HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-03 City Council Work Session PacketAgenda
City Council Work Session
City of Edina, Minnesota
Community Room, City Hall
Wednesday, August 3, 2022
5:30 PM
I.Call To Order
II.Roll Call
III.Flood Risk Reduction Strategy
IV.Clean Water Strategy
V.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public
process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli$cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: August 3, 2022 Agenda Item #: III.
To:Mayor and City Council Item Type:
Other
From:Ross Bintner P.E., Engineering Services Manager
Item Activity:
Subject:Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Discussion, Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
No Action Requested
Staff will present a report about the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy.
INTRODUCTION:
See attached report for Flood Risk Reduction Strategy, a review of two years of implementation since the
adoption by Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Staff Report
FRRS Appendix H notes
Flood Project Map
Staff Presentation
August 3, 2022
CITY COUNCIL
Ross Bintner P.E., Engineering Services Manager
Flood Risk Reduction Strategy – Report
Information / Background:
On April 7, 2020 the City Council considered and approved the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy and ordered
a major amendment to the Water Resources Management Plan. The purpose of this report is to provide an
update to the first two years of implementation of the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy, present staff
recommendations for the 2023-2028 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and preview the major amendment to
the WRMP.
This report will provide a high-level review of implementation for the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy,
provide specific recent examples of progress and outcomes in the four areas of work, and preview next
steps in Council policy setting that support the strategy to comprehensively reduce the risk of flooding
throughout the community Review of implementation
A major amendment to Water Resources Management Plan is forthcoming in the next month and includes
new assessments of risk, options for capital improvement, and program descriptions and policy for the flood
service of the surface water utility. The review will begin with a Council presentation and request by staff to
submit the major amendment for agency review. The draft plan’s concepts for flood infrastructure and risk
assessments for flood areas and flow paths have informed our work small and large, from specific residential
permits to the staff capital improvement recommendations. CIP recommendations for the next major flood
infrastructure projects will be discussed in greater detail in the sections below. Progress in four areas of work
The Flood Risk Reduction Strategy (FRRS) detailed four areas of work for flood risk reduction in the City
organization. Below is a list and context for specific recent examples of progress and outcomes. Also
attached are notes on Appendix H of the FRRS, a prioritization exercise by the FRRS task force that include
summary of high priority work completed or forthcoming.
STAFF REPORT Page 2
Infrastructure
Much of the recent focus in the Engineering group has been with the design, permitting, public
engagement, approval, and construction of the Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project (MFIP), the
first major neighborhood scale-flood infrastructure project. The group has also incorporated minor
pipe changes into the recon process, such as the Melody Lake A & B project.
Three quick wins practiced by the MFIP are recommended to go citywide: #1 2D modeling and
visualization of flood flow as part of the upcoming WRMP and model updates, and as a priority in
the next CIP, #2 optimization and smart infrastructure for key flood storage and pumping system
components, and #3 flood flow optimization where relatively minor overflow grading and pipe
constraints projects can provide flood exposure reduction either paired with storage optimization,
or where minimal tradeoffs occur.
Another infrastructure area of work seeing progress is the addition of staff resources in the utility
and streets group of the Public Works budget. These groups work supports street sweeping and
other storm and sanitary maintenance and operations to better maintain our existing storm system
and controlling the source of clogs and backups.
Regulation
In late 2021, the Planning Commission and Council set an ordinance limiting the impervious for the
residential single-family zone to 50% and removed variance requirements for redevelopment of
regional flood affected properties. Staff plans to propose a clean-up to expand the removal of
variance requirements to local flood affected properties in the next year.
Regulation of low floor, low opening, and the awareness of specific flood exposure areas affect
commercial, multiuse, and multifamily development. This awareness and the low floor low opening
policy in the WRMP allow developers and the city to reduce existing and future flood exposure.
Specific recent examples have been noted in the engineering development review for a variety of
proposed and active redevelopment projects. (Examples include 4040 70th, Lifetime Living, 7001
France, and The Fred apartments)
Permit volume for review is steady over the past two years. Engineering typically reviews about
200-300 permits per year for grading, erosion and sediment controls, stormwater and drainage.
The majority of the permit volume is single family rebuilds, additions, and landscaping with few major
commercial or grading permits making up the remainder.
Each of these permit reviews can reduce flood exposure and vulnerability citywide. Change in city
flood exposure model information is immediately transferred to decisions at the site level as
redevelopment is undertaken. While we still do not model and regulate to a probable future flood
elevation, we use freeboard standards to add a future factor of safety to the low opening and low
floor elevations of redeveloped and new structures.
STAFF REPORT Page 3
Outreach and Engagement
In addition to the outreach and engagement of the MFIP and other infrastructure project, the
residential permitting and variance applications puts engineering and building group inspectors in
contact with residents and business owners with specific drainage issues and concerns. The FRRS
has provide a common language and oriented staff technical support to help build community
capacity to solve problems and reduce risk. Engineering staff is not tracking specific numbers for in-
person outreach.
More ‘retail’ outreach is also available in the form of the interactive flood risk mapping, flood fact
sheets, and more available on the Edina Flood Resource website. Total views, uses and downloads
for 2020 and 2021 are provided below. In the future we hope to track view and downloads on a
per-resource basis.
Resource 2020 View/downloads 2021 View/downloads
Flood Resource Page 2473 1267
GIS Flood Risk Map 2100 1021
Water Resource GIS Map 1654 1751
Individual resources include (links from flood resource site); Overview of Actions for Flood-Resilient
Homes (PDF), Flood Insurance Fact Sheet (PDF), Emergency Plan/Kit (PDF), Home Drainage Basics
(PDF), Sump Pumps (PDF), Sanitary Backflow Prevention (PDF), Sewage Ejector Pump (PDF), Dry
Floodproofing (PDF), Wet Floodproofing (PDF), Pumping Guidance (PDF), Rain Gardens (PDF),
Shoreline Restoration (PDF), Floodproofing Accessory Structures and Yards (PDF), Reducing Flood
Risk as a Renter or Condo Owner (PDF), Sandbag Fact Sheet (PDF).
Emergency Services
The Emergency Services area of work has seen the least movement in the last two years, but we
note the following developments and ideas for 2023. The City recently hired a Risk and Safety
Coordinator.
Water Resource Manager Jessica Wilson holds a Certified Floodplain Manager certificate and has
participated in the National Association of Floodplain Managers conference. The following ideas for
the 2023 workplan came from the conference; a critical facilities review, blue-sky flood
preparedness planning, and a substantial damage plan.
The Comprehensive plan envisions a sanitary and stormwater project to “comprehensively assess
risk jointly between the sanitary and stormwater utility using an international risk framework. This
could best be done as a citywide project including Engineering, Public Works, Public Safety and
Human Resources.
The work four areas (described above) of infrastructure, regulation, outreach and engagement, and
emergency services lead to actions at many levels of the community. The City’s leadership role helps reduce
STAFF REPORT Page 4
potential flood exposure, informs actions to make structures and people less vulnerable, thereby reducing
overall community flood risk. Next Steps
In the next several months Council will review the 2023-2028 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP.) Below are
context, priority considerations, and an ordered list of project for flood risk reduction. Staff also prepared
and attached a flood project area heat map to demonstrate the relative amount of flood damage per
neighborhood that these project areas target.
Staff separated flood reduction projects into three classifications.
Standalone (where most of the opportunity is in city park, undeveloped right of way, school district
or neighboring private property. The project often include focus on creating or managing flood
storage)
Reconstruction (Where most of the opportunity would occur when a neighborhood or municipal
state aid street is up for reconstruction. The project includes focus on increased flow capacity, or
storage or storage in the right of way. Notes include estimate of future recon date)
Citywide (Where the opportunity requires relatively little impact, is in an undeveloped right of way,
or compared to the scope of benefits, is of a type of technology or practice that can be applied
citywide on specific issue types with relatively little capital costs)
Staff used the following considerations to prioritize this list:
First priority - Value: Recommended for projects that include three methods or technologies
mentioned above that were demonstrated in MFIP as high value (most flood risk reduction for least
capital cost.)
Second priority – Recon/Efficiency: Recommended for projects that are best synchronized with a
neighborhood street reconstruction.
Third priority – Opportunity: Recommended for projects that are standalone in nature and can
keep the pace of projects going when recon projects are not aligned with flood needs.
Major Flood Infrastructure Projects
Project Area Approximate Project Year(s) /
Recon Units (if applicable)
Concept Level or Best
Guess Estimate
Morningside 2022 Under Construction, Recon $14M
(Nine Mile area) Flood storage optimization
and adaptive level control system
2024-25
Citywide, value
$3M
Citywide CIP Pipe constraints and overflow
grading project
2026
Citywide, value
$3M
(Minnehaha area) Flood storage optimization 2026-27 $3M
STAFF REPORT Page 5
and adaptive level control system Citywide, value
Concord Flood Infrastructure Project 2028, Standalone, opportunity $11M
Chowen and 60th Flood Project Horizon, Recon (60th Street) $2M
Arden & 50th Flood Infrastructure Project Horizon, Recon (50th
Street)(overlay in 2025 or future
recon)
$5-15M
France Avenue Crossing of Minnehaha
Creek
Horizon, Recon (France Ave) or
Standalone
$7M
Lake Cornelia and Normandale Park Flood
Infrastructure Projects
Horizon, Recon (neighborhoods,
or Valley View Rd)
$16M
Horizon (2029+) projects are not listed in the CIP. Finance staff are reviewing the Utility Rate Study and
will provide more information to estimate rate impacts at various pace-of-implementation scenarios. Note
that the remaining recon areas do not overlap with major flood project areas in the next six years of the
CIP.
Staff plans to present at the August 17 City Council meeting the Water Resources Management Plan major
amendment, and request to submit for agency review. The major amendment was ordered at the same
meeting as the approval of the flood risk reduction strategy. The work included update and added detail to
the City’s stormwater model and revision of the policy and implementation program to incorporate
elements of the FRRS. Conclusions
At the August 3 work session staff will further demonstrate how the FRRS is being implemented and how it
provides community value. Staff looks forward to Council input to help guide the priority and policy of our
work and future recommendations.
While flood risk reduction is a community wide and generational project, we’re in a much better place today
because of the work. We’re leading our peers in realizing and reducing flood risk, but at the same time we
feel unprepared for the challenge of future flooding from climate change.
Attachments:
FRRS Appendix H, with notes.
Flood Project Area Heat Map
Links to past Council Consideration of Water Resource Management Plan, Flood Risk Reduction Task
Force, and Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project and provided below:
September 21, 2021 Council Meeting – MFIP 30% Design Check In
April 20, 2021 Council Meeting – MFIP Staff Recommendation
March 16, 2021 Council Work Session – MFIP Preliminary Staff Recommendation
September 1, 2020 Council Work Session – Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project (MFIP) Update
April 21, 2020 Approve Public Participation Plan for MFIP and Request for Purchase for Engineering and
Engagement Services
STAFF REPORT Page 6
Public Participation Plan
April 7, 2020 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy approval
March 5, 2019 FRRS Strategy Update
March 5, 2019 – Work Session – Water Resources Management – Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk
Reduction Strategy, Lake Cornelia Clean Water Strategy, and Chloride Pollution Prevention
September 5, 2018 – Adoption of 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
April 3, 2018 – Work Session – Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan – Implementation
Discussion
January 17, 2018 – Authorize Staff to Submit Draft Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan for
Agency Review
November 21, 2017 – Work Session – Draft 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
Presentation for Review and Comment
Water Resources Library – Historical Morningside Neighborhood Stormwater Reports
Actions Sheets Key
Sector: The sector of work under which the action would fall. Infrastructure (I), Regulatory Program
(R), Outreach and Engagement (O), and Emergency Services (E).
Task Force Rank: Based on aggregate of individual Task Force member rankings. Task Force members
were asked to rank their top 10 with the action believed to have the most community enthusiasm
ranked number 1 and the action believed to have the least community enthusiasm ranked number 10.
Actions beyond 10 were effectively not ranked.
Cost Score: Staff scored.
$ Minor; Savings or efficiency, takes minor amount of staff time, or can roll into existing duties
with existing staff time and resources, <0 to 20hrs, <0 to $2K
$$ Modest; Modest additional costs, modest amount of staff time. 20 to 100hrs, $2-10K
$$$ Moderate; Moderate additional costs, takes moderate amount of additional staff time, or
can be contracted out in future budgets. 100-500hrs, $10-50K
$$$$ High; Additional costs, takes additional staff time, can be contracted out with additional
resources. 500-2000hrs, $50-200K
$$$$$ Major; Significant costs, takes significant amount of staff time, or can be included in future
capital improvement plans. 2000+hrs, $200K+
Staff Rated Effectiveness Score: Staff scored. Based on effectiveness and confidence at reducing
community vulnerability to flooding, at reducing community exposure to flooding, and at reducing the
community share of climate change drivers.
Action Category:
Quick Win = do now or contract under flood risk reduction effort.
Planning = develop a plan as part of flood risk reduction effort, or include in Comprehensive
Water Resources Management Plan amendment, future budget, or Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP).
Development = may be worth doing with additional resources, a special circumstance, a
partnership, or as technology improvements change cost structure.
None = benefit is not worth the cost or effort.
Task ForceAverage RankCostEffectivenessCategoryI.07 Infrastructure Better Maintain Existing System 5.0 $$$$$ high Planning
I.08 Infrastructure Control Sources of Clogs 7.3 $$$$$ high Planning
E.01 Emergency Services Develop Local Flooding Emergency Response Plan 7.4 $$$ medium Planning
I.15 Infrastructure New Storage in Parks 7.6 $$$$$ high Development
I.19 Infrastructure Buy Low Homes 8.4 $$$$$ low None
I.16 Infrastructure New Storage in Roads 8.4 $$$$$ high Development
I.13 Infrastructure Search for System Constraints and Quick Wins 9.0 $$$ high Planning
I.10 Infrastructure Reduce Sanitary System Inflow 9.1 $$$$$ medium Ongoing
I.24 Infrastructure Flood Storage with Predictive Pumping 9.1 $$$$$ high Development
R.08 Regulatory Program Update Plans with Flood Risk 9.3 $$$ low Planning
R.03 Regulatory Program Regulate Impervious 9.3 $$$$ low Development
I.25 Infrastructure Capital Project Prioritization Framework 9.5 $$ medium Development
I.01 Infrastructure Citywide Risk Modeling 9.6 $$$ high Planning
R.04 Regulatory Program Require Private Flood Storage 9.8 $$$$ low None
E.02 Emergency Services Define and Communicate the Available Services 9.9 $$ medium Quick Win
I.09 Infrastructure Reduce Vulnerability of Sanitary Lift Stations 10.0 $$$$$ medium Development
I.14 Infrastructure Bigger Pipes 10.0 $$$$$ high Development
I.03 Infrastructure Peak Flood Visualization 10.1 $$$ high Planning
I.04 Infrastructure Flow Path Visualization 10.3 $$$ high Planning
O.08 Outreach and Engagement Develop Flood Intervention Fact Sheets 10.3 $$$ medium Quick Win
O.07 Outreach and Engagement Develop Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)10.5 $$ high Quick Win
I.17 Infrastructure Design to a Future Risk Level 10.6 $$$$$ medium Planning
I.18 Infrastructure Plan Emergency Overflow Paths 10.6 $$$ high Planning
O.01 Outreach and Engagement Build Awareness of Stormwater System 10.6 $$ low Planning
I.02 Infrastructure Standardize Failure Analysis 10.6 $$$$ medium Development
O.06 Outreach and Engagement Promote Sandbag Service 10.8 $$ high Quick Win
O.10 Outreach and Engagement Host Flood Summit 10.8 $$$ medium Development
R.02 Regulatory Program Flow Path Review 10.9 $$$ high Planning
O.05 Outreach and Engagement Develop a 'What is My Flood Risk?" Map 10.9 $$$ high Quick Win
I.05 Infrastructure Predictive Snowmelt Modeling 11.0 $$$ low Development
I.06 Infrastructure Active Lake Level Monitoring, Smart Infrastructure Pilot 11.0 $$$$ high Development
I.11 Infrastructure Assess Water Supply System Risk 11.0 $$$$ medium Planning
I.12 Infrastructure Communicate Risk to Power and Utility Industry 11.0 $$ medium Development
I.20 Infrastructure Incentivize Redevelopment of Exposed Structures 11.0 $$$$$ low None
R.01 Regulatory Program More Permit Review and Regulation 11.0 $$$ medium Development
R.05 Regulatory Program Regulate Development to a Higher Flood Standard 11.0 $$ low Development
R.06 Regulatory Program Tiered Stormwater Utility Fee Based on Impervious Cover 11.0 $$$ low Development
R.07 Regulatory Program Participate in the Community Rating System 11.0 $$ low Planning
O.02 Outreach and Engagement Develop and Communicate Dynamic Flood Threat Indicator 11.0 $$$ low Development
O.03 Outreach and Engagement Groundwater Level Viewer 11.0 $$ low Planning
O.04 Outreach and Engagement Promote WaterAlert (USGS) Subscriptions 11.0 $ low Quick Win
O.09 Outreach and Engagement Provide Stormwater Technical Assistance Grant Program 11.0 $$$ medium Quick Win
O.11 Outreach and Engagement Engage With Stakeholders at Time of Capital Investment 11.0 $$ medium Development
O.12 Outreach and Engagement Engage Realtors, Developers, Insurers on Local Flood Risk 11.0 $ medium Development
ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.01InfrastructureCitywide Risk ModelingCreate a standard method across the city (and potentially across other nearby cities) to analyze the risk and consequence of potential for failure of the entire storm sewer system, pipe by pipe, structure by structure. Additionally, this would include creating a standard method to determine impacts due to failure of a part of the system. Finally, reporting methods (maps, prioritized infrastructure components, etc.) would be standardized so that infrastructure risk in different parts of the city and even nearby cities can be easily compared by staff, residents, and decision-makers.A general understanding of the risk of each part of the storm sewer infrastructure system will be able to help prioritize maintenance and inspection activities. Additionally, failure analysis which is often risk based, is not currently standard and is generally quantified on a case by case basis and by the people involved. Therefore, comparing infrastructure risk in different parts of a city or between cities is quite difficult. The only way to know which parts of the infrastructure system should be prioritized in maintenance, with a finite maintenance crew, is to assess the risk of entire storm sewer system in a standard and comprehensive way. The process of evaluating risk of infrastructure may not lend itself to a process that is general. It may be a process that is so "case by case" that the standardized method may become overly complicated and onerous. TBD $$$ high PlanningI.02InfrastructureStandardize Failure AnalysisCreate a standard process for investigating reported or actual failures after significant events. Post event investigation would survey debris lines for peak flow elevations, review damage, investigate system function using hydrologic models, investigate past maintenance records and report expected and actual system performance.This is an alternative or lead-in to smart infrastructure that allows the organization to build knowledge of system function, and periodically review and plan interventions in operations and maintenance that may lead to better system function.Additional data could sit on the shelf if there is not organizational capacity to review, utilize or react to it.TBD $$$$ medium DevelopmentI.03InfrastructurePeak Flood VisualizationCreate products that visualize and explain the extent of expected flooding during storm events. The various types of products could be paper and/or digital maps, the online water resources web map, Google Earth xml files, or other innovative methods. Creating maps or other visualizations of the potential extent of flooding helps identify the locations throughout the city that are most likely to flood. Additionally, similar to the activity of education and outreach, identifying areas of potential flooding and areas that do not show flooding help the public become aware of instances when the system is not functioning as expected. As the public becomes more aware of flooding throughout the city through these products, the new knowledge can likely motivate more citizens to take part in flood risk reduction efforts when they are aware of the extent of flooding throughout the city. With new flood mapping that is far more extensive than traditional FEMA maps, flood insurance prices and home prices may be affected. Maps alone do not tell the entire story; they cannot explain other flood characteristics such as duration. The public may react to the maps by implementing a fix that doesn't appropriately address the issue, i.e., a resident might plan to place a sandbag wall when the duration of flooding is so long that they might still be exposed to basement flooding from groundwater seepage. Some interpretations of the flood maps from the public may not be accurate. Notes concerning the reliability of the tools must be included (based on a calibrated or uncalibrated model, validated with observed data, etc.). TBD $$$ high Planning
ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.04InfrastructureFlow Path VisualizationCreate visual products that explain the routes that water would flow during storm events. The various types of products could be paper and/or digital maps with flow direction arrows, the online water resources web map, Google Earth xml files, animations or videos, or other innovative methods. Creating maps or other visualizations of flood water flow paths helps identify the locations throughout the city that should remain open (no obstructions, no development, no pedestrians, cars, etc.) during a flood. Additionally, similar to the activity of education and outreach, identifying areas where water should be flowing during flooding events helps the public be aware of times when the system is not functioning as expected. Areas that would be emergency overflow areas (EOFs) during a flood can also be improved prior to flooding so that when activated, they do not erode. With new flood mapping that is far more extensive than traditional FEMA maps, flood insurance prices and home prices may be affected. Maps alone do not tell the entire story; they cannot explain other flood characteristics such as duration. Some reactions to the flood maps from the public may not be entirely appropriate. Notes concerning the reliability of the tools must be included (based on a calibrated or uncalibrated model, validated with observed data, etc.). Homeowners who live adjacent to flow paths and/or emergency over flows (EOFs) may take it into their own hands, on their own property, to alter the terrain so that water does not flow adjacent to their home. This may have other adverse consequences on their own or on other people's homes. TBD $$$ high PlanningI.05InfrastructurePredictive Snowmelt ModelingForecasted/predicted snowmelt modeling to help the city better understand spring flood risk.Predictive snowmelt modeling may help city staff and the community better understand spring flood risk. Forecasted high springtime water levels associated increased flood risk may inform flood risk reduction measures by the city (e.g. preparation for emergency pumping, sandbags, etc.), especially for landlocked basins and basins with restricted outlets.While melt can be estimated, it is uncertain due to duration of melt and any intervening rainfalls. This can lead undue alarm or a 'cry-wolf' affect. This effort may be better at a watershed or metro area level. Alternatives include amplifying general messages from the NWS. Existing water levels and snowpack measurements are required to forecast spring water levels. Collecting this information may take considerable staff time; but without this information, the snowmelt modeling may only provide a limited benefit for restricted outlet and landlocked basins.TBD $$$ low DevelopmentI.06InfrastructureActive Lake Level Monitoring, Smart Infrastructure PilotConstruct water level and discharge measurement sensors at key stormwater management system points (i.e. critical lakes, ponds, streams, and pipes).Current water level measurements can be used to monitor flood exposure, and therefore inform flood management activities (i.e. emergency pumping, sandbagging) as well as optimize operation of dynamic stormwater management systems equipped with adjustable weirs and outlets. Inconsistencies between measured data and flood models has led to identification of stormwater infrastructure no longer functioning as intended (i.e. sediment filled pipes, pipes with frost heaves, sediment filled channels, clogged outlets, etc.). Increasing the number of sensors throughout the city would allow for a more widespread system performance evaluation. Sensors can be difficult to maintain and are frequently damaged by adverse weather conditions and vandalism. Discharge monitoring may lead to identification of Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) issues. Data connections could be considered to creek flow gages maintained by watershed districts.The ability to construct and utilize adjustable weirs based on forecasted data may be limited by the DNR. For these additional measurements to be useful, the existing flood models may need to be refined to provide real-time forecasting abilities.TBD $$$$ high Development
ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.07InfrastructureBetter Maintain Existing SystemUse a proactive asset management strategy to proactively inspect system to 1) identify infrastructure with relatively minor issues that can be readily repaired, and 2) add operations to remove collected debris and sediment from system trash racks, storm sewer pipes, catch basins, and inlets.Repair and replace stormwater infrastructure before minor issues escalate to costly replacements (inspect concrete pipe cracks, CCTV, stormwater pump head tests, ditch/stream thalweg surveys).Additionally, trash racks, culvert inlets, and storm sewer pipes can be blocked by sediment and debris. Poorly performing infrastructure reduces the overall stormwater infrastructure system efficiency and results in additional flooding/drainage issues. Addressing minor issues may provide water quality benefits. Less complaints from residents and more confidence in the stormwater management system.TBD $$$$$ high PlanningI.08InfrastructureControl Sources of ClogsStreet and flow path debris can clogs and plug stormwater infrastructure. Proactive street sweeping and maintenance of inlets and flow paths can reduce debris sources. Trash racks, culvert inlets, and storm sewer pipes can be blocked by sediment and debris, resulting in additional flooding/drainage issues. Even if partially plugged, additional flooding can occur. To address these sources of clogs and debris, the city could evaluate the benefits of implementing/constructing more stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) (i.e. vegetative cover, construction stormwater management, etc.). Addressing the sources of clogs and debris may provide water quality benefits and documentation of these measures may be useful for the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program.Addressing the sources of clogs and debris may also require enforcement, which could adversely impact relationships with private property owners in the city. TBD $$$$$ high PlanningI.09InfrastructureReduce Vulnerability of Sanitary Lift Stations Assess risk, floodproof, raise or relocate sanitary lift stations out of floodplain. For those sanitary lift stations that are low in elevation and within the floodplain, it may be important to elevate the lift station, or move it entirely so that it is no longer in the floodplain.When sanitary lift stations are in the floodplain, they can become unreachable during a significant flood. Additionally, they may become inundated with stormwater. This could cause a problem by allowing stormwater into the sanitary system, overwhelming it with too much flow. Improvements could include raising the electrical and controls systems, floodproofing the hatch, planning for emergency sandbagging and pumping to access, raising a section of the structure, or relocating entirely. Often these features are placed where they are for multiple very good reasons. Moving a lift station is a significant task, especially when space in a well-developed city is hard to come by. And finding another place out of the floodplain that is still as good as the original place (with regard to the other deciding factors) is a difficult task.TBD $$$$$ medium DevelopmentI.10InfrastructureReduce Sanitary System InflowFailures in the sanitary sewer system can cause backup into structures. The long term reduction of sources of infiltration and inflow of surface and groundwaters can incrementally reduce risk.This program is ongoing and associated with the sanitary sewer utility. It is ongoing in standalone projects and the neighborhood and Municipal State Aid (MSA) street reconstruction programs.TBD $$$$$ medium OngoingI.11InfrastructureEvaluate Water Supply System RiskFor those water supply systems (for example, wells) that are low in elevation and within the floodplain, it may be important to elevate the system, or move it entirely so that it is no longer in the floodplain.When water supply systems are in the floodplain, they can become unreachable during a significant flood. Additionally, they may become inundated with stormwater. This could cause a problem by contaminating the water supply system and creating an expensive condition that requires remediation.Often these features are placed where they are for multiple very good reasons. Moving water supply systems is a significant task, especially when space in a well-developed city is hard to come by. And finding another place out of the floodplain that is still as good as the original place (with regard to the other deciding factors) is a difficult task. Often distribution pipes are buried under roads and this would require tearing up roads. TBD $$$$ medium Planning
ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.12InfrastructureCommunicate Risk to Power and Utility IndustryMuch like an emergency action plan, or education and outreach, this activity would be providing the proper information to private utility companies (electric, internet, fiber optic, etc.) of the locations and facilities that are most flood prone. Ideally, the activity that publishes flood extent visualizations could feed into this one. Access to buried utilities could be very limited around flood prone facilities. During flood events, driven often by large storm events, electricity could be down in parts of the city. The private utility companies should be aware of the areas and facilities prone to flooding so that they can plan to reduce the vulnerability of exposed systems, or be better prepared to fix elements of their system during and after a storm. This could become a daunting task every time the modeling is updated and the maps are recreated. Additionally, if there are flooding issues and private utilities are down, the city could be blamed or even sued if the private utilities company feels that the provided information was not accurate enough to help them be successful. TBD $$ medium DevelopmentI.13InfrastructureSearch for System Constraints and Quick Wins The stormwater network involves a complex system of overland flow, stormwater pipes, ditches, ponds, basins, and streams to convey stormwater off of the landscape. Using existing models and infrastructure data, identify the isolated and "easy to solve" choke points that may be limiting the overall capacity of the stormwater management system. Significant reductions in flood risk may be achievable in areas with "easy to solve" stand-alone constraints. These "easy to solve" fixes are likely to be significantly less expensive than other comprehensive system changes.Some of these retrofits are likely to be located within stormwater easements on private property (i.e. backyard flooding problems). Replacement/retrofit of the storm sewer in these areas may be disruptive.(Assume this is a desktop review to find these "easy to solve" retrofits and other activities are the construction/implementation for those locations). The effort can be used to inform future project scope and selection to better target resources to flood risk reduction.TBD $$$ high PlanningI.14InfrastructureBigger Pipes Replace undersized storm sewer in specific flood areas in some areas where there are no/limited downstream impacts associated with larger discharge from bigger pipes. Replace undersized storm sewer in specific flood areas to improve discharge away from the site and reduce flooding for areas without concerns of downstream impacts.In many instances, retrofitting bigger pipes is likely to lead to downstream impacts. Furthermore, other governing agencies, such as watershed management organizations or downstream cities, may limit or refuse additional discharge associated with larger pipes because of downstream impacts. There are limited opportunities for this type of risk transfer after the affects of climate change are factored in to an already constrained system.TBD $$$$$ high DevelopmentI.15InfrastructureNew Storage in ParksRetrofit new storage into or under park spaces.There is limited available, open space for construction of stormwater storage. Utilizing the space in or under park spaces is one of the few remaining places for stormwater storage. Increased stormwater storage will reduce downstream discharge and reduce flood risk (impacts) to downstream properties.There will likely resistance from the community to flooded parks and additional resources may be required to convert the park to a multipurpose land use. The addition of new storage may not be applicable everywhere, including sites with limited infiltration capacity, polluted ground, adjacent to wellheads, or with high bedrock. To use park spaces as flood storage, the city will likely need to educate residents about the multipurpose land use and that the park space will be flooded from time to time. The Park and Recreation Department, Park and Recreation Commission, and park users would be stakeholders.Stormwater reuse for irrigation may be an option is some parks.TBD $$$$$ high Development
ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.16InfrastructureNew Storage in RoadsRetrofit new stormwater storage into or under roads.There is limited available, open green space for construction of stormwater storage (i.e., a stormwater pond). As roads and parking lots are reconstructed, utilize this space in or under parking lots/roads as one of the few remaining places for stormwater storage. Increased stormwater storage can help reduce downstream discharge and reduce flood risk (impacts) to downstream properties.Flooded roads and parking lots may receive pushback from the community and additional resources may be required to educate residents about where to drive/park during wet periods. The addition of new storage may not be applicable everywhere, including sites with limited infiltration capacity, polluted ground, adjacent to wellheads, or with high bedrock. Furthermore, stormwater storage on roadways is limited by requirements for emergency vehicle access. Storage under roadways is also limited by other buried utilities.TBD $$$$$ high DevelopmentI.17InfrastructureDesign to a Future Risk LevelWhen designing a part of the stormwater infrastructure system, we can no longer rely on using design storm events that are based solely on past observed data. We should be considering what climate forecasting models are telling us, and we should be considering the expected life of the infrastructure.A part of the stormwater infrastructure system that is mean to last 5 years and then no longer function does not necessarily need to be overly concerned with what the climate may be 30 years from now. Additionally, the probability of a 1% annual chance event occurring in the next 5 years is only about 5 percent. On the contrary, a part of the system meanT to be functional for the next 50 years should most certainly be considering the changing climate and the predictions of future large storm events. The probability of a 1% annual chance event occurring in the next 50 years is 40 percent. Given that, the chance of a piece of infrastructure being tested by its design storm during its life depends on the expected life of the infrastructure. And the magnitude of the change in the characteristics of the design storm event also depends on the expected life of the infrastructure. This approach will create even more uncertainty in the design process. In all likelihood, ponds, pipes, structures, weirs, pumps, and all other infrastructure will be designed bigger, potentially uncomfortably big and uncomfortably expensive, if the future climate risk is seriously considered in design. TBD $$$$$ medium PlanningI.18InfrastructurePlan Emergency Overflow PathsPlanning emergency flow paths is the approach of understanding the natural emergency overflows, and then planning to create, maintain, and protect those that exist, that safely pass stormwater flow, and therefore protect people and structures from flooding and harm. Having a prepared understanding of the emergency flow paths, rather than surprise of where stormwater ends up flowing, is beneficial for the protection of infrastructure within the city. Additionally, similar to the activity of publishing visualizations of flow paths, this planning can help understand the function of the system and whether or not it is operating appropriately during large flood events. Some residents may not like where emergency overflows are planned, prepared, maintained and protected. This would impact park uses. There are certainly instances of unplanned overflow locations that will surprise the public, and require study and private or public action to limit exposure. There may be pushback from the public in creating or maintaining these features. Outreach and would be necessary to communicate where these areas are and how park uses may be impacted.TBD $$$ high Planning
ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.19InfrastructureBuy Low HomesOffer to purchase homes that are so flood exposed that the cost to protect them from flooding (or significantly reduce their flood exposure) is so high that it is beyond the value of the home. This is much like totaling a car after an accident significant enough that it doesn't even make sense to try and fix the car.The cost of capital projects to protect some homes can be very high, particularly for some homes that are built very low and near bodies of water. The vulnerability can be due to a number of factors and decisions when the home was built. Regardless of the reason for the high vulnerability, the cost to protect homes in this condition is beyond the value of the home itself. Additionally, there may be a cost in emergency rescues for people who live in those homes during flood events. Therefore, buying the home is the most cost-effective solution. Buyouts have been shown to be a cost-saving measure for taxpayers because the damages avoided result in cost savings on both flood insurance and disaster relief.Strategies to reduce vulnerability of these homes to flood can be much more fruitful. Buying out a resident is an emotional process; it may or may not be easy for a person to move, even if it is for their protection and benefit. Often, the cost/benefit for acquisitions makes the most sense on the lowest value homes - it is important to consider offsetting acquisitions with affordable housing options. Removing the vulnerable home will also remove a property/home from the tax base of the city. The loss in tax base may make sense if a 'fix' is considerably more expensive. The city then would have to decide if it is possible to redevelop the site, raise the future structure to limit exposure, or leave it vacant. A vacant site may provide minimal temporary storage. Leaving properties vacant could also increase green space. If state or federal funding is used, it might be deed restricted as open space in perpetuity.TBD $$$$$ low NoneI.20InfrastructureIncentivize Redevelopment of Exposed StructuresThe city can create a program that is available to residents where they can redevelop or reduce the flood risk of their home and be helped financially by the city. A redevelopment project of a home is expensive financially, takes time and effort, can be stressful if the home is inhabitable for a time, and has other factors that make it difficult. Incentives offered by the city can be motivating to a homeowner to help them decide to take action and protect themselves. The incentives can also turn the necessary project from impossible to possible financially. If the voluntary acquisitions are not an option, this approach may be able to reduce flood risk while maintaining, or even improving, the tax base. This process of redevelopment is happening without incentives. Incentives complicate the financial proposition, and involve the city in a process that is atypical and may cause more uncertainty and conflict. Incentives may need to be large to convince a homeowner to take on such a big task. The overall cost of the city depends on the number of homes that they intend to provide aid to, and the number of people willing to join the incentive program. TBD $$$$$ low None
ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.24InfrastructureFlood Storage with Predictive PumpingAdd the innovative technology that monitors current conditions, tracks forecasts, models predicted flooding, and operates pumps to respond, to pump stations on water bodies that could benefit from predictive pumping flood risk reduction strategies.Water bodies with passive outlets can only be drawn down to the outlet's invert, or sometimes below with long periods of evaporation and minimal rain. All of the water in the water body is taking up storage that cannot be filled with incoming stormwater. A water body with a pumped outlet could potentially be drawn down further than normal to create the opportunity for added stormwater storage during a flood event. This is a way to create or provide storage without actually creating additional ponds, underground storage, or other types of storage on the landscape. It's simply a way to better utilize the current volume available for storage within the city. This method (predictive pumping) requires good weather forecasts, calibrated models with proven prediction capabilities. This method will likely be a long process of working with the DNR to develop a plan that improves storage capacity for the protection of the people, but also promotes protection of the other living things in and around the water body. Retrofitting predictive pumping will require more than electronics, wiring, and programming logic. It will likely require modifications to pipes on the suction side of the pump to be able to draw the water body down further. Some lift stations are quite small (fitting in the space of a manhole perhaps) and retrofitting this type of capability may require a small box or building on the surface to house the equipment. TBD $$$$$ high DevelopmentI.25InfrastructureDevelop Capital Project Prioritization FrameworkMaximize the effectiveness of limited funds by being deliberate in examining the vulnerability to floods and the greatest sources of possible disruption. Develop a scoring system using cost benefit analysis to identify and prioritize capital projects. The method used should be objective, transparent, and easy for the public to access and understand.Capital projects don't go through a vetting process. Requests are considered without determining how a specific issue ranks in comparison to others with regard to flood exposure, effectiveness, etc.There is a feeling among the Task Force that 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease'.Some project petitioners may find their project doesn't even register when compared to others. Even among Task Force members this would likely be the case.Judging criteria would have to be determined.TBD $$ medium DevelopmentR.01Regulatory ProgramMore Permit Review and RegulationEngineering review for small additions, accessory structures (sheds), impervious expansions not related to a building (deck/patio/etc.). Permits for grading, new homes, and major remodels with footprint changes all include engineering review for flow paths, grading and drainage. Retaining wall, minor remodels, interior remodels, mechanical, and other permit types are not reviewed.Reviewing more permit types may catch additional issues relating to site-to-site, drainage.This program is staff intensive, and would require additional resources for a fairly limited benefit.TBD $$$ medium DevelopmentR.02Regulatory ProgramRegulate Flow PathsInventory overland flow paths. Consider flow paths in permit review process. Make room for and plan for flow where it occurs by grading or armoring flow paths. Divert or limit unplanned flow paths by requiring engineered grading plans during permit review, when serious issue areas are encountered. Some improvements may not be presently triggering a permit review by the Engineering Department. Staff could investigate and identify issue areas, create a comprehensive list, and require private properties to address the risk in design if at the time a permit is applied for on an issue area.Minor addition to staff review process for permits that are already reviewed by Engineering.Minor addition in permits that would trigger a review by Engineering.May limit property owners ability to implement improvements on their property or increase their costs.Policy or code revision may be necessary.TBD $$$ high Planning
ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryR.03Regulatory ProgramRegulate ImperviousImpervious surfaces generate more runoff. Limiting impervious surfaces by changing ordinance can reduce runoff generation.Analysis in task force effort showed this approach is very limited in terms of effectiveness.Major additional cost to some private parties. Moderate addition to staff review process for permits that are already reviewed by Engineering.Moderate addition in permits that would trigger a review by Engineering.May limit property owners ability to implement improvements on their property or increase their costs.Policy or code revision would be necessary.Would increase green space and may promote more trees. Both cost and benefit is highly variable depending on the level of regulation, and if mitigation is allowed. The costs are born by both the public, and private parties, depending on the level of regulation.TBD $$$$ low DevelopmentR.04Regulatory ProgramRequire Private Flood StorageProjects that trigger the regulatory check would be required to store volume on their site.There is a perception that redevelopment is adding volume and contributing to flood impacts. Analysis in task force effort showed this approach is very limited in terms of effectiveness. Current regulatory program manages risk on a permit-by-permit basis for residential, commercial, and industrial sites. Sites larger than one acre in size are required to control stormwater volume under the Construction Stormwater Permit.Major addition to staff review process for permits that are already reviewed by Engineering. Additional design, coaching, and inspection necessary.Post-construction program with inspections necessary.Maintenance agreements or other legal instrument necessary.Enforcement necessary.Will limit property owners ability to implement improvements on their property and will increase their costs.Policy or code revision would be necessary. There are additional costs that would be born by private parties that is not included in the costs score.TBD $$$$ low NoneR.05Regulatory ProgramRegulate Development to a Higher Flood StandardLevel of protection is currently the 1% annual chance (100-year) storm. This would be more restrictive, applying standards for a larger storm event such as the 0.2% annual chance (500-year) storm. (i.e. higher lowest floors and potentially further setback from water).Climate change is a main driver of increased flooding. Future predictions are that flood events will be larger and more frequent. Minor addition to staff review process for permits that are already reviewed by Engineering.Minor addition in permits that would trigger a review by Engineering.May limit property owners ability to implement improvements on their property or increase their costs.Policy or code revision will be necessary.TBD $$ low Development
ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryR.06Regulatory ProgramTier Stormwater Utility Fee Based on Impervious CoverHigh impervious sites pay more. Model site runoff generation and rework the land use x acreage calculations to consider specific impervious of the individual site.Make the polluter pay' concept. Applying penalties for adding impervious may deter those from implementing projects. Staff intensive. Potential for a lot of negotiating back and forth about impervious cover. Would need to consider how residential stormwater BMPs like raingardens, landscaping, permeable pavements, and rain barrels fit it. May require staff intensive site inspections/verifications and annual or biannual updates. Some owners may be willing to 'pay their way out' to still be able to complete their project.TBD $$$ low DevelopmentR.07Regulatory ProgramParticipate in the Community Rating SystemThe City of Edina participates in the National Flood Insurance Program.The National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements.As a result, flood insurance premium rates are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from the community actions.Potential cost savings for those holding policies. Number of policies and staff time required will determine if participation is cost-effective.TBD $$ low PlanningR.08Regulatory ProgramUpdate Plans with Flood RiskRoll the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy and Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan amendment into the Comprehensive Plan with a major amendment.Promote a citywide vision for flood risk reduction. Need to collaborate with other comp plans and groups such as the Southdale work group and other small area plans.TBD $$$ low PlanningO.01Outreach and EngagementPromote Awareness of Stormwater SystemEducation and outreach to community on the function and importance of the stormwater management system.An education and outreach program will help the community understand the function and importance of the stormwater management system and its role to minimize flooding and manage water quality. Education may improve flooding issues (e.g. improved participation in Adopt-a-Drain), identify stormwater infrastructure that is no longer functioning as designed, and help residents understand multipurpose land use (e.g. flooded parks and soccer fields).Additional understanding of flood risk has the potential to impact property values may reduce some property values. Synergy with MS4 required community education/outreach may limit additional city resources required. Education of the community may also improve water quality (reducing illicit dumping, salt usage, etc.). Staff would utilize customer service standards of integrity, quality, and service to assist residents in accessing available resources.TBD $$ low Planning
ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryO.02Outreach and EngagementDevelop and Communicate Dynamic Flood Threat IndicatorForecast flood threat for design storms and also scenarios such as ice jams, saturated conditions, and snow melt. Host the dynamic indicator online.Perception of flood threat determines action. Would require moderate maintenance effort.Groundwater level and extent is highly uncertain and non-continuous. May provide false sense of security. TBD $$$ low DevelopmentO.03Outreach and EngagementDevelop Groundwater Level ViewerUsers can view relative groundwater level with year over year changes.Flooding risk may increase if shallow groundwater is high and stormwater infiltration is limited.May provide false sense of comfort. Groundwater elevations and extent is extremely variable spatially and temporally. Might be difficult to relate relative groundwater level to an individual basement elevation. Money may be better spent encouraging those at greatest risk to invest in draintile and sump pump systems instead.TBD $$ low PlanningO.04Outreach and EngagementPromote WaterAlert (USGS) SubscriptionsAnyone can sign up for text alerts for available United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge sites.Program already operating. Would be low cost/energy to implement. Changes can be viewed in nearly real-time. Experience may help customers to benchmark their own risk on the hydrograph (water elevation graph).May provide false sense of comfort. Urban streams tend to be flashy (i.e., flow and elevation can increase rapidly).Can add to website Frequently Asked Questions.TBD $ low Quick WinO.05Outreach and EngagementDevelop a 'What is My Flood Risk?" MapComplementary to existing water resources map with the goal of communicating flood risk clearly.Better communication of flood risk. Understanding circumstance is first step in addressing vulnerability and exposure.Concern over impact on property values as community becomes more flood aware.It may be difficult to show the depth of flooding on the map - some may be an inch whereas others may be more than a foot.Some assumptions are made about topography - more detailed surveys on a site by site basis could show structures higher or lower than the model and aerial photo suggest.Concern about accuracy and completeness. Feedback from those that use the map is critical.TBD $$$ high Quick WinO.06Outreach and EngagementPromote Sandbag ServiceCreate series of videos to communicate how to make a request for sandbags and how to build a sandbag wall. Train staff how to receive requests and provide assistance over the phone.Most are unaware of the service. Those that are aware highly value the service.Some property owners and renters may have limited ability to place their own sandbags. Unclear what service provider might do this type of work if it were hired out.Disposal of sandbags post-event.Staff would need to be trained on how to receive requests and provide assistance over the phone.TBD $$ high Quick Win
ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryO.07Outreach and EngagementDevelop Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)Available on the City website. A resource for reception staff to direct customers to.Would help to debunk myths. Help people self-serve the information. More immediate access to information versus calling a staff person, although always an option.Occasional review and minor edits would be needed. Need to inform staff that the resource is available to share with customers. Standard customer service standards of integrity, quality, and service apply.TBD $$ high Quick WinO.08Outreach and EngagementDevelop Flood Intervention Fact SheetsDevelop Fact Sheets for common interventions that property owners and renters could implement to reduce their exposure and vulnerability to flooding. Interventions may be pre, mid, or post storm. Fact sheets would provide a description, general cost information, and appropriate applications. Examples include floodproofing, elevating utilities, flood insurance, sanitary backflow prevention, sandbagging, among others. Some feedback suggests that the interactive water resources map in its current form requires technical expertise to interpret. Changes to the interactive map would make the flood risk information more accessible.A potential barrier to reducing one’s own exposure to flooding may be their perceived ability (knowledge, skills, and resources) to take action. Other barriers, such as cost may limit a property owner or renter's ability to implement.Renters may have limited ability to implement strategies.Considerations ought to be made for all residential structures, not just single dwelling units.Fact sheets may be used by sellers to show how structures are less exposed/vulnerable.TBD $$$ medium Quick WinO.09Outreach and EngagementProvide Stormwater Technical Assistance Grant ProgramPilot year completed in 2019. Competitive grants help pay for technical evaluation of an issue affecting a resident’s property. A report documents understanding of the problem and lays out a potential plan that could then be implemented by the property owner, at their cost. Some technical assistance can increase the perceived ability (expertise, knowledge, resources) for an individual to help themselves. Case studies may be useful to others in similar situations.Grant covers design, up to a cap. Grant does not cover implementation.Reformat to cover more, from 1:1 to presentation and future design consultations.This could be like a mini flood summit.$20,000/yr existing funding.Would need to ensure the program is attractive to applicants.TBD $$$ medium Quick WinO.10Outreach and EngagementHost Flood SummitDirect mail invitations to at-risk properties. Get all stakeholders together including representatives from neighborhoods, insurance, emergency service professionals, county, police and fire, landscapers, home service providers, MN DNR, engagement professionals, decision-makers, Watershed Districts, infrastructure experts, neighboring cities. All share and discuss roles and approaches for a changing climate with increasing flood risk.Incorporates various approaches involved in reducing exposure, increasing resilience to changing risks, transformation, reducing vulnerability, transferring and sharing risks, and preparing, responding, and recovering.Would require major staff effort and coordination of other parties. Would be a pilot. Unaware of a local model to follow or existing process/program to leverage.Consider equity when selecting a pilot community.TBD $$$ medium Development
ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryO.11Outreach and EngagementEngage with Stakeholders at Time of Capital InvestmentIncorporate into public improvements such as street reconstruction and park improvement projects. Develop custom engagement plans as appropriate.Incorporate into public improvements such as street reconstruction and park improvement projects. Develop custom engagement plans as appropriate.Opportunities to address problem areas may lie outside of the public improvement project boundaries.Some solutions may require private property cooperation in the form of easements, agreements, and assessments.This is a long term strategy driven by private and public investment.TBD $$ medium DevelopmentO.12Outreach and EngagementEngage with Realtors, Developers, and Insurance Agents on Local Flood RiskHost a class to inform realtors, developers, and insurance agents on local flood risk. Presentation materials could be hosted online or made into a brief video.As more stakeholders understand flood risk, there will likely be a market effect.As more stakeholders understand flood risk, there may be a market effect.Desire for residents and property owners to be engaged first.Information must be accurate, current, and easy to understand.TBD $ medium DevelopmentE.01Emergency ServicesDevelop Local Flooding Emergency Response PlanSource flood threat information and predict flood threat.Define affected areas/parties and frontline communities.Develop warning system.Develop emergency response plan.Establish public information program.Develop maintenance and improvement program.Coordinate with other departments/agencies.A hazard response plan exists for major disasters only.Customers expect a higher level of service and response than the current major disaster response plan provides.The perceived flood threat likely influences property owner/renter behavior.The plan should consider frontline communities and vulnerability. Developing a plan based on historical service requests alone is not an equitable approach.This strategy doesn't effect the flood, but instead effects the preparation for and recovery after a disaster. Damages may be reduced and a return to normalcy may happen more rapidly.Would require setting a trigger condition.Opportunity to consider better protections for frontline communities.TBD $$$ medium PlanningE.02Emergency ServicesDefine and Communicate the Available ServicesInfo about what the City can and can’t do about active flooding; explanation of how the City prioritizes flood-related requests for service posted to City website. Call center training and emergency response plan inclusion. There is a gap between the status quo service level and customer expectations. Better defining available services may motivate property owners and renters to take actions to reduce their own exposure.Potential equity disparity if service delivery is driven by requests for service only. Have a plan for engaging with frontline communities, reaching out rather than only waiting for a request for service.TBD $$ medium Quick Win
Morningside
Country Club WhiteOaks
StrachauerPark
Pamela Park
Golf TerraceHeights
Concord
Arden Park
MinnehahaWoods
Chowen Park
50th andFrance
Sunnyslope
Creek Knoll
SouthdaleLake Cornelia
SouthCornelia
Lake Edina
Pentagon Park
Parklawn
CentennialLakes
Promenade
Edinborough
Indian Hills
Dewey Hill
The Heights
Creek Valley
BrookviewHeights
NormandalePark
Cahill
ProspectKnolls
Braemar Hills
Indian Trails
ParkwoodKnolls
Bredesen Park
Countryside
Birchcrest
Melody Lake
Grandview
Todd ParkInterlachenPark
Presidents
HighlandsFox Meadow
HilldaleRolling Green
¯0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.20.15 Miles
City of EdinaFlood Project Area Heat Map
Edina Neighborhoods
Road Centerlines
Flood Risk Reduction Strategy –Report
Clean Water Strategy –Policy Development
City Council Work Session
August 3, 2022
Ross Bintner –Engineering Services Manager
Jessica Wilson –Water Resources Manager
1.Overview of utility
2.Review & next Steps
for two core services
EdinaMN.gov 2
Surface Water Utility
Local Comprehensive
Plan
Water Resources
Chapter
Water Supply Plan
Wastewater Plans
Local Water Plan
(Comprehensive Water
Resources Management
Plan)
www.EdinaMN.gov 3
Flood Risk Reduction Strategy and Clean Water
Strategy
•Identify focus geographies (Morningside, Cornelia)
•Engage stakeholders
•Define the service target
•Evaluate strategies (infrastructure, programs, O&M)
•Implement (through capital investment, partnerships,
private redevelopment, risk management)
www.EdinaMN.gov 4
Strategy Implementation
We work with the community to comprehensively reduce flood risk;
•INFRASTRUCTURE: We will renew our infrastructure and operate it to reduce
risk. We will plan public streets and parks to accept and transmit flood waters to
reduce the risk and disruption of related city services.
•REGULATION: We acknowledge competing demands of land use and addressing
drainage, groundwater and surface water issues. We help people solve issues
without harming another.
•OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT: We make flood information available and
give people tools for flood resilience.
•EMERGENCY SERVICES: We help people prepare for floods, remove people
from harm during floods, and recover after floods.
EdinaMN.gov 5
Strategy
How we view risk
Drivers of increasing flood risk
Areas of work
EdinaMN.gov 6
Framework
Infrastructure Regulation Outreach &
Engagement
Emergency
Services
Surface water
Groundwater
Sanitary backflow
Pathways to structural flood risk
EdinaMN.gov 7
(1% probability event)
•12547 single family
•~6-10% Direct exposure
•~3-7% Sanitary Backflow*
•~12-20% Groundwater*
* If approximate ratios follow
Morningside area and study
methodology
EdinaMN.gov 8
Community flood exposure
Outreach and Engagement
•Maps, Fact-Sheets, Technical Support
•2D modeling
Regulation
•Impervious Surface Ordinance
•Redevelopment / Rebuilds
Infrastructure
•MFIP, Recon Process, +O&M staff
EdinaMN.gov 9
Two -year review of risk reduction
Morningside Neighborhood Flooding*
Before MFIP
*Flood inundation reflects flooding
predicted for a 1%-annual-chance (100-
yr) flood event
Weber Pond
*Flood inundation reflects flooding
predicted for a 1%-annual-chance (100-
yr) flood event
Weber Pond
Morningside Neighborhood Flooding*
After MFIP
EdinaMN.gov 12
FRRS Next Steps
•August 20, 2022 CC meeting: Water
Resources Management Plan major
amendment, start agency review
•(legal/policy review, infrastructure
define, natural systems defined)
•August 20, 2022 CC Work session:
utility rates and finance
•Sept-Dec 2022: Capital Improvement
Plan
•2023 Staff Workplans: Emergency
Services planning, risk review
EdinaMN.gov 13
FRRS Next Steps
•Pace of work review with utility rate study
•opportunity limited with road projects
•citywide opportunities with top value
EdinaMN.gov 14
Flood Service Level -Discussion
Clean Water Strategy
•Focus on Lake Cornelia.
•The 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan had
us committed to start in 2020.
•We’ve just completed phase I and wish to get some policy direction
as we embark on phase 2.
EdinaMN.gov 15
Clean Water Strategy -Phase 1
•We are in-line with peer communities, slightly above and slightly
below in some areas.
•Clean water service level goals and priorities are not well defined.
•Where goals and priorities are defined, they are often based on the
regulatory minimum.
•The regulatory minimum requires cities achieve checklist activities
which are weakly tied to outcomes at the lake.
•The regulatory paradigm is such that we can continue to have water
resources that fail to meet clean water standards, and in some ways
actually work against clean water, and still meet the rules.
EdinaMN.gov 16
•Poor water quality
•Infested with invasive curlyleaf
pondweed
•Infested with goldfish
Lake Cornelia
EdinaMN.gov 17
•2022
•2021
•2020
•2016
EdinaMN.gov 18
Shallow Lake Ecology
•Shallow lakes behave differently than deep lakes
•All lakes in Edina are shallow
•Shallow lakes can exist in two states –the clear water state or the
turbid water state
•Lakes tend to stay in one state or the other
•It takes a big change for the lake to switch from one state to the
other
EdinaMN.gov 19
The Brutal Reality
EdinaMN.gov 20
Policy Option 1: Clear Water
•Native rooted, floating, and emergent aquatic vegetation are encouraged. We
recognize that shallow lakes have beneficial uses beyond boating and swimming, to
include wildlife habitat and aesthetic views.
•We invest in preventing pollution, mitigating pollution, and restoring ecological
processes.
•We focus on outcomes at the lake.
•This policy option is supported by staff.
EdinaMN.gov 21
Policy Option 2: Turbid Water
•We do routine and non-specific destruction of all aquatic vegetation. Boating and
swimming are priority uses. The fishery suffers from low dissolved oxygen, lack of food,
and lack of habitat. We add copper sulfate to knock algae back for about two weeks at
a time –a practice that continues forever.
•We continue the status quo activities and pace of achievement stipulated by
regulators for preventing pollution and mitigating pollution. Though this meets the
regulatory requirements for activity, this pace puts us on a generational (or never)
timeframe for reducing pollutant loading enough to achieve a clean lake outcome.
•Water quality continues to degrade. Algal blooms become more frequent including
potential Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). We never achieve a clean water outcome.
EdinaMN.gov 22
Policy Option 3: The Compromise
•We choose to make both clean water and recreation the priority. However, Mother
Nature doesn’t negotiate, and we continue to fail at both. Recall the brutal reality of
the dichotomy of choices. The outcome at the lake is a turbid water state. While this
doesn’t result in a clean water outcome, it is an option that we could pursue and still
meet the regulatory minimum requirements, which only requires us to do a little bit
more activity each year.
EdinaMN.gov 23
Lake and Pond Policy
•Under current policy, residents can make requests for aquatic vegetation
management (algae and submerged plants). Eligible city-coordinated and/or
city-funded activities are determined based on established criteria.
•Shallow lake management has evolved, new challenges with HABs, and
long-term use of dye and copper treatments for algae control has been
called into question.
•Lake and Pond management could look more like, more capital investment
in pollution prevention (sweeping, for example), pollution mitigation
(infrastructure, for example), and restoration of ecological processes (alum
treatments, invasive curlyleaf pondweed control, sediment-Phosphorus
control, for example).
EdinaMN.gov 24
Lake Cornelia
EdinaMN.gov 25
How do we engage people on this
topic?
•Residents often want the best of both worlds (dichotomy of
choices).
•The minimum regulatory compliance and ‘clean water/recreation
compromise’ approaches have failed spectacularly when it comes to
outcomes at the lake.
•Staff recommends moving into phase II, then getting reactions from
the public on a draft vision and roadmap for closing the clean water
gap.
EdinaMN.gov 26
Phase 2 Scope
•Phase II of City’s clean water strategy is currently intended to
outline the philosophy and vision of the City’s Clean Water Strategy
and lay out options to close the gaps identified in the phase I memo
and/or improve the level of service. Reprioritization and
establishment of goals developed during phase II will help integrate
those goals into the existing programs to best align services and
available funding to protect and improve surface water.
•A scope for phase II will be brought for Council’s consideration in
fall 2022.
EdinaMN.gov 27
Key Questions
•Comments on policy considerations? Outcomes? Principles?
•Comments on priority waterbodies and pollutants? Can we have
tiered goals based on waterbody characteristics? Lake Cornelia as a
focus area might define top-end of level of effort. What other
waterbodies would belong in this tier versus a lower tier?
•What are you hearing from people about water resources
management? What do you think we need?
•What do you need to know to decide?
•What other questions should we answer with phase II scope?
EdinaMN.gov 28
Date: August 3, 2022 Agenda Item #: IV.
To:Mayor and City Council Item Type:
Other
From:Jessica V. Wilson, CFM, Water Resources Manager
Item Activity:
Subject:Clean Water Strategy Discussion, Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
No Action Requested:
Review attached report.
INTRODUCTION:
Staff will present early ideas for development of a Clean Water Strategy.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Clean Water Strategy Report
Lake Cornelia Summary Sheet
Phase 1 Memo
Staff Presentation
August 3rd, 2022
CITY COUNCIL
Jessica Wilson, CFM, Water Resources Manager
Clean Water Strategy - Report
Information / Background:
We are just getting started on the Clean Water Strategy that we had committed to in the 2018
Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. We are behind schedule - we had originally committed
to doing the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy in 2019 and the Clean Water Strategy in 2020.
We are at the beginning of this process in establishing the baseline condition of clean water work in Edina
and seeking feedback from City Council on policy considerations. The current Comprehensive Water
Resources Management Plan lacks a clear goal for waterbodies and fails to outline a roadmap for meaningful
actions that could lead to clean water outcomes, instead focusing narrowly on activities that check the
boxes for our regulatory agencies.
Clean surface water is not ‘utility’ that rings the phones and needs a different kind of assurance mechanism.
Our work is an add-on to land planning, development, and road or utility projects and it lacks focus. Our
industry is not action and outcome oriented and there is much uncertainty in meeting regulatory clean-
water goals not to mention customer expectations around clean water in any reasonable timeframe.
We’ve completed phase 1, summarized below. We’re seeking Council’s direction on policy paths and
priorities. We intend to come back with a phase II scope which should start to build the vision that the City
wants to pursue with a focus on intended outcomes.
Recent Work - Phase 1 Report
The scope of phase 1 was to identify the goals and expectations of the City’s current program in comparison
to what the City is currently accomplishing. Questions asked during this phase include:
What are the City’s current priorities concerning clean (surface) water?
What is the City’s current program accomplishing, and what level of service is the City achieving?
What are others doing to deliver clean surface water?
STAFF REPORT Page 2
We also created summary sheets for 13 lakes and clean water topic fact sheets to highlight the history and
current state of water and clean water activities within the City. The Lake Cornelia summary sheet is
provided.
We are at-peer level in our work with some areas above and below peer. A copy of the phase 1 memo is
provided. Lake summary sheets can be accessed from the Water Resources library at
https://www.edinamn.gov/1334/Water-Resources
Phase II of City’s clean water strategy is currently intended to outline the philosophy and vision of the
City’s Clean Water Strategy and lay out options to close the gaps identified in the phase I memo and/or
improve the level of service. Reprioritization and establishment of goals developed during phase II will
help integrate those goals into the existing programs to best align services and available funding to protect
and improve surface water. A scope for phase II will be brought for Council’s consideration in fall 2022.
Policy Options
All lakes and ponds in Edina are considered shallow. The deepest lake, Mirror Lake, is 15 ft deep at its
maximum depth.
Shallow lakes behave differently than deep lakes. Shallow lakes can exist in two states – the clear water state
or the turbid water state. Lakes tend to stay in one state or another. It takes a big change for the lake to
switch from one state to the other. I often compare this to where a boulder is along a hill. The turbid state
is the boulder at the bottom of the hill, and the clear water state is the boulder at the top of the hill.
There are three potential policy options.
Policy Option 1: Clear Water We make clean water the priority. Native rooted, floating, and emergent aquatic vegetation are encouraged.
We recognize that shallow lakes have beneficial uses beyond boating and swimming, to include wildlife
habitat and aesthetic views. Native plants act as nutrient sinks, making them less available for algae to grow.
As we approach clean water goals, algal blooms are less frequent, and water is more transparent. As
conditions improve, chemical algal treatments may no longer warranted. Submerged aquatic vegetation is
thick, covering the entire littoral area of the waterbody, and is encouraged. Boating and swimming are
inhibited by dense vegetation. Submerged aquatic plant destruction is only completed for non-native species
and where a measurable water quality benefit can be realized (curly leaf pondweed, for example). This policy
option is supported by staff.
The boulder is at the top of the hill. It takes a lot of effort to get it to the top of the hill. Once there, it takes
sustained care to keep it there and takes a lot of work to get it back there if it rolls down the hill.
Policy Option 2: Turbid Water
We do routine and non-specific destruction of all aquatic vegetation. No plants make for easy paddling and
there’s no risk of your foot touching lake ‘weeds’. Boating and swimming are priority uses. The fishery
suffers from low dissolved oxygen, lack of food, and lack of habitat. Water quality continues to degrade, and
we never reach clean water goals as defined and described by the MPCA and federal Clean Water Act. Algal
blooms become more frequent including potential Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). We add copper sulfate to
knock algae back for about two weeks at a time – a practice that continues forever.
STAFF REPORT Page 3
The boulder is at the bottom of the hill. Our past failures have gotten us down here. It’s easy to stay here.
Significant effort is needed to roll the boulder back to the top of the hill.
Policy Option 3: The Compromise
We choose to make both clean water and recreation the priority. However, Mother Nature doesn’t
negotiate, and we continue to fail at both. We invest resources in battling natural ecological processes.
Boats can freely move through the water, uninhibited by vegetation. The public is advised to avoid contact
with the water. Only the lowest quality aquatic animals are found. Swimming is uncommon as algal blooms
become more frequent including potential HABs. We never meet regulatory clean water goals, nor do we
meet recreation expectations.
The boulder is being held somewhere in the middle. It’s very hard to hold here – recall that lakes tend to
exist in one of two states, a clear water state or a turbid water state.
Minnesotans take great pride in our more than 10,000 lakes and it’s common for people to want all lakes to
be all things – a pristine clear water lake like on the north shore which they can boat and swim in. Residents
care deeply about their waterbodies. How do we get people up to speed and channel their energy and
enthusiasm into actions that will help us achieve clean water? There are industries for aquatic vegetation
destruction and aeration. These products and services are continually sold to shallow lake residents with the
promise that they will ‘clean up’ their lake when at best they do nothing and at worst they work against
clean water goals.
The paradox of shallow lakes is that in order to have a clean and healthy lake, we must encourage the
shallow lake ecology which makes it unsuitable for most recreation and challenges our notion of a
conventional lake aesthetic. Recreation and clean water services can directly compete with each other.
Managers cannot realistically deliver a shallow lake with a sandy bottom, no plants, and clear water.
Which waterbodies do we prioritize?
The status quo is to treat all waterbodies the same. There are hundreds of small waterbodies in Edina, many
less than a couple acres in size. When resources are spread too thin, it’s difficult to make the investments
that are necessary to move a lake from a turbid state to a clean water state. It takes sustained effort and
significant resources to restore and then protect a waterbody. We propose prioritizing waterbodies so that
we can focus resources on meaningful activities to achieve clean water outcomes. This means nonpriority
waterbodies would receive a lower tier of service.
There are many ways to categorize and sort waterbodies.
Staff proposes prioritizing the following waterbodies based on size, Impaired Waters List status, poor water
quality, and existing monitoring data and lake studies.
Lake Cornelia (on Impaired Waters List)
Lake Edina (on Impaired Waters List)
Arrowhead Lake
Indianhead Lake
Mirror Lake
STAFF REPORT Page 4
The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District completed a lake study on Lake Cornelia and Lake Edina in 2019,
completed a draft lake study for Arrowhead and Indianhead Lakes in 2022 and are just starting a lake study
for Mirror Lake.
What pollutants do we prioritize?
Eutrophication is the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients that
stimulate the growth of aquatic plants (including algae) usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen.
Chloride pollution is a growing problem in Minnesota. The primary source in waterbodies in Edina is from
deicing salts applied to roads, sidewalks, and parking lots for winter maintenance. Excess chloride makes
water more saline and can limit the ability for freshwater plants and animals to survive and reproduce.
Sediment is material that broken down by processes of weathering and erosion and is subsequently
transported to and settles to the bottom of a waterbody. Sediment can come from soil erosion or
decomposition of plants and animals. The most common source in urban settings is from construction
activities. Sediment clogs waterways and stormwater systems, creates cloudy water, and can also transport
nutrients.
Staff proposes focusing clean water outcomes on managing the following pollutants.
Limiting Nutrients (phosphorus and/or nitrogen)
Chloride
Sediment
How do we achieve clean water?
Focus on desired outcomes. Adopt these three clean water principles.
Prevent pollution
Source control. Reduce inputs. Reduce pollutants including chloride, fertilizer, pesticides (including
copper sulfate). Encourage smart residential lawn care.
Keep it clean. Increase street sweeping. Regulate erosion and sediment control for construction
activities. Encourage smart residential lawn care. Promote the adopt-a-drain program.
Mitigate pollution
Infrastructure. Assets are both public and private. Asset types include conveyance, structural, ponds
(subset of structural), and private/non-city owned. Maintain/retrofit what we already have. Capture
and treat most polluted water. Optimize operations and maintenance to get the most benefit.
Implement smart technology to get additional benefit for minimal cost.
Illicit discharge detection and elimination. Identify and mitigate illicit discharges to the storm sewer
system and waterbodies.
Restore ecological processes
Aquatic plants. Restore ecological processes to reap ecosystem benefits (plants provide a sink for
nutrients, oxygenation, bottom stabilizer, wildlife refuge). Control invasive curlyleaf pondweed.
STAFF REPORT Page 5
Control lake sediment phosphorus source. Utilize alum and iron to reduce bioavailable nutrients.
Implement oxygenation to control sediment phosphorus release.
Control invasive fish. Remove invasive rough fish. Enhance with native fish.
Land Management (natural areas restoration). Restore natural areas (Syncs with 2015 Parks Strategic
Plan and 2021 Climate Action Plan).
Though not explicit principles for water resources management, engagement, monitoring and
studying/understanding, communication, regulation, and climate action, among others, are threaded in on a
more tactical level.
Phase II of City’s clean water strategy is currently intended to outline the philosophy and vision of the
City’s Clean Water Strategy and lay out options to close the gaps identified in the phase I memo and/or
improve the level of service. Reprioritization and establishment of goals developed during phase II will
help integrate those goals into the existing programs to best align services and available funding to protect
and improve surface water. A scope for phase II will be brought for Council’s consideration in fall 2022.
Phase II will also include a public participation plan to describe how we intend to get reactions from the
public about the forthcoming Clean Water Strategy.
Potential next steps
The reality is that this will take a long time. We’ve been polluting and mismanaging water resources for
decades. Clean up efforts will take a long-term commitment. We don’t know what success looks like yet.
There is room for growth in all principles/activities listed above. We have yet to determine how big the gaps
are, which activities are the most beneficial, the time/cost it would take to close the gap. Phase II could
establish goals based on desired surface water outcomes, determine gaps in implementing clean water
principles for priority waterbodies/pollutants, establish the investment in capital and time necessary to close
the gaps, and estimate the benefit.
We intend to bring a phase II scope for council consideration in fall 2022.
Key questions
Staff includes the following key questions for consideration during the August 3 work session.
Comments on policy considerations? Outcomes? Principles?
Comments on priority waterbodies and pollutants? Can we have tiered goals based on waterbody
characteristics? Lake Cornelia as a focus area might define top-end of level of effort. What other
waterbodies would belong in this tier versus a lower tier?
What are you hearing from people about water resources management? What do you think we
need?
What do you need to know to decide?
What other questions should we answer with phase II scope?
STAFF REPORT Page 6
Links to past conversations on this topic
March 5, 2019 – Work Session – Water Resources Management – Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk
Reduction Strategy, Lake Cornelia Clean Water Strategy, and Chloride Pollution Prevention
September 5, 2018 – Adoption of 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
April 3, 2018 – Work Session – Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan – Implementation
Discussion
January 17, 2018 – Authorize Staff to Submit Draft Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan for
Agency Review
November 21, 2017 – Work Session – Draft 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
Presentation for Review and Comment
common carp
(invasive)
A feasibility study is completed and recommends
a variety of management activities, including alum
treatment, aeration, sh management, and
stormwater ltration.
History of Lake Cornelia
Lake Cornelia is a shallow lake with northern and
southern basins connected by storm pipes.
1960s1930s 2021
North Lake Cornelia
100
62
Stormwater runoff
received from
112-acre area.
100
62
Southdale Shopping Center Southdale Shopping Center
1898
Lake Cornelia appears on
Edina’s plat map as part of
a natural wetland.
1978
The MN DNR issues a permit for
the control of submerged aquatic
plants. These efforts continue
until 2015, when Edina's Lake and
Pond policy is implemented.
1929-1941
With the arrival of
farmers, area wetlands
are drained. Lake
Cornelia appears dry
at times due to
drought conditions.
2016, 2020, 2021
NMCWD monitors algal levels within the lake and
observes high levels of blue-green algae. Blue-green algae
can produce toxins that may irritate the skin or be harmful
if ingested or inhaled. NMCWD and the City issue public
alerts to stay out of the water until conditions improve.
2018
Based on observed phosphorus concentrations,
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency lists South
Cornelia as impaired due to excessive nutrients.
2020
Agencies study the
lake to determine the
sources of pollution
and assign
responsibility for
water quality
improvements. This is
a called a Total
Maximum Daily Load
study, required by the
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Lake Cornelia
Algae Level
(Chlorophyll-a)
Water
Clarity
Total Phosphorous
Levels
Watershed District: Nine Mile Creek Public water ID: 27002800
2010
Water quality
study completed
by NMCWD
2019
Lake study updated
2015-2016
Lake Cornelia Lake
Group formed
Lake Management
Learn more about these strategies at ninemilecreek.org
Aquatic Plants
Diverse aquatic vegetation is critical to the health of
Edina lakes—providing food and shelter for sh and
waterfowl and improving water quality. Invasive plant
species within the lake are shown above.
Curly-leaf pondweed further contributes to the lake’s
problems. The invasive, non-native aquatic plant grows
under the ice during the winter and in early spring, often
crowding out native species. It dies in late June and early
July, much earlier than other native species. As curly-leaf
pondweed decays, phosphorus is released into the water,
fueling algal production.
Eurasian watermilfoil is a rooted, submerged aquatic
plant, and purple loosestrife is a colorful, perennial
wetland plant. Both species outcompete native plants,
and neither provides suitable shelter, food, or nesting
habitat for native animals.
Water LevelsWater Quality
Water quality data for six of the years between 2013
and 2020 is available from the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District and the Metropolitan Council's
Citizen-Assisted Monitoring Program. Summer-average
highs and lows of water quality parameters over those
years are provided above.
Lake Cornelia has poor water quality. Both basins are
on Minnesota’s impaired waters list for excess
nutrients. The poor water quality is primarily due to
excess phosphorus in the lake. The phosphorus comes
from many sources, including stormwater runoff,
decaying plants, and nutrient-rich sediments.
Bottom-feeding sh also stir up this sediment,
releasing phosphorus and creating murky water.
2021
Construction of the
Rosland Park stormwater
ltration system.
The project removes
phosphorus from
watershed runoff.
2020
South Cornelia Buffer Restoration: Project to restore the
shoreline and plant a buffer of native plants completed.
May 2020
Alum Treatment:
An in-lake alum
treatment is
performed to control
phosphorus release
from lake-bottom
sediments.
2017
Curly-leaf pondweed treatments:
Beginning of annual spring herbicide
treatments to control curly-leaf
pondweed. Reducing curly-leaf
pondweed can improve the native
aquatic plant communities and reduce
phosphorus levels.
2021
Fish Management:
Continued goldsh
and carp studies
evaluate management
methods to minimize
lake sediment
disturbance.
2008
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency adds
North Lake Cornelia to a national inventory of
waterbodies that are not meeting water quality
goals because of high phosphorus levels.
Recent water quality data
North
Cornelia
South
Cornelia
1842 Mckinley Street NE
Denotes current Lake Cornelia drainage area;
historical drainage areas may have varied
1950s
Suburban growth gives
rise to Southdale
shopping center, the
expansion of highways,
and more impervious
areas. Storm sewer
drainage systems alter
the watershed, bringing
more runoff and
pollutants to the
shallow lake.
1960s
The Edina City Manager receives a
recommendation from City staff to
control "weeds" in Lake Cornelia.
black crappie
green sunsh
Stormwater runoff
received from
863-acre area
19 acres
(surface area)
31 acres
(surface area)Amenities:A pavilion, a picnic shelter, tables, grills, a 1.1-mile paved path, and a shing
pier. Rosland Park, adjacent to Lake Cornelia, has baseball elds,
a disc golf course, a playground, pickleball courts, and tennis courts.
There are no public swimming beaches at Lake Cornelia.
Non-motorized boats only.
bluegill sunsh
goldsh
(invasive)yellow perch
Native and invasive
sh population:
Other species present: golden
shiner, pumpkinseed
Lowest
recorded
water level
858.4 ft
(Nov. 30, 2012)
Highest
recorded
water level
862.3 ft
(Apr. 30, 2014)
Lowest
recorded
water level
858.1 ft
(Nov. 30, 2012)
Highest
recorded
water level
859.6 ft
(Jun. 29, 2020)
North basin
3 ft Mean
7 ftMax
5 5
44 4
ftMin
197
174
72
84 97
20 g/L
State goalsNorthSouth
(South’s highest
recorded clarity)
(North’s highest
recorded clarity)
(North &
South’s lowest
recorded clarity)
97
36
How You Can Help
Steps that you can take to
help Lake Cornelia include:
South basin
4 ft Mean
8 ftMax
ftMin
7 7
66 6
55
hybird sunsh
black bullhead
As part of Minnesota DNR’s Fishing in the
Neighborhoods (FiN) program, the lake is stocked
with 120 adult bluegill sunsh to provide
shore-shing opportunities in metropolitan areas.
60 g/L
NMCWD = Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
Curly-leaf pondweed
Purple
loosestrife
Eurasian
watermilol31
Interactive ood map
Water resources library
Find more information
from the City of Edina:
2012-2022
North Cornelia water level data is from
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District.
1964-2002, 2012-2022
South Cornelia water level data is from
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District.
Installing rain gardens
and planting
shoreline buffers
Cleaning up grass
clippings and leaves
Participating in the
adopt-a-drain program
(mn.adoptadrain.org)
Redirecting gutter
downspouts towards
vegetated areas
Minimizing use of
fertilizer on lawns
Efforts to control submerged aquatic plants
2015
General submerged aquatic plant treatments
stop with the implementation of Edina’s Lakes
and Ponds policy, which prioritizes treatment
based on a series of factors, including water
body size, level of impairment, citizen
involvement, and public use.
1.0
Meters
0.2 Meters
0.6 Meters
0.8 Meters
South Lake Cornelia
Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com
Memorandum
To: Ross Bintner and Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, City of Edina
From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Phase I – Edina Clean Water Strategy
Date: June 22, 2022
Project: 23271913.00
1.0 Project Purpose and Background
The City of Edina (City) engaged Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) to assist in the effort of developing a Clean
Water Strategy to guide and align the implementation of clean water services within the city. The overall
effort of developing the strategy was split into two phases, with Phase I focused on identifying the goals
and expectations of the City’s current program in comparison to what the City is currently accomplishing.
Questions asked while performing this phase of the work, include:
• What are the City’s current priorities concerning clean (surface) water?
• What is the City’s current program accomplishing, and what level of service is the City achieving?
• What are others doing to deliver clean surface water?
This memorandum summarizes findings from this phase of work, during which Barr performed a review of
existing city documents and stated priorities, interviewed City water resources staff, summarized existing
data on the current state of Edina water bodies, reviewed clean water philosophies and practices of four
comparable cities, and created a series of lake summary sheets and clean water topic fact sheets to
highlight the history and current state of water and clean water activities within the City.
2.0 Current Goals, Priorities, and Expected Level of Service
To understand the City’s current goals, policies and commitments to clean water level of service, Barr
reviewed several foundational documents that speak to the City’s overall planning, public infrastructure,
and practices related to stormwater management: the 2018 City of Edina Comprehensive Plan, the 2015
Living Streets Plan, the 2022 draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (currently under-development at
the time of this project), the 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, in addition to the
stormwater management rules and ordinances of the City of Edina, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
(NMCWD), and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD).
The City’s Comprehensive Plan and 2015 Living Streets Plan are grounded in themes of sustainability. The
Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the importance of accounting for climate change, sustainability, and
To: Ross Bintner and Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, City of Edina From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Phase I – Edina Clean Water Strategy
Date: June 22, 2022
Page: 2
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271913 City Edina Clean Water Strateg\WorkFiles\Task 5 - Gaps Analysis and Project Writeup\CWS Phase I_Summary
Memorandum_062222_Final.docx
aging infrastructure needs when considering growth and development. Considerations for the City’s asset
management needs are integrated throughout the document. Chapter 7 of the Plan is focused on water
resources and the approach taken to manage the city’s stormwater utility. As described within this plan,
Edina’s stormwater utility asset management approach includes working to understand and react to
service level deficits, understanding and responding to risk, and taking a life cycle view on stormwater
infrastructure needs. The Plan describes the City’s stormwater utility services as providing: “drainage of
surface waters, management of rainfall runoff and flood risk, reduction of water pollution, treatment of
stormwaters, and protection of natural water bodies and wetlands to provide outcomes supportive of local,
state and national surface water goals and policies.” The City’s Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan is referenced for additional details on utility service level expectations.
The 2015 Living Streets Plan describes how City goals related to sustainability will be accounted for, when
planning and redeveloping city streets. The Plan acknowledges the impact that City streets can have on
the water resources and, conversely, the role they can play in effective stormwater management by
incorporating green infrastructure and other low-impact-development stormwater practices as part of
street projects. Similar to the Comprehensive Plan, the Living Streets Plan includes a commitment to work
with community stakeholders, technical professionals and decision-makers to define expectations for
capital projects that the city implements and the services it will provide. The Living Streets Plan describes
the stormwater utility’s services as providing flood protection and clean water. The Plan references a
desire to go above-and-beyond in managing stormwater when possible, but does not include definition
of what the base service level expectation is; rather referencing the City’s Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan as the document for use in identifying priorities of the stormwater utility.
The City’s Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP) is incorporated into its
Comprehensive Plan, by reference, and is identified in both the Comprehensive Plan and Living Streets
Plan as the primary resource for information on City goals and priorities associated with level of service
and priorities related to the City’s stormwater utility. The CWRMP describes the City’s goals and
commitments for clean water service levels, as primarily focused on meeting federal, state, regional and
local mandates on surface water protection; in some cases, moving beyond these minimum requirements.
The prioritization of capital improvements is described as first focusing on those projects that provide
long-term, measurable improvement to waterbodies that have been included on the Federal List of
Impaired Waters or those that are otherwise shown to not be meeting clean water goals. The City’s 2014
lake and pond management policy includes a system to prioritize resident requests for aquatic vegetation
management. Higher priority is given to those waterbodies that are currently listed as impaired, or
otherwise shown to not be meeting the state water quality standard. Within the CWRMP, the City makes a
commitment to manage their water resources to ensure beneficial uses of its lakes, streams, ponds and
wetlands remain available to the community. Such beneficial uses may include: aesthetic appreciation,
wildlife habitat protection, nature observation, and recreational activities. The CWRMP also describes
several programs and policies designed to encourage and facilitate partnership with local watershed
districts and residents on activities that advance a healthier lake ecosystem or other clean water benefit.
To: Ross Bintner and Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, City of Edina From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Phase I – Edina Clean Water Strategy
Date: June 22, 2022
Page: 3
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271913 City Edina Clean Water Strateg\WorkFiles\Task 5 - Gaps Analysis and Project Writeup\CWS Phase I_Summary
Memorandum_062222_Final.docx
Several of these programs and policies have implicit or implied narrative goals, such as promoting a
diverse aquatic plant community. Explicit metrics or level of service goals associated with these activities
are not defined.
The City’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is aligned with meeting the City’s requirements
for stormwater management, resulting from their state Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)
Permit. This document contains information on city activities and programs designed to satisfy the
permit’s six minimum control measures. The document does not define nor contain commitments for
utility asset level of service; however, it does contain information and city commitments on best practices
and activities that the City will undertake to protect its surface waters by addressing illicit discharges,
working to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants into the MS4, and performing inspections and
maintenance of city-owned structural BMPs, among other items. The state MS4 permit mandates that the
City of Edina have a regulatory mechanism in place to address and control stormwater management
activities on public infrastructure and site redevelopment projects. The City of Edina’s stormwater rules
address erosion, sediment control, and rate control requirements. The City defers regulatory authority for
the regulation of water quality and volume control of stormwater runoff to the Minnehaha Creek and
Nine Mile Creek Watershed Districts. Both watershed districts have stormwater management requirements
that meet or exceed those required by the state.
2.0 Current Accomplishments
Current City programs are primarily aligned with meeting federal, state, regional, and local regulatory
requirements, and particularly those of the City’s Phase II MS4 permit. The City actively partners with its
local watershed districts on studies and implementation activities to protect and improve surface water
quality within its waterbodies. Following its lake and pond management policy, the City also plays an
active role in supporting in-lake management activities that advance a clean water benefit. Details of the
City’s Water Resources Implementation Program are outlined in Table 15.1 of the City’s CWRMP.
As part of the Clean Water Strategy effort, Barr reviewed the current status and governing requirements
for 13 waterbodies within the City of Edina. Attachment A includes a table summarizing available
information for these waterbodies, including: public waterbody and beneficial use classification, water
quality impairment status, availability of water quality data and frequency of monitoring, known
information on aquatic plants and fish communities and lake physical characteristics.
Results of this review highlight the significant challenge of protecting and managing shallow lake systems
within a fully built-out, urban setting. Of the thirteen waterbodies reviewed, two (Lake Cornelia and Lake
Edina) are currently included on the USEPA’s Federal List of Impaired Waters. All of the waterbodies with
available surface water quality monitoring data have been shown to consistently not meet state water
quality standards. Most of the lakes also have aquatic invasive species present. The City’s creeks (North
and South Fork of Nine Mile Creek, and Minnehaha Creek) are also listed as impaired by the USEPA.
To: Ross Bintner and Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, City of Edina From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Phase I – Edina Clean Water Strategy
Date: June 22, 2022
Page: 4
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271913 City Edina Clean Water Strateg\WorkFiles\Task 5 - Gaps Analysis and Project Writeup\CWS Phase I_Summary
Memorandum_062222_Final.docx
The attached lake summary sheets highlight and summarize the best available water quality, aquatic
vegetation, fish community, and water level data for each of the 13 lakes reviewed. Also summarized is the
history of each waterbody, showing how the surrounding landscape and land use has changed as the city
has developed around them. Key lake management activities performed by the City or other government
partners, and results of lake studies are also highlighted on the sheets.
3.0 Review of Other Cities
In an effort to understand what other cities are doing to advance clean water, Barr reviewed readily-
available information on the clean water programs and practices of four similarly-sized suburban cities, as
identified and requested by City staff. The cities chosen have similarities to Edina, in relation to their status
as a suburb of a larger metropolitan area and/or prevalence of natural waterbodies. Barr’s review was
focused on identifying information related to each city’s clean water philosophy, noting apparent
influences on the city’s clean water programs, how the cities use partnerships to advance their clean water
goals, and any particularly notable practices the cities were undertaking to advance water resource
management. The four cities reviewed were: Evanston and Highland Park, Illinois, Everett, Washington and
Apple Valley, Minnesota.
Evanston and Highland Park, Illinois are suburbs of Chicago, situated on Lake Michigan. Evanston, IL has a
population of 78,110 and is located 12 miles north of Chicago. Highland Park has a population of 29,622
and is located 22 miles northwest of downtown. Responsibility for stormwater management in both of
these cities falls to their Public Works Department. Both cities have educational materials readily-available
on their websites, to educate citizens regarding stormwater management, ways that residents can manage
stormwater on their property, methods for residents to prevent pollution, and more.
While it is situated directly on Lake Michigan, the majority of Evanston drains to combined sewer systems
that outlet to Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) facilities. However, a small portion of
Evanston does drain to Lake Michigan; this portion of the city is covered by an MS4 permit. As part of
their Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, Evanston has stated goals for protection, restoration and
expansion of its urban canopy and natural areas, in addition to the promotion of using green stormwater
infrastructure (GSI) toward a goal of eliminating combined sewer overflows. These goals are also reflected
in the City’s Stormwater Management Plan. The City is currently undergoing an update to their
Stormwater Management Plan, including development of a city-wide hydrology and hydraulic model for
use in setting goals associated with flood protection and prioritizing capital improvements. The City
historically had a partnership with MWRD through which residents could obtain free rain barrels; that
program ended in 2016.
The City of Highland Park, IL drains primarily to two large waterbodies: the Chicago River and Lake
Michigan. Highland Park actively partners and benefits from several county-level water management
programs, including participation as a member of the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission
which provides services under 4 of the 6 Minimum Control Measures required by Highland Park’s MS4
To: Ross Bintner and Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, City of Edina From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Phase I – Edina Clean Water Strategy
Date: June 22, 2022
Page: 5
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271913 City Edina Clean Water Strateg\WorkFiles\Task 5 - Gaps Analysis and Project Writeup\CWS Phase I_Summary
Memorandum_062222_Final.docx
permit. This includes implementation of their Watershed Development Ordinance, which regulates
stormwater management requirements for development projects within the County. A local watershed
group and the county health department perform water quality monitoring within the city. The City’s
website highlights work the City is doing to preserve and restore natural areas.
Everett, WA is located 27 miles northeast of Seattle. Stormwater runoff from the city flows to one of 3
large waterbodies: Lake Washington, the Snohomish River or Port Gardner Bay. A northern portion of the
city drains to a CSO. The City’s Surface and Stormwater Services Group is within their Public Works
Department. The stated goal of the surface and stormwater group is to reduce stormwater pollution,
promote private stormwater management and protect rivers, streams, and groundwater. Everett ‘s
stormwater management programs are aligned to meet requirements of its Phase II MS4 permit. The city
generally defers to the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington to define its stormwater policies and regulations. The city does implement a
permitting program and has several resources on-line for developers to ease in the permitting process.
The City of Everett’s website provides education and lists multiple programs to get residents involved in
stormwater management, including a program that covers up to $2,500 for installation of a raingarden
and a program that sells pre-made rain barrels for $55. The city provides several resources to educate the
public on at-home activities to promote clean water. The city website also includes specific information for
all the local lakes, including an interactive map that allows the user to select a lake and learn details
regarding water clarity, phosphorus, and algae. The city has historically partnered with other government
agencies to advance ecological restoration projects within the city. The city participates in vegetation
management within a local lake annually. City staff performed surface water and macroinvertebrate
sampling within city streams at several locations.
Apple Valley, MN is located 20 miles south of Minneapolis and southeast of Edina. The city’s Public Works
Department oversees operation and maintenance of the storm sewer system. Within Public Works is the
Natural Resources Division which oversees and coordinates the city’s programs and policies for surface
water management. Apple Valley falls under the jurisdiction of the Black Dog Watershed Management
Organization, Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization, and Dakota County Soil and Water
Conservation District. The Black Dog WMO performs surface water quality and aquatic vegetation
monitoring in select Apple Valley lakes. The city has also historically participated in the Metropolitan
Council’s Citizen-Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) for lake water quality monitoring and performs
vegetation and fish surveys on priority lakes. The city has successfully partnered with their watershed
organizations, and neighboring communities to secure state funds and implement several water quality
improvement projects.
Apple Valley has several webpages and other online resources targeted at public education on lake, pond
and stormwater management, the city’s activities to advance clean water, and actions that residents can
take to assist on their own property. Resources include fact sheets for several lakes within the city, in
addition to lake management and operational plans. The city also provides FAQs regarding ponds and
To: Ross Bintner and Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, City of Edina From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Phase I – Edina Clean Water Strategy
Date: June 22, 2022
Page: 6
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271913 City Edina Clean Water Strateg\WorkFiles\Task 5 - Gaps Analysis and Project Writeup\CWS Phase I_Summary
Memorandum_062222_Final.docx
lakes addressing questions such as: why ponds are weedy, why ponds are green, and why does the pond
smell. The City of Apple Valley offers a cost share program, of up to $500, for residents that install
raingardens, shoreline buffers, or native gardens on their property.
Based on this review of four communities, Edina’s storm and surface water management practices are
generally in-line with their peers. Each of the cities reviewed had a foundational focus of meeting their
MS4 permit requirements, with supplementary programs and practices aligned with climate resiliency and
natural resource protection and restoration. Each of the cities relies on partnerships to help advance their
goals. The cities of Everett, WA and Apple Valley, MN appear to take a more active role and to have more
substantial programs in the management of their natural resources, appearing to strategically focus city
resources particularly in those areas where partnerships are not available. They both have a robust on-line
presence with resources targeted at public engagement and education as associated with storm and
surface water management. Given the City of Edina’s long history of focusing on their natural resources
and strong partnerships with their watersheds and lake associations, Edina may want to consider similar
educational strategies for actively communicating city priorities and practices, past management activities,
and educational messages to help inform and engage the public in contributing to the management of its
surface waters. Edina may similarly want to consider the strategies being utilized by Everett and Apple
Valley in structuring the city’s programs focused on natural resource management as coordinated and
complimentary to those of its other local governmental partners.
4.0 Gaps Analysis
There are several ways in which the City of Edina can, and does, work to protect and improve water quality
within its surface waters. These include various city policies, zoning and regulations, the management of
city properties, engagement with its resident, and the building and maintenance of capital infrastructure.
Through review of City documents, discussion of current clean water commitments with City staff, and
review of the City’s clean water level of accomplishments, the following gaps and areas for potential
improvement in Edina’s clean water services were identified.
These gaps and areas for potential improvement were placed into categories related to the type of city
activity they’re associated with: “Managing the Landscape”, “Managing its Waters”, and “Resident
Education and Engagement”.
Managing the Landscape:
• The City of Edina leverages the strengths and regulatory authority of its watershed districts,
relying on them for stormwater regulation and advancement of many of the clean water activities
within the City. The NMCWD takes an active role in lake water quality monitoring, advancing
technical studies and implementing water quality improvement projects within the city. The
MCWD has historically been less active in performing this type of work in Edina. This is, in part,
due to the fact that MCWD has fewer large waterbodies than NMCWD within the City. As a result,
To: Ross Bintner and Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, City of Edina From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Phase I – Edina Clean Water Strategy
Date: June 22, 2022
Page: 7
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271913 City Edina Clean Water Strateg\WorkFiles\Task 5 - Gaps Analysis and Project Writeup\CWS Phase I_Summary
Memorandum_062222_Final.docx
the area of Edina within NMCWD has more lake water quality information and resources available
to inform the development and implementation of clean water management strategies.
• The City relies on its watershed districts for implementation of stormwater rules and post-
construction controls, as required by the City’s MS4 permit for water quality pollutant removal.
The City maintains rules for stormwater management on smaller sites (< 1 acre) when triggered
by flooding and drainage issues. NMCWD’s rules for stormwater management are more stringent
than MCWD’s rules, as related to the scale of project that triggers them. Both organizations’ rules
have historically been consistent with MS4 permit requirements. As part of the effort to update
their SWPPP and CWRMP, the City is working to more clearly document the delineation of roles
and responsibilities associated with stormwater permitting and inspections of stormwater controls
as required by their MS4 permit.
• The City’s Comprehensive Plan and Livings Streets Plan contain goals and strategies focused on
stormwater management, resiliency and moving above-and-beyond stormwater regulatory
requirements, but point to the CWRMP for further definition of management goals and
prioritization of areas for implementation. The City’s CWRMP does not currently contain a
comprehensive, city-wide prioritization of these items for use in informing implementation.
• Though listed as a management strategy within its Water Resources Implementation goals, the
City is not currently performing additional strategic street sweeping in targeted areas for water
quality improvement. Many of Edina’s peer cities are using targeted street sweeping as a cost-
effective strategy to reduce pollutant loading to surface waterbodies.
Managing its Waters:
• The City’s current waterbody classification, prioritization and management policy was created to
provide a framework for the City to respond to resident requests for lake management activities.
This policy was last updated in 2018. Since that time, additional lake data have been collected,
several additional lake and watershed-based management studies and implementation strategies
have been developed, clean water projects have been implemented, and guidance on best
practice in shallow lake management has evolved. In addition, new lake management challenges
such as harmful algal blooms (HABs) have emerged and questions have arisen about potential
impacts of the long-term use of dye and copper treatments for in-lake algal control. The existing
prioritization and lake management framework does not fully account for these considerations.
• The City currently defines its clean water goals as primarily focused on meeting federal, state,
regional and local mandates on surface water protection, with a commitment to manage their
water resources to ensure beneficial uses remain available to the community. Specific goals or
delineation of management priorities for individual waterbodies and their associated drainage
areas are not currently identified within the CWRMP.
To: Ross Bintner and Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, City of Edina From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Phase I – Edina Clean Water Strategy
Date: June 22, 2022
Page: 8
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271913 City Edina Clean Water Strateg\WorkFiles\Task 5 - Gaps Analysis and Project Writeup\CWS Phase I_Summary
Memorandum_062222_Final.docx
Resident Education and Engagement:
• The City of Edina has several water resources webpages and an online report library focused on
engaging the public, providing information on water resources within the city, regulatory
requirements, and actions the public can take to help with protecting city waters. In addition, the
City has two publicly available interactive map viewers: the Water Resources viewer and the “What
is my Flood Risk?” viewer, where the public can engage with relevant information on City
waterbodies within a map-based format. The City’s current webpages on lake management and
water quality topics, are more limited than what’s provided for flooding, and also more limited
than that provided by two of the four peer cities reviewed. The lake summary and clean water
topic sheets being created as part of the Clean Water Strategy may help with addressing part of
this gap.
• The City’s Water Resources staff currently lack a comprehensive view of how city residents feel
about the status of Edina’s waterbodies, resident priorities for their use, and how the City is
currently performing in their management.
5.0 Conclusion
The City of Edina places a high value on the management of its water resources and has numerous plans,
policies, and programs in place to support protection of water resources. The City’s currently stated clean
water goals related to their surface waterbodies are tied to federal, state, and local water quality
requirements. The following table summarizes the City’s current clean water outcomes, as associated with
these requirements, for nine waterbodies within the city. Four other waterbodies reviewed for this project
did not have sufficient data available for reporting. As highlighted within the table, despite the City’s on-
going efforts and clean water investments, outcomes within these lakes compared to state-defined clean
water goals are poor. Two of Edina’s lakes (Lake Cornelia and Lake Edina) are currently included on the
USEPA’s Federal List of Impaired Waters. All of the waterbodies with available surface water quality
monitoring data have been shown to consistently not meet state water quality standards; with some lakes
being significantly over the goal for summer average total phosphorus. Most of the lakes also have
aquatic invasive species present. The City’s creeks (North and South Fork of Nine Mile Creek, and
Minnehaha Creek) are also listed as impaired by the USEPA.
To: Ross Bintner and Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, City of Edina From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Phase I – Edina Clean Water Strategy
Date: June 22, 2022
Page: 9
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271913 City Edina Clean Water Strateg\WorkFiles\Task 5 - Gaps Analysis and Project Writeup\CWS Phase I_Summary Memorandum_062322_Final.docx
Lake Designated as “Impaired” by MPCA
and USEPA1
Range of Summer Average Total Phosphorus
Concentration (µg/L)2 Notes on Water Quality Data Availability Summary of Aquatic Invasive Species3
Lake Cornelia – North
X
High: 211; Low: 84; Average: 142 Data available for 9-years between 2007 to 2020. Invasive species include: goldfish and common carp;
curly-leaf pondweed, purple loosestrife, and Eurasian
watermilfoil. Lake Cornelia - South High: 174; Low: 97; Average: 131 Data available for 6-years between 2008 to 2020.
Lake Edina X High: 146; Low: 77; Average: 111 Data available for 5-years between 2008 to 2020. Invasive species include: curly-leaf pondweed and
Eurasian watermilfoil.
Hawkes High: 123; Low: 88; Average: 110 Data available for 4-years between 2016 to 2019. Data not available.
Arrowhead High: 80; Low: 52;
Average: 68 Data available for 4-years between 2011 to 2020. Invasive species include: purple loosestrife, curly-leaf
pondweed, and Eurasian watermilfoil.
Indianhead High: 146; Low: 53; Average: 94 Data available for 4-years between 2011 to 2020. Invasive species include: purple loosestrife, yellow iris,
and curly-leaf pondweed.
Pamela High: 213; Low: 51; Average: 121 Data available for 7-years between 2004 to 2015. Data not available.
Harvey Average: 152 Data available for 1-year in 2010. Data not available.
Mirror High: 119; Low: 104; Average: 112 Data available for 2-years between 2004 to 2012. Invasive species include: goldfish, purple loosestrife, and
curly-leaf pondweed.
Melody High: 164; Low: 140; Average: 152 Data available for 2-years between 2009 to 2010. Invasive species include: curly-leaf pondweed and
Eurasian watermilfoil.
1 As noted within the MN Pollution Control Agency’s 2022 List of Impaired Waters. Waters listed as ‘impaired’ by the State of MN and USEPA are not meeting state or federal water quality standards.
2 Based on data collected and reported by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, the Metropolitan Council, and the MN Pollution Control Agency. The state goal for average summer total phosphorus concentrations for shallow lakes in this region is less than or equal to 60 µg/L.
3 Based on data collected and reported by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the MN Department of Natural Resources.
To: Ross Bintner and Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, City of Edina From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Phase I – Edina Clean Water Strategy
Date: June 22, 2022
Page: 10
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271913 City Edina Clean Water Strateg\WorkFiles\Task 5 - Gaps Analysis and Project Writeup\CWS Phase I_Summary
Memorandum_062322_Final.docx
The City’s current policies of protecting beneficial uses for its residents and promoting balanced lake
ecosystems are difficult to assess without further definition of goals at the city and/or waterbody-level. As
part of Phase II of the Clean Water Strategy, we recommend that the City (re-) prioritize and further define
goals for clean water services both within its surface waterbodies, as well as in those areas that drain to
them.
Developing a reprioritization and goals for its surface waterbodies will help the City to become more
proactive and less reactive in the implementation of in-lake clean water services, by further defining how
and when it will engage in lake management activities. It will also assist in identifying priority areas on the
landscape for the implementation and advancement of watershed-based clean water services such as
strategic street sweeping, pursuit of further partnerships with its watershed districts and other
organizations, and grants for above-and-beyond water quality improvements.
Phase II of City’s clean water strategy is currently intended to outline the philosophy and vision of the
City’s Clean Water Strategy and lay out options to close the gaps identified in this Phase I memo and/or
improve the level of service. Reprioritization and establishment of goals developed during Phase II will
help the City integrate those goals into their existing programs in an effort to best align city services and
available funding to protect and improve the city’s surface water.
To: Ross Bintner and Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, City of Edina From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Phase I – Edina Clean Water Strategy
Date: June 22, 2022
Page: 11
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271913 City Edina Clean Water Strateg\WorkFiles\Task 5 - Gaps Analysis and Project Writeup\CWS Phase I_Summary
Memorandum_062222_Final.docx
Attachment A: Edina Lake Management Summary Table
NamePublic Waterbody ID (1 unless noted)Public Waterbody Classification (1 unless noted) State Assessment Unit ID (1 unless noted)Beneficial Use Classification (2 unless noted)Is it currently listed as impaired? (3)Applicable WLAs (3)If impaired, is TMDL/WRAPS complete? If yes, include linkIs it directly upstream of an impaired water? (1)Has a UAA study done by WD? (4)Is water quality data available? If yes, include linkWater Quality Parameters (most recent years) (2)Sampling Frequency by State (2)Water Quality Sampling by WD (4)Frequency by WD (4)Vegetation Sampling / Observation (noted by who and timing)Citizen Monitoring/Other monitoring (2)Lake Association / Lake Group (1) Assigned classification for aquatic vegetation management (high, med, low, or none) (1)Lake Cornelia27002801 and 2700282PNorth ‐ 27‐0028‐01; South‐ 27‐0028‐022B Yes, nutrientsIncluded in Lower MN River WRAPS (2014); WLA for TPhttps://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq‐iw7‐50e.pdfYeshttps://webapp.pca.state.mn.us/surface‐water/impairment/27‐0028‐01; https://webapp.pca.state.mn.us/surface‐water/impairment/27‐0028‐02 Chl‐a, TKN, TP, secchi, DO, NO2NO3, Turb (2020)Almost every yearSecchi, Chl‐a, turbidity, Do, Temp, Specific conductivity, TP, ortho P, TN, TKN, Nitrate and nitrite, Chlorides, pHEvery year except 2018 and 2019. Monthly sampling May to SeptPhytoplankton, plants‐ once every three years (4)Citizen Lake Monitoring (Secchi) and MCES Citizen Lake Monitoring (TP, Chl‐A, Secchi)Lake Cornelia group HighMelody Lake 27066900 W 27‐0669‐00 2B No No Nohttps://webapp.pca.state.mn.us/surface‐water/impairment/27‐0669‐00Chl‐a, TP, Secchi (2010)2009 and 2010Friends of Melody Lake HighMirror Lake 27005500 P 27‐0055‐00 2B No No Nohttps://webapp.pca.state.mn.us/surface‐water/impairment/27‐0055‐00Secchi (2020) Almost every yearSecchi, Chl‐a, turbidity, Do, Temp, Specific conductivity, TP, ortho P, TN, TKN, Nitrate and nitrite, Chlorides, pH2020 last year (typically once every 7 years). Monthly sampling May to Sept Phytoplankton, zooplankton, aquatic plants with IBI, at same time as WQ sampling (4)Citizen Lake Monitoring (Secchi)No LowHighlands Lake 27066800 P 27‐0668‐00 No No No Not on MPCA Not on MPCA website Not on MPCANo MediumLake Edina 27002900 P 27‐0029‐00 2B Yes, nutrientsIncluded in Lower MN River WRAPS (2014); WLA for TPhttps://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq‐iw7‐50e.pdfYeshttps://webapp.pca.state.mn.us/surface‐water/impairment/27‐0029‐00Chl‐a, DO, TKN, NO2NO3, pH, TP, turb, Secchi (2020)Every 5 yearsSecchi, Chl‐a, turbidity, Do, Temp, Specific conductivity, TP, ortho P, TN, TKN, Nitrate and nitrite, Chlorides, pH2020 most recent (typically 2‐3 years) monthly sampling May to SeptPhytoplankton, zooplankton, aquatic plants with IBI, at same time as WQ sampling (4)MCES Citizen Lake Monitoring (TP, Chl‐A, Secchi)No HighIndianhead Lake 27004400 P 27‐0044‐00 2B No No Nohttps://webapp.pca.state.mn.us/surface‐water/impairment/27‐0044‐00Chl‐a, DO, TKN, NO2NO3, pH, TP, turb, Secchi (2020)Every 5‐10 yearsSecchi, Chl‐a, turbidity, Do, Temp, Specific conductivity, TP, ortho P, TN, TKN, Nitrate and nitrite, Chlorides, pHLast two years monthly sampling May to SeptPhytoplankton, zooplankton, aquatic plants with IBI, at same time as WQ sampling (4)Citizen Lake Monitoring (Secchi)The Indianhead Lake AssociationHighLake Nancy/Lake Otto 27067700‐ Nancy and 27067800‐OttoW27‐0677‐00 Nancy No No Yes No Not on MPCA Not on MPCA websiteNot on MPCA websiteLake Nancy Lake AssociationNancy‐High, Otto‐LowArrowhead Lake 27004400 P 27‐0045‐00 No No Nohttps://www.ninemilecreek.org/whats‐happening/lake‐creek‐monitoring/ Not on MPCA websiteNot on MPCA websiteSecchi, Ch‐a, turbidity, Do, Temp, Specific conductivity, TP, ortho P, TN, TKN, Nitrate and nitrite, Chlorides, pHLast two years (before that every 3‐5 years) monthly May to SeptPhytoplankton, zooplankton, aquatic plants with IBI, at same time as WQ sampling (4)Arrowhead Lake AssociationHighHawkes Lake 27005600 P 27‐0056‐00 2B No No Nohttps://webapp.pca.state.mn.us/surface‐water/impairment/27‐0056‐00Chl‐a, TKN, NO2NO3, Pheo, TP, Secchi (2019)Every year the past 6 yearsMCES Citizen Lake Monitoring (TP, Chl‐A, Secchi)No LowLake Harvey 27067000 W 27‐0670‐00 2B No No Nohttps://webapp.pca.state.mn.us/surface‐water/impairment/27‐0670‐00Chl‐a, TKN, NO2NO3, Pheo, TP, TSS, Secchi (2004)Only 2014MCES Citizen Lake Monitoring (TP, Chl‐A, Secchi)No LowLake Pamela 27067500 P 27‐0675‐00 2B No No Yes Nohttps://webapp.pca.state.mn.us/surface‐water/impairment/27‐0675‐00Chl‐a, TKN, NO2NO3, TP, TSS, Secchi (2015)Almost every year 2005 to 2015MCES Citizen Lake Monitoring (TP, Chl‐A, Secchi), Clean water legacy surface water monitoring, long term metropolitan lake chloride monitoringNo HighSouthwest Ponds Not in table 16.3No No NoNoCentennial Lakes27‐1120‐00 (2) 2B No No No Not on MPCANo2B = cool and warm water aquatic life and habitat and wetlands2Bg = cool and warm water aquatic life and habitat and wetlands, including biological criteriaSources:(1) City of Edina Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan(2) MPCA Surface Water Database(3) Lower Minnesota River Watershed TMDL Part II by MPCA(4) Nine Mile Creek (fact sheets or reports)(5) Lake Finder(6) DNR infested water list(7) City of Edina staff, 2021(8) UAA Study for Edina and Cornelia(9) Edina XPSWMM Updates by Barr(10) City of Edina Bathymetry Data(11) GIS data developed for City.
Is there a fact sheet on the WD website, if yes include linkWatershed District Max Depth Average Depth Lake Surface Area Littoral Area Shore LengthOrdinary High Water LevelLake Level Management PlanDNR Water Level DataWatershed District Water Level DataBathymetry DataManaged Outlet? (9)Invasive Aquatic Plants (confirmed and managed)Invasive Fish Fish Stocked? Confirmed HAB Drainage Area (9)FEMA Regulated ZoneFEMA 100‐Yr Elevation (NGVD29)Modeled 100‐Year High Water Levelhttps://www.ninemilecreek.org/explore‐the‐watershed/explore‐our‐lakes‐and‐creeks/lake‐cornelia/Nine Mile Creek WD6.5 feet (5), 8 feet (10)4.6 feet (10)52.63 acres (5), 33.3 acres (11)58.24 acres (5)2.34 miles (5), 1.32 miles (11)https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showlevel.html?downum=27002800https://maps.barr.com/NMCWD/WebTool/Home/WaterLevels?selectIDs=NANCYxNoCurly‐leaf pondweed (4), purple loosestrife (4), hybrid cattail (4), Eurasian watermilfoil (6)Carp and goldfish (7)Bluegill (2020, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2012, 2011), Back Crappie (2015, Hybrid sunfish (2015), Pumpkinseed sunfish (2015) (5)Annual since 2016 (7) 982.1 acres AE 864No Minnehaha Creek WD 7 feet (10) 4.2 feet (10)8.51 acres (2), 8.3 acres (11)0.86 milesxPumped (controlled elev at 887.4)Curly leaf pondweed (7), Eurasian watermilfoil (7)176.2 acresNo Nine Mile Creek WD 14 fete (10) 5.4 feet (10)21.29 acres (2), 22.8 acres (11)1.37 mileshttps://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showlevel.html?downum=27005500https://maps.barr.com/NMCWD/WebTool/Home/WaterLevels?selectIDs=NANCYxPumped (controlled elev at app. 908.5)Purple loosestrife (7), Curly leaf pondweed (7)Goldfish (7)282 acres No Nine Mile Creek WD 8 feet (10) 3.7 feet (10)9.0 acres (2), 11.4 acres (11)0.69 miles (11)xPumped (controlled at 888.5)Bluegill, fathead minnow, largemouth bass, yellow perch (2015) (5) 272.9 acreshttps://www.ninemilecreek.org/explore‐the‐watershed/explore‐our‐lakes‐and‐creeks/lake‐edina/Nine Mile Creek WD5 feet (4,8), 4 feet (10)3 feet (4,8), 2.9 (10)23.55 acres (2), 25 acres (4), 23.9 (11)0.99 mileshttps://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showlevel.html?downum=27002900https://maps.barr.com/NMCWD/WebTool/Home/WaterLevels?selectIDs=NANCYxNoEurasian watermilfoil (4,5,6), Curly‐lead pondweed (4) 394.9 acres AE 824.5https://www.ninemilecreek.org/explore‐the‐watershed/explore‐our‐lakes‐and‐creeks/indianhead‐lake/Nine Mile Creek WD6.5 feet (4), 7 feet (10)4.7 feet (10)]12.46 acres (2), 14 acres (4), 14.1 acres (11)0.92 miles (11)863.7 ft NGVD 29 (5)https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showlevel.html?downum=27004400https://maps.barr.com/NMCWD/WebTool/Home/WaterLevels?selectIDs=NANCYxNo ‐ landlockedPurple loosestrife (4), Yellow Iris (4), Curly leaf pondweed (7)Bluegill (2016, 2013), Black Crappie (2016, 2013), Largemouth Bass (2016, 2013), Hybrid sunfish (2016) (5) 113.9 acresNo Nine Mile Creek WD 4 feet (10) 2.5 feet (10)Nancy‐ 3.75 acres (2); 4.3‐acres (11) / Otto ‐ 10.25‐acres (11)Nancy ‐ 0.45‐miles (11); Otto ‐ 0.82‐miles (11)https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showlevel.html?downum=27067700https://maps.barr.com/NMCWD/WebTool/Home/WaterLevels?selectIDs=NANCYxNoCarp and goldfish (7)148.7 acreshttps://www.ninemilecreek.org/explore‐the‐watershed/explore‐our‐lakes‐and‐creeks/arrowhead‐lake/Nine Mile Creek WD 7 feet (5), 9 feet (10)7 feet (4), 4.8 feet (10)22.03 acres (5), 21.1 acres (11)22.03 acres (5)1.09 miles (5), 5, 0.98 (11)875.8 ft NGVD 29 (5)Yeshttps://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showlevel.html?downum=27004500https://maps.barr.com/NMCWD/WebTool/Home/WaterLevels?selectIDs=NANCYxNo ‐ landlockedEurasian watermilfoil (5,6), Purple loosestrife (4), curly leaf pondweed (7)Bluegill and largemouth bass (2016) (5) 178.7 acres No Nine Mile Creek WD5.38 acres (2), 6.8 acres (11)0.53 miles (11)https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showlevel.html?downum=27005600https://maps.barr.com/NMCWD/WebTool/Home/WaterLevels?selectIDs=NANCYPumped (controlled elevation at 885.1) 341.7 acresNo Minnehaha Creek WD6.71 acres (2), 6.6 acres (11)0.51 miles (11)No, not pumped, piped outlet42 acresNo Minnehaha Creek WD 8 feet (10) 3.4 feet (10)6.75 acres (2), 7 acres (11)0.54 miles (11)xNo 276.4 acres AENo Nine Mile Creek WDNo‐ piped (all but one, other is landlocked) 411.5 acresNo Nine Mile Creek WD 9 feet (5, 10) 4.3 feet (10)5.86 acres (2), 7.6 acres (11)3.33 acres (5) 0.87 miles (5)xNot pumped, piped outletBluegill (2020, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2012, 2011), Black Crappie (2017), Northern Pike (2017,2014), Pumpkinseed sunfish (2016), Largemouth bass (2014) (5) 214.3 acres
To: Ross Bintner and Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, City of Edina From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Phase I – Edina Clean Water Strategy
Date: June 22, 2022
Page: 12
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271913 City Edina Clean Water Strateg\WorkFiles\Task 5 - Gaps Analysis and Project Writeup\CWS Phase I_Summary
Memorandum_062222_Final.docx
Attachment B: Lake Summary Sheets
To: Ross Bintner and Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, City of Edina From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Phase I – Edina Clean Water Strategy
Date: June 22, 2022
Page: 13
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271913 City Edina Clean Water Strateg\WorkFiles\Task 5 - Gaps Analysis and Project Writeup\CWS Phase I_Summary
Memorandum_062222_Final.docx
Attachment C: Clean Water Fact Sheets
Flood Risk Reduction Strategy –Report
Clean Water Strategy –Policy Development
City Council Work Session
August 3, 2022
Ross Bintner –Engineering Services Manager
Jessica Wilson –Water Resources Manager
1.Overview of utility
2.Review & next Steps
for two core services
EdinaMN.gov 2
Surface Water Utility
Local Comprehensive
Plan
Water Resources
Chapter
Water Supply Plan
Wastewater Plans
Local Water Plan
(Comprehensive Water
Resources Management
Plan)
www.EdinaMN.gov 3
Flood Risk Reduction Strategy and Clean Water
Strategy
•Identify focus geographies (Morningside, Cornelia)
•Engage stakeholders
•Define the service target
•Evaluate strategies (infrastructure, programs, O&M)
•Implement (through capital investment, partnerships,
private redevelopment, risk management)
www.EdinaMN.gov 4
Strategy Implementation
We work with the community to comprehensively reduce flood risk;
•INFRASTRUCTURE: We will renew our infrastructure and operate it to reduce
risk. We will plan public streets and parks to accept and transmit flood waters to
reduce the risk and disruption of related city services.
•REGULATION: We acknowledge competing demands of land use and addressing
drainage, groundwater and surface water issues. We help people solve issues
without harming another.
•OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT: We make flood information available and
give people tools for flood resilience.
•EMERGENCY SERVICES: We help people prepare for floods, remove people
from harm during floods, and recover after floods.
EdinaMN.gov 5
Strategy
How we view risk
Drivers of increasing flood risk
Areas of work
EdinaMN.gov 6
Framework
Infrastructure Regulation Outreach &
Engagement
Emergency
Services
Surface water
Groundwater
Sanitary backflow
Pathways to structural flood risk
EdinaMN.gov 7
(1% probability event)
•12547 single family
•~6-10% Direct exposure
•~3-7% Sanitary Backflow*
•~12-20% Groundwater*
* If approximate ratios follow
Morningside area and study
methodology
EdinaMN.gov 8
Community flood exposure
Outreach and Engagement
•Maps, Fact-Sheets, Technical Support
•2D modeling
Regulation
•Impervious Surface Ordinance
•Redevelopment / Rebuilds
Infrastructure
•MFIP, Recon Process, +O&M staff
EdinaMN.gov 9
Two -year review of risk reduction
Morningside Neighborhood Flooding*
Before MFIP
*Flood inundation reflects flooding
predicted for a 1%-annual-chance (100-
yr) flood event
Weber Pond
*Flood inundation reflects flooding
predicted for a 1%-annual-chance (100-
yr) flood event
Weber Pond
Morningside Neighborhood Flooding*
After MFIP
EdinaMN.gov 12
FRRS Next Steps
•August 20, 2022 CC meeting: Water
Resources Management Plan major
amendment, start agency review
•(legal/policy review, infrastructure
define, natural systems defined)
•August 20, 2022 CC Work session:
utility rates and finance
•Sept-Dec 2022: Capital Improvement
Plan
•2023 Staff Workplans: Emergency
Services planning, risk review
EdinaMN.gov 13
FRRS Next Steps
•Pace of work review with utility rate study
•opportunity limited with road projects
•citywide opportunities with top value
EdinaMN.gov 14
Flood Service Level -Discussion
Clean Water Strategy
•Focus on Lake Cornelia.
•The 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan had
us committed to start in 2020.
•We’ve just completed phase I and wish to get some policy direction
as we embark on phase 2.
EdinaMN.gov 15
Clean Water Strategy -Phase 1
•We are in-line with peer communities, slightly above and slightly
below in some areas.
•Clean water service level goals and priorities are not well defined.
•Where goals and priorities are defined, they are often based on the
regulatory minimum.
•The regulatory minimum requires cities achieve checklist activities
which are weakly tied to outcomes at the lake.
•The regulatory paradigm is such that we can continue to have water
resources that fail to meet clean water standards, and in some ways
actually work against clean water, and still meet the rules.
EdinaMN.gov 16
•Poor water quality
•Infested with invasive curlyleaf
pondweed
•Infested with goldfish
Lake Cornelia
EdinaMN.gov 17
•2022
•2021
•2020
•2016
EdinaMN.gov 18
Shallow Lake Ecology
•Shallow lakes behave differently than deep lakes
•All lakes in Edina are shallow
•Shallow lakes can exist in two states –the clear water state or the
turbid water state
•Lakes tend to stay in one state or the other
•It takes a big change for the lake to switch from one state to the
other
EdinaMN.gov 19
The Brutal Reality
EdinaMN.gov 20
Policy Option 1: Clear Water
•Native rooted, floating, and emergent aquatic vegetation are encouraged. We
recognize that shallow lakes have beneficial uses beyond boating and swimming, to
include wildlife habitat and aesthetic views.
•We invest in preventing pollution, mitigating pollution, and restoring ecological
processes.
•We focus on outcomes at the lake.
•This policy option is supported by staff.
EdinaMN.gov 21
Policy Option 2: Turbid Water
•We do routine and non-specific destruction of all aquatic vegetation. Boating and
swimming are priority uses. The fishery suffers from low dissolved oxygen, lack of food,
and lack of habitat. We add copper sulfate to knock algae back for about two weeks at
a time –a practice that continues forever.
•We continue the status quo activities and pace of achievement stipulated by
regulators for preventing pollution and mitigating pollution. Though this meets the
regulatory requirements for activity, this pace puts us on a generational (or never)
timeframe for reducing pollutant loading enough to achieve a clean lake outcome.
•Water quality continues to degrade. Algal blooms become more frequent including
potential Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). We never achieve a clean water outcome.
EdinaMN.gov 22
Policy Option 3: The Compromise
•We choose to make both clean water and recreation the priority. However, Mother
Nature doesn’t negotiate, and we continue to fail at both. Recall the brutal reality of
the dichotomy of choices. The outcome at the lake is a turbid water state. While this
doesn’t result in a clean water outcome, it is an option that we could pursue and still
meet the regulatory minimum requirements, which only requires us to do a little bit
more activity each year.
EdinaMN.gov 23
Lake and Pond Policy
•Under current policy, residents can make requests for aquatic vegetation
management (algae and submerged plants). Eligible city-coordinated and/or
city-funded activities are determined based on established criteria.
•Shallow lake management has evolved, new challenges with HABs, and
long-term use of dye and copper treatments for algae control has been
called into question.
•Lake and Pond management could look more like, more capital investment
in pollution prevention (sweeping, for example), pollution mitigation
(infrastructure, for example), and restoration of ecological processes (alum
treatments, invasive curlyleaf pondweed control, sediment-Phosphorus
control, for example).
EdinaMN.gov 24
Lake Cornelia
EdinaMN.gov 25
How do we engage people on this
topic?
•Residents often want the best of both worlds (dichotomy of
choices).
•The minimum regulatory compliance and ‘clean water/recreation
compromise’ approaches have failed spectacularly when it comes to
outcomes at the lake.
•Staff recommends moving into phase II, then getting reactions from
the public on a draft vision and roadmap for closing the clean water
gap.
EdinaMN.gov 26
Phase 2 Scope
•Phase II of City’s clean water strategy is currently intended to
outline the philosophy and vision of the City’s Clean Water Strategy
and lay out options to close the gaps identified in the phase I memo
and/or improve the level of service. Reprioritization and
establishment of goals developed during phase II will help integrate
those goals into the existing programs to best align services and
available funding to protect and improve surface water.
•A scope for phase II will be brought for Council’s consideration in
fall 2022.
EdinaMN.gov 27
Key Questions
•Comments on policy considerations? Outcomes? Principles?
•Comments on priority waterbodies and pollutants? Can we have
tiered goals based on waterbody characteristics? Lake Cornelia as a
focus area might define top-end of level of effort. What other
waterbodies would belong in this tier versus a lower tier?
•What are you hearing from people about water resources
management? What do you think we need?
•What do you need to know to decide?
•What other questions should we answer with phase II scope?
EdinaMN.gov 28