Originally conceived as a modeling study of the lower watershed, the proposed project grew to encompass a study of the entire watershed. Concerns had been expressed over loading (water volume as well as nutrient/pollutant loading) to Minnehaha Creek and Lake Minnetonka, inadequate definition of floodplain zones, and the direction of the District’s regulatory system. Reports of the EPA NPDES Phase II requirements that included pollutant loading limits (TMDL’s) inspired the District to move forward with a study that would incorporate the necessary modeling to develop a performance based regulatory system, provide accurate elevations for floodplains along the Creek corridor and become a resource for future District water management planning.

Following an RFP process in early 2000, the Board of Managers accepted a staff recommendation on June 1, 2000 to award the contract for the project to Emmons and Olivier Resources (EOR). This section summarizes the project content, purposes and goals, and updates of the various phases of the project.

Project Description

Technical

• Data Collection:

  The initial collection of data has been essential to the success of the other phases of the project. EOR staff has spent considerable effort collecting monitoring data, survey data, creek cross-sections, infrastructure location and elevations, precipitation data, groundwater data, 2000 digital orthophotography, and other pertinent data from the District, member cities, and other public agencies in the metro area. New data being developed as a result of this effort include:

  1. Contour elevations for the entire District (2-foot on creeks and 5-foot elsewhere)
  2. Land cover classification of the entire District

  These data and other information will result in more accurate modeling outputs as well as resources for water management planning and potentially land use planning in cooperative efforts with the District’s cities.

• Customized Geographic Information System (GIS):

  Efforts are being divided by sub-watershed starting in the upper watershed and working toward the lower watershed with results to be combined and analyzed on a watershed basis as a whole. After consulting with the technical advisory committee (TAC), the XP-SWMM model, a public domain model developed by the EPA, was chosen to model water quantity in the various District creeks and waterways. Analysis of these results will lead to recommendations for the updating of floodplain elevations.

• Water Quantity Modeling:

  Efforts are being divided by sub-watershed starting in the upper watershed and working toward the lower watershed with results to be combined and analyzed on a watershed basis as a whole. After consulting with the technical advisory committee (TAC), the XP-SWMM model, a public domain model developed by the EPA, was chosen to model water quantity in the various District creeks and waterways. Analysis of these results will lead to recommendations for the updating of floodplain elevations.

• Water Quality Modeling:

  Similar to water quantity, efforts in this phase will also focus on areas of similar characteristics divided between upper and lower watershed with final analysis being done on an overall watershed basis. Models being used are HSPF and PLOAD for out of lake modeling and WiLMS for in lake modeling. The Painter Creek sub-watershed has been chosen as the pilot project area to test the models before moving into other areas of the District. This area was chosen because the MCWD has collected more data in this area than in others and it drains to Jennings Bay, an area of priority interest by the Board of Managers.

• Pollutant Loading Modeling – Development of TMDL’s:

  The model results will become the basis for proposed loading limits to the Districts water basins. Stakeholder input will be a significant source of influence, as well. As one of the final project deliverables, the Board will receive a number of recommendations and alternatives relative to establishing a performance based regulatory system dependent on a TMDL approach. The final decision will be up to the Board as far as which approach best meets their goals for the District.

• Groundwater Analysis:

  Using existing data and adding new monitoring where necessary, groundwater analysis will be one of the inputs to the various modeling exercises. Groundwater is an important component to the overall water balance and understanding how it influences water quantity and quality is essential.

Public Participation

The public involvement component is a collaborative process that promotes stakeholder understanding, involvement and support throughout the entire project. It is designed to meet the following key objectives:

• Maintain and enhance MCWD's working relationships
• Capture stakeholder interest and involvement
• Develop and enhance stakeholder understanding
• Integrate city, county, regional and state resources

The public involvement component includes the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Project Advisory Committee (PAC) and Stakeholder Regional Teams.

1. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed to provide input and guidance on modeling and calibration of models; data needs; analysis of model outputs.
2. The Project Advisory Committee (PAC) was formed to act as a steering committee relative to the stakeholder groups and overall public input to the project.
3. The Stakeholder Regional teams were organized within each of the nine regions indicated above. These teams provide input relative to the water resources in their specific areas, what they see as problems and goals relative to those resources and assist in developing an implementation plan to be incorporated into the project’s Final Report.

Project Goals and Outcomes

As stated previously, the H&H project was initially expected to provide three basic outcomes:

• Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the entire watershed
• Updated floodplain maps
• Provide the basis for developing a TMDL approach to water quality.

As the project has progressed, it has become clear that the potential uses of the resources being developed are greater than originally conceived. Some of these added benefits include:

1. Development of a customized/integrated GIS database that includes all existing and newly developed data. This resource now increases our ability to create maps and manage data for such things as project location, sensitive areas, tracking of permits and enforcement activities, wetland impacts and mitigation sites, floodplain impacts, and pollutant loading analysis.
2. An opportunity to use the GIS resource as a tool in partnering with cities to review land use proposals in the earliest stages of a project to implement BMP’s and maximum resource protection. Stakeholder participants see this as an important step in reducing the impacts of development on natural resources in general but specifically on water resources.
3. Ability to use the data generated to assist in determining the feasibility and benefits of proposed projects.
4. Ability to use the data to assist in developing future capital projects. By being able to develop a “big picture” view of the District and its resources and seeing the results of BMP implementation as provided by model outputs we can set priorities more effectively.
5. Using the data to develop future District management plans and guide rule revisions and development. Data is being collected and analyzed on a sub-watershed basis to facilitate such uses.
6. A resource for the permitting and enforcement program. Linking databases to maps to track permit locations and enforcement activities and the mapping of land cover and land use to guide BMP implementation are but a few of the new possibilities.

More uses will likely become evident as the project progresses and as more input is received from the stakeholder meetings.

The project is nearing the end of the first year of work. In the updates section, we provide an update on the work completed and in progress, and a review of the projected outcomes and uses of the project.

As mentioned above, one of the goals of the process is to avoid having a stakeholder group approach us late in the process and express displeasure with the results of the project or complain about not being involved. Similarly, we want to be sure that the entire Board understands what the project is, where it is going, what is being accomplished and that it is meeting or will meet the expectations of the Board’s goals for this project. We request that you review this update and provide some feedback so any adjustments can be made as soon as possible.

We are confident that the project is progressing in the direction anticipated and that the final product may very well exceed all initial expectations.