geographic Society. MN County Well Index. Potentiometric surface contours developed using a 5th Order Trend Surface from ESRI's ArcGIS Spatial Analyst. Prepared By: CITY OF HUGO RTL' LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Pro fessionalGroundwater and HUGO, MINNESOTA B� Environmental Engineering Services 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 PRAIRIE DU CHIEN - JORDAN POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 (651)490-1405 FILE: g3hugowhp01d.MXD DATE: 9/12/2013 1 FIGURE: 3 m 0 of N i3 Qr �, C, City Well Model Grid F _ Local Model Domain ,` 445W= 0 12,000 Feet 7-County Metro Area Source: ESRI Online Imagery. Copyright 2010 National Geographic Society. I `--' Prepared By: CITY OF HUGO �r LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. L$ Professional Groundwater and HUGO, MINNESOTA Environmental Engineering Services 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 LOCAL MODEL GRID St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 (651) 490-1405 FILE: g3hugowhp01f.MXD DATE: 5/3/2013 FIGURE: 5 ------------- ■■■■It■■■■■!■!i ■■■■■■■' 1■■■■■■Illllnll nnmomu unuu■■■u■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■ IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII■■■■BI■■■ell:■■■■■■■■■ IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII■■■■Y�■■■i■■■■■■■■■■■ IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII■■■!'■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII■■■!M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ iilllllllll I II IIIIIII■■■Itl■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Ililllllllilll IIIIIII■■■@t■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ IIIIIIIIIiYII IIIIIII■■■irlt5s111■■■■■■■■■i■■■ I;IIiillllllll IIIIIII■■■1Ral�rii�i■iiir�ii■�iii muumuu uuw■■■■■■■■■■s■■■■e■■a■ IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII■e!i■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■ IIIIIIIIilllll II#IIII■■Al■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ee■ IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII■■1r•■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ unmuulll �n�l■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Illllllllllill IIIIIII■!■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ IIII IIII III III IIIIIII■il■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ IIIIIIIIIillil IIIIIII■Fl■■■■■i■■■■■■■■■■■■ IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII■Pl■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII■■■■■■■■■■■■ILIIEP�i■!'aT■ IIIIIII■!■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ o � o Illllllil■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■© Illllllllllill 11111 Ilr■■■■■■■■■■■Q■■■■API■■ IIIIIIIIIIIIII I�Ity1E iAM■■■■■■■■■■■■■■L9A/■■■ Illilllllillll l'i�■■■■■■■■r■■�L■■■ "fill 295 290 285 280 E c� v s -a 275 270 265 260 255 250 250 Computed vs. Observed Values Head 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300 Observed Head (m) Prepared 7L LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Professional Groundwater and G Environmental Engineering Services 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 (651) 490-1405 FILE: CITY OF HUGO HUGO, MINNESOTA LOCAL MODEL CALIBRATION 1h.MXD I DATE: 9/17/2013 FIGURE: 7 301 29! 291 28! 26! 261 25! 250 Ar— 250 Computed vs. Observed Values Head LJJ LVV GVJ L/V G/J GUV GUJ GJV LJJ JVV Observed Head (m) Prepared S CITY OF Fi u �, k LEGGETTE, BRASHEAR&GRAHAM, INC. Professional Groundwater and HUGO, MINNESOTA $� Environmental Engineering Services 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 LOCAL MODEL CALIBRATION - LAYER 3 St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 (651)490-1405 FILE: g3hugowhpOli.MXD DATE: 9/17/2013 1 FIGURE: 8 Computed vs. Observed Values Head 300 295 290 285 280 ♦ M ♦ 275 ♦tT♦♦♦ m u 4* u 270 ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦ 265 260 255 250 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300 Observed Head (m) Prepared CITY OF Fi u �, � S LEGGETTE, BRASHEAR&GRAHAM, INC. HUGO, MINNESOTA Professional Groundwater and $� Environmental Engineering Services 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 LOCAL MODEL CALIBRATION - LAYER 4 St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 FILE: g3hugowhpOlj.MXD DATE: 9/17/2013 1 FIGURE: 9 (651)490-1405 Z a 9 l 920 970 00 �• •` 686272 a ® • • Hugo 5 • .•� �671642'•: Hugo 4 ' 654497 ® ` - ®t •• ® Hugo 3 •• .. '.. • ® ® ,523948. ' . • � 4i t�' • • Z• Hugo w • ? W� ® • • • • • q s' 77340 �.• Hugo 6 r. .•. . O . r . • ® ;�. C� UF « • .;� i Lim - _ s. • it • � - . ®/�J 860 pip •` ; �9p r' e3� t •. • • . co �N j ) City Well 7-County Metro Area • Prairie du Chien - Jordan CWI Well Calibration Location 0 High -Capacity Well Used in Groundwater Flow Model Simulated Potentiometric Surface Contour (feet amsl) Groundwater Flow Direction ❑ Local Model Domain 0 2 Sit Miles Source: ESRI Online Imagery: Copyright 2010 National Geographic Society. MN County Well Index. MN DNR Appropriations Database (SWUDS) .a - air:�' Prepared By: LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Professional Groundwater and CITY OF HUGO HUGO, MINNESOTA BG Environmental Engineering Services SIMULATED GROUNDWATER EQUIPOTENTIAL CONTOURS 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 12 St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 AND CALIBRATION WELL LOCATIONS FILE: g3hugowhp01k.MXD DATE: 9/12/2013 FIGURE: 10 .k (651)490-1405 n CJDN z 0 0 z z OSTP; i - i 1 JDN'i' STP 1, 1b:.ko ., Lnk.r OPDC 1 686272 ` I- Hugo 5 671642 _ Hugo 4 654497�= Hugo 3 OSTP OSTP a° !/ •' 523948� Hugo2. 1 S OPDC t. 1 • City Well 1-Year Flowpaths 5-Year Flowpaths 10-Year Flowpaths OSTP '3 4 ODCR Decorah Shale OPGW Platteville -Glenwood Formation OSTP St. Peter Sandstone OPDC Prairie du Chien Group CJDN Jordan Sandstone 0 4,000 CSLF St. Lawrence Formation Feet COST 7-County Metro Area Source: ESRI Online Imagery Copyright 2010 National Geographic Society. Bedrock Geology (MGS, M-104, 2000). 1 '— Prepared By: CITY OF HUGO �T LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. HUGO, MINNESOTA L$ - Professional Groundwater and _ Environmental Engineering Services 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 1-, 5-, AND 10-YEAR FLOWPATHS FOR CALIBRATED MODEL St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 (651) 490-I405 FILE: g3hugowhp011.MXD DATE: 9/17/2013 1 FIGURE: 11 z 0 N Z) M Q Z 0 CJDN _ 'OSTPj 1 JDIS6 (pSTP 686272 OPDc= _ _Hugo 5 671642 - .� Hugo14 t Y. .- 654497 Hugo3 osTP�, =� OSTP OSTP- -523948 Hugo 2 1 _ OST f� � 1 773400 osTP !r _ Hugo 6`:I r COST OPDC f� • City Well ODCR Decorah Shale 7-County Metro Area Uncertainty Analysis 10-Year Capture Zones OPGW Platteville -Glenwood Formation OSTP St. Peter Sandstone OPDC Prairie du Chien Group CJDN Jordan Sandstone Si o 4,000 CSLF St. Lawrence Formation Feet Source: ESRI Online Imagery Copyright 2010 National Geographic Society. Bedrock Geology (MGS, M-104, 2000). Prepared By: CITY OF HUGO 9-7". - LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. L$ Professional Groundwater and HUGO, MINNESOTA Environmental Engineering Services 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS 10-YEAR CAPTURE ZONES St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 (651)490-I405 FILE: g3hugowhp01m.MXD DATE: 9/12/2013 1 FIGURE: 12 Z O N M 1} i rQ -- O '523948 ?- �Hu'go 61 r -C City Well 7-County Metro Area Fracture Flow - Initial Fixed Radii Fracture Flow - Revised Fixed Radii (Wells 3 and 4) Fracture Flow - WHPA (with extension) Potentiometric Surface Contour (from Figure 3) Si 4 Groundwater Flow Direction 0 4,000 Feet Bedrock Geology (MGS, M-104, 2000). MDH Calculated Fixed Radius Tool. See Figure 2 for legend information. ESRI Online Ima e : Copyright 2010 National Geographic Society. Prepared By: CITY OF HUGO �T LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. L Professional Groundwater and HUGO, MINNESOTA Environmental Engineering Services 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 FRACTURE FLOW DELINEATION BOUNDARIES St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 (651)490-I405 FILE: g3hugowhp01n.MXD DATE: 9/12/2013 1 FIGURE: 13 Z .686272 Hugo 5 671642 Hugo 4 NL- Q. 654497 Fiu •523948 • Hugo 2 - - 773400 i •Hugo 6 Fracture Flow - WHPA (with extension) - - - 10-Year Composite Capture Zone (porous flow) — Combined Wellhead Protection Area Site O Emergency Response Area (1-yr time of travel)) 0 4,000 Feet Source: ESRI Online Imagery: Copyright 2010 National Geographic Society. MDH Calculated Fixed Radius Tool. Prepared By: CITY OF HUGO LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. HUGO, MINNESOTA L$ - Professional Groundwater and Environmental Engineering Services 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 COMBINED WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA BOUNDARIES St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 (651) 490-I405 FILE: g3hugowhp01o.MXD DATE: 9/17/2013 1 FIGURE: 14 z CD 1,2 5 �r.ow 1/4 Section, Sec 9 Sec 8/17 boundary J Sec 0/15 b undary r' rn ; 686272 - Hugo 5- -- in. ec 1 ' _- `�654497 Hugo Hugo Go Sec 20/21 boundaryy f• + _y 1A Section, Sec 20 - a Sec 21/28 boundary ,ryr Sec 20/29 boundary A F _ - _ r " ►J`gae,r.l',,,) r "� t' I l /` _ 1 N., t 523948 '=001/4 section Sec 27tu — V " } ®Hugo 2`' � 1, Section, Sec 27 1 _ fill if 4.-I 1 4 s 340 = { g 4r Ch Lo sr E r`' 1crpi'. i 17 71 Note`.,DWSMAboundary based on, parcel boundaries sabi unlesleled witt.section bo'I hw Jp undary.t IAhk City Well 7-County Metro Area Combined Wellhead Protection Area c Drinking Water Supply Management Area 0 4,000 Parcel Boundary Feet Site Source: ESRI Online Imagery: Copyright 2010 National Geographic Society. MDH Calculated Fixed Radius Tool. Note: DSWMA delineated using Ramsey and Washington County parcel boundaries. Prepared By: CITY OF HUGO �T gip' LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. L$ Professional Groundwater and HUGO, MINNESOTA Environmental Engineering Services 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 DRINKING WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT AREA DELINEATION St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 (651)490-I405 FILE: g3hugowhp01p.MXD DATE: 9/17/2013 1 FIGURE: 15 Z 0 N M a 0 G G ;2 G O G C 686272 0 O Gp ®Hugo 5 p `� - G 654497 Hugo 3 67166442 O o O G Hugh 4 p p G � O C- 523948 O ® Hugo 2 �� G O 773400 O O O � G� C O®Hugo 6 O� �b 0 G c 0 O o80 0 p0 ® City Well Geologic Sensitivity 7-County Metro Area ® Insufficient Data High Sensitivity O Domestic Well 0 Moderate Sensitivity 0 Low Sensitivity (L-Score: 1-3) Combined Wellhead 0 Low Sensitivity (L-Score: 4-7) Protection Area 0 Very Low Sensitivity (L-Score: 8-11) Site Drinking Water Supply 0 Very Low Sensitivity (L-Score: >11) Management Area o 4,000 Feet Source: ESRI Online Imagery 2010 National Geographic Society. MN County Well Index. Prepared By: CITY OF HUGO LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. L$ Professional Groundwater and HUGO, MINNESOTA G Environmental Engineering Services DRINKING WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT AREA 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 01 St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 GEOLOGIC SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT (651)490-1405 1 FILE: g3hugowhp01q.MXD I DATE: 9/17/2013 1 FIGURE: 16 z — al 12 iN'ru° IlO 'ri! 6 t, 686272 Hugo 5 671642 - 654497 Hugo 4 g �- - Hugo 3® ®,, r \: +lPt�' 06 - 523948 Hugo 2 ED 773400 0 ®Hugo 6 e City Well DWSMA Vulnerability 7-County Metro Area Combined Wellhead Very High Protection Area High Drinking Water Supply Moderate Management Area Lost, Site 0 4,000 Feet Prepared By: CITY OF H U G O LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. HUGO, MINNESOTA L$ - Professional Groundwater and Environmental Engineering Services DRINKING WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT AREA 8 Pine Tree Drive, Suite 250 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 (651)490-1405 FILE: g3hugowhp01r.MXD I DATE: 9/17/2013 1 FIGURE: 17 Appendix A Fracture Flow Delineation Results — Techniques 3 and 4 Appendix A Fracture Flow Delineation Results - Techniques 3 and 4 Part I Wellhead Protection Plan Hugo, Minnesota Well# = 523948 Hugo 2 - Technique 3 X = 499,591.000, Y = 4,998,361.000 5 Year Pumping Volume (1825 days) Pumping Volume (Q): 1,368.00 m3/day Water Producing Zone Thickness (L): 39.014 m Effective Porosity (n): 0.056 Original (Calculated) Radius: 603.105 m 1st Bearing from Well = 73' from North. Well# = 654497 Hugo 3 - Technique 4 X = 500,185.000, Y = 5,001,136.000 5 Year Pumping Volume (1825 days) Pumping Volume (Q): 1,550.00 m3/day Water Producing Zone Thickness (L): 40.538 m Effective Porosity (n): 0.056 Original (Calculated) Radius: 629.789 m New Radius: 717.227 m Bearing from Well = 80° from North +/- 10°. 48,310.463 cu.ft./day 250.963 gal./min. 361,387.366 gal./day 128 ft. 1,978.692 ft. 54,737.73 cu.ft./day 284.352 gal./min. 133 ft. 2,066.24 ft. 2,353.11 ft. 409,466.68 gal./day S:\Tech\WSB - Hugo WHP\Report\POST_REVIEW\Appendix A -Fracture Flow Delineation Results - Techniques 3 and 4 1 of 3 L,E' GGETTE, BIASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Appendix A Fracture Flow Delineation Results - Techniques 3 and 4 Part I Wellhead Protection Plan Hugo, Minnesota Well# = 671642 Hugo 4 - Technique 4 X = 500,523.000, Y = 5,001,304.000 5 Year Pumping Volume (1825 days) Pumping Volume (Q): 1,090.00 m3/day 38,492.99 cu.ft./day 199.964 gal./min. Water Producing Zone Thickness (L): 36.881 m 121 ft. Effective Porosity (n): 0.056 5 Year Pumping Volume (1825 days) Original (Calculated) Radius: 553.701 m 1,816.61 ft. New Radius: 630.58 m 2,068.82 ft. Bearing from Well = 75' from North +/- 10°. OVERLAP SUMMARY INFORMATION Original (Calculated) Area for Well# : 1,246,062.86 m2 13,412,495.97 sq.ft. New Area for Well# : 1,616,081.62 m2 17,395,340.99 sq.ft. Original (Calculated) Area for Well# : 963,165.73 m2 10,367,419.58 sq.ft. New Area for Well# : 1,249,178.10 m2 13,446,028.17 sq.ft. Overlap Area to Well# : 370,018.77 m2 3,982,845.02 sq.ft. Overlap Area to Well# : 286,012.37 m2 3,078,608.60 sq.ft. Total Overlap Area: 656,031.14 m2 7,061,453.62 sq.ft. 287,947.54 gal./day S:\Tech\WSB - Hugo WHP\Report\POST_REVIEW\Appendix A -Fracture Flow Delineation Results - Techniques 3 and 4 2 of 3 L,E' GGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Appendix A Well# = 686272 Hugo 5 - Technique 4 X = 499,711.000, Y = 5,002,286.000 5 Year Pumping Volume (1825 days) Pumping Volume (Q): Water Producing Zone Thickness (L): Effective Porosity (n): Original (Calculated) Radius: 1st Bearing from Well = 70' from North. Well# = 773400 Hugo 6 - Technique 4 Well# = Hugo 6 X = 500,412.000, Y = 4,997,459.000 5 Year Pumping Volume (1825 days) Pumping Volume (Q): Water Producing Zone Thickness (L): Effective Porosity (n): Original (Calculated) Radius: 1st Bearing from Well = 80' from North. Fracture Flow Delineation Results - Techniques 3 and 4 Part I Wellhead Protection Plan Hugo, Minnesota 730 m3/day 25,779.71 cu.ft./day 133.921 gal./min. 37.795 m 124 ft. 0.056 447.62 m 1,468.56 ft. 1,270.00 m3/day 44,849.63 cu.ft./day 232.985 gal./min. 37.795 m 124.00 ft. 0.056 590.4 m 1,937.01 ft. 192,845.60 gal./day 335,498.51 gal./day S:\Tech\WSB - Hugo WHP\Report\POST_REVIEW\Appendix A -Fracture Flow Delineation Results - Techniques 3 and 4 3 of 3 LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Appendix B Other High Capacity Wells Included in Model Table 1 - Other Permitted High -Capacity Wells Included in Model Unique Number Well Name PERMITTEE DNR Permit Number Aquifer Use Average Withdrawal (2007-2011) MGY 206752 SHOREVIEW 2 SHOREVIEW, CITY OF 1974-5038 CJDN Municipal Waterworks 363.6 208634 BLAINE 6 BLAINE, CITY OF 1976-6227 CFMS Municipal Waterworks 336.14 151557 SHOREVIEW 5 SHOREVIEW, CITY OF 1974-5038 CJDN Municipal Waterworks 303.74 151596 WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP 5 WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP 1984-6121 OPCJ Municipal Waterworks 280.36 593618 FOREST LAKE 5 FOREST LAKE, CITY OF 1965-0815 CMTS Municipal Waterworks 272.32 208633 BLAINE 11 BLAINE, CITY OF 1976-6227 CFMS Municipal Waterworks 213.58 432019 SHOREVIEW 7 SHOREVIEW, CITY OF 1974-5038 CJDN Municipal Waterworks 210.22 559373 LINO LAKES 3 LINO LAKES, CITY OF 1985-6168 OPCJ Municipal Waterworks 199.88 151576 SHOREVIEW 6 SHOREVIEW, CITY OF 1974-5038 CJDN Municipal Waterworks 189.94 206722 MOUNDS VIEW 5 MOUNDS VIEW, CITY OF 1976-6253 OPCJ Municipal Waterworks 176.22 127271 VADNAIS HEIGHTS 4 VADNAIS HEIGHTS, CITY OF 1980-6153 CJDN Municipal Waterworks 150.7 453826 PJ #310 310-# B-9 US ARMY 1987-6048 OPCJ Pollution Containment 149.12 206717 MOUNDS VIEW 6 MOUNDS VIEW, CITY OF 1976-6253 CJMS Municipal Waterworks 139.4 596636 WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP 6 WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP 1984-6121 OPCJ Municipal Waterworks 123.3 554207 LINO LAKES 4 LINO LAKES, CITY OF 1985-6168 OPCJ Municipal Waterworks 119.84 208497 MAHTOMEDI 3 MAHTOMEDI, CITY OF 1969-0163 OPCJ Municipal Waterworks 117.16 426842 0317302 US ARMY 1987-6048 MTPL Pollution Containment 115.92 559346 FOREST LAKE 4 FOREST LAKE, CITY OF 1965-0815 CMTS Municipal Waterworks 115.38 426847 0317307 US ARMY 1987-6048 QWTA Pollution Containment 113.34 426846 0317306 US ARMY 1987-6048 MTPL Pollution Containment 107.76 426845 0317305 US ARMY 1987-6048 QWTA Pollution Containment 103.66 206721 MOUNDS VIEW 1 MOUNDS VIEW, CITY OF 1976-6253 CFMS Municipal Waterworks 101.2 208636 CIRCLE PINES 3 CIRCLE PINES, CITY OF 1959-0782 CJSL Municipal Waterworks 101.04 240171 LINO LAKES 1 LINO LAKES, CITY OF 1985-6168 OPCJ Municipal Waterworks 94.64 426844 03F304 US ARMY 1987-6048 QWTA Pollution Containment 89.64 LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Unique Number Well Name PERMITTEE DNR Permit Number Aquifer Use Average Withdrawal (2007-2011) MGY 453825 PJ#309 309-# B-8 US ARMY 1987-6048 CJDN Pollution Containment 79.6 206720 MOUNDS VIEW 3 MOUNDS VIEW, CITY OF 1976-6253 CJDN Municipal Waterworks 78.38 512748 CENTERVILLE 2 CENTERVILLE, CITY OF 1991-6246 OPCJ Municipal Waterworks 76.42 110471 LINO LAKES 2 LINO LAKES, CITY OF 1985-6168 CJSL Municipal Waterworks 74.98 208996 LEXINGTON 1 LEXINGTON, CITY OF 1966-0584 QBAA Municipal Waterworks 69.38 208637 CIRCLE PINES 1 CIRCLE PINES, CITY OF 1959-0782 CFIE Municipal Waterworks 67.16 224679 WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP 3 WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP 1984-6121 OPCJ Municipal Waterworks 65.28 208506 MAHTOMEDI 4 MAHTOMEDI, CITY OF 1969-0163 CJDN Municipal Waterworks 63.28 233109 BLAINE 14 BLAINE, CITY OF 1976-6227 CIGM Municipal Waterworks 57.22 453824 03F312 312-F B-I I US ARMY 1987-6048 MTPL Pollution Containment 55.7 722629 LINO LAKES 5 LINO LAKES, CITY OF 1985-6168 OPCJ Municipal Waterworks 51.46 453821 03U317 317-U SC-5 US ARMY 1987-6048 QWTA Pollution Containment 50.58 114392 HENTGES, LOREN TOURNAMENT PLAYERS CLUB 1977-6081 CFIG Golf Course Irrigation 48.6 226572 WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP 4 WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP 1984-6121 OPCJ Municipal Waterworks 46.54 206751 SHOREVIEW 3 SHOREVIEW, CITY OF 1974-5038 CJDN Municipal Waterworks 43.42 208648 CENTENNIAL MHP CENTENNIAL MHP 1986-6073 QBAA Private Waterworks 36.9 208566 MN CF - LINO LAKES 1 MN DEPT OF CORRECTIONS 1975-6283 CFIE Commercial/Institutional Waterworks 34.48 206750 SHOREVIEW 4 SHOREVIEW, CITY OF 1974-5038 QBAA Municipal Waterworks 29.36 208989 TROUT AIRE TROUT AIR 1975-6046 CFMS A uaculture Hatcheries/Fisheries 29.14 208560 FOREST HILLS GOLF COURSE FOREST HILLS GOLF CLUB 1965-0276 MTPL Golf Course Irrigation 23.3 674498 NATIONAL SPORTS CENTER NATIONAL SPORTS CENTER FOUNDATION 2003-3179 CFIE Golf Course irrigation 22.04 511091 CENTERVILLE 1 CENTERVILLE, CITY OF 1991-6246 OPCJ Municipal Waterworks 19.32 231862 ROBINSON LANDSCAPIN ROBINSON LANDSCAPING INC 1980-6263 MTPL Sod farm 19.14 508122 03U314 314-U SC-2 US ARMY 1987-6048 QWTA Pollution Containment 16.34 566145 SAWMILL GOLF CLUB SAWMILL GOLF CLUB 1990-6325 OPSH Golf Course Irrigation 16.08 566113 GREEN VALUE NURSERY SWANSON, RICHARD 1999-6139 OPCJ Nursery 15 208651 RESTWOOD TERRACE 1 RESTWOOD TERRACE M H PARK 1986-6138 QBAA Private Waterworks 13.86 114414 RAY JORDAN & SONS INC. NATIONAL SPORTS CENTER FOUNDATION 1989-6421 CFIG Landscaping/Athletic Fields 13.28 LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Unique Number Well Name PERMITTEE DNR Permit Number Aquifer Use Average Withdrawal (2007-2011) MGY 676446 WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP 2A WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP 1984-6120 OPCJ Municipal Waterworks 12.34 109793 BROOKVIEW MHP 1 BROOKSIDE MOBILE HOME PRK 1976-6181 QBAA Private Waterworks 11.44 208569 CHOMONIX C.C. NO.1 ANOKA COUNTY PARKS 2003-3068 CFMS Golf Course Irrigation 10.8 418712 CASTLEWOOD ESTATES NO.3 FOREST LAKE, CITY OF 1987-6023 CAMB Golf Course Irrigation 10.12 215930 DELLWOOD GOLF NO. 1 DELLWOOD HILLS GOLF CLUB 1975-6379 MTPL Golf Course Irrigation 9.52 439900 HEART OF THE VALLEY FIELDS & SONS INC, EDWARD 1989-6039 CSLF Major Crop Irrigation 9.1 504168 SAWMILL GULF CLUB SAWMILL GOLF CLUB 1990-6325 OPDC Golf Course Irrigation 8.56 206716 MOUNDS VIEW 2 MOUNDS VIEW, CITY OF 1976-6253 CMTS Municipal Waterworks 8.14 224611 DELLWOOD GOLF NO.2 DELLWOOD HILLS GOLF CLUB 1975-6379 MTPL Golf Course Irrigation 7.64 771109 VEECO INSTRUMENTS, INC. VEECO INSTRUMENTS INC 2003-3036 OSTP Industrial Process Cooling Once- through 7.5 476680 HEATHER RIDGE TOWN HOUSE HEATHER RIDGE TOWNHOUSE ASSOC 1992-6163 OPDC Landscaping/Athletic Fields 7.4 242819 SAW MILL GOLF COURSE SAWMILL GOLF CLUB 1990-6325 CJDN Golf Course Irrigation 7.14 107442 NETTLETON, MACK HOGDAL, VIRGIL 1977-6064 OSTP Major Crop Irrigation 7.02 562962 CENTENNIAL MIDDLE SCHOOL IND SCHOOL DISTRICT 12 2001-6066 CFIG Landscaping/Athletic Fields 6.84 133213 MAIN STREET 1000 LLC MAIN STREET 1000 LLC 1977-6393 CFMS Sod farm 6.62 717789 EW-2 WHIRLPOOL CORP & REYNOLDS METALS 1989-6037 OSTP Pollution Containment 6.54 249759 PAUL REVERE MOBLE PARK PAUL REVERE COOPERATWE 1985-6036 QUUU Private Waterworks 6.5 110485 NEW BRIGHTON 12 NEW BRIGHTON, CITY OF 1970-0157 CMTS Municipal Waterworks 6 749394 COLUMBUS 3 COLUMBUS, CITY OF 2009-0641 CFIG Municipal Waterworks 5.5 206761 BRIGHTWOOD GOLF COURSE BRIGHTWOOD HILLS GOLF 1969-1220 OPCJ Golf Course Irrigation 5.26 209209 CENTENNIAL SCHOOL IND SCHOOL DISTRICT 12 2010-0620 MTPL Landscaping/Athletic Fields 5.22 208239 GOOD SHEPARD I HOME OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD 1986-6043 CJDN Commercial/Institutional Waterworks 5.12 694492 LINO LAKES ELEMENTARY IND SCHOOL DISTRICT 12 2004-3062 OPCJ Landscaping/Athletic Fields 4.9 450669 PINE TREE APPLE ORCHARD PINE TREE APPLE ORCHARD 1989-6009 OPDC Major Crop Irrigation 4.82 538605 SILVERTHORN ESTATES ASS. SILVERTHORN ESTATES 1996-6168 OPDC Landsca in Athletic Fields 4.5 206770 CONTROL DATA CO. NO. 2 CARDIAC PACEMAKERS INC 1963-0746 CJDN Commercial building A/C 4.34 749393 COLUMBUS 2 COLUMBUS, CITY OF 2009-0641 MTPL Municipal Waterworks 3.38 LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Unique Number Well Name PERMITTEE DNR Permit Number Aquifer Use Average Withdrawal (2007-2011) MGY 249300 TWIN PINE MHP 1 TWIN PINE MOBILE HOME PARK 2008-0754 OPDC Private Waterworks 3.16 626779 WHITE BEAR LAKE SCHOOLS IND SCHOOL DISTRICT 624 2002-6073 QBAA Landscaping/Athletic Fields 3.02 668000 FENWAY ATHLETIC PARK FOREST LAKE, CITY OF 2010-0372 QBAA Landscaping/Athletic Fields 2.64 249301 TWIN PINE MHP 2 TWIN PINE MOBILE HOME PARK 2008-0754 OPDC Private Waterworks 2.62 441772 NORTH STAR GARDENS CHRISTS HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH INC 1989-6095 MTPL Major Crop Irrigation 2.1 429651 BALDWIN LAKE T.C. NO.2 BLE LLC 1986-6090 OPDC Private Waterworks 1.56 713255 HUGO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1 HUGO, CITY OF 2010-0445 OPDC Landscaping/Athletic Fields 1.5 731131 COLUMBUS 1 COLUMBUS, CITY OF 2009-0641 QBAA Municipal Waterworks 1.22 234142 ST-3-U3 US ARMY 1987-6048 Pollution Containment 0.74 471073 NORTH OAKS GOLF COURSE NORTH OAKS GOLF COURSE 1992-6137 OSTP Private Waterworks 0.44 508121 03U315 315-U SC-3 US ARMY 1987-6048 QWTA Pollution Containment 0.42 450537 PETERSON, DENNIS HAAG, GLYNN R 1989-6468 CFRN Sod farm 0.02 LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. RESOLUTION NO.2019- CITY OF HUGO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ALONG 130TH STREET FROM FOREST BOULEVARD (TH 61) TO GOODVIEW AVENUE FOR THE 130TH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S.A.P. 224-110-002 WHEREAS, the City Council of Hugo has planned improvements along 130th Street from Forest Boulevard (TH 61) to Goodview Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City of Hugo has ordered the project for the 130th Street Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, the City of Hugo will be expending Municipal State Aid funds provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) on improvements along 130th Street; and WHEREAS, the improvements along 130th Street from Forest Boulevard (TH 61) to Goodview Avenue does not provide adequate width for parking on the street; and approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State Aid Street project must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking restrictions. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hugo, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City of Hugo shall prohibit the parking of motor vehicles along 130th Street from Forest Boulevard to Goodview Avenue. This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Hugo on the 41h day of February, 2019, by a vote of Ayes and Nays. ATTEST: Michele Lindau, City Clerk (seal) Tom Weidt, Mayor S:IOIce SHAREDIResolunonA2019 ResalutionsIRSLTN- No Parking 020419.doc U,13 MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING LG220 Application for Exempt Permit An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit organization that: • conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and • awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendar year. If total raffle prize value for the calendar year will be $1,500 or less, contact the Licensing Specialist assigned to your county by calling 651-539-1900. ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Organization /� Previous Gambling -7 Name: " 1 ItlZi— ig !i(,/�1'rx"Tl�� f 3see, .7%rVAJ Permit Number: �1 ��7�f I�� ` Minnesota Tax ID , /� �� 1 ! 2 Federal Employer ID Number, if any: "T 1 Number (FEIN), if any 11/17 Page 1 of 2 Application Fee (non-refundable) Applications are processed in the order received. If the application is postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, the application fee is $100; otherwise the fee is $150. Due to the high volume of exempt applications, payment of additional fees prior to 30 days before your event will not expedite service, nor are telephone requests for expedited service accepted. Mailing Address: l T Fa. 11 f1T il/'�� City: State: AN Zip: County: Name of Chief Executive Officer (CEO): 6 1-4/-1- CEO Daytime Phone: �R.51 `3 YO 7 CEO Email: (permit will be emailed to this email address unless otherwise indicated below) Email permit to (if other than the CEO): NONPROFIT STATUS Type of Nonprofit Organization (check one): Fraternal Religious Veterans L.,�-n Other Nonprofit Organization Attach a copy of one of the following showing proof of nonprofit status: (DO NOT attach a sales tax exempt status or federal employer ID number, as they are not proof of nonprofit status.) A current calendar year Certificate of Good Standing Don't have a copy? Obtain this certificate from: MN Secretary of State, Business Services Division Secretary of State website, phone numbers: 60 Empire Drive, Suite 100 www.sos.state.mn.us St. Paul, MN 55103 651-296-2803, or toll free 1-877-551-6767 ❑ IRS income tax exemption (501(c)) letter in your organization's name Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the IRS toll free at 1-877-829-5500. ❑ IRS - Affiliate of national, statewide, or international parent nonprofit organization (charter) If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of both of the following: 1. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling; and 2. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. ,GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION Name of premises where the gambling event will be conducted ,�� GdL-iC f'� Al L� f �U (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place): Al 'Physical Address (do not use P.O. box): 53 9-3 / /0 rp .- 03 p Checity H it 114N _ I` 2c) J Zip: �S �U38 County: � I �Y[) nTZAJ Township: Zip: County: Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing): ! � tti dA Check each type of gambling activity that your organization will conduct: = Bingo = Paddlewheels = Pull -Tabs = Tipboards Raffle Gambling equipment for bingo paper, bingo boards, raffle boards, paddlewheels, pull -tabs, and tipboards must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo ball selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.mn.gov/gcb and click on Distributors under the List of Licensees tab, or call 651-539-1900. LG220 Application for Exempt Permit 11/17 Page 2 of 2 LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT (required before submitting application to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board) CITY APPROVAL for a gambling premises located within city limits HThe application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days (60 days for a 1st class city). The application is denied. Print City Name: Signature of City Personnel: Title: Date: The city or county must sign before submitting application to the Gambling Control Board. COUNTY APPROVAL for a gambling premises located in a township he application is acknowledged with no waiting period. he application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days. ❑i'he application is denied. Print County Name: Signature of County Personnel: Title: Date: TOWNSHIP (if required by the county) On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township limits. (A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application, per Minn. Statutes, section 349.213.) Print Township Name: Signature of Township Officer:_ Title: Date: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SIGNATURE (required) The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the financial report will be completed and returned to the Board within 30 days of the event date. y %.f ly Chief Executive Officer's Signature: � r Date: 1 _ _/ �1 / (S' ature must be C 's signature; designee may not sign) Print Name: ��ir� � '.1 REQUIREMENTS Complete a separate application for: • all gambling conducted on two or more consecutive days; or • all gambling conducted on one day. Only one application is required if one or more raffle drawings are conducted on the same day. Financial report to be completed within 30 days after the gambling activity is done: A financial report form will be mailed with your permit. Complete and return the financial report form to the Gambling Control Board. Your organization must keep all exempt records and reports for 3-1/2 years (Minn. Statutes, section 349.166, subd. 2(f)). MAIL APPLICATION AND ATTACHMENTS Mail application with: a copy of your proof of nonprofit status; and application fee (non-refundable). If the application is postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, the application fee is $100; otherwise the fee is $150. Make check payable to State of Minnesota. To: Minnesota Gambling Control Board 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South Roseville, MN 55113 Questions? Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at 651-539-1900. Data privacy notice: The information requested application. Your organization's name and ment of Public Safety; Attorney General; on this form (and any attachments) will be used address will be public information when received Commissioners of Administration, Minnesota by the Gambling Control Board (Board) to by the Board. All other information provided will Management & Budget, and Revenue; Legislative determine your organization's qualifications to be private data about your organization until the Auditor, national and international gambling be involved in lawful gambling activities in Board issues the permit. When the Board issues regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to court Minnesota. Your organization has the right to the permit, all information provided will become order; other individuals and agencies specifically refuse to supply the information; however, if public. If the Board does not issue a permit, all authorized by state or federal law to have access your organization refuses to supply this information provided remains private, with the to the information; individuals and agencies for information, the Board may not be able to exception of your organization's name and which law or legal order authorizes a new use or determine your organization's qualifications and, address which will remain public. Private data sharing of information after this notice was as a consequence, may refuse to issue a permit. about your organization are available to Board given; and anyone with your written consent. If your organization supplies the information members, Board staff whose work requires requested, the Board will be able to process the access to the information; Minnesota's Depart - This form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, braille) upon request. An equal opportunity employer MN Waterfowl Assoc. East Metro Chapter Banquet Our 81h year!! When: Thursday, April 18th, 2019 5:30 to 6:30 Dabbling Hour 6:30 Banquet Dinner Where: American Legion 5383 140th St. N, Hugo, MN 55038 Door prizes, Raffles, Live and Silent Auctions, Youth Raffle, Games, 7+ Firearms to win, Artwork, Decoys, Calls, Outdoor Gear & More! Costs: $40 Includes MWA membership & banquet — Great Food! + $25 Includes guest & banquet $20 Youth under 17 Includes MWA Woodie Membership & banquet $30 Can't make it to the banquet but want my yearly membership Banquet tickets will be held at door. Please make checks out to East Metro Chapter MWA Payment: Check Only Please Send Payment to: East Metro MWA c/o: Erik Boxmeyer 4950 129t" St Hugo, MN 55038 NAME ADDRESS PHONE ( ) - - E-MAIL GUEST OR YOUTH NAME CITY ZIP MWA offers upgrade membership. The Additional funds will support current MWA's projects, Supporter $100 / Sponsor $200 I Lifetime Member $10001. Inquire at www.mnwaterfowl.com <<< Early Bird REWARDS >>> Send in your payment, in the form of check or cash, by April 1st and you automatically receive two General Raffle Tickets at the door ($20 value). Payment must be received by April 1. You are also entered into the Early Bird Raffle - The lucky winner receives $100 in General Raffle Tickets. Any questions contact Jim Wrich 651-497-1882 or *-- ;- MN Bucks for MN Ducks. Over the last 7 years MWA has put together grants for over 2 Million Dollars in habitat. MWA supports Woodie Camp for youth and so much more. to RCWD awl RICE CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT November 14, 2018 City of Hugo c/o Bryan Bear, Administrator 14669 Fitzgerald Ave. N. Hugo, MN 55038 Re: Municipal Concurrence under Statutes Section 103D.621 for Repair of Anoka - Washington Judicial Ditch 3 and Washington Judicial Ditch 2 Branches 1 & 2 Dear Mayors and Council, The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is the Drainage Authority for Anoka -Washington Judicial Ditch (AWJD 3) which traverses portions of your Cities and Washington Judicial Ditch 2 (WJD 2) Branches 1 & 2 located entirely in your city. The RCWD Board is considering a repair of AWJD 3 and WJD2 Branches 1 & 2 to be completed in 2018-20. As part of its management of public drainage systems, the RCWD Board utilizes authorities given in statutes chapters 103E, 103B and 103D. Both the AWJD 3 and the WJD 2 systems, in particular, are designated for management as a part of the RCWD's trunk conveyance system as identified in the approved RCWD Watershed Management Plan. As part of the trunk system, costs on AWJD 3 and WJD2 Branches 1 & 2 are paid from general taxes throughout the RCWD — rather than benefitted lands assessment as traditionally required under statutes chapter 103E. The authority of the RCWD to manage AWJD 3 and WJD2 Branches 1 & 2 as part of the trunk system requires municipal concurrent under statutes section 103D.621, subd. 4. The RCWD Board requests your concurrence in order to facilitate prompt repair of AWJD 3 and WJD2 Branches 1 & 2. Please consider the attached resolution. If you have questions, please direct them to our administrator, Phil Belfiori, at (763) 398-3071. For the Board of Managers, Sincerely, Patricia Preiner Board President 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #611 1 Blaine, MN 55449 1 T: 763-398-3070 1 F: 763-398-30881 www•ricecreek.org BOARD OF Michael J. Bradley Barbara A. Haake Patricia L. Preiner Steven P. Wagamon John J. Waller MANAGERS Ramsey County Ramsey County Anoka County Anoka County Washington County RESOLUTION NO.2019- CITY OF HUGO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA APPROVAL TO CONDUCT DRAINAGE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANOKA- WASHINGTON JUDICIAL DITCH 3 and WASHINGTON JUDICIAL DITCH 2 BRANCHES 1 & 2 UNDER THE WATERSHED LAW WHEREAS, Rice Creek Watershed District ("RCWD") is the drainage authority for Anoka - Washington Judicial Ditch 3 and Washington Judicial Ditch 2 Branches 1 & 2. (the "Drainage Systems"); WHEREAS, RCWD is proceeding on a petition to repair the Drainage Systems; WHEREAS, the RCWD Engineer is preparing a repair report recommending a repair option that balances the drainage function of the Drainage Systems with ecological concerns in the watershed; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 103D.621, subd. 4, grants RCWD the authority to undertake proceedings related to the Drainage Systems in accordance with the Watershed Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D) rather than the Drainage Code (Minnesota Statutes Chapterl03E), subject to concurrence by city councils and town boards where the Drainage Systems is located; WHEREAS, RCWD has requested concurrence from the City of Hugo to conduct the necessary proceedings related to Anoka -Washington Judicial Ditch 3 and Washington Judicial Ditch 2 Branches 1 & 2 under the Watershed Law, rather than the Drainage Code; WHEREAS, the purpose of conducting proceedings under the Watershed Law is to provide consistent management of all drainage systems under RCWD management, comprehensive wetland management, and appropriate administration of resource management plans; and WHEREAS, conducting the proceedings under the Watershed Law will facilitate flexibility in financing the recommended repair option. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF HUGO THAT: The City of Hugo, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 103D.621, subd. 4., consents to the Rice Creek Watershed District's request to conduct proceedings for Anoka -Washington Judicial Ditch 3 and Washington Judicial Ditch 2 Branches 1 & 2 under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D. ADOPTED by the Hugo City Council this 4' day of February, 2019. Tom Weidt, Mayor ATTEST: Michele Lindau, City Clerk Agenda Number G.17 CITY OF HUGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT TO: Bryan Bear, City Administrator FROM: Rachel Juba, Planner SUBJECT: Excelsior Group. Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition Final Plat and Development Agreement DATE: January 31, 2019, for the City Council Meeting of February 4, 2019 PROPOSED MOTION: Move to approve the resolution approving the Final Plat for Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition. Approval of the Final Plat requires a 3/5 vote of the City Council. 2. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a final plat in order to plat 22 lots and 1 outlot on a parcel located east of Highway 61 and north of 130th Street, which will develop a small portion of Outlot A and all of Outlot C, Adelaide Landing 2nd Addition The site is currently vacant. 3. BACKGROUND: The City Council reviewed the preliminary plat and PUD for Adelaide Landing at its May 1, 2017 meeting. At its October 2, 2017, meeting the City Council approved the final plat for the first phase of the development consisting of 81 residential lots. At its May 7, 2018, meeting the City Council approved the final plat for Adelaide Landing 2nd Addition consisting of 70 residential lots. This final plat request will plat 22 additional lots from the Adelaide Landing preliminary plat. The lots meet the minimum lot standards and requirements outlined in the regulations for the Adelaide Landing PUD. The park dedication requirement will be met by fee for a total of $24,816 ($1,128 per unit). The park dedication fee is reduced to accommodate for a portion of the land being dedicate with this plat and the forth phase. The developer has been meeting with the Parks Commission about further reducing the park dedication fee in exchange for improvements to the park. The developer has discussed installing the parking lots that are proposed with the preliminary plat and PUD. Further discussions with the Parks Commission will happen over the next few months. The developer and staff also have been discussing the improvements proposed by the developer and Adelaide Landing 31 Addition Final Plat and Development Agreement Page 2 will be finalizing the plans for the park soon. The Parks Commission's 2019 CIP includes $350,000 for park improvements in the Adelaide Landing development this year. The improvements will include parking lots, playground equipment, a park shelter, and other associated park elements. 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval the resolution approving the Final Plat and Development Agreement for Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition. ATTACHMENTS: a) Resolution Approving the Final Plat b) Location Map c) Engineer's Memo dated January 31, 2019 d) Draft Development Agreement e) Final Plat Graphics stamp dated December 21, 2019 f) Landscape Plan dated May 23, 2017, and revised plan sheet dated April 11, 2018 g) Trail Exhibit dated July 25, 2018 h) Final Plat Construction Plans a. Grading: dated May 19, 2017, revised December 19, 2019 b. Utilities and Streets: dated December 19, 2019 RESOLUTION 2019- APPROVING A FINAL PLAT AND DEVLEOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR OP5 ADELAIDE, LLC FOR ADELAIDE LANDING 3rd ADDITION WHEREAS, OP5 Adelaide, LLC, has requested approval of a final plat for the property legally described as follows: Outlot A and Outlot C, Adelaide Landing 2nd Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the preliminary plat and PUD at a duly called public hearing and recommended approval of the preliminary plat and PUD; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the preliminary plat and PUD at its meeting on May 1, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOVLED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by OP5 Adelaide, LLC, for a final plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is approved to allow the creation of 22 single family lots and 1 outlot, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on December 21, 2018, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The development shall substantially comply with all plans and conditions of the PUD and preliminary plat approval granted by the City on May 1, 2017. 3. Development standards shall comply with Resolution 2017-10 and 2017-11, as amended. 4. The developer shall comply with all conditions outlined in the City Engineer's memo dated January 31, 2019, and revisions required in "redlined" comments from the City Engineer. 5. Outlot use and ownership: a) Outlot A is proposed for stormwater management, wetland, and a portion of a City park, and shall be deeded to the City at the time the plat is recorded. 6. The developer shall design and install a stormwater re -use system for irrigation of the individual lots. 7. The developer shall establish a property owners association for the development to own/operate/maintain common elements, landscaping, and the water re -use system. All landscaping within the right-of-way in the street islands is to be installed by the developer and maintained by the property owners association. The property owners association documents shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to recording the plat. Resolution 2019- Adelaide Landing 3rd Final Plat and Development Agreement 8. The plat shall comply with the City's street naming system. 9. The landscaping planned for the plat shall be installed in one phase. The developer shall take proper precautions to protect the trees as the homes are being built. 10. Each home shall include a minimum of 2 parking spaces within the driveway. The driveway widths shall be a maximum of 24 feet at the right of way line. 11. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on the street lighting plan. Exact locations of the street lights shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to installation. 12. The developer shall obtain all necessary local, state, and federal permits. 13. Prior to recording the final plat: a) The developer shall provide one-third ($521,840.00) of the construction cost in escrow money to the City or other payment method approved by the City for the improvements to 130th Street per the cost sharing agreement. This will satisfy the last payment required from the developer. b) The developer must obtain all necessary stormwater management and wetland conservation act (WCA) permits from the City. c) The developer shall pay $24,816 ($1,128 per unit) in full to satisfy the required cash in lieu of parkland dedication requirement. The applicant will continue to discuss with staff and the Parks Commission improvements to the park that may reduce the required park dedication fee for the development. d) The developer shall pay the sewer and water trunk fees for each lot at final plat. The City's SAC and WAC fees will be paid at the time building permits issued. e) The developer shall obtain approval from Xcel Energy on the crossing of the powerline easement. f) The developer shall obtain approval from Koch on the crossing of the gas line easement. g) The developer shall enter into a development agreement, shall agree to complete all improvements, and pay all fees as required by the agreement. h) The street names shall be included on all sheets of the final plat. i) The grading plan shall be revised to exclude grading that is shown along the eastern portion of the plat. Additional information is required for that are in regards to ensuring that no additional drainage goes onto neighboring property. Resolution 2019- Adelaide Landing 3rd Final Plat and Development Agreement Landscaping and Lighting j) The final landscape plans must be submitted for review and approval by staff. Signage k) Final design of the entrance signage for the development shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 1) The property owners association shall be responsible for maintenance of all development signage and landscaping within the outlots, common space, and the 130th Street roundabout. Streets/Access m) Fondant Trail shall be extended further to the north to accommodate the park access location. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 14. Prior to the issuance of building permits: a) The applicant shall file the final plat, development agreement and associated documents with Washington County. Proof of recording shall be provided to the City. b) The applicant shall submit three full sets of approved final plans to the City. c) If a sales trailer is located in the property, a site plan and building elevations shall be submitted for City review and approval. 15. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy: a) Park improvements: i. Grading and seeding within the City owned outlot (Oulot A, County Ponds) and the area south of the powerline easement. This shall be completed by and paid for by the developer. ii. Grading and seeding on Outlot B, Adelaide Landing and Outlot C, Country Ponds, within the area north of the powerline easement. This shall be completed by and paid for by the developer. iii. An 8' bituminous trail, boardwalk, and landscaping shall be installed within all of Outlot A Adelaide Landing 2nd Addition, and Outlot B, Adelaide Landing, and Outlot C, Country Ponds, per approved plans. Final location of the trail and boardwalk specifications shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to installation. This shall be constructed by and paid for by the developer. iv. The applicant will continue to discuss with staff and the Parks Commission improvements to the park that may reduce the required park dedication fee for the development. Resolution 2019- Adelaide Landing 3rd Final Plat and Development Agreement ADOPTED by the City Council on February 4, 2019. Tom Weidt, Mayor ATTEST: Michele Lindau, City Clerk �, r� i, I-, I • 5 .ti 1 A nw y 2 f 3 wsb January 31, 2019 Ms. Rachel Juba City Planner City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, MN 55038 Re: Final Plat Review Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition WSB Project No. 013381-000 Dear Ms. Juba: We have reviewed the final plat submittal for the above -referenced project. In particular, we have reviewed the following plans related to this particular request: • Construction Plans for Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm Sewer, and Streets dated 12/19/18 by Westwood Professional Services • Storm Sewer Design dated 12/19/18 by Westwood Professional Services • Adelaide Landing 1st & 2nd & 3rd Addition Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plans dated 12/19/18 • Adelaide 3rd Addition Plat Based on the review of the final plat documents, we offer the following comments related to this application: Final Plat 1. The final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat documents, and the appropriate drainage/utility easements have been provided within the plat area itself. 2. Drainage and Utility easements shall be placed over all the outlots. Development Agreement 3. There area number of development fees outlined within the City's Fee Schedule that will become due as part of the final plat. The Development Fees are included within Exhibit C of the Development Agreement along with the third installment of the developers cost share for the reconstruction of 130th Street Improvement Project. Grading, Street, and Utility Plans 4. The Approved grading plan allows for the continuation of mass grading outside of the first, second, and third phases. The grading plan reflects the first, second, and third phase boundaries as well as future phases. Grading to the eastern property limits in the southeastern portion of the site has not yet been approved. The development team is required to provide additional survey and confirmation that there will not be any drainage concerns caused by proposed grading. The grading in the northeast portion of the site has S:\Users\R_Juba\Rachel\DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS\Arcand South\Adelaide Landing\Adelaide Landing 3rd Add Final Plat\Eng Memo Adelaide Landing 3rd FP - 01 31 19.docx Ms. Rachel Juba January 31, 2019 Page 2 not yet been approved as the development team is revising plans to accommodate some tree preservation requests. Wetland 5. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on the exact location and style of the boardwalk that will cross wetlands in three locations. The applicant should identify any temporary impacts to wetlands associated with the boardwalk. Revised Water Reuse Plan 6. The applicant has provided plans related to stormwater reuse that will be incorporated into this phase. Water reuse plans are consistent with meeting previously noted requirements. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project. Additional detailed red -lined comments have been provided to the applicants engineer. These comments will need to be addressed prior to approval of the construction plans. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 651-286-8463. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Mark Erichson, PE City Engineer cc: Scott Anderson, Public Works Director (email only) Steve Duff, Senior Engineering Technician (email only) Stephanie Hatten, Water Resource Engineer (email only) Steph Griffin, Excelsior Group (email only) John Bender, Westwood Professional Services (email only) S:\Users\R_Juba\Rachel\DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS\Arcand South\Adelaide Landing\Adelaide Landing 3rd Add Final Plat\Eng Memo Adelaide Landing 3rd FP - 01 31 19.docx Return To: City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Ave N Hugo, MN 55038 CITY OF HUGO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 20 by and between the CITY OF HUGO, a Minnesota municipality organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "City"); and OP5 Adelaide, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, (hereinafter referred to as "Developer"). WITNESS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has, by Resolution Number 2017-11 on Mayl, 2017, approved the preliminary plat for a major subdivision as proposed by the Developer to be known as "Adelaide Landing"; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has, by Resolution Number 2017-10 on May 1, 2017, approved the PUD general plan for a major subdivision as proposed by the Developer to be known as " Adelaide Landing " ; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has, by Resolution Number 2019 on approved the final plat for a major subdivision as proposed by the Developer to be known as " Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition " (hereinafter referred to as the "Plat"); and, WHEREAS, the Plat proposed a development of an approximately 8 acre parcel of land into 22 residential lots and 1 outlots; and, WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to enter into development contracts as contemplated in Minnesota Statutes §462.358, Subd. 2(a); and, WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to set forth their respective rights and obligations of the parties to this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises and conditions contained herein, it is agreed by the parties hereto as follows: A. GENERAL ENGINEERING CONDITIONS; 1. Escrow for City Costs and Fees. Developer shall, contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, deposit with the City an escrow as outlined in Exhibit C to cover the cost of legal fees, engineering and construction observation fees, administrative expenses, and other costs related to this Plat. All fees and costs incurred by the City in connection with the Plat shall be charged against said escrow account which shall remain in effect until the expiration of the warranty period for the Plat, as defined in paragraph 7, in all events said fees and costs shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be paid on demand. Any funds remaining in the escrow account after the completion of the warranty period shall be refunded to the Developer. In the event that the escrow account herein is depleted, Developer agrees to post additional funds to replenish the account and to cover projected City costs. Specifically, Developer agrees that the escrow account shall maintain a balance of no less than $5,000.00. Developer shall be entitled, upon request, to an itemized statement of all costs and fees charged against this escrow account. Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition 2 2. Development Plans. In accordance with the policies and ordinances of the City, and subject to all City resolutions and approvals in connection herewith, the Developer shall construct the proposed improvements (hereinafter referred to as the "Improvements"). All Improvements shall be constructed and installed pursuant to the terms and conditions herein set forth in accordance with the plans approved and listed on Exhibit A, subject to all City resolutions and approvals listed in Exhibit B, subject to final approval by the City, and in accordance with City standards and requirements including those listed herein. In addition, all public street, utility, and storm drainage improvements shall comply with the City's adopted specification book and the reasonable direction of City staff. 3. Authorization to Proceed with Construction. Developer agrees not to commence any grading, utility or street work within the Plat until the following are completed: 1) Construction plans are approved by the City and distributed. 2) Pre -construction conference is held. 3) Notice to Proceed is issued. 4. Construction Observation. The City, for its benefit, will provide staff of its choosing to provide construction observation for the Improvements outlined in this Agreement. All costs associated with construction observation and inspection will be the responsibility of the Developer. The Developer shall allow City staff and City consultants access to the Plat to allow for this work to occur. 5. Miscellaneous Requirements. a) Property Corners: All property corners as identified on the Plat must be monumented with iron surveyor's pipes by the Developer prior to final project acceptance, as defined in paragraph 7 of this Agreement. b) Drainage Easements: Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the Plat so as to cover any wetlands and stormwater ponding areas located below the 100-year high water levels. c) Soils Testing: Soils inspection and compaction testing by a registered professional engineer shall be accomplished on all lots where filling is required, in accordance with the approved Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan. A minimum of one (1) compaction test for all developed lots shall be obtained for every two (2) foot increment of fill that is placed. A summary of all inspections and compaction tests for all developed lots shall be provided to the City upon completion of the grading and shall be provided for a respective lot prior to the issuance of a building permit for such lot. d) Private Utilities: All private utilities that are installed, including electricity, telephone, natural gas and cable television, shall be installed underground. e) Mailboxes: Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition 3 United States Postal Service. f) Street Lights: Street lights shall be installed within the Plat according to the Street Lighting Plan, which will first be approved by the City Engineer. Developer shall also submit its Street Lighting Plan to the applicable power company for its review, comment and approval. The installation of the street lights shall be coordinated with the applicable power company so that the street light system is installed, constructed and operated in such a manner as will harmoniously exist with other street lights within the area. g) Working Hours: Construction activity, including equipment startup and fueling, can only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays; at no time on Sundays or holidays. h) Street Sweeping: Developer shall sweep and/or otherwise clean all streets, as needed, within and adjacent to the -Plat as a result of construction activities associated with the Plat until final acceptance of the Improvements. If the streets are not maintained in a manner acceptable to the City, after reasonable notice to the Developer the City will arrange for the street sweeping at Developer's cost. i) Placement of Bituminous Wear Course: The bituminous wear course can be placed on all streets once all of the following have occurred: 1. A Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for at least 75% of the lots or a cash escrow in the amount of $10,000 has been deposit with the City which will be held until 75% of the lots have received Certificates of Occupancy. At the City's discretion, the wear course may be placed prior to having 75% occupancy. If applicable, the warranty period shall be extended an additional one (1) year for a total of two (2) years from final acceptance. In no case shall the wear course be placed with less than 50% occupancy. 2. The base course on all streets has been in place for at least one full freeze -thaw cycle. 3. City staff or its assignees have visually inspected all roadways and curb within the Plat, and any repairs necessary as a result of said inspection are complete and written approval issued. 6. Proiect Completion: The Improvements listed herein on Exhibit A, including street, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and municipal water, shall be completed subject to the approval of the City in accordance with the approved plans. All Improvements shall be substantially completed to the reasonable satisfaction and approval of the City within twelve (12) months of the execution of this Agreement. Substantial completion shall consist of all work with the exception of placement of the bituminous wear course and completion of the final punchlist. The Developer Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition 0 shall be excused from the strict completion date set forth herein if written notice is received from the Developer of the existence of causes over which the Developer has no control which will delay the completion of the work and approved in writing by the City. In that event, the City may extend the date or dates herein specified. 7. Project Acceptance: Final project acceptance will be considered by the City Council once the following have been completed: (a) All Improvements are installed according to the approved plans. (b) All punchlist items are completed. (c) All Record Drawing information has been provided to the City to its satisfaction. (d) Escrow account for City costs and fees is current in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. (e) The City receives confirmation via lien waivers that contractors or other parties have been paid for the work completed. (f) The City receives a written request from the Developer to accept the Improvements. 8. Record Drawing Requirements and Engineer's Certification. Following completion of all development activities and prior to the release of security and acceptance of Improvements, the Developer and/or their assignee shall provide to the City "as -built" plans for the Improvements listed on Exhibit A. This information shall be provided to the City in the following formats: (a) 1-set mylar drawings (22" x 34") for all Improvements. (b) 1-set paper drawings (22" x 34") for all Improvements. (c) Individual Adobe.pdf (or approved equivalent) for all plan sheets and the final plat. All Record Drawings shall include the following information: (a) All bench marks shown on plans (bench marks shall be top nut of hydrants). (b) Swing ties to all gate valves shown on plans (ties should be to manholes, catch basins, hydrants or other permanent objects. (c) Swing ties to curb stops shown on plans (ties should be to manholes, catch basins, hydrants, property corners or other permanent objects). (d) Top of casting and invert elevation for all structures. (e) All pipe sizes, material type, pipe classification, grades and lengths (f) All horizontal and vertical curve data in the appropriate location on the plans. (g) Televised report of the sanitary sewer with videotape. (h) Swing ties to any manhole or catch basin outside the roadway area. Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition 5 (i) A text file including the x, y and z coordinates (based on Washington County's coordinate system) for the following: 1. All curb stops 2. All hydrants 3. All gate valves 4. All manholes located outside of the roadway 9. Construction Warranty and Financing of Improvements. The Developer agrees to construct the Improvements described herein at its own expense and in accordance with City specifications. The Developer shall engage at its own expense a registered, professional civil engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the Improvements and shall submit the same to the City for review and approval. The Developer represents and warrants that all of the Improvements made as a part of this development shall be guaranteed to be properly functioning as designed for a period of not less than one (1) year following acceptance of the entire project by the City. In the case of any material or labor that is supplied and that is reasonably rejected by the City as defective or unsuitable, then the rejected materials shall be removed and replaced with approved material, and the rejected labor shall be done anew to the reasonable satisfaction and approval of the City at the sole cost and expense of the Developer. In any event, none of the warranty periods expressed herein shall begin to run until all of the Improvements within the Plat have been approved and accepted by the City. The Developer's engineer shall certify that grading within the Plat was completed in accordance with the approved Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan before the City issues any building permits. The Developer shall remain ultimately responsible for accurate grading of all lots and shall correct any deficiencies in grading that may be discovered until the certificate of occupancy is issued for the applicable lot or the Developer is released from its obligation under this Agreement as outlined in paragraph 7 above. 10. Signs. The Developer shall prepare a plan for all regulatory, directional and street name signs to be within the Plat. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City's public works department. Upon plan approval, the City's public works department shall install all public signage within the Plat. The installation of all private signage shall be the responsibility of the Developer. All costs related to the installation of public signage shall be the responsibility of the Developer and will be deducted from the Developer's escrow account. The Developer shall post funds as outlined in Exhibit C prior to the City's public works department beginning the installation. 11. Drainage Easements. a) Work within Easements: No improvements, landscaping, or grading, other than Improvements shown on the approved plans, shall be permitted in dedicated drainage easements without the prior written permission of the City and any regulatory agency having Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition .] jurisdiction. b) Maintenance Responsibilities: The Developer and its successors in interest, including all individual homeowners, shall be responsible for routine maintenance of all storm water management ponds, wetlands, and drainage areas within easements dedicated to the City on their property. Routine maintenance shall include litter removal, mowing and maintenance of the property adjacent to pond or wetland areas. In the case of drainage swales, routine maintenance includes the removal of obstructions from the swale as necessary to maintain proper drainage in addition to the aforementioned items. The City shall be responsible for non -routine maintenance of storm water ponds within the easements, including pond dredging, maintenance of the storm water inlet(s) and outlet(s) pipes, and erosion control at outlet and inlet locations. Such maintenance shall be completed as deemed necessary by the City. 12. Wetland Signage: Permanent signage shall be placed along wetland edges as outlined in the City's General Specification and Standard Details Manual or approved equal by the City. 13. Lowest Floor Elevations. All minimum floor elevations shall comply with Section 90-171 of the Hugo Zoning Ordinance, the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan, or the approved Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan, whichever is more restrictive. Except as may be specifically allowed under Exhibit A, no building shall be constructed on any of the lots herein unless the lowest floor elevation is at least three (3) feet above the 100-year flood elevation or four (4) feet above the high groundwater elevation, whichever is greater, for the subject property. Additionally, the lowest floor elevation shall be specifically referenced and designated, for each lot, on a certificate of survey, which survey shall be provided to the City before any building permits are issued for any lots within the Plat. 14. Landscaping. All disturbed areas within the Plat shall be landscaped in accordance with the approved landscape plans, the City ordinances, and the City's General Specification and Standard Details Manual. All landscaping shall be complete, established and growing within sixty (60) days of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, except that, if the certificate of occupancy is issued between the dates of October 1 and May 1, then the landscaping required herein shall be complete, established and growing no later than July 1. All front yards, side yards and back yards shall be fully sodded. All landscaped areas shall be tilled or otherwise worked mechanically in order to loosen compacted soils and shall contain at least four (4) inches of black dirt containing no more than 35% sand. Unless specific arrangements are made and agreed to by the City, all landscaping installed within the Plat shall be maintained by the Developer and its successors, including all individual homeowners or the homeowners association which is required to be formed by the Developer pursuant to the agreement. All areas, other than proposed street areas, disturbed by grading activities on the site shall be seeded. Seeding shall be immediate upon completion of grading activities or as directed by the City Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition 7 Engineer. Seeding shall be completed as follows: a) All areas shall be restored with a minimum of four (4) inches of adequate topsoil prior to seeding. b) Upland areas shall be seeded in accordance with the grading, drainage, and landscape plans listed in Exhibit A. The rate of application shall be one hundred (100) pounds per acre. Areas seeded shall be mulched with Type 1 mulch at a rate of two (2) tons per acre. All mulch shall be disk anchored. c) Wetlands, wetland replacement areas and storm water ponding areas shall be seeded with MN/DOT Seed Mixture 25B, or as required by the permitting regulatory agency. The minimum rate of application shall be thirty (30) pounds per acre, or as recommended by the supplier. d) All seeded areas shall be maintained for the term of this Agreement. Upland areas shall be mowed as necessary or as directed by the City Engineer. e) All disturbed areas within the development shall be maintained to limit vegetation growth to less than ten (10) inches except designated natural areas or designated open spaces as shown on the approved plans. 15. Safe Rooms. The Developer shall require all builders to offer a safe room as an option to any and all potential homebuyers. All safe rooms offered and built within the City must meet or exceed FEMA requirements and standards. B. ESCROWS, CHARGES AND UTILITY OVERSIZING: Developer shall pay the escrows, fees and charges listed on Exhibit C. C. SPECIAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS: The Plat shall be built and maintained in accordance with the planning requirements listed on Exhibit A hereto, and any miscellaneous requirements listed on Exhibit B hereto. D. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Miscellaneous Provisions. Developer specifically understands that this Plat approval is given subject to the following requirements: a) Expiration. The final plat documents for the Plat, which is the first phase of the Adelaide Landing preliminary plat, have been submitted to the City Council within one hundred twenty (120) days of preliminary plat approval. The final plat must be recorded with the Washington County Recorder (and the mylar "hardshells" must be fully executed) within sixty (60) days of the City Council motion giving final plat approval, unless such deadline is extended by the Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition i City Council in its sole discretion, or else said approval shall be null and void. All fees relating to this subdivision shall be paid by the Developer, including the cost of recording documents with Washington County. b) Recording. The Developer shall record this Agreement with Washington County simultaneous with the recording of the Plat, and shall forward confirmation of recording of the Plat and this Agreement to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. All applicable conditions of Plat approval must be met before any deeds are stamped for recording and prior to the recording of the Plat at the Washington County Recorder's Office. Plat approval shall be contingent upon compliance with the approved plans for the Improvements and upon compliance with this Agreement. c) Model Homes. In the event that site grading is approved by the City prior to Plat approval and/or execution of this Agreement, posting of security and filing of the Plat, the Developer shall be entitled to one (1) building permit per housing unit type on lots that abut existing streets or roadways, subject to final approval by the City. No model homes may be constructed or utilized until at least one (1) lift of bituminous has been installed from said model home lot providing access to a public street or roadway outside of the Plat. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any model or other home until all necessary public improvements and utilities have been installed and the utilities have been successfully tested. Prior to this, and at the time that a model home passes final inspection, a model home may only be used by Developer's, authorized builders, staff or realtors for purposes of showing the models to potential buyers. No model home may be used until landscaping conforming to City ordinance and paragraph 14 of this Agreement has been installed except that, if the certificate of occupancy is issued between the dates of October 1 and May 1, then the landscaping required herein shall be complete, established and growing no later than July 1. d) Sales Trailers. The Developer may be entitled to a maximum of one (1) temporary sales office (sales trailer) for this and all subsequent phases of the development for a period of time not to exceed nine (9) months. Upon receipt of an acceptable site plan, a sales trailer may be approved by the City Community Development Director prior to the first model home being available for showing. The trailer is subject to the issuance of a building permit, shall meet all applicable building codes, shall be fully skirted, shall be suitably landscaped, shall contain sufficient parking for the size of the office, and shall have safe and suitable access to a paved, public roadway. The trailer shall be removed, and the site shall be restored within seven (7) days following the date that a model home passes final inspection. e) Deviations. No material deviations from the approved Plat shall be allowed unless approved in writing by the City. Approval herein is also given subject to full compliance with the conditions of approval and findings adopted by the City Council in connection with the approval of the development. Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition .01 f) Certificates of Survey. A certificate of survey shall be provided to the City Building Inspector for each lot at the time a building permit is requested for the lot. Attached to the certificate of survey shall be an erosion control plan for the lot showing location and type of all erosion control measures to be used on the lot, and spot elevations, tree preservation plan shall be submitted for each home site. g) Outhouses. The Developer shall provide on -site a sufficient number of portable outhouses to be available for the persons who will be working on -site until Improvements are accepted according to the plans in Exhibit A. h) Property Owners Association. When required as a condition of approval outlined in Exhibit B, the Developer agrees to form a property owners association, membership in which shall be mandatory for all of the lots within this development. The property owners association shall be responsible for maintenance and repair of all common elements as listed in the property owners association documents within this development and the same shall be maintained in good condition in accordance with all City ordinances and reasonable directions of the City. Developer agrees to provide a copy of the property owners association documents to the City prior to the recording of the final plat. In the event of failure or refusal of any property owners association to so maintain or repair the common elements then the City may, with seven days written notice and without regard to the requirements or formalities of Minn. Stat. §429 perform the work and assess each of the lots within the plat for the cost of the work. i) Intentionally deleted j) The property owners association documents shall advise owners of all lots of the requirements of this Agreement as follows: THE LAND WITHIN THIS PLAT, INCLUDING THE LAND CONVEYED HEREIN, IS BOUND BY RESTRICTIONS IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS ON FILE AT THE OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY RECORDER. k) Developer acknowledges that a separate development agreement will be entered into at the time of final plat approval of subsequent phases in the development. That development agreement will address, among other things, necessary improvements to be made, financial guarantees to be provided, and the amount of the development fees to be paid by the Developer. 1) Developer shall remove all tree waste, junk, miscellaneous debris, junk vehicles, and any other personal property from the Plat which does not comply with the City Zoning Ordinance until final acceptance of the Improvements. E. DAMAGES AND DEFAULT: Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition 10 1. Developer agrees to pay liquidated damages to the City if any lot has a real estate closing occur before all public improvements within the Plat are certified as being substantially completed by the City. Specifically, Developer agrees to immediately pay to the City liquidated damages in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) for each lot closing which occurs in violation of this paragraph. The City shall be authorized to retain an appropriate percentage of the financial guarantee referred to in paragraph 4 as security for payment of any liquidated damages owed to the City. Model Homes are exempt from this section. 2. Developer agrees to pay liquidated damages to the City, in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), if the Developer encroaches upon any City road right-of-way or utility easement not permitted on the plans without first obtaining a written permit from the City expressly authorizing said encroachment. The City shall be authorized to retain an appropriate percentage of the financial guarantee referred to in paragraph 4 as security for payment of any liquidated damages owed to the City. 3. Events of Default. a) Events of Default Defined. The following shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement and the term "Event of Default" shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement, any one or more of the following events: 1. Subject to unavoidable delays, failure by Developer to commence and complete construction of the Improvements pursuant to the terms, conditions and limitations of this Agreement. 2. Failure by Developer to substantially observe or perform any material covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on their part to be observed or performed under this Agreement. b) Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default occurs, the City, subject to any rights of third parties agreed to by the City pursuant to this Agreement, or otherwise by written, executed instrument of the City, may take any one or more of the following: Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition 1. The City may suspend its performance under the Agreement until it receives assurances from Developer, deemed adequate by the City, that Developer will cure their default and continue their performance under the Agreement. Suspension of performance includes the right of the City to withhold permits including, but not limited to, building permits. 2. The City may initiate such action, including legal or administrative action, as is necessary for the City to secure performance of any 11 provision of this Agreement or recover any amounts due under this Agreement from Developer, or immediately draw on the financial Letter of Credit, as set forth in this Agreement. 4. Enforcement by City; Damages. The Developer acknowledges the right of the City to enforce the terms of this Agreement against the Developer, by action for specific performance or damages, or both, or by any other legally authorized means. The Developer also acknowledges that its failure to perform any or all of their obligations under this Agreement may result in substantial damages to the City; that in the event of default by the Developer, the City may commence legal action to recover all damages, losses and expenses sustained by the City; and that such expenses may include, but are not limited to, the reasonable fees of legal counsel employed with respect to the enforcement of this Agreement. F. THIS AGREEMENT: 1. Release of Agreement. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver to the Developer a release. 2. Warranty of Title. Developer warrants and represents to the City that it is the fee owner of the land described herein, except for a portion of the property, and that it has authority to execute this Agreement, with consent from the other fee owner, and agree to the conditions hereof and to subject the land hereto. Developer also represents and warrants that the use for which this development is sought will not violate any restrictive covenants applying to the property. 3. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be deemed to be a restrictive covenant and the terms and conditions hereof shall run with the land described herein and be binding on and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives and assigns of the parties hereto, and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the subdivision, and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. Reference herein to the Developers, if there be more than one, shall mean each and all of them. This Agreement shall be placed of record so as to give notice hereof to subsequent purchasers. The cost of said recording shall be borne by the Owner and charged against the escrow account. 4. Restrictions on Transfer/Indemnification. Developer agrees to defend and hold the City, and its officials, employees and agents, harmless against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, judgments, damages, penalties, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of actions or omissions by Developer, their employees and agents, in Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition 12 connection with the Project. No transfer or assignment of this Agreement shall be made without City approval and any assignment or transfer without such approval shall be void. 5. Incorporation by Reference. All general and special conditions, plans, special provisions, proposals, specifications and contracts for the Plat and for any Improvements furnished and let pursuant to this Agreement shall be and hereby are made a part of this Agreement by reference as if fully set out herein in full. 6. Developer will comply with and promptly perform all of its obligations under this Agreement. 7. Evidence of Title. Developer shall furnish the City with evidence of fee ownership of the property being platted by way of an attorneys title opinion or title insurance commitment dated not earlier than thirty (30) days prior to the execution of the Plat. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition 13 By Tom Weidt, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) City of Hugo By Michele Lindau, Clerk On this day of , 2019, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Tom Weidt, Mayor, and Michele Lindau, Clerk, of the City of Hugo, a Minnesota municipality within the State of Minnesota, and that said instrument was signed on behalf of the City of Hugo by the authority of the City Council of the City of Hugo, and Tom Weidt and Michele Lindau acknowledge said instrument to be the free act and deed of said City of Hugo. Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition Notary Public 14 Developer OP5 Adelaide, LLC Benjamin Schmidt Its: Vice President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) (Corporate Notary) On this day of , 2019, before me, a Notary Public, within and for said County and State, personally appeared Benjamin Schmidt, to me personally known, who, by me duly sworn did say that he is the Vice President or OP5 Adelaide LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of said company. DRAFTED BY: David K. Snyder Johnson & Turner 56 East Broadway Avenue #206 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition Notary Public 15 EXHIBIT A LIST OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS Sheet No. Plan Date Author 1-7 Final Plat Stamp dated December 21, Westwood 2019 Professional Recorded at Washington Services, LLC County 1 Construction Plans- Cover Westwood Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Professional Control Plan Services, LLC 2 Overall Westwood Professional Services, LLC 3-11 Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Westwood Control Plan Professional Services, LLC 12-13 Street Profiles Westwood Professional Services, LLC 14-15 Details Westwood Professional Services, LLC 1 Construction Plans — Cove Westwood Sanitary Sewer, Water Mains, Professional Storm Sewer, and Streets Services, LLC 2 Overall Westwood Professional Services, LLC 3-6 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Westwood Construction Plan Professional Services, LLC 7-10 Street and Storm Sewer Westwood Construction Plan Professional Services, LLC 11-12 Details Westwood Professional Services, LLC 1-4 Final Landscape Plan Westwood Professional Services, LLC Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition 16 I Trail Plan Westwood Professional Services, LLC I Lighting Plan Westwood Professional Services, LLC 1-7 Water Re -Use Plan MTI Distributing Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition 17 EXHIBIT B APPROVAL CONDITIONS Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition EXHIBIT C ESCROWS, FEES AND CHARGES a) Escrow for City Costs and Fees. The Developer shall deposit sufficient escrow with the City as outlined in Section A. 1. The required beginning balance in the account is calculated at . This sum is calculated to be four percent (4%) of the estimate of the required Improvements to be installed to serve the development, plus $5,000 which is the minimum balance required in the account. b) Cash Escrow or Letter of Credit. The Developer shall provide a financial guarantee to the City, in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit, in the amount equal to one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the estimated amount of the required Improvements. This amount has been calculated by the City Engineer to be . This amount maybe reduced upon request of the Developer and approved by the City. At no point shall the Letter of Credit be reduced below ten percent (10%) of the original amount. The City shall have the right to retain the financial guarantee until the Improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the City and the warranty period has expired. c) Cash Escrow for Reconstruction of 130th Street. The Developer is responsible for paying 44% of the construction cost for the reconstruction of 130th Street. The total estimated cost of the construction is $3,558,000.00. The developer shall provide one-third of the construction cost in escrow money to the City or other payment method approved by the City for the improvements to 130th Street. The developer shall provide a financial guarantee to the City, in the form of a cash escrow or other payment method approved by the City, in the amount equal to $521,840.00. d) Storm Water Trunk Fee. The Developer shall pay the City a Storm Water Trunk Fee in the amount of . This sum is calculated to be $0.07 per square foot for the square feet of net developable area within the Plat, with credit provided for the stormwater reuse/irrigation system based on the anticipated reduction in water demand. The reduction is calculated at 5%. This fee shall be paid before the Plat is signed by the City. e) Storm Water Ponding Fee. The storm water ponding requirement has been met by the Developer through the incorporation of on -site ponding. No storm water ponding fee will be applied. f) Snow Plowing. The Developer agrees to pay a one-time lump sum cash escrow to the City to cover the cost of snow plowing the roads within the plat, during the first snow season, before the roads are formally accepted by the City of $.50 per lineal foot. The Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition 19 Developer shall post a cash escrow with the City in the amount of $ ($0.50 x = g) Sealcoatin . The Developer shall post a one-time lump sum cash escrow with the City in the amount of $ to cover the cost of the first sealcoating of the streets in the Plat. This sum is calculated to be $4.00 per foot for the feet of streets within the Plat. h) Park Dedication. The Developer agrees to pay a park dedication fee of $1,128 per lot for residential development payable before the final plat is signed by the City. Said fee shall be due for each of the 22 lots within the Plat (i.e. total due $78,960.00). i) Cul-de-sac Escrow. N/A j) Escrow for Street Signage. Developer shall deposit $2,500.00 into an escrow account with the City. This amount represents an estimated cost of $500/sign for 5 signs to be installed within the development. k) WCA Escrow. N/A 1) Sanitary Sewer Trunk Fee. The Developer shall pay the City a sanitary sewer trunk fee in the amount of $ This sum is calculated to be $1,632 per lot for the 22 residential lots within this phase. m) Water Trunk Fee. The Developer shall pay the City water trunk fee in the amount of $ . This sum is calculated to be $1,960 per lot, with credit provided for the stormwater reuse/irrigation system based on the anticipated reduction in water demand. The reduction is calculated at 40%, resulting in a trunk water fee amount of $1,176 per lot. The total is based on the reduced per unit fee applied to the 22 lots in the plat. Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition 20 EXHIBT D IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. Date: TO: City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, MN 55038 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of , and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $ , available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned bank. The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. dated , 20 , of "; b) Be signed by the City Administrator; and, c) Be presented for payment at on or before 4:00 p.m. on , This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one (1) year terms unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be of each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Hugo City Clerk that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written Notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Hugo City Clerk, City of Hugo, 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North, Hugo, Minnesota 55038, and is actually received by the City Clerk at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified or limited by reference to any document, instrument or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition 21 one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 400. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition By: Its 22 EXHIBIT E CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE PROJECT: CERTIFICATE HOLDER: INSURED: ADDITIONAL INSURED: AGENT: WORKERS' COMPENSATION: Policy No. Effective Date: City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, MN 55038 City of Hugo Expiration Date: Insurance Company: COVERAGE — Workers' Compensation, Statutory. GENERAL LIABILITY: Policy No. Effective Date: Insurance Company: () Claims Made LIMITS: [Minimum] Bodily Injury and Death: Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition O Occurrence Expiration Date: 23 $500,000 for one person $1,000,000 for each occurrence Property Damage: $200,000 for each occurrence Combination of Single Limit Policy $1,000,000 or more COVERAGE PROVIDED: Operations of Contractor: YES Operations of Sub -Contractor (Contingent): YES Does Personal Injury Include Claims Related to Employment? YES Completed Operations/Products: YES Contractual Liability (Broad Form): YES Governmental Immunity is Waived: YES Property Damage Liability Includes: Damage Due to Blasting YES Damage Due to Collapse YES Damage Due to Underground Facilities YES Broad Form Property Damage YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY: Policy No.: Effective Date: Expiration Date: Insurance Company: (X) Any Auto LIMITS: [Minimum] Adelaide Landing 3,d Addition 24 Bodily Injury: $500,000 each person Property Damage: $500,000 each person Combined Single Limit Policy: $1,000,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 each occurrence ARE ANY DEDUCTIBLES APPLICABLE TO BODILY INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE ON ANY OF THE ABOVE COVERAGES: If so, list: Amount: $ [Not to exceed $1,000.00] SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL MAIL THIRTY (30) DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE PARTIES TO WHOM THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED. Dated at on Adelaide Landing 3rd Addition BY: Authorized Insurance Representative 25 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 o2017 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. I II 1 V� C. ///, II / N n GO I Westwood I' MIl' o, 1111 I-- — _. 1 I Q ` 1 6N'�v��uir..��•_,e4�SI �: b m Y• G u m u mr m m m m I 76D9 AnrmMiva 4Phone (0D531D3T5+5 3':fa. 93mnPmOp,mar6 Tarm° 1000)937.5150 waet..dps.mm Westwood Prafasslanal 9Mvka Inc G 5 1 +,mmby amdr w.e IW. eba .+.. p.pum h m• m andv my wawW� ama xpcdma .ma w.+ s .m . aw> u®w+ PRaP®aNnb Qe ARLprO Uvdc w ywv y ly n m AIImmLL °s/3x/Ir - an' LDuual13 1 +o/xa/Ir - °tt couuols ftttJJli"�� Io/3e/n - ott cwucxrs �/ T - E.PNN PNwSE 1 au1R Cory Meyer an. IZ/01 u. N. 26971 Stormwater Native Seed Mix 33-261 Final Plant Schedule - Phase 1 c17F SPACING O.C. MATURE SIZE l� o ]]3e1 ...mm,tvr Sou h 9 Wnt Rat. R•1. xa1 Mi: s..ed Cmman N.m• 9IOn11R014mme (harno) (IW) (%bywt) man I hi blu stem ; an omAJ a.za 300 672% i?5 I tlb me emm abnlua zS4 3 W 5.T]% 0.10 cold, 0a. o.18% G.A. �i(1 tnc mlm.m wv,�mna vtt ,aa z.esx zsr � v I ' w toe +sD 4.zsu sr P,nk l m aA3 030 `. 1.OT% +93 i ° n text a m Gallow. o. ] 0.12 l o]fix D.ss o � 1w emk monbulmeM1 /�/��i- m M1mllkwvm / / lob o-g' ea oiler - WIIVUJoePY,wvod a;.0 a9mn•n., rvmvE Inns mmr n s n hxnum ovo rm _-- 'o.oe D.m - o.to% oasx tom' +es 47 Black Hills 5 ruce Pleea lauca densata 6' HT. BB AS SHOWN u w -o "' H 60'-80' W 25'-30' m r•mnln - ✓,b beualn - Zlde Damn o.aa cos on o.3o asfix o]9 BHS NOS 46 Norwo S ruce Plcea ables 6' HT., BB 6' HT., BE AS SHOWN H 50'-BO' W 30-40' la nmo.nwon NOP 28 Noma Pine I Pinus resinosa 6' HT. BB AS SHOWN H 40'-60' W 30'-40' fa �" 1 � oPu rMmonmOa (mo rem a " SCP 30 Scotch Plne Pinus s vestris 6' HT.. BB AS SHOWN H 50'-HO' W 30' 40' ��y � bet Inc onl.l mr mmmaiwaa mlm _, 3s.oz zsm at43% nt4 y/{,P 36 Wni[e Plne Pinus slrabus LIST QUANTITIES IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY. r t 1 ]sa ]soli 1DD Dax teD.es ' NOTE: QUANTITIES ON PLAN SUPERSEDE � \ Pre stamwmt•r Pam Gas..IomWranN Paaa adr, ponds GdI..,. y GOWadatC WtWma .L d PhnWB Ma: - Nown.�M Oar D WNa3(wast) I B,. 4. Mona. 6,T8G�-tlloel Fom]I `l �� Requirements J`�o Native Seeding Legend Overall Project Landscape Low Maintenance Turf Seed Mix 25-131 620 TREES D DENOTES STORMWATER NATIVE MINIMUM 0 IR T 2}1]t L N Low MaintonsnastTUA 9 1 Gn N my - Refs (1E1°c) Raly lkplbv) xalMla (hyw,vlghN 9„mlm9n dl F 1 h &00r1 )] xe 00'6 00)00 LI I F f I, M.00 10 ]3 3a.0e% .e660 LowM 11 H W k hl Nmd, P a 1 r L°w M In( n p l ,In h b o Fv 1 v 1 Lallum r 11 3e00 40 ]9 m]ax 111ea0 ao DO a]6] vex MAO 3s o0 3e oa ltaax ad]zdgm 1M.60 sh F <u. P IIR • 3+00 31e. 031% i300a R x4e59 100d p rP ay, PImnMDA,— scll, .lua tlp ohll 1•a11W11a .1.mwlm rn and I... 1 II rte vv. Raqul Ism lnyu•m mcwmD ana la.. °n hurt rvu. LombNv al cpmponenb-A•n hlanalig ads mla. La J a SEED MIX (33-261) 2 TREES PER RESIDENTIAL LOT (310 LOTS) (Excludes 7 future lots by others) J TOTAL AREA (7.9 AC) DENOTES LOW MAINTENANCE TURF SEED MIX (25-131) OverallLandscape Provisions Provisions TOTAL AREA (1.8 AC) . ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDED TOTAL APIN PRO\ DED 1469 TREES 4TREES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE + STREET TREES: 310 TREES • ADDITIONAL YARD TREES (1/LOT - BY BUILDER): 186 TREES . BUFFER OVERSTORY TREES: 333 TREES • BUFFER EVERGREEN EES: BUFFER ORN MENTALTTREES: 146 TREES Phase 1 Landscape Provisions SHEET I Q ` -930 1' c SEE SHEET 5 I / Planting Legend , MKIM ��1111111111JIM Fey Prepared for. cbmidelISM ,]r.wn: tvret Hemd am��/m1c 1 3 u .. w . C) as a . . _ I 0P5 Adelaide LLC 1660 Highway loo South, Suite 400 St. Louie Park, MN 55416 DENOTES STREET TREE DENOTES HUFFffit HVBttGREeci 936 DENOTES BUFFER DH®uous TREE N. 0 (�%� v DB7•ro'rHs BUFFER oRNntyEa'rA1. �I /3 rM1 1 DENOTES FUTURE STREET TREE --� DENOTES FUTURR BUFFER EVERGREEN DENOTES FUTURE BUFFER DECIDUOUS TREE DENOTES FUTURE BUFFER ORNAMENTAL �7 ass a 4 J ADELAIDE — L A N D I N G— Hugo, MN O 200' 400' 600' Call 48 Hours before digging: 811 or ca11811.com Common Ground Alliance Date: 03/23/17 Sheet 1 OF 9 0000463PLFOI.d Overall Final Landscape Plan Phase 1 L 02017 Westwood J i JI d 7 (latP//laanting Legend liv DENOTES STREET TREE \'h.r" DENOTES BUFFER EVERGREEN DENOTES BUFFER DECIDUOUS TREE ORNAMIENTAL m m URB STREET TREE 41 (URE BUFFER zi� 13 -i 14 IURE HUFFIER e IREE �I 0, 50' 100, 150, I Call 48 Hours before digging: I I I 811 or call811.com Common Ground Alliance Date U5/23/17 Sheet: 2 OF 9 Westwood Landscape Plan -Phase 1 1�q�a,INIdd.tIMaPW,��., D®•d Prepared lor. PRaP�IONN. dNN rvpmW®W Wt I w • ddl Mn LANtSCAPe MQ vvda dY 4m d W 6wv d l9vvaoK DB/D,/I) - att CDYua113 la/lD/I) - ON c ID/]d/IFinal MMM ]-tlttdWNFN)S Phone (053)03]6130 )DB9Ma0mmadva /�—� Pw (B33)B3]-3833 Edon Pmldq MNSSM4 TdlP (088)937-615D wmtwwd . 13/DI/I>-QF.WD MN IaY115 m.wa [.]]}{ ISM Highway 100 South, Suite 400 — L A IN I N G — Cory Meyer WeltwaodPmfeulonelSDMMInc o 1Y () ,—mxa 26971 St. Louie Perk, MN 55416 Hugo, MN 02017 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. IV.��y� � tlUAHUWALK: ZZ E t \ f �`\:,......9 ... %/ /'9}' NATIVE WET 'rn II � \ ... ..... ... . _ � I 5 X \/a.�;\�.-.\/ v \ i. i/ 1/L/ `•"\'yN✓\p\({\\�(I',`'�/\ �I��I gy�\m.~ ♦�"\ .:�./ ,�\.:,;','...;/`,�- ��-- �i;,`'IiiIf{ _I'IIIt.. `y !I .."��,."\.T-,.�..;� .\yi.•�\ -\i�`1,�-\� '�'\�' / \-` '\.\ \'�...._ .._'1IIII\..!GJ.}\.l.�LI..I,i1.J,.�.,o�.6 `•'1II1� ^IIIIIIb\ IIIv \ S.•\.. .E:d.,� IIII{,�Ej.•:•.+D` q '�,a �."\.•MP.^�.F.0.�-.2�. :.4X 1.IIII.+.....Gv{ ..�..._— �.J2. 9-��'�3- 1IIII, .\,- :\:t,�.I:h(-t..-:,. +�P":.AG,;/.'q.�\�,.�...-,.-.` .l .. \, �a �.`�fr-l/ .- %%\%A. FN' 1-�;..- .,S%,,.:.•\..,.�•.I..UIIII -\.�,' . ..%III _-C*'_T'IIII% I:. - .\.:—.. 4U:d..-.,J,_ -,IILIIQ.......6-�6.....'R" ..4(.1..-44-�ys P.:. :..Ey[.�'1.N.-:9:I.. . _,,II.i__:._.4\.:.�\ .. J_a2..P._ \ .I1'.I/.H .\ `...,\ ^"9:(C1G�:.4,\v,R 1�1 ..\ I..•..o�._..t_y ...\ ��t-.S.1 ? \. /.,V .\ :"Et/�I .'1 \..� �� 1n\...Pf,-.\G° .�1 GWq.,.�'�._�.�1.t1 •:..�./.'5-,..};,.','p:. .•. ,- /i.G \<:" ./..,�I..s85,.l`.p/-m .±r 1t': � 1• r-.. \91±1�r,.', 1.1 :�.- +.r\ .1� ..^.19A.!\i:�3..P:/\ ..qghv .. a.. 'b, �`�.h\ + Av/..\• 'C—:. ��f� f- +ac1iti�' t.U�;\_sr /.�--.�P..'...\;,._{.:..".i,:.:` -_,�'/!:.\a.-?. .�n: .sLP1 ./ e„7".1sq./. / s-1.i`f/—l/.5` .R1./.,h .\,...9i.--.em+..v?3...,_G.6.\s—.J• 934-� *._' dU _:1I\..s,::a.6y .�a..�_4.�.M.0tn,",l. I*..\S..1'.§Ya.'.../_/iW.p Pl,... ' cu•_/ ..9dr..; tn�/,/:-�.:l :.'\l: a..- �,�/^\r,\r.tn...Ji.—:/\/—:.tC'.f.i_ .e.s�. \=,x.:-—<:• z-T,� \;".:�-" ,, '`.'.t"_L - .c/,F•�\.'.lam..�vs� .Ii.tifi. //'r.:\�!..�3 �.A.i7..n l84u-.'-e�.v:..3r-..8 � .P..',-1.p_U/_.".S�/.Z\I...Jvx..,./C ;�: /5`/../- )h'a.�.-{J ♦,..\-u•P.,'1i/s.-`t l4..',r/.r1'y¢..�/ :. ' :S.i,TI8."./.,.`-.7 v fi.Si�.`..',•/! .� `� r'G.,� 2" A .,.Fi.:V ,.-� ,.! . +— r'r,\\ ",y 99._s/aI .�'.`/4`.- ;r 'r .✓ .P;// ' .,'Yd.�-„./ :�ts.x.:l �Q.iir:.` t /IIp,.` \,-,'./ �/„:� �/ / 'Ucs'\.—�,.,,1� /,��/vCr-�.!l,'. ..s'✓.� - iy /s:/r\�.9� .�../ •,J..!,d.,rs/\:d2,:.�r3i,v\.f, /-.sir�m-� !,!`. '�rry'C..:'V.�.`'i�.n:�y/..I,=' ,.. ,..��„F��1\�,7=i.�UyiC`�,�!WN`:�A:.../ 'J —,a_..t�p,'\\.:f�. S., x—Hr�):.ly , 9-1p'�'. T.:I `\_I J-_I-..6- tig,.-J:i!--li'M�".-t'.- •W!-.-L.�. A(-IL/Zj 1�.-�.I 1. : .�i�\.C.;._U`J "w:\ ` .i '.\s lE( �\\:`LNr/(\�.`.,9T.Q4"ry'.\ #ER,4Ir '.:Ii�" :.; M�� E8_P'•. .l\T'.$ —.s.1i �.'�.;�/.�:.-_t.�...,:/\%jG_\..✓.-\./. /..�7a .� :`� m. /�� r �_Y\ c .\\+�<+\ O_ -\\ �/�c>\ /s✓/+� Ji \ � �9\\/�+/-\2.p.9 a' ^:— u >\�/../.'.;\.�Mi / /-,\'..f :I. '' � �.i/:i �✓`�/,-/�tI`>/ jjr/;=m.'_,.,..../m_./�. --♦i ,+\,�-�v.0 .,.s \,$ �/,9 / \/ .i..\ !,3CI.If+/. 6:r6- i4r` n:`/•'�/ ]�_�..S\YI\.._IrY,r�_,W:` "��y'. •Fa:.I}',I I�"\��-i3'+. I f�IIIt19L�1�II-IIIIbII � .- '/'.,6%\ •I-`11�_ 1j3 _...IIIiI` — .•' mL�,.i�IIIL9•-s- ._? 2. .. �..- .�,...si 33-261) 4//�...U. A .....9 ...ffATIVE WET 4 13 ............... . D-.Ij��w,�\yR'_._•T.lS.��. E y/CP._...P .. 1_0 V�' ' .�..../..-./.H._.. .j._J(-. �.l• ....... , lI _.-:.. �\..— .9' LA4 sa 2 \ � ....... a . .., .................:940 4 6 r F77 4 Planting Legend GI0I 6J L DENOTES STREET TREE - E ^ E9F ....fo J DENOTES HvrEmt sm--. /c/--9E-:-` 3�DENOTES BUFFER DE®UO . �F4U1,. S 6.DENOTES BUFFER DRNAMffiA s I . L 9 DENOTES FUTURE STEM TREE Y 73 �A:MONUME42G G G 5 DENOTES FUTURE BUFFER .. Hvmt� NWT_DHN01i5 FUTURE BUFFER >n ti,LT H 261)L SEED MIXDE®TREE ... rvAT 34. ...... VT ......... DENOTES FUTURE BUFR 924SEED MIX. ORNAMffiTPAL. 4, MEN Aeo .-__-_;_,_ SA F_ � �0, 50' 100, \ 1IIi -1.�iI. \5//"- %..u3..�..0'/. .. , Call 48 Hours before digging: 811 or caue»xo„ Common Ground Alliance V/ Dfiec 05/23/77 snBee 3 of 9 --1. 93 �C�(j�/w�, aa^••w.P� >n:m s m, 'FB"/2)°'"�' e- aLta ® 0008463PLF03.dwa Westwood INl I ad,®znaPrepared for. add4wdeFinal Landscape -fi1fi0 ]BBBAn404marive ott couors Ph.. (B)031 OP5 Adelaide LLC ADELAIDE Plan -Phase 1 T FN (062 0937- Eden Prtltlq MN 66340 1 1]/°I/I] - E%PAII° PIIA3E 1 WITS Dnwm P,1'Afi 166D 1']3 W6 1DD South, Suite 400 — L A N D I N G — ol (fififi)37-fi1fi0fi22 westwoodp..mm CAry lrfeyeT R®d anMn2 to/date y Wntw° ftlfdnidn3l semmx lrc. 12/Ol/ u®a, x• ",,A St. Louie Park, MN 55416 Hugo, MN 0 2017 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 'N N 'Y LO SEED MIX NATIVE WET ti NATIVE SEED 0' 7A V, -1-9 , N ............. I .. ........... ... ............ 21 0 .. ........... N 1B .......................................... Zzr . . .......................... . ..... . ...... ................................ ...... . ............... ........... ............ ...... ..... .. ........ .......... ............. ...................... ..... ..... . .......... 142 9 44 FLQUIRE, ...... ...... 45a ............. - . ..... ................. =-� .......... ------ F .. .... . ..... ...... .944 TR�;IL .............. .. .................. ........... ........... 10 . ................................. ...................... ............. ... ........................ G L. ti�% G ............ . ........ -4 . ........ 11- ............... . . . . ........... -12 1, . I T' I, ;I \ G L - 1. ............. . ..... ........ 938 7 ......... ....... .. J- I- -e ................. —938- j ............... . ... ............. .......... . ........... . . . .............. 940--� ............ ... �4 Y .. . ............... 942---- .. . .. .......... ................... I... ........ .. 94JI- . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ............... . ......... ... .. . j" -!j 47 .......... .......... . ............. .......... 2 --T-94 .................. ....................... j . ..... ?) ........... ... ............... .. 44 J.- t I J- 91 77.,-,947 j f G G G G G G G G N Ff I L ........... --j L--- T-- . .... .... ......... ....... X IP4 .4 I k 3 42 .......... . .... 9 4�L 2 . ....... A A . . ....................... .. • -944. A PHASE .. ......... .. 944T .......... . ......... [311 ...... i PHSE I - .,.. ..%,.,.:, , .. G G L IMN ..... . ...... .. ........ G 8 ROL 5 A PH 1 J 14 15 01 L fV ....... . ....................... ... ........ ....... J10"' 2 t ........ .......... ........... I .......... .. ................................ ........ . ..................... . .... 94 (TYF) ...... .... - .:1 f. G) '1011 9 2B j L-T-,----� -%L 2 ........... .......... 4, ...... ........................... ......... F 940 ............ ** 1 A. . ........... U) "A /J., .... ........ ...... ...... 940 .................... ........... ................ ....... 942 I /A 944 7 040- v/ AQ /> k % T7 4 / tir \ / r ;! I h — m L I IT 2 E I it Planting Legend G J i t! ij G G I. I G I I .......... MY A L . L- 17� DENOTES SIR= TREE IT-L 1pa 7 0,7 DENOTES BUFFER EVERGREEN DENOTES BUFFER, DECIDUOUS AAI� A TREE ......... FNI ......... . TA 7T 56 DWOM BUFM ORNAb[0TAL -f V-L. -I- F % -ALI�V- IS 7 F DINOTES FUTURE STREET TRUE G G 5 ......... . OT 6 8 Y 17 DENOTES FUTURE BUFFER EVERGREEN ... ........ ................... ... ... .. ... ............... J. j ................... ....... . % .......... ................ ... . . ..................... i i MbLIMENT ?4 ............... 7' ................... 941 ............ V. DENOTES FUTURE HUFM .. . ...... . ... ............. 938 ................ .............. ........... ........... --, ............ .................................. ?36 .......... 10� ';/ .... ................ DECIDUOUS TREE ..... ........ .... NATIVE ........... -261) • DENOTES FUTURE BUFFER A x ......... (33 .......... . .. ORNAbEENTAL 110. .................... ............... .............. ............... -924- L ........... 926 ................................................. ..... . ........... r mom- ....... ....................... ........................ . zr ......... ............. .. . . ......... 0 Ft 3 -Y .... . ........ . 4 UA 9 93rf' 14 NPO A 5A. Ps .......... qu- n:5 SAN— V a, PVC: ol 50' 100, 150' ' � � � \ ` x � / � �,� � J N/ "J Call 48 Hours before digging: 811 or c(311811.com QCommon Ground Alliance Date: 05/23/17 Sheet 4 OF 9 1 t�mby "�Wy tli 0" piss, � Fnp-d by =da my 0008463PLF04.dwo &.d np.-rWcm a" the I = sdWy 11-*-d MOFEMONAL cm Prepared for: Westwood LAMT�MCunder 11 -I kh- �Sftt- d IALM%ft04& =7 - CITY COLMENTS Final Landscape 7 - CITY CDUMMITS ADELAIDE 5 )937-:1260 7000AnPj3mm1)r1- 10 26 7 - CITY COULICHTS OP5 Adelaide LLC ph..6 (9 2 9 12�0 _ Plan -Phase 1 Fax t952) 37. B 2 EdanPm1rIo,MN65344 1�1'7 EXPANB PHASE I [!WITS Drlw= NM L A N D I N G TORFM (NO) 937-61so westmodps.wrn Cory Meyer 16W Highway 101) South, Suite 400 Wattwood PmfeWonat Servlcm Inc- Date _ 12/0j 0'. Re=d Drlwft by/etasby/etasNM 26971 SE. Louis Park, MN 55416 Hugo, MN Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 FINISH GRADE (VARIES)VA R I E S - M A X I M U M O F 3 0 " AB O V E G R A D E L I N E 2" x 10" (2) TREATED HEADER BETWEEN PIPES. HEADERS SHALL REST ON TOP OF SUPPORT BRACKET- TYP. STANDARD GALV. STEEL JOIST HANGER - TYP. RIM JOIST 1.5" SCH 40 GALV PIPE - TYP. DRIVEN TO SOLID MATERIAL DEPTH VARIES - (MIN. 48") 7" GALV MUD FOOT PLATE ON SUBSOIL GRADE - TYP. ADJUSTABLE SUPPORT BRACKET SYSTEM - GALV. METAL (BY MN BOARDWALKS) SUBSOIL GRADE (VARIES)TOPSOIL Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 DENOTES FINISHED BOARDWALK / TRAIL ELEVATION DENOTES EXISTING GRADE / FOOTING ELEVATION 2" x 10" (2) TREATED HEADER BETWEEN PIPE SUPPORTS - TYP. HEADERS SHALL REST ON TOP OF SUPPORT BRACKET 6' - 8 " 10' A' 2" x 10" TREATED WOOD BLOCKING - TYP. 2" x 10" TREATED JOIST - TYP. (16" O.C. SPACING) STANDARD GALV. STEEL JOIST HANGER - TYP. 8" 8" 10' 8' 2" x 8" COMPOSITE DECKING (OR APPROVED EQUAL) WITH 1/8" SPACING BETWEEN DECK BOARDS - FASTEN WITH TWO 2 12" LONG GALV. DECK SCREWS @ EACH JOIST CONNECTION - TYP. 10' 1" x 8" TREATED FASCIA - TYP.A B'B PIPE SUPPORTS - TYP. TOERAIL - SEE DETAIL TOERAIL - SEE DETAIL EQ.EQ.EQ.EQ.EQ.EQ.EQ.6" EXISTING GRADE LI N E ( V A R I E S ) LENGTH VARIES -REFER TO PLANS 10'10'10' BIT. TRAIL PAVEMENT FLUSH WITH BOARDWALK SURFACE HEIGHT VARIES * MAXIMUM OF 30" ABOVE GRADE 2" x 10" TREATED JOIST - TYP. TOE RAIL: 2 x 6 BT BOARD (CONTINUOUS) - TYP. 2x6 BT BLOCKING 12" LONG -TYP. 3 8" x 7" LONG ST. STEEL CARRIAGE BOLT W / FLAT WASHER, LOCK WASHER AND NUT 2-1/2" GALV. DECK SCREWS (ON DECKING CENTER) 2" x 8" COMPOSITE DECKING WITH 1/8" SPACING BETWEEN DECK BOARDS - FASTEN WITH TWO 2-1/2" GALV. DECK SCREWS @ EACH JOIST - TYP. TOERAIL BLOCKING TO BE EQ. SPACED - SPACING NOT TO EXCEED 5' O.C. (TYP.) CL CL CL CL TOP OF DECK: (SEE PLANS FOR ELEVATION) DOUBLE 2" x 10" TREATED RIM JOIST @ PAVEMENT INTERFACE - TYP. SLOPE VARIES (SEE PLANS) BIT TRAIL 12" DIA. CONCRETE FROST FOOTINGS - TYP. @ BOARDWALK /TRAIL TRANSITION AREAS FINISH GRADE LINE (VARIES) SUBSOIL GRADE (VARIES) ADJUSTABLE SUPPORT BRACKET SYSTEM - GALV. METAL (BY MN BOARDWALKS) 1.5" SCH 40 GALV PIPE - TYP. DRIVEN TO SOLID MATERIAL DEPTH VARIES - (MIN. 48") 1" x 8" TREATED FASCIA - TYP. 8'-0" 16" O.C. (TYP) VARIES (30" MAX.) 2" x 8" COMPOSITE DECKING WITH 1/8" SPACING BETWEEN DECK BOARDS (FASTEN WITH TWO 2-1/2" GALV. DECK SCREWS @ EACH JOIST) - TYP. ENLARGEMENT OF TOERAIL 2 x 6 COMPOSITE BOARD (CONTINUOUS) - TYP. 2 x 6 COMPOSITE BLOCKING @ 5' O.C. MAX. 3 8" x 7" ST. STEEL CARRIAGE BOLT (GALVANIZED) W/FLAT WASHER, LOCK WASHER, AND NUT TOERAIL - SEE DETAIL FINISH GRADE LINE (VARIES) 6'-8" SUBSOIL GRADE (VARIES) 7" GALV MUD FOOT PLATE (ON SUBSOIL GRADE) 1" X 8" COMPOSITE FASCIA - TYP. - ANCHOR FASCIA WITH BLOCKING ADJUSTABLE SUPPORT BRACKET SYSTEM - GALV. METAL (BY MN BOARDWALKS) COMMERCIAL GRADE PERMEABLE WEED BARRIER SHALL BE INSTALLED ON TOP OF JOISTS WITH A MINIMUM OF 2" OVERLAP AND TEMPORARILY FASTENED WITH GALV. STAPLES PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF DECKING - TYP 2" x 10" TREATED DOUBLE HEADER 1.5" SCH 40 GALV PIPE - TYP. DRIVEN TO SOLID MATERIAL DEPTH VARIES - (MIN. 48") 2" x 10" TREATED JOIST (16" O.C. SPACING) - TYP. TOPSOIL 8'-0" 16" O.C. (TYP) VARIES (30" MAX.) 2" x 8" COMPOSITE DECKING WITH 1/8" SPACING BETWEEN DECK BOARDS (FASTEN WITH TWO 2-1/2" GALV. DECK SCREWS @ EACH JOIST) - TYP. 2" x 10" TREATED JOIST (16" O.C. SPACING) - TYP. 1" x 8" COMPOSITE FASCIA - TYP. - ANCHOR FASCIA WITH BLOCKING WHERE APPLICABLE, ADJUST GRADE TO FACILITATE DRAINAGE UNDER RIM JOIST FINISH GRADE LINE (VARIES) 1.5" SCH 40 GALV PIPE - TYP. DRIVEN TO SOLID MATERIAL DEPTH VARIES - (MIN. 48")6'-8" COMMERCIAL GRADE PERMEABLE WEED BARRIER SHALL BE INSTALLED ON TOP OF JOISTS WITH A MINIMUM OF 2" OVERLAP AND TEMPORARILY FASTENED WITH GALV. STAPLES PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF DECKING - TYP. 2" x 10" TREATED DOUBLE HEADER TOERAIL - SEE DETAIL SUBSOIL GRADE (VARIES) 7" GALV MUD FOOT PLATE (ON SUBSOIL GRADE) ADJUSTABLE SUPPORT BRACKET SYSTEM - GALV. METAL (BY MN BOARDWALKS) TOPSOIL Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 ��CITTTY OF P:ST. 1906 2019 City Council Focus Goals •Design and build stormwater reuse/management projects and seek grant funds •Promote conservation practices through education and incentives •Be a leader in regional activities related to water resource management •Strive for city-wide self-reliance on water •Focus on marketing the City -owned property and city-wide promotion •Assist existing businesses with expansion plans and help new businesses build •Work with Washington County on economic development initiatives •Implement Economic Development strategic plan •Finalize City Comprehensive Plan •Prepare needed updates to zoning ordinances •Construct north City entrance sign •Implement new permit management software •Collarborate with school districts on facility needs •Reconstuct 130th Street •Prepare maintence plans and conduct public outreach forJD2 and JD3 projects •Complete gravel roadway maintenance project •Construct south water tower •Discuss improvements to Hwy 61 with MnDOT and Washington County •Conduct a workshop to consider funding scenarios for community parks •Evaluate possible trail connections including 130th street •Conduct neighborhood meetings for improvements to new park on Sunset Lake •Approve park plan and build improvements in Adelaide Landing •Expand parking and access at Clearwater Creek Preserve and Irish Ave Park •Conduct regular evaluations of emergency services •Training for new ladder truck •Target recruitment efforts toward daytime firefighters •Impement automatic mutual aid agreements •Collaborate with Sheriff's office on facility needs •Continue document imaging of City files •Consider restoration possibilities of the Hopkins Schoolhouse •Improve technology and communcation methods •Expand use and hours of city compost site and transfer operation to the County •Conduct space needs study for city buildings and consider public works expansion �C IFYY` (DP H GOEST. 1506 2019 Ongoing Priorities •Continue to provide training and education opportunities *Continue firefighter recruitment and retention *Continue internship program •Recruit qualified citizens for commissions *Provide adequate resources and technology *Monitor development activity and adjust staffing levels -Hold joint workshops with each Commission/Board •Continue training new Commissioners and Council Members •Continue to promote leadership within the Commissions/Boards •Develop long-term strategies for industrial development *Proceed with street reconstruction program *Share services with neighboring communities -Manage growth responsibly *Provide transparency by keeping up-to-date postings in newsletters, website, and cable bulletin board •Maintain relationships with HBA, Senior's Club, Lions Club, American Legion, Food Shelf, YRN, recreational and other civic organizations. •Continue annual citywide bus tour -Expand social networking where possible -Keep apprised of legislative issues that impact budgeting •Remain involved in LMC and Metro Cities activities •Work with Greater MSP and other regional entities -Continue discussions with school districts, counties, watershed districts, neighboring municipalities and other local and state agencies on regional issues *Review police protection services annually FOR LEASE FST. 1HJOF; The City of Hugo Historic Hopkins Schoolhouse Located off of 170th Street North and Highway 61 With lots of character, the Historic Hopkins Schoolhouse has the potential to become a booming commercial business such as a coffee shop, wine bar, or even a trail head for the Hardwood Creek Regional Trail. The goal of the Hugo Historical Commission is to see the Schoolhouse reintegrated into the community while maintaining the historic aesthetic of the building. As an important piece of Hugo history, the City is excited to see the Schoolhouse flourish with the help of a strong public and private partnership, all terms negotiable. Hugo City Hall, 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North, Hugo, MN 55038 info@ci.hugo.mn.us 651-762-6300 Development Criteria: The City of Hugo has suggested criteria of the desired elements for the redevelopment of the City owned property, the Hopkins Schoolhouse. A development project that meets the criteria is eligible to lease the property with the the option to move from the original location to downtown, all terms subject to City approval and negotiable. A full service restaurant, cafe, or some form of event center / public meeting space. Retail and other nonresidential uses will also be considered. 9 A rehabilitation plan is required, with all updates to the building completed within three years with the exception of the roof, which must be replaced within the first year. • Quality building materials that reflects the historic nature of the structure. • Maintain general style and aesthetic of exterior. • Integrate into the design the historic elements of interior structure as is practical, including: original wood floors, light fixtures, tin ceiling tiles, blackboard, and furnace door. Contact: Michele Lindau, City Clerk mlindau@ci.hugo.mn.us 651-762-6315 OR Olivia Schiffman, Historic Preservation Consultant liv.schiffy@gmail.com 952-220-8934 FRIDAY, MARCH 8 �RE0` MOVIE NIGHT INCREDIBLES 2 (PG) WHERE i'llillit FREE GYM AT ONEKA ELEMENTARY 4888 HERITAGE PARKWAY NORTH DOORS OPEN AT 6:30 PM MOVIE STARTS AT 7:00 PM POPCORN PROVIDED BY THE HUGO FIRE DEPARTMENT. PLEASE BRING A BLANKET TO SIT ON. ALL CHILDREN MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ADULT. THIS EVENT IS OPEN TO ALL RESIDENTS OF HUGO AND ALL MEMBERS OF WBL AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT. THIS EVENT IS NOT SPONSORED BY THE WBL AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THIS FLYER WAS NOT PRINTED AT THE DISTRICT'S EXPENSE. February 2019 March 2019 February 2019 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr 9a Su Mo Tu We Th Fr 9a 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY Jan 27 28 29 30 31 Feb 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7:00pm City Council Meeting 10:00am Town Hall Meeting 10 11 12 7:30am HBA Breakfast I (Blue Heron) 13 14 6:30pm BOZA 7:00pm Planning Commission 15 16 17 18 President's Day 7:00pm City Council Meeting -reschedule or cancel 19 5:00pm EDA Meets 20 7:OOpm Parks 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6:30pm BOZA Mar 1 2 S:OOpm Burger Night (Hugo Legion) 7:00pm Planning Commisison Michele Lindau 1 1/30/2019 3:06 PM March 2019 March T April 2019 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY Feb 24 25 26 27 28 Mar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7:00pm City Council Meeting 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 6:30pm BOZA 7:00pm Planning Commission 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 5:00pm EDA Meets 7:00pm Parks 7:00pm City Council Meeting 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 5:00pm Burger Night 6:30pm BOZA (Hugo Legion) 7:00pm Planning Commisison 31 Apr 1 2 3 4 5 6 Michele Lindau 2 1/30/2019 3:06 PM The following items were distributed at the meeting. CITY OF HUGO HOPKINS SCHOOLHOUSE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION February 4th, 2018 I. INTRODUCTION The Hopkins Schoolhouse Committee has been discussing options for the historic structure located on the 2-acre, city owned property off of Highway 61 and 170th St N. In March, 2018, City Staff and the Hugo Historical Commission recommended that the city take immediate action in stabilizing the roof of the schoolhouse, and start exploring what a Public -private partnership would look like. Unfortunately, the roof was found to be beyond stabilization: it needs to be replaced entirely. The Hopkins Schoolhouse Committee was them formed to take on the project of exploring all options relating to the schoolhouse, and how best to proceed with the dilapidating structure. II. BACKGROUND The Hopkins Schoolhouse Committee has been meeting together since late -August 2018, after it was decided that a special committee needed to take on the schoolhouse project. The committee includes: • 1 City Council Member 2 City Employees 2 City Residents 1 Member from each City Commission Since the Committee's initial meeting in August, the committee has discussed various options for the schoolhouse. These option include the question of whether of not National Register listing would be in the best interest of the schoolhouse, the cost and benefit of moving the structure, details of a public -private partnership, and hearing the proposal of a potential business partner interested in the schoolhouse. In discussing these possibilities for future use, the committee also discussed the potential roadblocks of possible redevelopment and in attracting a business partner. III. POTENTIAL ROADBLOCKS There are many potential roadblocks to consider in the redevelopment of the Hopkins Schoolhouse. The most obvious of these roadblocks is the general condition of the Building. This includes damage to the interior and exterior caused by a large hole in the roof. The damaged roof has caused irreparable damage, and needs to be entirely replaced. Other factors to consider are the various assessments that need to be completed on the property: • Evaluation of septic and well • General Property Survey • Wetlands Study • Environmental Assessment • Rezoning through Public Process The condition and exact location of the septic and well are unknown. The amount of usable space must also be taken into consideration. The property sits on nearly 2-acres, but the structure itself offers 1,120 sq.ft. of leasable space. IV. BENEFITS OF PUBLIC -PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP The list and scope of potential roadblocks are significant. However, were the city to purse a Public -private partnership, the weight of the project would decrease significantly. There are many mutually beneficial aspects to the city working with a private business (and vice versa) to redevelop the property; most notably if the City is willing to give some financial support in a restoration project. The property has local significance within the community, and a Public -private partnership would bring a new business into the City of Hugo. Other benefits include a completed historical assessment on the structure that includes photos and blueprints; and the prime location of the property off an important travel corridor, and its close proximity to the Hardwood Creek Regional Trail. V. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA The committee has discussed important aspects in the possible restoration of the schoolhouse, as well as those that were not essential in the restoration and future use of the structure. A set of standards are noted below, however, all terms outlined are subject to City approval and entirely negotiable. The development criteria includes: • A full service restaurant, cafe, some form of event center or public meeting space. Retail and other nonresidential use will also be considered. • A rehabilitation plan is required, with all updates to the building completed within three years with the exception of the roof, which must be replaced within the first year. • Quality building materials that reflects the historic nature of the structure. • Maintain general style and aesthetic of exterior. • Integrate into the design the historic elements of interior structure as is practical, including: original wood floors, light fixtures, tin ceiling tiles, blackboard, and furnace door. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS The Hopkins Schoolhouse committee recommends that the City approve, and move forth in publishing the marketing flyer for the lease of the Hopkins Schoolhouse. This will start the process of soliciting and evaluating proposals in the hope of finding a future business partner. The committee will continue to meet and evaluate business proposals: eventually bringing a recommendation to council. If after three months no suitable proposals are submitted, the committee will begin further evaluation of this project. del �ib6an I`le-�war�C 2018 Allocation of Funds Filina Fnoc n nqo/ Assistance Care Packages Events Bank Fees Fund Raising Filing Fees Legal Tax Prep How we Help Veterans and Their Families In 201 Assistance, 22% Fuantc A7% 4ccictanra $60,000.00 $50,000.00 $40,000.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 Level of Support Provided by Year Assistance Care Packages Events 199.15 ■ 2017 — 2018 Description Amount Assistance $20,334.38 Care Packages $28,050.81 Events $42,899.15 Total $91, 284.34 Description Percentage Assistance 22% Care Packages 31% Events 47% Total 100% Category Amount Assistance $20,334.38 Care Packages $28,050.81 Events $42,899.15 Bank Fees $47.70 Fund Raising $97.25 Filing Fees $25.00 Legal $65.50 Tax Prep $225.00 Total $91,744.79 Category Amount Assistance 22% Care Packages 31% Events 47% Bank Fees 0.05% Fund Raising 0.11% Filing Fees 0.03% Legal 0.07% Tax Prep 0.25% Total 100% Category Amount Care Packages/Events/Assistance 99% Bank Fees 0.05% Fund Raising 0.11% Filing Fees 0.03% Legal 0.07% Tax Prep 0.25% Total 100% Date Amt Notes 1/31/2018 $500.00 Assistance 1/31/2018 $200.00 Assistance 2/4/2018 $512.87 Assistance 2/13/2018 $1,000.00 Assistance 2/18/2018 $500.00 Assistance 4/3/2018 $973.85 Assistance 5/3/2018 $2,500.00 Assistance 5/4/2018 $467.00 Assistance 5/15/2018 $2,500.00 Assistance 5/17/2018 $1,000.00 Assistance 5/30/2018 $200.00 Assistance 6/27/2018 $850.00 Assistance 7/6/2018 $128.00 Assistance 7/25/2018 $937.66 Assistance 7/31/2018 $1,000.00 Assistance 8/24/2018 $200.00 Assistance 9/8/2018 $495.00 Assistance 10/5/2018 $1,570.00 Assistance 10/15/2018 $500.00 Assistance 12/12/2018 $1,000.00 Assistance 12/18/2018 $800.00 Assistance 12/13/2018 $500.00 Assistance 12/14/2018 $500.00 Assistance 12/20/2018 $1,000.00 Assistance 12/20/2018 $500.00 Assistance Sub Total $20,334.38 7/31/2018 $3.00 Bank Fee 9/8/2018 $32.70 Bank Fee 9/8/2018 $3.00 Bank Fee 9/28/2018 $3.00 Bank Fee 11/6/2018 $3.00 Bank Fee 12/6/2018 $3.00 Bank Fee Sub Total $47.70 2/2/2018 $85.05 Care Package 3/9/2018 $250.00 Care Package 3/20/2018 $88.25 Care Package 4/13/2018 $680.00 Care Package 3/27/2018 $300.00 Care Package 5/6/2018 $202.00 Care Package 5/22/2018 $20.00 Care Package 5/26/2018 $312.00 Care Package 5/3/2018 $426.00 Care Package 6/14/2018 $2,162.00 Care Package 6/15/2018 $490.95 Care Package 6/20/2018 $155.55 Care Package 6/21/2018 $290.10 Care Package 7/5/2018 $1,501.93 Care Package 7/10/2018 $295.00 Care Package 7/15/2018 $140.00 Care Package 7/22/2018 $518.00 Care Package 7/24/2018 $659.00 Care Package 7/25/2018 $1,371.00 Care Package 7/26/2018 $655.00 Care Package 8/10/2018 $2,974.00 Care Package 8/17/2018 $200.35 Care Package 8/24/2018 $658.00 Care Package 8/24/2018 $398.70 Care Package 8/27/2018 $817.00 Care Package 8/31/2018 $185.20 care Package 8/31/2018 $398.08 care Package 9/4/2018 $133.10 Care Package 9/7/2018 $114.10 Care Package 9/26/2018 $250.00 Care Package 10/4/2018 $87.00 Care Package 10/4/2018 $499.00 Care Package 11/5/2018 $1,642.00 Care Package 11/6/2018 $2,500.00 Care Package 11/13/2018 $674.35 Care Package 11/18/2018 $1,580.00 Care Package 11/27/2018 $1,551.00 Care Package 11/29/2018 $99.10 Care Package 12/12/2018 $1,000.00 Care Package 12/15/2018 $904.00 Care Package 12/28/2018 $784.00 Care Package Sub Total $28,050.81 1/31/2018 $1,000.00 Event 2/9/2018 $447.50 Event 4/13/2018 $2,624.00 Event 3/24/2018 $327.65 Event 5/3/2018 $700.00 Event 7/26/2018 $1,500.00 Event 8/16/2018 $4,800.00 Event 9/8/2018 $4,700.00 Event 11/6/2018 $12,500.00 Event 12/5/2018 $8,000.00 Event 12/11/2018 $4,050.00 Event 12/27/2018 $2,250.00 Event Sub Total $42,899.15 11/16/2018 $25.00 Filing Fee Sub Total $25.00 4/25/2018 $47.25 Fund Raising Expense 11/11/2018 $50.00 Fund Raising Expense Sub Total $97.25 1/11/2018 $65.50 Legal Sub Total $65.50 11/16/2018 $225.00 Tax Prep Sub Total $225.00 TOTAL $91,744.79 Category 2017 2018 Assistance $7,070.00 $20,334.38 Care Packages $37,187.42 $28,050.81 Events $48,342.57 $42,899.15 Bank Fees $14.00 $47.70 Fund Raising $877.06 $97.25 Filing Fees $70.00 $25.00 Legal $0.00 $65.50 Tax Prep $225.00 $225.00 Insuranve $686.00 $0.00 Total $94,472.05 $91,744.79