HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-09 Meeting PacketAgenda
Energy and Environment Commission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Public Works - Multi-purpose Room
This meeting will be held in person.
Thursday, September 9, 2021
7:00 PM
I.Call To Order
II.Roll Call
III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda
IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes
A.Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission August 12, 2021
V.Community Comment
During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues
or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the
number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items
that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment.
Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their
comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for
consideration at a future meeting.
VI.Reports/Recommendations
A.2021 WP Initiative #1: Climate Action Plan
B.2021 WP Initiative #2: To-Go Packaging
C.2021 WP Initiative #3: EEC Event Tabling
D.2021 WP Initiative #5: Green Business Recognition Program
E.2021 WP Initiative #7: Review and Comment on ETC reports
F.2022 Workplan Development Discussion
VII.Chair And Member Comments
VIII.Sta4 Comments
IX.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 ampli7cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: September 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: IV.A.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Minutes
From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission
August 12, 2021
Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve EEC meeting minutes for August 12, 2021
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2021-08-12 EEC Minutes
Agenda
Energy and Environment Commission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
City Hall - Community Room
This meeting will be held in person and electronically using Webex software. The meeting will be streamed
live on the City's YouTube channel, YouTube.com/EdinaTV or you can listen to the meeting via telephone
by calling 1-415-655-0001 access code 177 278 7562.
Thursday, August 12, 2021
7:00 PM
I.Call To Order
Chair Martinez called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM
II.Roll Call
Answering roll call were Chair Martinez, Commissioners Horan, Hovanec,
Haugen, Lanzas, Lukens, Tessman, Student Commissioners Ana Martinez and
Mans.
Absent: Commissioners Dakane and Ratan.
III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Meeting Agenda was approved
Motion by Michelle Horan to Approve Meeting Agenda. Seconded by Tom
Tessman. Motion Carried.
IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Motion by Bayardo Lanzas to Approve Meeting Minutes. Seconded by
Michelle Horan. Motion Carried.
A.Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission July 22, 2021
V.Special Recognitions And Presentations
A.Water Resources Update: Jessica Wilson
Jessica Wilson, Water Resources Coordinator, and Tessa Rugg, Water Intern,
presented updates on water resources management in Edina and answered
questions from the commissioners. Intern Rugg also presented the Natural Areas
storymap on Edinamn.gov.
VI.Community Comment
During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or
concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of
speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on
tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair
or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might
refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting.
VII.Reports/Recommendations
A.2021 WP Initiative #1: Climate Action Plan
Chair Martinez provided an update on the Climate Action Plan
B.2021 WP Initiative #2: To-Go Packaging
Commissioner Horan provided an update on the to-go packaging ordinance
and proposed that EEC approve the draft ordinance to advance to City
Council.
Comments from Commissioners:
Interviewed 10 cities to complete ordinance, share previously with
City Council at June EEC work session
Motion by Bayardo Lanzas to Motion to approve ordinance and advance to
City Council. Seconded by Hilda Martinez Salgado. Motion Carried.
C.2021 WP Initiative #3: EEC Event Tabling
Commissioner Lanzas provided an update on the Event Tabling.
Volunteers are welcome to help with Farmer's Market events.
Staff Liaison Hancock invited Commissioners to volunteer for the Fall into
the Arts Festival in September for their moving to zero waste effort.
D.Staff Report: Edina Forest Practices
EEC received written report from City Forester Luther Overholt to inform 2022
Workplan development.
E.2022 Workplan Development Discussion
Commission members discussed the 2022 Work Plan ideas.
VIII.Chair And Member Comments
Chair Martinez thanked student commissioners Ana Martinez and Peter
Mans for their service.
IX.Staff Comments
Staff informed EEC of new student commissioners beginning September,
2021.
Staff informed Commissioners about meeting changes beginning in
September.
X.Adjournment
Motion by Hilda Martinez Salgado to Adjourn the Meeting at 9:21pm..
Seconded by Cory Lukens. Motion Carried.
T he City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If
you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print
documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: September 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.A.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:2021 WP Initiative #1: Climate Action Plan Discussion, Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
INTRODUCTION:
Update on progress and request action on current EEC initiative.
https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/climate-action-plan
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2021 EEC Work Plan
Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports]
Commission: Energy and Environment Commission
2021 Annual Work Plan Proposal
Initiative # 1 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Make recommendations to Council regarding the development of the
City’s Climate Action Plan [which will include information on GHG
emission inventory and routes to carbon neutrality]. Create a Climate
Action Plan Working Group to provide feedback and support for the
plan development. The working group will report to the EEC which will
provide formal recommendation to Council. Staff liaison will support
this working group.
Deliverable
Recommendation to Council
Leads
H. Martinez
A. Martinez
Mans
Rajat
Tessman
Target
Completion Date
December 2021
Budget Required: No additional funds required.
Staff Support Required: Staff Liaison (40hrs)
Progress Q1: Received introductory presentation from facilitating consultant in March
Progress Q2: Received update on progress from facilitating consultant in May
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 2 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Review and recommend on development of to-go packaging ordinance
and policy avenues. Includes an update to the 2016 study and report to
incorporate the recently launched organics recycling program.
Deliverable
-Report and recommendation to
Council
Leads
Horan (primary), Lukens,
Dakane, A. Martinez,
Lanzas, Mans
Target
Completion Date
December 2021
Budget Required: No additional funds requested.
Staff Support Required: Staff Liaison (20hrs), Health Division (40hrs)
Progress Q1: Focus groups in Feb/March 2021 were conducted
Progress Q2: Ordinance under development, draft expected in July/August 2021
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports]
Initiative # 3 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☒ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title
Review and decide on commission members coordinating and tabling
at City events to educate the community on organics recycling and
sustainable living.
Deliverable
-Presence at up to 4 City events to
include Fourth of July, Open Streets,
and Farmers Market
Leads
Lanzas (primary), A.
Martinez, Horan, Mans
Target
Completion Date
June – September
2021
Budget Required: Funds available, $200 for supplies and food.
Staff Support Required: Coordinator (20hrs) and Organics Recycling Coordinator (8hrs) can advise and provide materials already created.
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2: Commission tables at Farmers Market weekly; agreed to skip Fourth of July Parade; agreed to promote moving to zero waste and Climate Action
Plan public comment at Fall into Arts Fest September, 2021
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 4 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Review and comment on staff recommendations for the City’s Green
Building Policy.
Deliverable
- Commission comments on policy
Leads
All, Haugen, Tessman
Target
Completion Date
December 2021
Budget Required: No additional funds requested.
Staff Support Required: Staff Liaison (16hrs)
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2: Received intro presentation, final draft city policy for comment, initial draft commercial policy for comment
Progress Q3: COMPLETE - Received and commented on Sustainable Buildings Policy framework and proposal in July, 2021
Progress Q4:
Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports]
Initiative # 5 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide)
Evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the Business Recognition
Program by Q1 and decide future of the program. Implement changes,
if any.
Deliverable
Report to commission.
Leads
Horan, Dakane, Lukens,
A. Martinez, Mans,
Tessman
Target
Completion Date
ongoing
Budget Required: No additional funds requested.
Staff Support Required: Staff Liaison support to manage intake and acceptance process (16hrs), Communications to support communication updates (16hrs),
Community Engagement Coordinator (8hrs).
Progress Q1: Agreed to continue program, began to compile and implement updates
Progress Q2: Convened working group
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 6 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title
Review and Comment on Conservation and Sustainability (CAS) fund
proposed Capital Improvement Plan.
Deliverable
- Commission comments on Capital
Improvement Plan
Leads
All
Target
Completion Date
Q2, 2021
Budget Required: No additional funds requested.
Staff Support Required: Staff Liaison (4hrs)
Progress Q1; COMPLETE - Received for comment at Mar 11, 2021 meeting
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports]
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 7 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Review and comment on the ETC’s report and recommendation on
organized trash collection.
Deliverable
-Memos to ETC for their study and
report
Leads
Haugen
Target
Completion Date
December 2021
Budget Required: No additional funds requested.
Staff Support Required: Staff Liaison (4hrs)
Progress Q1: no updates Mar21
Progress Q2: Received written update from ETC at May meeting
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to
work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.)
Develop a program with realtors to give sellers the opportunity to showcase environmental improvements to their homes (such as insulation).
Coordination with other cities on climate action., Advocating for street sweeping, Education and engagement on water initiatives.
Study and report on inequities in the environmental movement.
Research enforcement of state law requiring water sensors for irrigation systems and other water saving tools, including rebates.
Exploring ways of partnering with under-served/other communities to outreach/educate businesses.
Community wide environmental event listening to what the community is saying.
Plastic bag policy / program / options
Date: September 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.B.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:2021 WP Initiative #2: To-Go Packaging Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
INTRODUCTION:
Update on To-Go Packaging ordinance submittal to Council
Date: September 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.C.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:2021 WP Initiative #3: EEC Event Tabling Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Sign up for a shift at the Edina Farmers Market.
Volunteer to join the Edina Fall into The Arts Festival:
- Saturday/Sunday September 11-12
- 10-6pm Saturday, 10-5pm Sunday
- 2-3 shifts each day, 2 waste centers, 4-6 volunteers daily
- 1-2 volunteers at EEC table to promote CAP draft plan and public comment at booth.
INTRODUCTION:
Update on progress and request action on current EEC initiative.
Date: September 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.D.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:2021 WP Initiative #5: Green Business Recognition
Program
Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
INTRODUCTION:
Update on WP item #5
Date: September 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.E.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:2021 WP Initiative #7: Review and Comment on ETC
reports
Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and comment on draft ETC organized trash collection report, which will be submitted to Council later
this year.
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Draft ETC OTC Report
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Transportation Commission
Date: September 1, 2021
To: Mayor and City Council
Cc: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
From: Transportation Commission
Subject: Organized Trash Collection
Initiative
Investigate the impacts of organized trash collection while considering the travel demand management
objectives, environmental goals and reducing wear-and-tear on City streets.
Background
Currently, the City of Edina has an open trash collection system in which residents choose from six city-
licensed haulers for trash, organic waste and recycling collection. In this type of system residents may have
a range from 6-9 garbage trucks traveling their street on a single day. Reducing this type of traffic would
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and street maintenance costs, as well as improve
neighborhood safety and livability.
In an organized trash collection system, multiple haulers may contract with a city wherein each is assigned a
geographic area based on the hauler’s market share. This system significantly reduces miles traveled by each
hauler contributing to both environmental, traffic safety, and economic benefits. An organized collection
system also aligns with the broader sustainability goals within the Climate Action Plan and Living Streets
Plan.
Within this memo, data was largely cited from a 2009 report, Analysis of Waste Collection Service
Arrangements, and 2012 report, The Benefits of Organized Collection, both funded by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA). Additional research support came from Minnetonka High School’s advanced
professional studies program VANTAGE - an academic program led by students to help solve real-world
business problems via hands-on learning and project-based assignments.
Recommendation
The Transportation Commission recommends that City Council establish organized trash hauling by
directing staff to initiate the process. Furthermore, we recommend developing a communication plan to
educate the community regarding organized trash collection.
Rationale for Recommendation
Community Support
In the 2021 Quality of Life Survey Report (City of Edina, 2021), participants were asked, “To what
extent do you support the City changing from the current system in which residents may choose
from several different haulers to a system where the City chooses one hauler for the whole
community?”
Page 2
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
o Overall, 53% were strongly or somewhat supportive of changing to
an organized system.
o Residents of less than 5 years, and between 6 to 20 years favor
OTC at 63% and 59%, respectively.
o Residents between the ages 18-34 and 35-54 favor OTC at 58%
and 62%, respectively.
o In addition, these results are without any public education regarding road wear, air
emissions and fuel consumption of garbage trucks or public education regarding alternatives
to the current system.
Economic Benefits
o Reduced Rates:
Typically, in organized systems customers pay a flat
rate based on garbage volume. An increase in route
efficiency may also reduce cost per household.
In an open system, haulers may have a range of
rates for identical base service plans.
Haulers also have the benefit of saving money as
their travel distances are reduced while their
market share stays the same.
The City of Edina does not regulate or track the rates for garbage hauling at this time.
Contracts between residents and haulers are private and therefore rates are not publicly
published.
o Reduced Road Maintenance:
The City of Edina is responsible for maintaining 27 million square feet of pavement with
maintenance costs estimated to be $5 to $9 per square foot over a 60-year life span. City
streets last 5-10 years longer with an organized trash system. (City of Edina, 2021)
Based on axel load data, MNDot formulates that the impact from a single garbage truck
equates to the impact of 1000 cars. 86% of road wear in alleys and 8% of road wear in high
traffic areas comes garbage trucks. (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2009)
Optimizing garbage routes would significantly reduce both the miles traveled and the
quantity and frequency of trucks on residential streets and alleys ultimately reducing
maintenance costs.
Environmental Benefits:
o Edina’s draft Climate Action Plan goals include reducing citywide greenhouse gas emissions
30% by 2025, and 80% by 2050. Garbage trucks average 3-5 miles per gallon and reducing
the miles traveled reduces greenhouse gases. (City of Edina, 2021)
o Data from the MPCA 2012 report shows the percentage of additional fuel used in these
open cities than if they were to switch to an organized system
Eagan 21%
Duluth 294%
Data from MPCA, 2012 Report
Page 3
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Rochester 250%
Woodbury 355%
St. Paul 437%
Congestion Reduction:
o In May of 2021, the City installed a camera at the intersection of West Shore Dr and
Dunberry Ln to collect traffic data on garbage pick-up day. This is the corner of two minor
residential streets, which do not have pass-through traffic, i.e. garbage trucks at this corner
are serving the residences in the neighborhood. Staff calculated the percentage of vehicles
observed: garbage trucks, school buses, other large vehicles and regular passenger vehicles.
o Depending on the structure of the organized collection system, the number of trash trucks
could be reduced to 3; 94% of the garbage truck traffic is potentially unnecessary.
Traffic Safety Benefits:
o Due to the size and frequent stops of garbage trucks, reducing the quantity of trucks on
any given street fosters safer travel for pedestrians, cyclists and motorized vehicles alike.
o In 2019 in Minnesota, single trucks (2-axle 6 tire and 3+ axle) caused 2 traffic deaths, 7
serious injuries, and 70 other injuries in Minnesota, with 1,083 people involved in collisions.
Common Concerns in Changing Systems:
o Households lose the ability to choose their hauler based on preference
o Customers can’t shop around if dissatisfied
o Greater involvement by a city entity
o Organized collection creates a monopoly
Surrounding Cities with Organized Trash and com:
o Richfield, Bloomington, St. Paul, Maplewood, St. Anthony
Input from surrounding communities that that converted to OTC
o Meeting with Rachel Lindholm, sustainability Coordinator for Richfield held August 27th.
Details to come…
Page 4
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
References:
City of Bloomington. (2021, August 25th), Garbage and Recycling.
https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/ub/garbage-and-recycling
City of Edina. (2021, August 4th), Living Streets Plan.
https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1199/Living-Streets-Plan-PDF?bidId=
City of Edina. (2021, August 4th), Better Together Edina - Climate Action Plan.
https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/climate-action-plan
City of Edina. (2021, August 4th), 2021 Quality of Life Survey.
https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11232/2021-Quality-of-Life-Survey-PDF
City of Edina (2021, August 4th), Utility Rates. https://www.edinamn.gov/355/Utility-Rates
Dunbar, E. (2019, June 5). When Minnesota cities take over trash collection, they take heat. But sometimes it pays
off. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/06/05/minnesota-cities-organized-trash-pickup-see-lower-
costs-controversy
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2012, February). The Benefits of Organized Collection - Waste Collection
Service Arrangements. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/leg-12sy1-06.pdf
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2009, June) Analysis of Waste Service Arrangements,
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/w-sw1-06.pdf
Saint Paul Public Works. (2016). Organized Trash Collection in Saint Paul: Report on Community Input and Draft
Goals and Objectives.
https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/Media%20Root/Public%20Works/Organized%20Trash%20
Collection%20Report%20on%20Community%20Input%20and%20Draft%20Goals.pdf
Date: September 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.F.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:2022 Workplan Development Discussion Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review draft 2022 EEC work plan items. Refine.
INTRODUCTION:
Work plans are due to Community Engagement Coord. on September 28
Council work session is October 5th to present work plan
Commission Member Handbook is a resource to guide workplanning process. Commissions develop proposed
work plans from June - August. Commission approves proposed workplan in September. Chair presents proposed
work plan to Council in October. Staff present recommendations to Council in November. Council approves
work plan in December.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2022 EEC Workplan Instructions
2022 EEC DRAFT Work Plan 9.7.21
2015 Edina Street Sweeping Plan
Vice Chair Horan CAP Actions for EEC
Staff Liaison InstructionsStaff Liaison InstructionsStaff Liaison InstructionsStaff Liaison Instructions
2022 Commission Work Plan Development
Updated 2021.06.08
INSTRUCTIONSINSTRUCTIONSINSTRUCTIONSINSTRUCTIONS
General
Commission work plans are developed by the commission. Not the staff liaison.
Each section with a white background should be filled out by the Commission.
Sections in green highlight are completed by the Staff Liaison.
List initiatives in order of priority.
Parking Lot: These are items the commission considered but did not propose as part of the work
plan. These items are not considered approved and would require a work plan amendment
approved by Council to allow the commission to begin work.
Initiative & Outcome Fields
When writing initiatives, make sure the following points are addressed:
1. What is the specific action / outcome
2. Describe what the commission will do
3. Describe with the outcome(s) will look like
Examples:
Review and recommend a building energy benchmarking policy.
Study and report on possible city actions to reduce access and usage of vaping for youth.
Initiative Type
Project
This is a new or continued initiative.
Annual / On-going
Initiative that is on the work plan every year.
Event
These are events that are coordination and implemented by the commission, not by the City.
Fields
Target Completion Date
Provide a target date or quarter for the initiative to be complete by. If the date has passed, provide an
update in the progress field.
Council Charge
City Manager will propose a council charge for council consideration. If the council charge changes, the
initiative action will also be updated.
Budget Required – Staff Liaison Completes
If funds are available, the staff liaison must provide the amount that will be used. I funds are NOT
available; the staff liaison must explain the impact of Council approving this initiative.
Staff Support – Staff Liaison Completes.
List all staff support needed to complete this initiative. Include the hours and responsibilities. Select all
groups needed. I.e. IT, Communications, Equity, etc
TIMELINETIMELINETIMELINETIMELINE
MEETING INFORMATION & ROLESMEETING INFORMATION & ROLESMEETING INFORMATION & ROLESMEETING INFORMATION & ROLES
October 5, 2021, City Council Work Session
Meeting goals
Introduce the commissions proposed 2020 work plan to Council for the first time.
Attendance / Stage Direction
Commission chair (or designee) sits the table with Council. Liaisons sit on the perimeter.
Liaison Role
Do not present, be available for questions only.
Chair Role
Commission Chairs (or designee) present the commission’s 2020 proposed work plan.
City Manager Role
Remind Council of meeting goal and help move along discussion to allow all commissions to have time.
City Council Role
Review and ask clarifying questions about proposed 2020 work plans. Give feedback to City Staff on
possible amendments to work plan initiatives.
Commissions develop
proposed work plans with
liaison feedback
June–August
Commission's approve
proposed work plan at
September meeting
Sept. 28, Proposed work
plans due
September
Chairs present proposed
work plans to Council
October 5
Staff present
recommendations to
Council
November 3
Council feedback
incorporated into work
plans
Council approves work
plans
December 7
Work plans begin
January
November 3, 2021, City Council Work Session
Meeting goals
Review staff / liaison feedback on proposed 2020 commission work plans.
Attendance / Stage Direction
Commission members are not in attendance.
Liaisons sit at the table with Council.
Liaison Role
Do not present, be available for questions.
Chair Role
Not in attendance.
City Manager Role
Present proposed 2020 commission work plans with
City Council Role
Review and ask clarifying questions about proposed 2020 work plans. Provide feedback on work plan
initiatives. This would include:
• Adding / removing an initiative
• Changing scope of an initiative
• Moving an initiative from one work plan to another
December 7, 2021, City Council Meeting
Meeting goals
Approve 2020 commission work plans.
Attendance / Stage Direction
None.
Liaison Role
Do not need to attend.
Chair Role
Do not need to attend.
City Manager Role
Available for questions.
City Council Role
Approve work plans.
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Commission: Energy and Environment Commission
2022 Annual Work Plan Proposal
Initiative # 1 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Climate Action Plan -
Natural Habitat - Support new ordinance development or the modification of current ones to protect tree canopy (research information, work with parks and recreation) and explore the benefit from initiatives like No Mow May that can help expand the green ground coverage on the City.
include the promotion of more sustainable private lawn management such as water sensor on lawn irrigation systems, bee lawns, pollinator friendly gardens, fall/spring clean up practices
Deliverable Leads: Hilda Martinez
Support: Michelle
Horan, Tom Tessman,
Ava Shumway
Target
Completion Date:
Q4
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Liaison Comments: Refine Initiative Title and choose 1 strategy from CAP Greenspace sector or even one Action to focus on. Such as GS1.4 (tree ordinance), or
Strategy 1, 2 or 4.
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 2 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Green Business Recognition Program - Strengthen and
bring more business to the Green Business Recognition Program
(promotion, outreach, etc.)
Deliverable: outreach and marketing,
increase # businesses
Leads: Michelle Horan
Support: Cory Lukens,
Teri Hovanec
Target
Completion Date:
Q4
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Liaison Comments: Consider setting a numeric goal of # new businesses, or % renewable energy subscribed, etc.
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 3 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Organics Recycling - Support and promote the recycling
and organic programs at multi-family buildings
Deliverable: pilot/demonstration
site/case study? OR Establish
process/procedure for MF bldgs. To
come on board
Leads: Bayardo Lanzas
Support: Michelle
Horan, Hilda Martinez
Target
Completion Date:
Q4
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Liaison Comments: Confirm deliverable
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 4 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☒ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Coordinate and table at City events to educate the
community on organics recycling and one or two EEC initiatives.
Deliverable
-Presence at up to 4 City events to
include Fourth of July, Open Streets,
and/or Farmers Market
Leads: Bayardo Lanzas
Support: John Haugen,
Hilda Martinez
Target
Completion Date:
Q4
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Liaison Comments:
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 5 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Communications - Study and report on identifying best
practices, resources and mechanisms that can help in a better
communication of EEC initiatives taking place in the City.
Deliverable: EEC communications plan
to create awareness and engagement
with key initiatives for community
Leads: Tom Tessman
Support: Cory Lukens
Target Completion
Date: Q4
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Liaison Comments:
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 6 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Trash Hauling - Study and report on case studies and
option to have organized trash collection in the City of Edina,
recommendations for Council (make sure up to date)
Deliverable: Recommendation & plan
for changes to trash hauling program
in order to reduce duplicative trips
and decrease wear on city roads
Leads: John Haugen
Support: Michelle
Horan, Cory Lukens,
Hilda Martinez
Target
Completion Date:
Q4
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Liaison Comments: Note that this initiative builds on 2021 ETC item. EEC and ETC connect to confirm who leads initiative and content.
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 7 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Plastic Bag Policy - Revise and update 2017 report on
possible recommendations for a plastic bag ordinance.
Deliverable: updated report with
recommendation
Leads: Michelle Horan
Support: Cory Lukens,
Tom Tessman, Ava
Shumway
Target
Completion Date:
Q4
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Liaison Comments:
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 8 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Stormwater Pollution Management -
Study one select area of Edina to determine changes to stormwater
quantity and management (i.e. commercial, mixed use, SF residential
and MF residential) and impact to environment, including potential
impact from/to climate change. Explore options to improve
Deliverable: pilot in a neighborhood Leads: Teri Hovanec
Support: John Haugen
Target
Completion Date:
Q4
Template Updated 2021.06.08
management or stormwater and stormwater residue (i.e. additional
street sweeping; mowing; pesticide application) and provide
recommendations accordingly. Focus on keeping debris and
deleterious materials out of stormwater system. Keep items from even
getting to the drain.
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Liaison Comments: Will share consultant report on sweeping asap. Suggest refining this initiative to simplify and clarify intent and action. Confirm or change
deliverable. Identify supporting commissioners.
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 9 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☒ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Cities Networking - Coordinate with other cities on
sustainable practices broadly. Consider coordinating with Resilient
Cities and Communities (RCC) to host one to four meetings a year with
other Cities Environmental Commissions with the aim to share best
practices.
Deliverable Quarterly meetings Leads: Cory Lukens
Support: John Haugen
Target
Completion Date:
Q4
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Liaison Comments:
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to
work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.)
City of Edina, MN
Street Sweeping Management Plan
October, 2015
i
[Page intentionally left blank]
ii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. iv
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. v
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 3
2. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 3
3. Water Resources ................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1. City of Edina Lake and Pond Amendment to the Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan (CWRMP) .................................................................................................................... 4
3.2. Impaired Waters and TMDLs ........................................................................................................ 6
4. Stormwater Management Goals ........................................................................................................... 7
4.1. Non-degradation Policies .............................................................................................................. 7 4.2. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) ........................................................................ 7 4.3. Good Housekeeping/Maintenance ............................................................................................. 7
5. Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 8
5.1. Identification of Sweeping Zones .................................................................................................. 8
5.2. Methods for Estimating Load Recovery and Load Reductions ................................................... 10
5.2.1. Tree Canopy Assessment .................................................................................................... 10
5.2.1. Spatial Analysis of Edina Roads ........................................................................................... 11
5.2.2. Solids Recovery Rates ......................................................................................................... 12
5.2.3. Load Reduction Estimates ................................................................................................... 12
5.2.4. Estimating Load Recovery for Different Sweeper Types ..................................................... 13
6. Load Recovery and Load Reduction Estimates ................................................................................... 14
6.1. Baseline Street Sweeping ............................................................................................................ 14
6.1.1. Load Recovery ..................................................................................................................... 14
6.1.2. Load Reductions .................................................................................................................. 14
6.2. Enhanced Sweeping Scenario 1 – Monthly Street Sweeping ..................................................... 16
6.2.1. Load Recovery ..................................................................................................................... 16
6.2.2. Load Reductions .................................................................................................................. 16
6.3. Enhanced Sweeping Scenario 2 – Bi-Weekly Street Sweeping ................................................... 18
iii
6.3.1. Load Recovery ..................................................................................................................... 18
6.3.2. Load Reductions .................................................................................................................. 18
6.4. Costs Benefit Analysis ................................................................................................................. 20
6.4.1. Cost Effectiveness of Baseline Sweeping ............................................................................ 21
6.4.2. Cost Effectiveness of Monthly Sweeping ............................................................................ 21
6.4.3. Cost Effectiveness of Bi-weekly Sweeping .......................................................................... 22
7. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 26
8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 28
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................. 41
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................................. 46
Appendix D .................................................................................................................................................. 49
iv
Table of Tables
Table 1. Summary of priority waterbodies by HUC 12 with associated service level and land cover characteristics. Street sweeping was evaluated within the drainage areas of waterbodies shown in bold font. ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2. Impaired waters located within the City of Edina jurisdiction. ................................................. 6
Table 3. Tree Canopy Rating Scheme ....................................................................................................... 10 Table 4. Summary of sweeping zone characteristics including service level of the waterbody, average over-street tree canopy cover, and total curb-miles of street (length of street x 2).............. 11
Table 5. Estimated load recovery rates (lb/curb-mile/yr) for total solids and total phosphorus for three levels of effort, sweeping with a regenerative air (or comparable) sweeper. ............................ 12
Table 6. Discounts applied to load recovery predictions to estimate recoverable loads for mechanical
broom sweepers. ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Table 7. Estimated total solids and phosphorus recovery and load reduction estimates for baseline
sweeping effort using mechanical broom and regenerative air technologies. .......................................... 15
Table 8. Estimated total solids and phosphorus recovery and load reduction estimates for monthly sweeping effort using mechanical broom and regenerative air technologies. ..................................... 17 Table 9. Estimated total solids and phosphorus recovery and load reduction estimates for bi-weekly sweeping effort using mechanical broom and regenerative air technologies. ..................................... 19
Table 10. Cost and cost-efficiency of street sweeping in defined sweeping zones (Appendix B) at the
baseline effort by major subwatershed. ..................................................................................................... 21
Table 11. Cost and cost-efficiency of street sweeping in defined sweeping zones (Appendix B) for
monthly sweeping by major subwatershed................................................................................................ 22
Table 12. Cost and cost-efficiency of street sweeping in defined sweeping zones (Appendix B) for bi-
weekly sweeping by major subwatershed. ................................................................................................. 22
Table 13. Summary of estimated costs and cost-efficiencies of phosphorus recovery within direct
drainage areas for each waterbody (see 5.1) for baseline, monthly, and bi-weekly sweeping scenarios. 23
Table 14. Summary of estimated costs and cost-efficiencies of phosphorus recovery within direct
drainage areas for each waterbody (see 5.1) for baseline, monthly, and bi-weekly sweeping scenarios. 24
Table 15. Summary of estimated costs and cost-efficiencies of phosphorus recovery within the TOTAL
drainage area for each waterbody for baseline, monthly, and bi-weekly sweeping scenarios. ................ 25 Table 16. Comparison of overall pick-up efficiencies for different sweeping technologies and loading intensities (Sutherland, 1995). Efficiencies are based on pick up of street dirt simulant, NURP particle size distribution 13% fine (d < 63 µm), 40% medium (250 µm ≤ d ≤ 2000 µm), and 47% coarse (d ≥ 2000 µm). ...................................................................................................................... 47 Table 17. Ratio of fine (< 2mm) to coarse organic (>2mm) solids by month for different tree canopy cover ratings. (Kalinosky, et. al, 2014). Medium canopy is taken to represent ‘average’ ratios. ....... 47
Table 18. Summary of P8 ponds by priority water. Priority waters modeling in P8 are shown in bold font.
.................................................................................................................................................................... 49
v
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Direct drainage areas for priority waters (as defined for street sweeping goals) in the City of Edina, MN. ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2 . Direct drainage area for Arrowhead Lake includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds. The service level for Arrowhead Lake is ‘high’. ......................................................................... 28 Figure 3. Direct drainage area for Cornelia Lake North (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Cornelia Lake North is ‘high’. .................................................... 29 Figure 4. Direct drainage area for Cornelia Lake South (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Cornelia Lake South is ‘high’. .................................................... 30 Figure 5. Direct drainage area for Harvey Lake. The service level for Highlands Lake is ‘low’. ......... 31 Figure 6. Direct drainage area for Hawkes Lake (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Hawkes Lake is ‘low’. ............................................................................... 32 Figure 7. Direct drainage area for Highland Lake (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Highland Lake is ‘low’. ............................................................................. 33 Figure 8. Direct drainage area for Indianhead Lake (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Indianhead is ‘medium’. .......................................................................... 34 Figure 9. Direct drainage area for Lake Edina. The service level for Lake Edina is ‘high’. ................. 35 Figure 10. Direct drainage area for Melody Lake. The service level for Melody Lake is ‘high’. ......... 36 Figure 11. Direct drainage area for Mirror Lake (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Mirror Lake is ‘low’. ................................................................................. 37 Figure 12. Direct drainage area for Mud Lake (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Mud Lake is ‘low’. ..................................................................................... 38 Figure 13. Direct drainage area for Minnehaha Creek (does not include drainage areas for upstream priority waters or landlocked subbasins). Water quality concerns include the Lake Hiawatha TMDLs for excess nutrients and Minnehaha Creek 303d listings (see Section 3.2). ........................... 39 Figure 14. Direct drainage area for Ninemile Creek (does not include drainage areas for upstream priority waters or landlocked subbasins). Water quality concerns include impairments for aquatic life and aquatic recreation for Ninemile Creek (see Section 3.2). ......................................................... 40 Figure 15. Comparison of removal efficiencies, mechanical broom and vacuum sweeper technologies, fine and coarse particle size ranges as reported in MNDOT, 2008. ............................... 46 Figure 16. Seasonal pattern in the partitioning of solids and nutrients between the fine and coarse fractions of sweeper waste. ...................................................................................................................... 48
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 1
Executive Summary Street sweeping practices were evaluated to quantify the water quality benefits of current sweeping practices and proposed enhanced street sweeping within the drainage areas of Edina’s priority waters. Priority waters were identified based on review of the Edina Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP) including the recent Lake & Pond Management Policy Amendment. Total solids (TS) and total phosphorus (TP) recovery for street sweeping within the drainage of individual priority waters were estimated using a street sweeping planning calculator tool developed by the University of Minnesota. Load recovery was estimated for sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper and for sweeping with a regenerative air sweeper at each defined level of effort. Load reductions (total solids, total phosphorus) for priority waters were estimated using pollutant removal efficiencies for stormwater catchments estimated by Barr (2011) through P8 modeling. A simple cost-benefit analysis was also completed for each level of effort/sweeper type evaluated. Costs were estimated based on the cost of current practices, manufacturer’s literature, and through comparison with a recent university of MN study, Quantifying Nutrient Removal
through Street Sweeping. Pollutant load recovery and load reductions were estimated for three levels of effort: baseline sweeping (current practice), which consists of one sweeping each in the spring and fall using a mechanical broom sweeper; monthly sweeping, which was approximated as 7 sweeping per year (Apr-Oct); and bi-weekly sweeping, which was approximated as 14 sweepings per year (Apr-Oct). Differences in load recovery for the two sweeper types (mechanical broom, regenerative air) were based on review of manufacturer’s literature, street sweeper pick-up efficiency studies, and solids loading patterns observed in University of MN study. Current sweeping practices are estimated to recover about 208,926 lb solids and 185 lb phosphorus each year within the drainage area of priority waters. Within the Minnehaha Creek watershed area current practices are estimated to reduce phosphorus loads to Minnehaha Creek by about 48 lb. Enhanced sweeping is expected to increase load recovery by the following amounts:
• Sweeping with a regenerative air sweeper (or similar technology) would increase load recovery by about 47% for TS and 37% for TP to 305,064 lb solids per year and 253 lb phosphorus per year for baseline sweeping.
• Within the Minnehaha Creek watershed area, sweeping with a regenerative air (or similar high-efficiency sweeper) is expected to increase the load reduction achieved through current practices by 29% to 62 lb/yr. The proposed sweeper upgrade would nearly achieve the target load reduction (67 lb/yr) required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Management Plan at the current sweeping frequency.
• Sweeping monthly with a regenerative air sweeper would increase load recovery by about 250% for TS and 200% for TP over baseline to 731,559 lb solids per year and 564 lb phosphorus per year.
• Sweeping bi-weekly with a regenerative air sweeper would increase load recovery by over 400% for TS and nearly 400% for TP over baseline to 1,165,494 lb solids per year and 905.3 lb phosphorus per year.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 2
Although the vehicle cost is greater, sweeping with a high-efficiency sweeper is more cost effective than sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper due to the increased load recovery that is possible with this vehicle type. Monthly sweeping with a high-efficiency sweeper was found to be the most cost-effective option with an average cost of $152/lb for phosphorus recovery compared to the baseline cost-efficiency of $205/lb. Given the advantage in load recovery and cost-effectiveness when a higher efficiency sweeping is used, it is recommended that mechanical broom sweepers be replaced, or supplemented with a higher efficiency sweeper. It is also recommended that sweeping frequency be increase to about monthly sweeping (or greater) during the snow-free season.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 3
1. Purpose The purpose of this investigation was to estimate the water quality benefits, defined as the total solids (TS) and total phosphorus (TP) load reductions to priority waters, of current street sweeping practices in the City of Edina and the projected benefits of enhanced street sweeping. A simple cost-benefit analysis was completed to compare the cost-effectiveness of different sweeping practices and to identify the optimal practice from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.
2. Background Most cities do some amount of street sweeping each year to improve road safety and appearance, but when considering best management practices (BMPs) for water quality, street sweeping is often overlooked. Intuitively, street sweeping makes sense. Pollutants removed from the street are not available for transport to the storm sewer network. In agreement with this, several recent studies, which make use of newer sweeping technologies and advances in stormwater management, have reported that street sweeping offers a very cost-effective and efficient means to reduce pollutant loads to storm sewer infrastructure and to downstream waters (Beretta et. al (2011), SPU (2009), Kalinosky et. al (2013), others). Additional benefits of street sweeping include reduced clogging and flooding of storm drains, reduced maintenance to downstream stormwater infrastructure, improved safety for pedestrians, and even reduced presence of pests. Under the current MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP, reissue date August 1, 2013), the City of Edina has established street sweeping as a BMP with the following measureable goal and timeframe:
The City will brush or vacuum sweep street a minimum of twice annual in an effort to reduce the amount of sediment, trash, and organic material from reaching the storm sewer system and water resources.
Street sweeping efforts in Edina have increased since the previous SWPPP authorization in 2006.
At that time, the measureable goals included sweeping once annually and the pollution prevention/good housekeeping BMP under item MCM 6.0 included the following language on
street sweeping:
The City will continue with the current street sweeping program, identify improvements, and implement changes to reduce storm water pollutants.
This investigation is consistent with the goal to identify improvements as stated above.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 4
3. Water Resources There are over two hundred water bodies, ranging in size from lakes to small stormwater detention basins within the city limits of Edina. Most of these waterbodies are part of larger flow networks that drain to Minnehaha Creek (HUC 070102060605) or Ninemile Creek (HUC 070200121108), both of which flow through the City of Edina. Many of Edina’s lakes and ponds are integral to the stormwater system. This means that they provide water management services such as flood storage and pollutant capture which protects downstream waters. It also means that they are vulnerable to degradation if the stormwater they receive carries excessive pollution. Source control BMPs, such as street sweeping, limit the amount of pollution that is transferred from urban landscapes to Edina’s waterbodies through the stormwater system. The City of Edina Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP) was reviewed to identify water quality goals and priorities that can be addressed through enhanced street sweeping. Identified priorities and stormwater management goals described in sections 3.1-3.2 and section 4. Priorities include nutrient management/aquatic vegetation management; pollutant load reductions required by regional TMDLs; and adherence to non-degradation policies.
3.1. City of Edina Lake and Pond Amendment to the Comprehensive
Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP) In 2014, the city of Edina established services levels for aquatic vegetation management of lakes and ponds in the City of Edina Lake & Pond Management Policy Amendment to the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP). Lake and pond management was prioritized and assigned a service level of ‘none’, ‘low’, ‘medium’, or ‘high’ using a rating scheme that included the following criteria: waterbody size, water quality, aesthetics and nuisance abatement, shoreline owner involvement, and public access. The prioritization scheme adopted in the Lake & Pond Policy Amendment was used to define sweeping zones for evaluation of current sweeping and enhanced sweeping practices (Table 1). A full description of the prioritization scheme and policy development is given in the Lake & Pond Management Policy Amendment (City of Edina, 2014).
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 5
Table 1. Summary of priority waterbodies by HUC 12 with associated service level and land cover characteristics. Street sweeping was evaluated within the drainage areas of waterbodies shown in bold font.
HUC 12 Major Drainage Waterbody
Service
Level Land Use Types
Minnehaha Creek
070102060605
Northwest Minnehaha
Creek*
Harvey Lake Low R
Lake Pamela High R
Melody Lake High R
Minnehaha Creek
(direct drainage) (TMDLs) R (87%), PCD (2%); APD
(1%);
Northeast Minnehaha
Creek* Minnehaha Creek (TMDLs) R (97%), PCD/PID (11%);
MDD (2%)
Southeast Minnehaha
Creek* Minnehaha Creek (TMDLs) R
Ninemile Creek
070200121108
Ninemile Creek - North
Hawkes Lake Low R
Highland Lake Medium R
Mirror Lake Low R
Unnamed nr Schaefer
and Harold Wood l§ Low R
Mud Lake Low R
Unnamed nr
Parkwood & Knoll§ Low R
Other Parkwood
Ponds§ Low/none R
Ninemile Creek - Central Creek Valley Pond§ Low R
Ninemile Creek - South
Fork
Arrowhead Lake High R
Indianhead Lake Medium R
Southwest Ponds Long Brake Trail Low R
Lake Cornelia/Lake
Edina/Adam's Hill
Cornelia - North High R 95%); POD/PCD (6%)
Cornelia - South High R
Lake Edina High R/PSR (96%); POD/PCD
(4%)
Lake Nancy§ Medium R
Otto Pond§ Low R
Point of France§ Low PCD (71%), R (14%); RMD
(8%); POD (6%); APD (1%);
Swimming Pool Pond§ Medium R (86%), PSR (4%); RMD
(7%); APD (2%); POD (1%)
(West Garrison) (none) R (89%); PCD (11%)
Ninemile Creek
(direct drainage not listed above)
(Future
TMDLs) (not quantified) * Also part of the drainage area for Lake Hiawatha (Lake Hiawatha Phosphorus TMDL, 2014).
§Included in sweeping zone for a downstream waterbody.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 6
3.2. Impaired Waters and TMDLs The current 303d list for Minnesota includes four waterbodies that lie within the City of Edina municipal boundaries, one of which has an approved TMDL (Table 2). In addition to these, the City of Edina is included in the categorical wasteload allocation for MS4 stormwater permits in the Lake Hiawatha total phosphorus TMDL. In the Lake Hiawatha TMDL, the allowable stormwater load for the City of Edina (424.4 lb/yr) is about half the estimated existing load (841.4 lb/yr for 2001-2011, Tetra Tech 2013). As additional TMDLs are approved and implementation plans are developed, the City of Edina may need to provide documentation of pollutant load reductions. TMDLs addressing nutrient impairments will most likely be written for total phosphorus (TP). Excess phosphorus is also a candidate cause for low dissolved oxygen (DO). Total suspended solids (TSS) is a candidate cause for fish and macroinvertebrate bioassessment impairments.
Table 2. Impaired waters located within the City of Edina jurisdiction.
Lake Name (MN DNR LAKE ID) HUC 12 Listing Year TMDL Target Start/Completion
Affected Use Pollutant/Stressor
Impaired Waters Located Within the City of Edina
Lake Cornelia (North)
27-0028-01
Nine Mile
Creek 070102061302
2008 2014/2018 Aquatic Recreation:
Nutrients/Eutrophication Biological Indicators Lake Edina 27-0029-00 2008 2014/2018
Nine Mile Creek 07020012-518 2004 2024/2028 Aquatic Life Chloride
Fish Bioassessment
Minnehaha Creek 07010206-539
Minnehaha Creek
070102061108
2008 2020/2024
Aquatic Life
Chloride
2014 2009/2015 Fish Bioassessment
2008 2020/2024 Macroinvertabrate
Bioassessment
2004 2020/2024 Dissolved Oxygen
2010 Approved 2014 Aquatic Recreation Fecal Coliform
Downstream Impaired Waters
Lake Hiawatha 27-0018-00
Minnehaha
Creek 070102061108 2002 Approved 2014 Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 7
4. Stormwater Management Goals
4.1. Non-degradation Policies Two major watershed districts have jurisdictions which lie within the City of Edina municipal boundaries – the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD) and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Stormwater management rules for both of these watersheds included non-degradation policies that apply to both water quality and volume control. Enhanced street sweeping may provide assurance for non-degradation of water quality by reducing pollutant loads, and may address non-degradation of stormwater volume by reducing loss rate of storage volume through siltation/sedimentation of stormwater ponds.
4.2. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Per the MCWD Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan the City of Edina is required to reduce its annual phosphorus load to Minnehaha Creek by 67 pounds1. This requirement has been fulfilled with the implementation of capital improvements since 2000, but additional reductions may be achieved through recent capital improvements and best management practices (BMPs) including street sweeping. Phosphorus reductions achieved through current sweeping practices were estimated at 350 lb/yr city-wide by Barr (2011). The estimated load reductions for current sweeping practices outlined in section 6.1 are defined instead by major drainage area. Current sweeping practices in the Minnehaha Watershed area of the City of Edina are expected to reduce phosphorus loads to Minnehaha Creek by about 48 lb. Sweeping with a regenerative air (or similar high-efficiency sweeper) is expected to increase the load reduction achieved by current practices to 62 lb/yr.
4.3. Good Housekeeping/Maintenance In addition to water quality benefits, regular street sweeping may reduce needed maintenance on stormwater ponds and infrastructure by reducing sedimentation, siltation and clogging. Increased dead storage volume is listed as a potential implementation activity for several stormwater ponds throughout Edina in Section 15, Table 15A of the Edina CWRMP. Enhanced sweeping within stormwater pond drainage areas may extend the maintenance cycle for these and other ponds.
1 As stated in Section 15.2.1 of the City of Edina Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 8
5. Methods
5.1. Identification of Sweeping Zones The sweeping zones (direct drainage areas) for which pollutant load recovery were estimated are shown in Figure 1 (all areas combined) and Appendix A (individual zones). Sweeping zones were identified based on the priorities outline in Sections 3 and 4. With a few exceptions, sweeping zones were defined for all ponds with a priority rating higher than ‘none’ (City of Edina, 2014) and for Minnehaha Creek and Nine Mile Creek. Sweeping zones include all streets located within the direct drainage areas of the water body of interest. For the purpose of estimating recoverable loads, the direct drainage area is defined as any street draining to the water body of interest that cannot be included in the direct drainage area of another priority water. The estimated pollutant load recovery within the total drainage area and the total load reduction to each priority water are reported in section 6. For some water bodies, the total drainage area includes the direct drainage areas of other (upstream) priority lakes or ponds (see also section 5.2.2 and section 5.2.3). Streets located in landlocked basins were not included in load recovery estimates for priority waters, however, sweeping may be useful in these areas to extend the life of local stormwater BMPs.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 9
Figure 1. Direct drainage areas for priority waters (as defined for street sweeping goals) in the City of Edina, MN. See Appendix AAppendix for maps of individual sweeping zones.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 10
5.2. Methods for Estimating Load Recovery and Load Reductions Pollutant recovery was estimated using a street sweeping planning calculator tool developed by the University of MN, ‘Estimating Nutrient and Solids Load Recovery through Street Sweeping’ (Kalinosky, et. al, 2014). The tool predicts average solids and nutrient load recovery based on the timing and frequency of sweeping; and density of tree canopy cover over the street. The tool was calibrated using street sweeping data from Prior Lake, MN and is intended for use in comparable settings (climate and geography). In order to calculate estimated solids recovery, it was necessary to first determine the length of street surfaces located within each drainage area shown in Figure 1 (section 5.2.1); and to estimate the average over-street tree canopy for these streets (section 5.2.1).
5.2.1. Tree Canopy Assessment Tree canopy covers were visually inspected using 2013 color FSA aerial photographs of the Edina area. Areas of street with similar canopy cover were assigned a score of 1-5 corresponding to the range of canopy cover densities described in Table 3. Visual examples of tree canopy covers are included in Appendix B. Using tree canopy cover scores for individual street segments, a weighted average tree canopy cover was calculated for each street sweeping zone. Weighted average canopy cover scores were then translated to an over-street percent canopy cover for the purpose of estimating recoverable solids loads. Over-street percent tree canopy covers were assigned based upon comparison to tree canopies quantified in Prior Lake, MN (Kalinosky, et. al, 2013).
Table 3. Tree Canopy Rating Scheme
Assigned Score Canopy Description Over-Street Canopy Cover*
0 None None over street, very few or no immature tree in
yards/lots. 0%
1 Very Low Immature trees near street, very little/no over street
canopy, very low tree density in yards/lots. 2%
2 Low Some visible cover over the street, mostly immature
trees, general low density of trees. 5%
3 Medium Visible cover over portions of the street, mix of
immature and mature trees in yards/lots. 10%
4 Medium-
High
Visible canopy over portions of the street, fairly dense,
uniform canopy across yards, or stands of mature tree
in backyards/common areas.
14%
4.5 High
Visible canopy along the majority of the street,
uniform canopy of mature tree across yards/stands of
mature trees in backyards/common areas.
18%
5 Very
High
Very dense canopy, canopy cover fairly continuous
across lot and street boundaries on aerial photos. 25% *Based on comparison to quantified tree canopies in Prior Lake, MN (Kalinosky, et. al, 2013).
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 11
5.2.1. Spatial Analysis of Edina Roads Streets length was summarized by sweeping zone using digital maps of Edina roads and the sweeping zones defined in Appendix A (GIS). The distance to be swept in each sweeping zone (number of curb-miles) was defined as twice the length of polylines representing the roadway, or approximately one sweeper pass along each curb line of the street. In reality, some roadways have two or more driving lanes in each direction of traffic. In such cases, load recovery estimates represent a lower bound for expected load recovery. Additional driving lanes are expected to increase the recovery of inorganic particulates compared to streets in similar settings with a single driving lane in each direction. Note that state and federal highways were excluded from sweeping zone summaries since maintenance responsibilities fall to other jurisdictions. The assigned service level, curb-miles of street, average tree canopy cover, and land use characteristics for sweeping zone are outlined in Table 4. The total curb-miles of street for which pollutant load recovery was estimated are 345.0, about 82% of total curb-miles of street in the City of Edina. Estimates do not include state and federal highways or streets in areas outside of defined sweeping zones.
Table 4. Summary of sweeping zone characteristics including service level of the waterbody, average over-street tree canopy cover, and total curb-miles of street (length of street x 2).
Major Drainage
Waterbody/Sweeping
Zone Service Level
Estimated Over-
street % Canopy
(weighted average)
Curb-miles of Street in
Direct Drainage Area
Minnehaha Creek
HUC 070102060605
Harvey Lake Low 14% 1.1
Lake Pamela High 13% 14.4
Melody Lake High 9% 11.5
Minnehaha Creek (all other) (TMDLs) 14% 65.5
Ninemile Creek HUC
070200121108
Hawkes Lake Low 13% 16.6
Highland Lake Medium 13% 10.6
Mirror Lake Low 16% 8.9
Mud Lake Low 13% 17.1
Arrowhead Lake High 12% 5.7
Indianhead Lake Medium 16% 4.8
Long Brake Trail Low 15% 1.0
Cornelia - North High 12% 43.5
Cornelia - South High 12% 3.7
Lake Edina High 12% 20.1
Ninemile Creek (all other) (Future TMDLs) 12.0% 116.0
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 12
5.2.2. Solids Recovery Rates Total solids and nutrient recovery were estimated for streets located within the direct drainage areas of priority waters. Pollutant recovery was estimated three levels of effort: 1. Baseline effort – all streets are swept once in the spring and once in the fall. 2. Monthly sweeping – all streets are swept once per month during the snow-free season (taken as April – October). 3. Bi-weekly sweeping – all streets are swept twice per month during the snow-free season (April – October). In the monthly and bi-weekly sweeping scenarios, a sweeping season of April through October was assumed. For the initial sweeping event in each scenario (the first sweeping in April), load recovery was estimated as the average of predicted recovery for single sweepings in March and April. In the calculator tool, initial sweepings in these two months represent the high and low end of loading intensities encountered during spring cleaning operations. Pollutant load recovery estimated using the calculator tool depends on the density of over-street tree canopy cover. Total solids and phosphorus loading rates for each of the three defined levels of effort are outlined for a range of over-street tree canopy covers in Table 5.
Table 5. Estimated load recovery rates (lb/curb-mile/yr) for total solids and total phosphorus for three levels of effort, sweeping with a regenerative air (or comparable) sweeper.
Baseline Sweeping Monthly Sweeping Bi-weekly Sweeping
Canopy Cover
Description*
Over-street %
Canopy Cover§ TS TP TS TP TS TP
None 0 522 0.4 1363 1.0 2265 1.6
Very Low 2 616 0.5 1467 1.1 2439 1.8
Low 5 688 0.6 1639 1.2 2725 6.5
Medium 10 827 0.7 1972 1.5 3278 2.5
Medium-High 14 959 0.8 2286 1.8 3801 3.0
High 18 1112 1.0 2651 2.2 4406 3.5
Very High 25 1440 1.3 3433 16.1 5707 4.8 * See Appendix B for examples. §Average for the street length under consideration.
5.2.3. Load Reduction Estimates To estimate pollutant reductions to priority waters (as opposed to pollutant recovery from streets) it was necessary to take into account pollutant removal through BMPs located along flow paths to priority waters. Load reductions were estimated by applying removal efficiencies for P8 ponds (Barr, 2011) to the recovered load estimates for streets located within the direct drainage area of each P8 pond. Individual P8 pond removal efficiencies are summarized by sweeping zone in Appendix D. Pollutant removal estimates were applied recursively to account for serial removal of pollutants along flow paths to priority waters. Expected pollutant load reductions to priority waters are reported as the recovered load minus any expected removal through modeled BMPs (P8 ponds). Load reductions estimates are based on the following assumptions:
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 13
• All solids on street surface will be transferred to the stormsewer system and on to downstream waters over time.
• The design efficiency of modeled BMPs can be applied to solids which typically collect on street surfaces (including organic material).
• The design efficiency of modeled BMPs is preserved through regular maintenance. Pollutant reductions to priority waters are expected to vary somewhat from estimates. Structural BMPs and other practices, such as curbside rain garden or vegetated swales, which were not included in the P8 model, would increase overall pollutant removal and therefore decrease the overall pollutant reduction through street sweeping. Factors which decrease pollutant removal such as decreased efficiency of BMPs between maintenance periods would increase the pollutant reduction to priority waters through street sweeping. It should be noted that regular street sweeping is expected to extend the useful life of structural BMPs by reducing solids loads. This benefit, although not quantified here, should be considered in setting street sweeping policy.
5.2.4. Estimating Load Recovery for Different Sweeper Types Because the pick-up efficiency of street sweepers varies among different makes and models, the amount of pollutant that can be recovered through street sweeping depends not only on factors that contribute to pollutant accumulation, but also on the type of sweeper used. Currently, all street sweeping in the City of Edina is done using mechanical broom sweepers which have been shown to have lower overall pick-up efficiency compared to higher efficiency technologies, such as regenerative air and vacuum assist street sweepers. The calculator tool used to estimate pollutant load recovery, however, is based on results for regenerative air technology. To get a more accurate estimate of load recovery at the baseline effort, discounts reflecting the lower pickup efficiency of mechanical broom sweepers were applied to estimates predicted by the calculator tool. Discounts were also applied at increased levels of effort in order to compare load recovery for mechanical broom and regenerative air (or similar) technologies. The rationale for the discounts applied is described in detail in Appendix C.
Table 6. Discounts applied to load recovery predictions to estimate recoverable loads for mechanical broom
sweepers.
Mar-Apr, Sep-Nov May-Aug
TS TP TS TP
32% 26% 38% 35%
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 14
6. Load Recovery and Load Reduction Estimates
6.1. Baseline Street Sweeping The baseline street sweeping effort consists of one sweeping each in the spring and fall.
6.1.1. Load Recovery Estimated solids and phosphorus recovery for the baseline sweeping effort in the area of interest is outlined by priority watershed in Table 7. Current sweeping practices are expected to remove approximately 56 lb-TP per year in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed area and approximately 129 lb-TP per year in the Ninemile Creek subwatershed area. Recovery of phosphorus could be increased by approximately 40-47% (72 lb-TP/yr, 181 lb-TP/yr) if regenerative air (or similar) technology were used for sweeping.
6.1.2. Load Reductions In the Ninemile Creek subwatershed overall pollutant loading to priority waters is reduced by from 3% - 94% (median value 39%) by structural BMPs that intercept stormwater. This rate of pollutant removal is based on design efficiencies for modeled BMPs. Actual removal by these structures may decline as sediment accumulates in structures between scheduled maintenance practices. The estimated overall pollutant reduction to waterbodies within the Ninemile Creek subwatershed area is about 66 lb TP/year for baseline sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper. Load reductions could be increased to about 93 lb-TP/yr if a higher efficiency sweeper technology were used. Note that load reductions to individual priority waters in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed area are equal to recovered loads for the same priority waters. Structural BMPs that were included in the P8 model for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed were located largely in landlocked areas or the watersheds of ‘low’, or ‘no’ priority waters (section 3.1). For the priority waters listed in Table 7, no modeled BMPS were located in the upstream drainage area and therefore the load reduction is equal to load recovery in the direct drainage area. Pollutant removal was, however, modeled for the priority waters themselves. Modeled removal efficiencies for Harvey Lake, Lake Pamela, and Melody Lake are included in Appendix D. These removal efficiencies were taken into account in estimating the total load reduction to Minnehaha Creek for each sweeping scenario. Based on the information available, the pollutant reduction to Minnehaha Creek for the baseline sweeping effort is 47.8 lb-TP/yr. The load reduction can be increased to 61.5 lb-TP/yr if a higher-efficiency sweeper is used.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 15
Table 7. Estimated total solids and phosphorus recovery and load reduction estimates for baseline sweeping effort using mechanical broom and regenerative air technologies.
Estimated Watershed Load* Recovery (lb) Reduction to Waterbody through Sweeping (lb) % Increased Recovery
Sweeper Upgrade†
Mechanical Broom
Sweeper Vacuum/Regen Air Sweeper Mechanical Broom
Sweeper
Vacuum/Regen Air
Sweeper
HUC 8 Waterbody Curb-miles * Service Level TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP
Minnehaha Creek
HUC 070102060605
Harvey Lake 1.1 Low 831 0.7 1,121 0.9 831 0.7 1,121 0.9
47% 32%
Lake Pamela South 8.1 High 5,648 4.9 7,501 6.2 5,648 4.9 7,501 6.2
Lake Pamela North1 14.4 (6.3) High 9,885 8.5 13,334 11.0 9,885 8.5 13,334 11.0
Melody Lake 11.5 High 6,603 5.9 9,707 7.8 6,603 5.9 9,707 7.8
Minnehaha Creek
(direct drainage) 65.4 (TMDLs) 46,565 40.8 62,815 52.4 46,565 40.8 62,815 52.4
Minnehaha Creek Subtotal** 63,883 55.9 86,977 72.1 48,616 47.8 65,591 61.5
Ninemile Creek
HUC 070200121108
Arrowhead Lake (Landlocked
basin) 5.7 High 3,803 3.5 5,591 4.6 2,322 2.6 3,413 3.5
Centennial Lakes 6.7 Low/No 5,960 5.0 8,761 6.7 5,140 4.7 7,556 6.3
Cornelia North 43.5 High 19,731 17.7 29,008 23.2 10,415 12.6 15,311 16.8
Cornelia South2 47.2 (3.7) High 21,571 19.4 31,713 25.5 2,357 8.9 3,465 11.7
Hawkes Lake3 27.2 (16.6) Low 17,132 14.1 25,187 20.7 6,984 9.7 10,763 13.5
Highland Lake 10.6 Low 5,755 5.9 9,816 8.1 5,565 5.4 9,492 7.4
Indianhead Lake
(Landlocked basin) 4.8 Medium 2,954 2.8 4,342 3.7 2,411 2.4 3,544 3.2
Lake Edina4 67.3 (20.1) High 40 37.1 60,099 48.8 4467 18.7 6,567 22.4
Long Brake Trail 1.0 Low 40,879 0.7 1,091 0.9 742 0.7 1,091 0.9
Mirror Lake 8.9 Low 4,350 4.1 6,394 5.4 2,726 3.5 4,007 4.6
Mud Lake5 43.6 (17.1) Low 27,908 23.0 41,022 33.8 7,254 13.8 10,663 20.3
Ninemile Creek
(direct drainage) 122.6 (Future TMDL) 71,163 63.9 109,482 92.0 34,870 31.3 53,646 45.1
Ninemile Creek Subtotal** 145,043 128.8 218,087 180.8 48,616 66.3 75,973 93.2
§ Total recoverable watershed load - includes recoverable loads in upstream catchments.
§§Load reduction estimate to priority water body based on P8 pond removal efficiencies (Barr, 2011). Removal efficiencies were applied to recoverable loads within the catchment of any modeled P8 pond or priority water and applied in series to determine overall reduction to a given water body. Expected reductions in total solids (TS) are approximated using TSS removal efficiencies although the two constituents are not equivalent. *Total drainage area. Curbmiles of street located within the subwatershed of upstream priority waters are shown in parenthesis. **Recovered loads and load reductions in upstream priority waters are not double counted in HUC 12 subtotals. Subtotals for major drainage areas (HUC12) are based on the total watershed load (not including landlocked basins) or reduced load based on P8 pond linkages (see Appendix D). 1 Upstream priority water = Pamela South 2 Upstream priority water = Cornelia North 3 Upstream priority water = Highland Lake 4 Upstream priority waters = Cornelia South, Cornelia North 5 Upstream priority waters = Hawkes Lake, Highland Lake
†Compares watershed load recovery using regenerative air technology to load recovery using mechanical broom, median value of reported.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 16
6.2. Enhanced Sweeping Scenario 1 – Monthly Street Sweeping The monthly sweeping scenario is defined as 7 sweepings per year- one each in the months April – October.
6.2.1. Load Recovery Estimated solids and phosphorus recovery for monthly sweeping is outlined by priority watershed in Table 8. Monthly sweeping practices are expected to remove approximately 113 lb-TP per year in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed area and approximately 279 lb-TP per year in the Ninemile Creek subwatershed area. Recovery of phosphorus could be increase by approximately 43% (164 lb-TP/yr, 400 lb-TP/yr) if a higher efficiency sweeper were used, a 200% increase over baseline sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper.
6.2.2. Load Reductions The estimated overall pollutant reduction to Minnehaha Creek is 96.3 lb-TP/yr for monthly sweeping with mechanical broom (see also discussion in section 6.1.2). For Ninemile Creek, the estimated overall pollutant reduction to waterbodies is about 144 lb-TP/year. Load reductions could be increased to about 135 lb-TP/yr and 209 lb-TP/yr in Minnehaha Creek and Ninemile Creek respectively if a higher efficiency sweeper technology were used. Estimated load reductions represent an increase of almost 200% over load reductions for baseline sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 17
Table 8. Estimated total solids and phosphorus recovery and load reduction estimates for monthly sweeping effort using mechanical broom and regenerative air technologies.
Estimated Watershed Load§ Recovery (lb) Reduction to Waterbody through Sweeping§§ (lb) % Increased Recovery
Sweeper Upgrade†
% Increased Reduction
compared to baseline,
mechanical††
Mechanical Broom
Sweeper
Vacuum/Regen Air
Sweeper
Mechanical Broom
Sweeper
Vacuum/Regen Air
Sweeper
Major Drainage
(HUC 12) Waterbody Curb-miles* Service
Level TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP
Minnehaha Creek
HUC
070102060605
Harvey Lake 1.1 Low 1,705 1.5 2,625 2.1 1,705 1.5 2,625 2.1
54% 43% 244% 195%
Lake Pamela South 8.1 High 11,798 9.9 17,881 13.7 11,798 9.9 17,881 13.7
Lake Pamela North1 14.4 (6.3) High 20,647 17.4 31,788 24.3 20,647 17.4 31,788 24.3
Melody Lake 11.5 High 14,755 12.1 22,722 17.3 14,755 12.1 22,722 17.3
Minnehaha Creek
(direct drainage) 65.4 (TMDLs) 97,255 81.9 149,733 114.6 97,255 81.9 149,733 114.6
Minnehaha Creek Subtotal** 134,362 112.8 211,941 163.8 101,549 96.3 156,344 134.9
Ninemile Creek
HUC
070200121108
Arrowhead Lake
(Landlocked basin) 5.7 High 8,500 7.1 13,090 10.1 5,192 5.3 7,996 7.6
Centennial Lakes 6.7 Low/No 13,314 9.9 20,504 14.2 11,479 9.4 17,678 13.4
Cornelia North 43.5 High 44,090 35.9 67,898 51.0 23,271 26.0 35,856 37.0
Cornelia South2 47.2 (3.7) High 48,205 39.2 74,236 55.8 5,267 18.0 8,141 26.7
Hawkes Lake3 26.5 (15.9) Low 36,547 30.3 60,044 45.9 15,619 19.7 25,658 29.9
Highland Lake 10.6 Low 12,870 11.4 23,400 17.9 12,448 11.0 22,628 16.3
Indianhead Lake
(Landlocked basin) 4.8 Medium 6,603 5.7 10,168 8.1 5,390 5.0 8,300 7.1
Lake Edina4 67.3 (20.1) High 93,040 76.9 143,282 109.4 10,166 35.3 15,713 52.3
Long Brake Trail 1.0 Low 1,659 1.4 2,555 2.0 1,659 1.4 2,555 2.0
Mirror Lake 8.9 Low 9,723 8.4 14,973 12.0 6,093 7.2 9,385 10.2
Mud Lake5 43.6 (17.1) Low 66,531 50.9 97,792 74.8 17,293 30.5 25,418 44.9
Ninemile Creek
(direct drainage) 122.6 (Future
TMDL) 169,491 141.5 261,015 202.3 83,050 69.3 127,898 99.1
Ninemile Creek Subtotal** 340,445 279.0 519,618 400.4 118,261 143.6 180,969 208.5
§ Total recoverable watershed load - includes recoverable loads in upstream catchments.
§§Load reduction estimate to priority water body based on P8 pond removal efficiencies (Barr, 2011). Removal efficiencies were applied to recoverable loads within the catchment of any modeled P8 pond or priority water and applied in series to determine overall reduction to a given water body. Expected reductions in total solids (TS) are approximated using TSS removal efficiencies although the two constituents are not equivalent. *Total drainage area. Curbmiles of street located within the subwatershed of upstream priority waters are shown in parenthesis. **Recovered loads and load reductions in upstream priority waters are not double counted in HUC 12 subtotals. Subtotals for major drainage areas (HUC12) are based on the total watershed load (not including landlocked basins) or reduced load based on P8 pond linkages (see Appendix D). 1 Upstream priority water = Pamela South 2 Upstream priority water = Cornelia North 3 Upstream priority water = Highland Lake 4 Upstream priority water = Cornelia South, Cornelia North 5 Upstream priority water = Hawkes Lake, Highland Lake †Compares watershed load recovery using regenerative air technology to load recovery using mechanical broom, median value reported.
††Compares reduction to waterbody using regenerative air technology to reduction to water body for baseline sweeping (mechanical broom), median value reported.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 18
6.3. Enhanced Sweeping Scenario 2 – Bi-Weekly Street Sweeping
The bi-weekly sweeping scenario is defined as 14 sweepings per year- two each in the months April – October.
6.3.1. Load Recovery Estimated solids and phosphorus recovery for bi-weekly sweeping is outlined by priority watershed in Table 9. Bi-weekly sweeping practices are expected to remove approximately 183 lb-TP per year in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed area and approximately 460 lb-TP per year in the Ninemile Creek subwatershed area. Recovery of phosphorus could be increased by 32% - 44% (241 lb-TP/yr, 665 lb-TP/yr) if a higher efficiency sweeper were used, an increase of 223% over baseline sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper.
6.3.2. Load Reductions The estimated overall pollutant reduction to Minnehaha Creek is 158 lb-TP/yr for monthly sweeping with mechanical broom (see also discussion in section 6.1.2). For Ninemile Creek, the estimated overall pollutant reduction to waterbodies is about 236 lb-TP/year. Load reductions could be increased to about 226 lb-TP/yr and 342 lb-TP/yr in Minnehaha Creek and Ninemile Creek respectively if a higher efficiency sweeper technology were used.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 19
Table 9. Estimated total solids and phosphorus recovery and load reduction estimates for bi-weekly sweeping effort using mechanical broom and regenerative air technologies.
Estimated Watershed Load§ Recovery (lb) Reduction to Waterbody through Sweeping§§ (lb) % Increased Recovery
Sweeper Upgrade†
% Increased Reduction
compared to baseline,
mechanical††
Mechanical Broom
Sweeper
Vacuum/Regen Air
Sweeper
Mechanical Broom
Sweeper
Vacuum/Regen Air
Sweeper
Major Drainage
(HUC 12) Waterbody Curb-miles* Service Level TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP
Minnehaha
Creek
HUC
070102060605
Harvey Lake 1.1 Low 2,430 2.1 3,767 3.0 2,430 2.1 3,767 3.0
55% 44% 426% 344%
Lake Pamela South 8.1 High 19,480 16.3 29,726 22.9 19,480 16.3 29,726 22.9
Lake Pamela North1 14.4 (6.3) High 34,090 28.5 52,846 40.7 34,090 28.5 52,846 40.7
Melody Lake 11.5 High 21,182 17.6 32,832 25.3 21,182 17.6 32,832 25.3
Minnehaha Creek (direct
drainage) 65.4 (TMDLs) 160,580 135.3 248,933 193.2 160,580 135.3 248,933 193.2
Minnehaha Creek Subtotal** 218,282 183.4 304,694 240.8 167,635 158.3 259,868 226.2
Ninemile Creek
HUC
070200121108
Arrowhead Lake (Landlocked
basin) 5.7 High 12,159 10.3 18,847 14.8 7,408 7.8 11,482 11.2
Centennial Lakes 6.7 Low/No 18,765 14.7 29,086 21.2 14,934 9.8 23,147 20.0
Cornelia North 43.5 High 63,057 52.1 97,741 74.9 33,283 37.7 51,668 54.3
Cornelia South2 47.2 (3.7) High 68,943 57.1 106,864 82.0 7,533 26.2 11,722 37.7
Hawkes Lake3 26.5 (15.9) Low 52,221 44.4 99,821 76.8 22,319 29.7 42,656 50.1
Highland Lake 10.6 Low 18,355 16.4 38,901 29.9 17,750 11.0 37,618 27.3
Indianhead Lake (Landlocked
basin) 4.8 Medium 9,406 8.3 14,579 11.9 7,676 5.6 11,898 10.5
Lake Edina4 67.3 (20.1) High 111,178 92.6 238,192 181.7 16,790 58.0 26,127 83.5
Long Brake Trail 1.0 Low 2,989 2.1 4,632 3.0 2,989 2.1 4,632 3.0
Mirror Lake 8.9 Low 13,844 12.2 21,458 17.5 8,676 10.4 13,444 14.9
Mud Lake5 43.6 (17.1) Low 110,605 85.1 162,575 125.1 28,749 51.1 42,257 75.1
Ninemile Creek (direct drainage) 122.6 (Future TMDL) 282,063 234.3 433,943 337.2 138,211 114.8 212,632 165.2
Ninemile Creek Subtotal** 563,168 460.2 860,800 664.5 195,414 236.4 299,093 341.7
§ Total recoverable watershed load - includes recoverable loads in upstream catchments.
§§Load reduction estimate to priority water body based on P8 pond removal efficiencies (Barr, 2011). Removal efficiencies were applied to recoverable loads within the catchment of any modeled P8 pond or priority water and applied in series to determine overall reduction to a given water body. Expected reductions in total solids (TS) are approximated using TSS removal efficiencies although the two constituents are not equivalent. *Total drainage area. Curbmiles of street located within the subwatershed of upstream priority waters are shown in parenthesis. **Recovered loads and load reductions in upstream priority waters are not double counted in HUC 12 subtotals. Subtotals for major drainage areas (HUC12) are based on the total watershed load (not including landlocked basins) or reduced load based on P8 pond linkages (see Appendix D). 1 Upstream priority water = Pamela South 2 Upstream priority water = Cornelia North 3 Upstream priority water = Highland Lake 4 Upstream priority water = Cornelia South, Cornelia North 5 Upstream priority water = Hawkes Lake, Highland Lake †Compares watershed load recovery using regenerative air technology to load recovery using mechanical broom, median value reported.
††Compares reduction to waterbody using regenerative air technology to reduction to water body for baseline sweeping (mechanical broom), median value reported.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 20
6.4. Costs Benefit Analysis Total costs and cost-efficiencies ($/lb-P) were estimated for baseline, monthly and bi-weekly sweeping scenarios. The cost-basis of street sweeping ($/curb-mile) is not constant and depends on the sweeper type and financing; and the cost of vehicle maintenance, labor, and fuel. Total costs for each sweeping scenario were calculated using the component costs and assumptions outlined below.
Category Cost Basis
Sweeper Mechanical Broom $18,200 - vehicle depreciation* $3,700 - vehicle maintenance* Higher Efficiency $23,700 - vehicle depreciation $4,800 - vehicle maintenance Labor (wages + benefits) $75/hr Diesel Fuel $3/gal
* City of Edina, Public Works Department Cost Basis Assumptions:
• Sweepers are owned by the City of Edina.
• Sweeper operational speed = 4.5 mph
• An additional 1.5 hrs of labor is required for every 4 hrs of sweeping time
• Total transit miles (brush off) are about 3 times total swept miles
• On average, sweeper fuel consumption is 5 mpg
- [ (brush off time, empty) + (brush on time)+ (brush off time, full capacity)]
• 1 vehicle is sufficient for baseline and monthly sweeping, 2 vehicles are required for sweeping above this level of effort based on labor hours required compared to sweeping timeframe.
• Sufficient staffing is assumed. Sweeping is most cost-effective when solids loading to streets is greatest. Since solids loading varies over the course of the year adding sweepings at certain times of the year (summer) is less cost-effecting than adding sweepings at peak loading intensities (spring, fall). Although sweeping operations can be further optimized to take advantage of these differences, the cost calculations presented here are based on regular sweeping at the frequency specified for each level of effort. Estimated sweeping costs at each defined level of effort are summarized in sections 6.4.1 - 6.4.3. Cost are outlined in detail for loads recovered within the direct drainage area of priority waters in Table 13 for sweeping with mechanical broom and Table 14 for sweeping with a high efficiency sweeper. Costs are also outlined in detail for load recovery within the total drainage area of each priority water for sweeping with a high efficiency sweeper in Table 15.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 21
6.4.1. Cost Effectiveness of Baseline Sweeping Solids loading tends to peak in the spring (winter residuals) and again in the fall (leaf drop) which makes the singular spring and fall sweepings that make up the baseline sweeping effort among the most efficient (lb/curb-mile). However, at the baseline effort, the cost of sweeping is driven by the flat cost of vehicle financing. This drives the cost-effectiveness of sweeping down compared to monthly sweeping (section 6.4.2). Based on the assumptions outlined above, the cost basis for baseline sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper and with a higher efficiency sweeper are $56.50 and $66 per curb-mile of sweeping respectively. Estimated total costs and cost-efficiencies for baseline sweeping are summarized in Table 10 and outlined in detail in Table 13 - Table 15 . Note that while sweeping is less expensive for a mechanical broom sweeper on a per-mile basis, it is less cost effective ($/lb-P recovered) due to the reduced solids recovery compared to higher efficiency sweepers.
Table 10. Cost and cost-efficiency of street sweeping in defined sweeping zones (Appendix B) at the baseline effort
by major subwatershed.
Sweeper Type HUC 12 Watershed Cost ($)
Cost-efficiency,
Phosphorus Recovery
($/lb-P)
Cost-efficiency,
Phosphorus Reduction*
($/lb-P)
Mechanical
Broom
Minnehaha Creek 10,348 185 194
Ninemile Creek 27,532 214 415
Higher
Efficiency
Minnehaha Creek 12,048 167 196
Ninemile Creek 32,050 177 344
*Based on estimated sub-catchment pollutant removal efficiency, see section 6.1.2.
6.4.2. Cost Effectiveness of Monthly Sweeping Since monthly sweeping can be completed using a single sweeper, the vehicle financing cost does not increase for monthly sweeping compared to baseline sweeping. Labor and fuel costs increase such that the total cost is approximately 2X the cost of baseline sweeping; however, solids recovery increases by more than 2-fold over baseline, making monthly sweeping more cost-effective than the baseline effort. Based on the assumption outlined above, the cost basis for baseline sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeping is $34, and with a regenerative air sweeper $37 per curb-mile of sweeping. Estimated total costs and cost-efficiencies for monthly sweeping are summarized in Table 11 and outlined in detail in Table 13 - Table 15 .
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 22
Table 11. Cost and cost-efficiency of street sweeping in defined sweeping zones (Appendix B) for monthly
sweeping by major subwatershed.
Sweeper Type HUC 12 Watershed Cost ($)
Cost-efficiency,
Phosphorus Recovery
($/lb-P)
Cost-efficiency,
Phosphorus Reduction*
($/lb-P)
Mechanical
Broom
Minnehaha Creek 21,943 194 204
Ninemile Creek 58,343 209 406
Higher
Efficiency
Minnehaha Creek 26,631 144 175
Ninemile Creek 62,860 157 301
*Based on estimated sub-catchment pollutant removal efficiency, see section 6.2.2.
6.4.3. Cost Effectiveness of Bi-weekly Sweeping Based on the number of vehicle hours required, bi-weekly sweeping cannot be completed in all defined sweeping zone during the period April-October unless a second vehicle is used. Although a second sweeper might not be financed in the same manner a primary sweeper, for the sake of keeping cost estimates simple, the vehicle finance cost was doubled to account for the additional sweeper in the bi-weekly sweeping scenario. Labor and fuel costs also double compared to monthly sweeping making the total cost for bi-weekly sweeping 2X the cost of monthly sweeping. Total load recovery increases over baseline and monthly sweeping when street are swept bi-weekly, but sweeping efficiency (lb/curb-mile recovered) tends to decrease as sweeping intervals decrease. For this reason, bi-weekly sweeping is less cost-effective than monthly sweeping; however, the cost-effectiveness of bi-weekly sweeping with a higher-efficiency sweeper is comparable to baseline sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper. Based on the assumption outlined above, the cost basis for baseline sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeping is $34, and with a regenerative air sweeper $37 per curb-mile of sweeping. Total cost ad cost-efficiencies for bi-weekly sweeping are summarized in Table 12 and outlined in detail in Table 13 - Table 15 .
Table 12. Cost and cost-efficiency of street sweeping in defined sweeping zones (Appendix B) for bi-weekly
sweeping by major subwatershed.
Sweeper Type HUC 12 Watershed Cost ($)
Cost-efficiency,
Phosphorus Recovery
($/lb-P)
Cost-efficiency,
Phosphorus Reduction*
($/lb-P)
Mechanical
Broom
Minnehaha Creek 43,887 239 249
Ninemile Creek 116,685 254 494
Higher
Efficiency
Minnehaha Creek 47,261 196 209
Ninemile Creek 125,720 189 368
*Based on estimated sub-catchment pollutant removal efficiency, see section 6.3.2.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 23
Table 13. Summary of estimated costs and cost-efficiencies of phosphorus recovery within direct drainage areas for each waterbody (see 5.1) for baseline, monthly, and bi-weekly sweeping scenarios. Estimates are based on recovery using a mechanical broom sweeper. The cost basis for estimates is $56.50 (baseline) or $34 (monthly, bi-weekly) per curb-mile of sweeping.
Recovered Phosphorus (lb)* Baseline Sweeping Costs Monthly Sweeping Costs Bi-weekly Sweeping Costs
HUC 8 Waterbody Service Level Curb-miles, Direct
Drainage Area Baseline Monthly Bi-weekly $ $/lb-P $ $/lb-P $ $/lb-P
Minnehaha Creek
HUC 070102060605
Harvey Lake Low 1.1 0.7 1.5 2.1 $ 124 $ 178 $ 264 $ 176 $ 527 $ 251
Lake Pamela South High 8.1 4.9 9.9 16.3 $ 917 $ 188 $ 1,944 $ 196 $ 3,888 $ 239
Lake Pamela North High 6.3 3.7 7.4 12.2 $ 713 $ 195 $ 1,510 $ 203 $ 3,020 $ 247
Melody Lake High 10.6 5.9 12.1 17.6 $ 1,199 $ 203 $ 2,541 $ 210 $ 5,082 $ 289
Minnehaha Creek (all other*) (TMDLs) 65.5 40.8 81.9 135.3 $ 7,407 $ 182 $ 15,700 $ 192 $ 31,401 $ 232
Minnehaha Creek Subtotal* 91.6 55.9 112.8 183.4 $ 10,348 $ 185 $ 21,932 $ 194 $ 43,865 $ 239
Ninemile Creek HUC
070200121108
Arrowhead Lake
(Landlocked basin) High 5.7 3.5 7.1 10.3 $ 645 $ 184 $ 1,366 $ 192 $ 2,733 $ 265
Centennial Lakes Low/No 6.7 5.0 9.9 14.7 $ 758 $ 152 $ 1,606 $ 162 $ 3,212 $ 219
Cornelia North High 43.5 17.7 35.9 52.1 $ 4,921 $ 279 $ 10,427 $ 291 $ 20,854 $ 400
Cornelia South High 3.7 1.8 3.4 4.9 $ 419 $ 239 $ 887 $ 263 $ 1,774 $ 359
Hawkes Lake Low 16.6 14.1 30.3 44.4 $ 1,799 $ 127 $ 3,811 $ 126 $ 7,622 $ 172
Highland Lake Low 10.6 5.5 11.4 16.4 $ 1,199 $ 218 $ 2,541 $ 223 $ 5,082 $ 310
Indianhead Lake
(Landlocked basin) Medium 3.9 2.8 5.7 8.3 $ 543 $ 194 $ 1,151 $ 202 $ 2,301 $ 277
Lake Edina High 20.1 17.7 37.7 69.4 $ 2,274 $ 128 $ 4,818 $ 128 $ 9,636 $ 139
Long Brake Trail Low 1.0 0.7 1.4 2.1 $ 113 $ 167 $ 240 $ 173 $ 479 $ 232
Mirror Lake Low 8.9 4.1 8.4 12.2 $ 1,007 $ 246 $ 2,133 $ 254 $ 4,267 $ 350
Mud Lake Low 17.1 23.0 50.9 85.1 $ 1,934 $ 84 $ 4,099 $ 81 $ 8,198 $ 96
Ninemile Creek (all other*) (Future TMDL) 122.6 44.3 99.8 173.5 $ 13,868 $ 313 $ 29,387 $ 294 $ 58,774 $ 339
Ninemile Creek Subtotal* 244.1 128.8 279.0 460.2 $ 27,532 $ 214 $ 53,343 $ 209 $ 116,685 $ 254
* Recovered TP loads for direct drainage areas only (does not include loads recovered from
streets located in upstream drainage areas). Recovery with mechanical broom sweeper.
**Includes Landlocked areas.
TOTAL** $ 37,880 $ 205 $ 80,275 $ 205 $ 160,550 $ 250
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 24
Table 14. Summary of estimated costs and cost-efficiencies of phosphorus recovery within direct drainage areas for each waterbody (see 5.1) for baseline, monthly, and bi-weekly sweeping scenarios. Estimates are based on recovery using a regenerative air (or similar) sweeping technology. The cost basis for estimates is $66 (baseline) or $37 (monthly, bi-weekly) per curb-mile of sweeping.
Recovered Phosphorus (lb)* Baseline Sweeping Costs Monthly Sweeping Costs Bi-weekly Sweeping Costs
HUC 8 Waterbody Service Level Curb-miles Baseline Monthly Bi-weekly $ $/lb-P $ $/lb-P $ $/lb-P
Minnehaha Creek
HUC 070102060605
Harvey Lake Low 1.1 0.9 2.1 3.0 $ 145 $ 161 $ 284 $ 135 $ 568 $ 189
Lake Pamela South High 8.1 6.2 13.7 22.9 $ 1,068 $ 173 $ 2,094 $ 153 $ 4,189 $ 183
Lake Pamela North High 6.3 4.8 10.6 17.8 $ 1,830 $ 167 $ 3,590 $ 148 $ 7,180 $ 176
Melody Lake High 10.6 7.8 17.3 25.3 $ 1,396 $ 179 $ 2,738 $ 158 $ 5,475 $ 216
Minnehaha Creek (all other*) (TMDLs) 65.5 54.4 114.6 193.2 $ 8,612 $ 164 $ 16,890 $ 147 $ 33,780 $ 175
Minnehaha Creek Subtotal* 91.6 72.0 158.3 262.2 $ 12,048 $ 167 $ 23,631 $ 144 $ 47,261 $ 196
Ninemile Creek HUC
070200121108
Arrowhead Lake
(Landlocked basin) High 5.7 4.6 10.1 14.8 $ 751 $ 163 $ 1,472 $ 146 $ 2,944 $ 199
Centennial Lakes Low/No 6.7 6.7 14.2 21.2 $ 882 $ 132 $ 1,730 $ 122 $ 3,461 $ 163
Cornelia North High 43.5 23.2 51.0 74.9 $ 5,728 $ 247 $ 11,234 $ 220 $ 22,468 $ 300
Cornelia South High 3.7 2.3 4.8 7.1 $ 6,215 $ 244 $ 12,190 $ 218 $ 24,380 $ 297
Hawkes Lake Low 16.6 12.7 27.1 40.3 $ 3,582 $ 173 $ 7,025 $ 153 $ 14,049 $ 183
Highland Lake Low 10.6 8.1 16.3 23.6 $ 1,396 $ 173 $ 2,738 $ 153 $ 5,475 $ 183
Indianhead Lake
(Landlocked basin) Medium 3.9 3.7 8.1 11.9 $ 514 $ 139 $ 1,007 $ 124 $ 2,014 $ 169
Lake Edina High 20.1 23.3 35.0 51.4 $ 8,862 $ 182 $ 17,381 $ 159 $ 34,762 $ 191
Long Brake Trail Low 1.0 0.9 6.2 9.2 $ 132 $ 146 $ 258 $ 129 $ 517 $ 174
Mirror Lake Low 8.9 5.4 12.0 17.5 $ 1,172 $ 217 $ 2,299 $ 192 $ 4,597 $ 263
Mud Lake Low 17.1 13.0 19.3 32.2 $ 5,741 $ 170 $ 11,260 $ 151 $ 22,520 $ 180
Ninemile Creek (all other*) (Future TMDL) 122.6 92.0 202.3 337.2 $ 16,143 $ 176 $ 31,662 $ 157 $ 63,325 $ 188
Ninemile Creek Subtotal* 243.4 180.8 400.4 664.5 $ 32,050 $ 177 $ 62,860 $ 157 $ 125,720 $ 189
* Recovered TP loads for direct drainage areas only (does not include loads recovered from
streets located in upstream drainage areas). Recovery with high efficiency sweeper.
**Includes Landlocked areas.
TOTAL** $ 46,244 $ 173 $ 90,700 $ 152 $ 181,401 $ 190
TOTAL regenerative air – TOTAL mechanical broom $ 6,570.00 $ (29.85) $ 6,570.00 $ (50.93) $ 13,140.00 $ (58.29)
% Increase over mechanical broom 17% -15% 8% -25% 8% -23%
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 25
Table 15. Summary of estimated costs and cost-efficiencies of phosphorus recovery within the TOTAL drainage area for each waterbody for baseline, monthly, and bi-weekly sweeping scenarios. Estimates are based on recovery using a regenerative air (or similar) sweeping technology. The cost basis for estimates is $66 (baseline) - $37 (monthly, bi-weekly) per curb-mile of sweeping. Load recovery for monthly sweeping (bold red font) is the most cost-effective among the scenarios.
Baseline Sweeping Costs§ Monthly Sweeping Costs§ Bi-weekly Sweeping Costs§
HUC 8 Waterbody Service Level Total Curb-
miles* $ $/lb-P recovered $/lb-P reduced† $ $/lb-P recovered $/lb-P reduced† $ $/lb-P recovered $/lb-P reduced†
Minnehaha Creek
Harvey Lake Low 1.1 $ 145 $ 161 $ 242 $ 284 $ 135 $ 203 $ 568 $ 189 $ 284
Lake Pamela South High 8.1 $ 1,068 $ 173 $ 173 $ 2,094 $ 153 $ 153 $ 4,189 $ 183 $ 183
Lake Pamela North1 High 13.9 $ 1,830 $ 167 $ 167 $ 3,590 $ 148 $ 148 $ 7,180 $ 176 $ 176
Melody Lake High 10.6 $ 1,396 $ 179 $ 269 $ 2,738 $ 158 $ 238 $ 5,475 $ 216 $ 325
Minnehaha Creek
(all other*) (TMDLs) 96.8 $ 8,612 $ 164 $ 164 $ 16,890 $ 147 $ 147 $ 33,780 $ 175 $ 175
Minnehaha Creek Subtotal 122.4 $ 12,048 $ 167 $ 196 $ 23,631 $ 144 $ 175 $ 47,261 $ 196 $ 209
Ninemile Creek
Arrowhead Lake
(Landlocked basin) High 5.7 $ 751 $ 163 $ 214 $ 1,472 $ 146 $ 194 $ 2,944 $ 199 $ 263
Centennial Lakes Low/No 6.7 $ 882 $ 132 $ 140 $ 1,730 $ 122 $ 129 $ 3,461 $ 163 $ 173
Cornelia North High 43.5 $ 5,728 $ 247 $ 341 $ 11,234 $ 220 $ 304 $ 22,468 $ 300 $ 414
Cornelia South2 High 47.2 $ 6,215 $ 244 $ 531 $ 12,190 $ 218 $ 457 $ 24,380 $ 297 $ 647
Hawkes Lake3 Low 27.9 $ 3,582 $ 173 $ 265 $ 7,025 $ 153 $ 235 $ 14,049 $ 183 $ 281
Highland Lake Low 8.7 $ 1,396 $ 173 $ 189 $ 2,738 $ 153 $ 168 $ 5,475 $ 183 $ 201
Indianhead Lake
(Landlocked basin) Medium 3.9 $ 514 $ 139 $ 160 $ 1,007 $ 124 $ 142 $ 2,014 $ 169 $ 192
Lake Edina4 High 66.6 $ 8,862 $ 182 $ 396 $ 17,381 $ 159 $ 332 $ 34,762 $ 191 $ 416
Long Brake Trail Low 1.0 $ 132 $ 146 $ 146 $ 258 $ 129 $ 129 $ 517 $ 174 $ 174
Mirror Lake Low 8.9 $ 1,172 $ 217 $ 255 $ 2,299 $ 192 $ 225 $ 4,597 $ 263 $ 309
Mud Lake5 Low 39.1 $ 5,741 $ 170 $ 283 $ 11,260 $ 151 $ 251 $ 22,520 $ 180 $ 300
Ninemile Creek
(all other*) (Future TMDL) 122.6 $ 16,143 $ 176 $ 358 $ 31,662 $ 157 $ 319 $ 63,325 $ 188 $ 383
Ninemile Creek Subtotal 243.3 $ 32,050 $ 177 $ 344 $ 62,860 $ 157 $ 301 $ 125,720 $ 189 $ 368
TOTAL** $ 46,244 $ 173 $ 276 $ 90,700 $ 152 $ 244 $ 181,401 $ 190 $ 298
*Total curb-miles and include upstream areas.
§Cost-efficiency based on cumulative phosphorus recovery and load reductions (recovered loads and load reductions as reported in Table 7 - Table 9)
**Includes Landlocked areas. 1 Upstream priority water = Pamela South 2 Upstream priority water = Cornelia North 3 Upstream priority water = Highland Lake 4 Upstream priority water = Cornelia South, Cornelia North 5 Upstream priority water = Hawkes Lake, Highland Lake
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 26
7. Recommendations Although current street sweeping practices are expected to be among the most efficient (lb/curb-mile), the cost-efficiency ($/lb recovered) of sweeping could be improved significantly by using a regenerative air or other high efficiency street sweeper. Based on the expected recovery for different sweeper types and sweeping frequencies, the following recommendations are made:
• Upgrade street sweeping vehicle(s) to regenerative air or other high-efficiency sweeper type to realize an increase in cost-efficiency of about 24% for baseline sweeping. This is expected to increase total cost for baseline sweeping by about 4%, but will increase load recovery of solids by 47% and recovery of phosphorus by 37%.
• Increase the number of sweeping to monthly sweeping during the snow–free season or similar. Utilizing street sweeping vehicles during a greater portion of the year decreases the cost-basis ($/curb-mile) of sweeping compared to baseline and improves cost-efficiency. Sweeping at monthly intervals with a high efficiency sweeper in priority watersheds is expected to increase the recovery of solids by 250% and the recovery of phosphorous by 200% compared to current practice. The cost-basis is lowered from about $66/curb-mile to about $37/curb-mile of sweeping and the cost-efficiency is improved from $173/lb-P recovered to $152/lb-P recovered.
• Consider additional sweeping in high priority watersheds (waterbodies with high service level). Addition sweeping may require increasing the size of the street sweeping fleet. Depending on how well sweepers are utilized, the cost-efficiency of sweeping at bi-weekly (or higher) frequency may be comparable to that of current practices and the cost of phosphorus recovery relatively inexpensive compared to recovery through structural BMPs.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 27
8. References
Barr Engineering. 2011. City of Edina Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan.
Berretta C., S. Raje, and J.J. Sansalone. Quantifying Nutrient Loads Associated with Urban Particulate
Matter (PM), and Biogenic/Litter Recovery Through Current MS4 Source Control and Maintenance
Practices. University of Florida, College of Engineering, Gainsville, Florida: Florida Stormwater
Association Education Foundation (FSAEF); 2011 Final Report: 31 May 2011.
City of Edina, 2011. City of Edina, Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, available through
the City of Edina: http://edinamn.gov/?section=engineering_water_resource
City of Edina, 2014. Lake & Pond Management Policy, Amendment to the Comprehensive Water
Resources Management Plan, available through the City of Edina:
http://edinamn.gov/?section=engineering_water_resource
Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. 2014a. Phase I – Preliminary Assessment of Data and Proposed Strategy for
Sweeping Prioritization. Technical memo to the City of Edina, 8/11/2014.
Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. 2014b. Preliminary estimates of pollutant load recovery through enhanced
street sweeping. Technical memo to the City of Edina, 10/6/2014.
Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. 2014c. Preliminary estimates of pollutant load recovery through enhanced
street sweeping. Technical memo to the City of Edina, Revision dated 10/27/2014.
Kalinosky, P., Baker, L., Hobbie, S., Bintner, R., Buyarski, C. 2013. Quantifying Nutrient Removal through
Targeted, Intensive Street Sweeping, Presentation, LID Symposium, August 20, 2013.
Minnesota Department of Transportations (MNDOT). 2008. Resource for Implementing a Street
Sweeping Best Practice, MN/RC – 2008RIC06.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 2013. MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization, City of
Edina, MN, reissue date August 1, 2013. Also available through the City of Edina:
http://edinamn.gov/?section=engineering_storm_water
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 28
Appendix A
Street sweeping zones
Figure 2 . Direct drainage area for Arrowhead Lake includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds. The service level for Arrowhead Lake is ‘high’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 29
Figure 3. Direct drainage area for Cornelia Lake North (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Cornelia Lake North is ‘high’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 30
Figure 4. Direct drainage area for Cornelia Lake South (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Cornelia Lake South is ‘high’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 31
Figure 5. Direct drainage area for Harvey Lake. The service level for Highlands Lake is ‘low’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 32
Figure 6. Direct drainage area for Hawkes Lake (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Hawkes Lake is ‘low’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 33
Figure 7. Direct drainage area for Highland Lake (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Highland Lake is ‘low’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 34
Figure 8. Direct drainage area for Indianhead Lake (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Indianhead is ‘medium’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 35
Figure 9. Direct drainage area for Lake Edina. The service level for Lake Edina is ‘high’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 36
Figure 10. Direct drainage area for Melody Lake. The service level for Melody Lake is ‘high’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 37
Figure 11. Direct drainage area for Mirror Lake (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Mirror Lake is ‘low’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 38
Figure 12. Direct drainage area for Mud Lake (includes upstream catchments of non-priority ponds). The service level for Mud Lake is ‘low’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 39
Figure 13. Direct drainage area for Minnehaha Creek (does not include drainage areas for upstream priority waters or landlocked subbasins). Water quality concerns include the Lake Hiawatha TMDLs for excess nutrients and Minnehaha Creek 303d listings (see Section 3.2).
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 40
Figure 14. Direct drainage area for Ninemile Creek (does not include drainage areas for upstream priority waters or landlocked subbasins). Water quality concerns include impairments for aquatic life and aquatic recreation for Ninemile Creek (see Section 3.2).
Appendix B
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 41
Appendix B
Tree Canopy Examples
Examples of very low canopy cover (canopy rating score =1)
Appendix B
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 42
Examples of low canopy cover (canopy rating score=2)
Appendix B
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 43
Examples of medium canopy cover (canopy rating score=3.0)
Appendix B
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 44
Examples of medium-high canopy cover (canopy rating score =4.0)
Appendix B
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 45
Examples of very high canopy cover (canopy rating score =5).
Appendix C
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 46
Appendix C
Excerpted from EOR, 10/6/2014
III. Load Recovery for Different Sweeper Types The range of reported street sweeper pick-up efficiencies is fairly broad, but some trends are consistent across different sources. In general, the pickup performance of street sweepers decreases with particle size, but the difference across particle size classes is greater for mechanical broom technologies than for higher efficiency sweepers (regenerative air or vacuum) (Figure 15). Higher efficiency sweepers generally outperform mechanical sweepers across all particle size classes, however, for the largest material (rock, trash), differences may be minimal.
Figure 15. Comparison of removal efficiencies, mechanical broom and vacuum sweeper technologies, fine and coarse particle size ranges as reported in MNDOT, 2008.
In addition to variation with particle size, sweeper pick up efficiency tends to decrease with loading intensity and the gap in performance between higher efficiency and mechanical broom sweepers tends to widen as load intensities decreases (Table 16). Based on the influence of particle-size and loading intensity, discount levels for mechanical broom were set at two levels. For those months of the year when load intensity tends to be greatest (March through April and mid-September through mid-November), predicted load recovery was reduced 10-15% for coarse material (>2mm) and 30% for fine material (< 2mm). At other times of the year, predicted loads were reduced by 20% for coarse material and 40% for fine material. The expected proportion of fine and coarse material for different months of the year was taken from monitored load recovery in Prior Lake, MN (Table 17). Fine material tends to dominate street accumulations in the early spring but the ratio of fine to coarse material decreases from spring to autumn (Kalinosky, 2014). The ratio of fine to coarse material also depends on over-street tree canopy density. Fine to coarse ratio for ‘medium’ canopy cover were used to estimate the reduced efficiency of mechanical broom compared regenerative air technology at different time of the year.
Appendix C
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 47
The classification of ‘fine’ and ‘coarse’ material in Table 17 is different than the NURP particle sizes classes. For this reason, the discount in pick-up performance for fine material was decreased compared to the reported average for silt and clay shown in Figure 15. The discount for coarse material was increased somewhat compared to the reported average to for very fine sand to gravel because organic material, which can make up a significant portion of recovered loads, was not included in performance testing.
Table 16. Comparison of overall pick-up efficiencies for different sweeping technologies and loading intensities (Sutherland, 1995). Efficiencies are based on pick up of street dirt simulant, NURP particle size distribution 13% fine (d < 63 µm), 40% medium (250 µm ≤ d ≤ 2000 µm), and 47% coarse (d ≥ 2000 µm).
Pavement
Loading (lbs/acre)
Pickup Efficiency* (%)
NURP
Mechanical
Newer
Mechanical
Regenerative
Air
Vacuum
Sweeper
10 0% 31% 50% 70%
100 28% 55% 87% 89%
250 45% 66% 89% 89%
500 53% 70% 90% 89%
1000 57% 71% 91% 89%
Table 17. Ratio of fine (< 2mm) to coarse organic (>2mm) solids by month for different tree canopy cover ratings. (Kalinosky, et. al, 2014). Medium canopy is taken to represent ‘average’ ratios.
Canopy Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Low 180.3 43.6 24.0 20.2 25.0 15.0 8.7 3.2 14.1
Medium 22.1 14.5 10.8 15.2 10.4 6.6 3.9 1.3 1.4
High 22.8 7.0 6.5 7.5 10.0 5.9 3.7 0.9 1.2 Finally, since the character of the material that accumulates on street changes from one season to the next, the concentration of nutrients in each particle size fraction also varies with season (Figure 16). To estimate the total phosphorus recovered by mechanical broom sweepers, the same discounts for coarse and fine loads were applied to expected phosphorus recovery, but the ratio of coarse to fine loads were based on results for phosphorus recovery in Prior Lake (coarse : fine phosphorus as opposed to coarse: fine total solids). The discounts reported in Table 6 are the average for months included as high or low loading intensity with the value for each month computed as follows: Total discount, high intensity months = (10-15% X expected ratio of coarse solids/phosphorus) + (20% X expected ratio or fine solids/phosphorus)
Appendix C
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 48
Total discount, low intensity months = (20% X expected ratio of coarse solids/phosphorus) + (40% X expected ratio or fine solids/phosphorus)
Figure 16. Seasonal pattern in the partitioning of solids and nutrients between the fine and coarse fractions of sweeper waste.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecPercent Total Load as Coarse Organic Dry Solids Phosphorus Nitrogen
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 49
Appendix D
Table 18. Summary of P8 ponds by priority water. Priority waters modeling in P8 are shown in bold font.
(Pollutant removal efficiencies for priority waters were applied in estimates of load reduction to downstream
waterbodies).
Priority Watershed
Device
Name
Device
Type
TP Removal
Efficiency
TSS Removal
Efficiency Comment
Arrowhead Lake AH_1 pond 95% 100% landlocked basin
Arrowhead Lake AH_32 pond 41% 73%
upstream to landlocked
basin
Arrowhead Lake AH_4 pond 61% 94%
upstream to landlocked
basin
Arrowhead Lake AH_6 pond 57% 89%
upstream to landlocked
basin
Colonial Ponds CO-2 pond 82% 99%
Colonial Ponds CO_1 pond 57% 95%
Colonial Ponds CO_4 pond 51% 94%
Colonial Ponds CO_7 pond 67% 98%
Colonial Ponds CO_5 pond 73% 97%
Colonial Ponds CO_3 pond 63% 97%
Eden Prairie EP_1 pond 44% 76%
Hawkes Lake HL_24 pond 63% 96%
Hawkes Lake HL_1 general 43%
Hawkes Lake HL_44 pond 100% 100%
Hawkes Lake HL_40 pond 66% 98%
Hawkes Lake HL_28 pond 50% 96%
Hawkes Lake HL_9 pond 57% 91%
Hawkes Lake HL_39 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Hawkes Lake HL_13 pond 64% 97% landlocked basin
Hawkes Lake HL_50 pond 99% 100% landlocked basin
Harvey Lake MHS_22 69% 99% (no P8 ponds upstream)
Highlands Lake HI_22 pond 62% 97%
Highlands Lake HI_21 pond 60% 99%
Highlands Lake HI_20 pond 100% 100%
Highlands Lake HI_17 pond 59% 97%
Highlands Lake HI_5 pond 44% 94%
Highlands Lake HI_1 general 58%
Highlands Lake HI_18 general 44% 98%
Highlands Lake HI_13 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Indian Pond IP_1 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Indianhead IH_1 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 50
Priority Watershed
Device
Name
Device
Type
TP Removal
Efficiency
TSS Removal
Efficiency Comment
Indianhead IH_14 pond 61% 93%
upstream to landlocked
basin
Lake Cornelia - North NC_62 pond 44% 95%
Lake Cornelia - North NC_88 general 51% 82%
Lake Cornelia - North NC_30 general 73% 99%
Lake Cornelia - North NC_2 general 31% 88%
Lake Cornelia - North NC_5 general 62% 93%
Lake Cornelia - North NC_4 general 52% 82%
Lake Cornelia - North NC_3 general 37% 78%
Lake Cornelia - North NC_78 pond 67% 99% landlocked basin
Lake Cornelia - North NC_72 pond 46% 86% landlocked basin
Lake Cornelia - North NC_135 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Lake Cornelia - North NC_6 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Lake Cornelia - South SC_1 general 12% 93%
Lake Cornelia - South SC_2 pond 21% 56%
Lake Cornelia - South SC_3 pond 66% 97%
Lake Edina LE_38 general 39% 71%
Lake Edina LE_1 general 28% 94%
Lake Edina LE_51 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Lake Edina LE_54 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Lake Edina LE_44 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Lake Pamela North LP_14 18% 63%
Lake Pamela South LP-26 48% 94% (no P8 ponds upstream)
Long Brake Trail SWP_4 pond 41% 97%
Melody Lake ML_8 65% 96% (no P8 ponds upstream)
Mirror Lake ML_40 pond 36% 98%
Mirror Lake ML_38 pond 45% 98%
Mirror Lake ML_16 general 58% 99%
Mirror Lake ML_32 pond 37% 93%
Mirror Lake ML_2 pond 57% 91%
Mirror Lake ML_3 pond 63% 98%
Mirror Lake ML_19 pond 10% 43%
Mirror Lake ML_6 pond 66% 98%
Mirror Lake ML_15 pond 71% 100%
Mirror Lake ML_1 general 62% 99% Lake
Mirror Lake ML_28 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Mirror Lake ML_26 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Mirror Lake ML_27 pond 100% 100%
upstream to landlocked
basin
Mud Lake MD_1 pond 26% 96%
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 51
Priority Watershed
Device
Name
Device
Type
TP Removal
Efficiency
TSS Removal
Efficiency Comment
Mud Lake MD_50 pond 8% 93%
Mud Lake MD_11 pond 7% 61%
Mud Lake MD_2 pond 45% 99%
Mud Lake MD_28 pond 67% 99%
Mud Lake MD_7 pond 66% 98%
Mud Lake MD_21 pond 74% 100%
Mud Lake MD_27 general 79% 85%
Mud Lake MD_29 pond 64% 97%
Mud Lake MD_39 pond 100% 100%
Mud Lake MD_3 pond 13% 72%
Mud Lake MD_4 pond 66% 96%
Mud Lake MD_13 pond 68% 99%
Mud Lake MD_15 pond 6% 58%
Mud Lake MD_25 general 55% 97%
Nine Mile Central NMC_114 pond 37% 88%
Nine Mile Central NMC_77 pond 69% 99%
Nine Mile Central NMC_112 pond 65% 97%
Nine Mile Central NMC_70 pond 51% 91%
Nine Mile Central NMC_44 pond 66% 98%
Nine Mile North NMN_62 pond 39% 91%
Nine Mile North NMN_63 pond 59% 86%
Nine Mile North NMN_77 pond 71% 97%
Nine Mile North NMN_55 pond 74% 99%
Nine Mile North NMN_76 pond 100% 100%
Nine Mile North NMN_49 pond 40% 78%
Nine Mile North NMN_48 pond 61% 94%
Nine Mile North NMN_27 pond 49%
Nine Mile North NMN_20 pond 53% 89%
Nine Mile North NMN_24 pond 30% 68%
Nine Mile North NMN_84 pond 61% 94% landlocked basin
Nine Mile North HL_25 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Nine Mile North NMN_73 pond 62% 86% landlocked basin
Nine Mile North NMN_74 pond 92% 99% landlocked basin
Nine Mile North NMN_50 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Nine Mile North NMN_75 pond 75% 100% landlocked basin
Nine Mile South NMS_28 pond 63% 92%
Nine Mile South NMS_40 pond 64% 93%
Nine Mile South NMS_103 pond 60% 93%
Nine Mile South NMS_88 pond 62% 99%
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 52
Priority Watershed
Device
Name
Device
Type
TP Removal
Efficiency
TSS Removal
Efficiency Comment
Nine Mile South NMS_23 pond 2% 13%
Nine Mile South NMS_104 pond 17% 45%
Nine Mile South NMS_72 pond 15% 40%
Nine Mile South NMS_74 pond 14% 48%
Nine Mile South NMS_79 pond 53% 90%
Nine Mile South NMS_76 pond 49% 79%
Nine Mile South NMS_84 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_3 pond 37% 76%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_57 pond 31% 83%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_90 general 3% 22%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_8 pond 66% 91%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_86 pond 1% 16%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_85 general 31% 69%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_7 pond 27% 59%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_5 pond 50% 99%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_62 pond 18% 96%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_33 pond 68% 100%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_12 pond 3% 13%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_6 pond 48% 96%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_2 pond 11% 35%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_34 pond 77% 100%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_15 general 16% 49%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_59 pond 95% 99% landlocked basin
Pawnee Pond PA_6 pond 64% 96%
Pawnee Pond PA_1 general 61% 97%
Pawnee Pond PA_9 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Southwest Ponds SWP_47 pond 62% 94%
Southwest Ponds SWP_34 pond 36% 87%
Southwest Ponds SWP_59 pond 62% 95%
Southwest Ponds SWP_35 pond 53% 89%
Southwest Ponds SWP_2 pond 24% 89%
Southwest Ponds SWP_1 pond 5% 71%
Southwest Ponds SWP_3 pond 67% 98%
Southwest Ponds SWP_10 pond 67% 96%
Southwest Ponds SWP_5 pond 24% 80%
Southwest Ponds SWP_14 pond 65% 99%
Southwest Ponds SWP_57 pond 100% 100%
Southwest Ponds SWP_37 pond 74% 99% landlocked basin
Southwest Ponds SWP_40 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 53
Priority Watershed Device
Name
Device
Type
TP Removal
Efficiency
TSS Removal
Efficiency Comment
Southwest Ponds SWP_31 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Southwest Ponds SWP_33 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
Southwest Ponds SWP_58 pond 74% 99% landlocked basin
Southwest Ponds SWP_9 pond 100% 100% landlocked basin
CAP Initiatives - Possible Work Plan Initiatives
Transportation and land Use
TL 4-5 Develop incentive and educational programs to transition lawn care companies and homeowners from using fuel- burning lawn equipment (e.g., lawn mowers, blowers) to electric.
Business and Energy
BE 1-7 Create a welcome packet for new businesses and residents, which will provide information on all the energy efficiency improvement resources and opportunities
BE 1-10 Implement an energy challenge competition to motivate institutional partners. Establish annual targets of households/ businesses to reach (use average kWh use per premise by neighborhood maps created by Xcel to target high users).
BE 1-13 Establish a performance ratings/labeling program for all homes listed for sale or rent so that owners, tenants and prospective buyers can make informed decisions about energy costs and carbon emissions. Rating program to require Energy Audit/Energy Efficiency Program participation.
???BE 1-15 Deploy residential technologies that start with enabling renters to participate in energy efficiency, such as Wi-Fi- enabled “smart” thermostats, while piloting new business models that tackle tenant-landlord split issues.
BE 2-2 Build market demand for net-zero energy buildings through incentives, education, demonstration projects, partner- ships and recognition.
BE 3-1 Create community-wide Clean Energy Equity plan to support low-income residents and small organizations in purchasing renewable energy.
BE 3-2 Explore the development of renewable energy program(s) which increase utilization of on-site / in-community renewa- ble energy while creating benefit for low-income community members. Example programs include City of Dubuque Low Income Solar Renewable Energy Credit (SREC), Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Community Solar for Community Ac- tion, and Texas Energy Poverty Research Institute Community Solar Program Model. Goal: 16,000 MWh clean energy delivered through programs annually by 2030 ( https://paleBLUEdot.llc/s/City-of-Dubuaue-Renew-DBQ-Program- overview.pdf ; https://view.publitas.com/palebluedot/dallas-lmi-solar-assistance-program-study-nov2020/ )
BE 3-4 Explore additional options for building improvement programs that would reduce energy consumption for vulnerable populations and those living under high energy burden through added insulation, air sealing, passive energy systems, heat pumps, and higher efficiency equipment.
BE 4-4 Identify, create, and promote incentives for switching away from natural gas heating to renewable electricity, ground source heat pumps, solar thermal, and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) for appropriate commercial/industrial sites.
BE 4-5 Create an educational program to inform residential and commercial properties about renewable energy opportunities including technologies that eliminate on-site fossil fuel use.
BE 5-1 Coordinate and promote a residential Solar Group Purchase Campaign annually to help reduce the costs of solar instal- lation through volume purchasing power. Program design to focus on improved equity in its implementation and ex- plore strategies to support local small business solar installers such as being set up to enable small installers to collabo- rate or having a competitive "marketplace" with multiple installer options. NOTE: Action may be implemented in com- bination with the electrification and energy efficiency group purchase program actions. Goal, 150 households and 75 businesses annually.
BE 5-2 Identify the "Solar Top 100" commercial/industrial properties within the city and produce detailed solar feasibility assessments for each site. Assessments to include potential solar generation and economic performance and return on investment estimates, information on financing and ownership models, and next step resources. Provide solar assessment reports to properties and conduct an informational workshop to assist building owners and
businesses in under- standing the assessments and next step potential. "Solar Top 100" assessment effort could be repeated annually, particularly through 2025.
BE 5-3 Coordinate and promote a commercial/industrial Solar Group Purchase Campaign annually to help reduce the costs of solar installation through volume purchasing power. Group purchase campaign could include/focus on properties identified in the "Solar Top 100" assessment effort and should include both direct purchase/ownership as well as 3rd party ownership options like Solar Lease and Power Purchase Agreements. Program design to explore strategies to support local small business solar installers and strategies to support local workforce development. Goal: 2,000 KW installed annually
BE 5-4 Promote green power purchase options such as those provided by Xcel Energy's "Renewable Connect" and "Windsource". Collaborate with utilities on promotion and education of available options. Goal: 220 households and 50 businesses annually.
BE 5-5 Support the development of community solar projects that benefit all residents, particularly communities of color and low-income populations.
BE 5-6 Establish a Solar Ready Ordinance to require all commercial and mulit-family buildings to be solar ready and to require on-site solar for all commercial properties receiving City
funding and incentives. See City's Solar Ready Guidelines: https://palebluedot.llc/edina-
solar-ready-guide
BE 5-9 Organize education and outreach programs to promote rebates and tax credits available for energy efficiency projects. Outreach should focus on effectively communicating with households of lower income and BIPOC owned businesses.
BE 6-1 Introduce a policy that requires all new and existing municipal buildings to be benchmarked with the current Energy Score rating and to meet and maintain energy and resource efficiency standards meeting an ENERGY STAR rating of 75 or better, and built to meet or exceed IGCC code. Require new and existing municipal buildings without solar PV instal- lations in place or planned to install cool roof or green roofing. Require all new construction or major renovation pro- jects to use the City's Net Zero Energy Building Guide and Checklist to explore opportunities to advance towards Net Zero Energy (palebluedot.llc/edina-net-zero-energy-guide). Invite County, School District, and other public agencies located within the City to participate in City's energy efficiency policy effort.
BE 6-4 Conduct a occupancy and plug load energy efficiency study of primary city owned facilities and establish a "Plug Load and Occupancy Energy Efficiency Guide" outlining operational practices to advance the City's energy efficiency goals for City facilities. Provide training to all existing city employees and provide on-going training to all new City hires.
BE 7-2 Establish a policy requiring all new municipally owned buildings to be 100% electric (zero on-site fossil fuel combustion).
Waste Management
WM 1-1 Coordinate with the school district to establish paths towards Zero Waste program. Program to include zero waste curricula, family content, training, volunteer program connections, as well as zero waste strategies for school facilities. (https://www.ecocycle.org/files/Zero%20Waste%20A%20Realistic%20Approach%20Sustainability%20Program%
20for%20Schools.pdf ) (http://www.zerowastechallenge.org/curriculum.html)
WM 1-2 Support collaborative consumption community projects, such as neighborhood compost projects, tool libraries, and repair cafes through mini-grant programs.
WM 1-4 Eliminate petroleum-based, single-use products through phasing out the use of single-use plastics by 2025. Require food service retailers to use re-usable, biodegradable, compostable or recyclable packaging. Explore the feasibility of establishing a reusable takeout container service.
WM 1-5 Establish a Zero Waste policy for City operations that outlines increasing incremental annual waste reduction goals charting a path to Zero Waste. Policy to require that outside
users of City facilities also follow Zero Waste policy and will modify the event permit application to require the inclusion of recycling and composting at events.
WM 1-6 Establish a Universal Zero Waste Ordinance, requiring all property owners to provide recycling and compost collection services and requiring businesses to use these services. Example policy: https://bouldercolorado.gov/zero-waste/ universal-zero-waste-ordinance
WM 2-1 Make City worksites a model for organics composting by developing a collection program for City-owned and (where possible) City-leased buildings.
WM 2-6 Explore requiring large new buildings to provide facilities for disposing organics.
WM 2-1 Combat food waste by encouraging retailers and restaurants to donate, reduce, reuse, or compost their unsold food, creating “zero-waste sections” where products are sold close to their expiration dates, and designating “zero-waste coaches” to raise awareness among staff and help manage products reaching the end of their marketable life. Edible unsold products shall be donated. When not edible, organic waste shall be composted through City's organics collection vendor.
WM 3-1 Provide recycling in all schools, City buildings, public housing, and public spaces.
WM 3-2 Explore a requirement that all waste be recycled or salvaged at large construction sites.
WM 3-3 Work with the Planning Department to require adequate space/chutes in multi-family buildings for recycling and organics making sure recycling is as convenient as garbage.
WM 3-4 Explore establishing/expanding requirements for recycling and organic waste collection for multi-family residential buildings, and commercial/industrial buildings. Include promotion and education and advocate for equal access to organics collection.
WM 3-5 Expand consumer education (e.g. host community forums and provide direct outreach) on sustainable consumption, materials management, available services, incentives, and facilities as well as proper recycling, composting, and source reduction methods.
Water and Wastewater
W 1-1 Advocate for updated building codes to require water conservation measures (e.g., grey water infrastructure, water- efficient irrigation systems, native and drought-resistant landscaping) in new construction and renovations.
W 1-2 Evaluate the potential to update the City's Green Building Program to include installation of rainwater collection sys- tems at City facilities for graywater uses, and investigate opportunities for graywater reuse at existing and new City facilities and properties. Implement graywater systems identified capable of reducing energy/water demand in other areas (for example, watering urban tree canopy to reduce heat island effect and air conditioning needs).
W 1-3 Facilitate reduction of water use by top customers annually through an opt-in water reduction program targeting wa- ter reduction goals of 20% or more per site. Offer free technical resources to large institutions and businesses to iden- tify specific opportunities for employees or customers to conserve water and incorporate water efficiency into internal operations. Program can be coordinated with the City's Waste Audit and Diversion Assistance program. Goal: 30 business water use audits completed annually with customers engaged in measuring and reducing water consumption.
W 1-5 Implement a policy to require installation of rainwater collection systems and WaterSense water efficient fixtures and appliances at all City facility projects and all projects receiving $50,000 or more in City tax abatement, financing or funding. Provide information and technical assistance to projects as needed.
W 1-7 Conduct a Water Conservation "challenge" campaign ask participants to reduce water consumption through water use behavior change strategies, irrigation system utilization, and replacement of fixtures like shower heads with Water- Sense certified fixtures.
W 3-2 Increase frequency of street sweeping for priority lakes and creek sub-watersheds based on the 2015 City of Edina Street Sweeping Plan. Consider renewable natural gas, or electric sweeper at next equipment replacement plan.
( https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3887/Edina-Street-Sweeping-Plan-Final-PDF?bidId= )
W 3-6 Complete ordinance amendment that reduces allowable impervious surface of R-1 single family zoning. Target: 50% allowable impervious surface decrease.
W 3-8 Build more permeable parking lots and driveways and use more recycled materials with concrete. Identify, implement, and promote pilot projects to provide examples of permeable and recycled paving systems.
Local Food and Agriculture
LF1-4 Incentivize and reward soil best management practice for urban lawns, gardens, landscaping, parks, open spaces, prai- ries, environmentally sensitive areas, and agricultural land uses.
LF 1-5 Update code to provide incentives or require developers to preserve topsoil and provide space for backyard or community gardens.
LF 1-6 Establish a public Food Forest by adding edible trees, shrubs, and planting regionally native vegetables to existing public landscaping including boulevard and right of way areas. Select an existing property for a pilot project. (https:// projectfoodforest.org/ https://www.burnsvillemn.gov/grow )
LF 1-8 Allow community gardens or urban farms on vacant land in all zoning districts, except industrial, to increase the availability of locally produced food for all residents.
Green Space and Trees
GC 1-1 through 1-8 *All these actions could be incorporated into a new tree ordinance/initiatives
GC 2-1 through 2-8 *All these actions could be incorporated into natural habitat initiatives
GC 3-1 Develop a "Green Roof" / "Green Wall" pilot project to educate on and exhibit heat island mitigation strategies and measure potential for effectiveness. Identify city building with low solar PV prioritization/feasibility for inclusion as cool roof pilot location. Alternatively, pilot program could be advertised for submission by City of Edina residents, businesses and neighborhoods for potential sites to be considered for pilot project selection. Preference should be given to sites serving low income or at risk communities with high heat island impact potential. (https://www.epa.gov/ heatislands/using-green-roofs-reduce-heat-islands )
GC 3-2 Develop a "Cool Roof" / "Cool pavement" pilot project to educate on and exhibit heat island mitigation strategies and measure potential for effectiveness. Identify city building with low solar PV prioritization/feasibility for inclusion as cool roof pilot location. Alternatively, pilot program could be advertised for submission by City of Edina residents, businesses and neighborhoods for potential sites to be considered for pilot project selection. Preference should be given to sites serving low income or at risk communities with high heat island impact
potential. https:// www.energy.gov/energysaver/design/energy-efficient-home-design/
cool-roofs
GC 3-3 Promote the expansion of tree canopy in urban heat islands or areas that need air conditioning such as schools. Prioritize efforts based on City's 2021 Ground Cover, Tree Canopy, and Carbon Sequestration Study. Collaborate with school district, regional agencies, or institutions to identify and implement a pilot project, including community eductional and interpretive content. (https://view.publitas.com/palebluedot/edina-ground-cover-survey-and-sequestration- study/ )
GC 3-4 Explore development of green roof incentives (demonstration projects, voluntary programs, incentivized program, or- dinance / policy) to meet long-range dark impervious surface reduction goals. Examples of incentive programs have been developed by the Climate Protection Partnership Division in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Atmospheric Programs. These can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/ greenroofscompendium_ch3.pdf
GC 3-5 Evaluate on-going pilot programs for cool paving materials to determine whether the City should establish a cool pav- ing policy. (examples include Chula Vista, Chicago)
GC 3-6 Explore creation of a Heat Island Reduction Incentive and Award program prioritizing areas of the City with the highest heat island coefficients as identified in the City's 2021 Ground Cover, Tree Canopy, and Carbon Sequestration Study. Incentives and awards from governments, utilities, and other organizations can be an effective way to spur individual heat island reduction actions. Incentives might include below-market loans, tax breaks, product rebates, grants, and giveaways. Awards can reward exemplary work, highlight innovation, and promote solutions across the public and private sectors. (https://view.publitas.com/palebluedot/edina-ground-cover-survey-and-sequestration-study/ )
Climate and Economy
CE 1-4 Promote Edina as an environmentally friendly destination by highlighting the businesses that are taking steps to reduce resource consumption (Green Business Recognition program).