DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION · The County’s groundwater is vulnerable to surface pollutant...

DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Dakota County Western Service Center

14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124

Thursday, January 24, 2019

Room 106 (down the hall from the vending machines), 7:00pm

Agenda

I. Call to Order

II. Pledge of Allegiance

III. Election of Officers (Kurt Chatfield – Planning)

IV. Public Comments for Items Not on the Agenda (limited to 5 minutes)

V. Adoption of the Agenda

VI. Adoption of Previous Meeting Minutes

VII. Adoption of 2019 Meeting Dates

VIII. 2019 Planning Commission Work Program - Information

(Kurt Chatfield – Planning)

IX. 2019 Parks CIP overview – Information (Jeff Bransford – Parks)

X. County Groundwater Plan – Information (Valerie Grover– Groundwater Unit)

XI. Upcoming Public Meetings – Community Outreach

Whitetail Woods Regional Park Master Plan Improvements Open House

February 7, 5:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. Western Service Center Atrium Apple Valley

Vermillion River Greenway Master Plan(Hastings) Open House March time and location TBD

XII. Topics for next meeting (February 28, 7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m., Western Service Center, Room 106)

• Lebanon Hills Natural Resources Management Plan • Land Conservation Plan Update

XIII. Planning Commissioner Announcements/Updates

XIV. Adjourn

2019 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule

Planning Commission Dates

Physical Development Committee Dates

Jan 24 Feb 12 Feb 28 Mar 19 Mar 28 Apr 16 Apr 25 May 14 May 23 Jun 11 Jun 27 Jul 9 Jul 25 Aug 13

Aug 22 Sep 17 Sep 26 Oct 15 Oct 24 Nov 19

Nov 21 (3rd Thursday)* Dec 3 Dec 19 (3rd Thursday)* None

* Meetings moved from the 4th Thursday to the 3rd Thursday to avoid conflicting with the holidays.

Attachment A

2019 Planning Commission Work Plan

Board Goal Committee’s Goal for 2019

Project/Activity Outcome Measure Timeline

A Healthy Environment with Quality Natural Areas

Vermillion River Greenway Master Plan (Hastings)

Complete master plan for eastern segment of Vermillion River Greenway

Recommendation to PDC Q1-Q3

Thompson County Park Master Plan

Update Thompson County Park Master Plan. Recommendation to PDC Q1-Q4

Thompson County Park Natural Resource Management Plan

Prepare assessment and plan to restore and manage natural resources in Thompson County Park


Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan

Update Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan Recommendation to PDC Q3-Q4*

Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan

Prepare assessment and plan to restore and manage natural resources in Spring Lake Park Reserve

Recommendations to PDC Q1-Q4*

Lebanon Hills Regional Park Natural Resources Management Plan

Prepare assessment and plan to restore and manage natural resources in Lebanon Hills Regional Park

Recommendation to PDC Q1

Whitetail Woods Natural Resources Management Plan

Prepare assessment and plan to restore and manage natural resources in Whitetail Woods Regional Park


Park Facilities and Grounds ADA Transition Plan

Prepare inventory and plan to meet/exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements


Groundwater Plan Develop County Groundwater Plan Recommendation to PDC Q2-Q4* Land Conservation Program Plan

Update County Land Conservation Plan and program criteria Recommendation to PDC Q1-Q3

Park Ordinance Update park ordinance Recommendation to PDC Q1-Q4 A Successful Place for Businesses and Jobs

County Road 42 Ped/Bike Corridor study

Evaluate and plan for ped/bike facilities and crossings along CSAH 42 in the cities of Burnsville, Apple Valley, and Rosemount

Review and comment to PDC Q1-Q4

Eastern Dakota County Transit Study

Identify transit opportunities Review and comment to PDC Q1-Q4

Orange Line Extension Evaluate extension of Orange Line Service Review and comment to PDC Q2-Q3 Regional Roadway Visioning Study

Update Regional Roadway Visioning Study in northeast Eagan and northwest Inver Grove Heights

Review and comment to PDC Q4

Transportation Plan Update Transportation Plan incorporating City land use updates from their comprehensive plans

Review and comment to PDC Q1-Q4*

County Ped/Bike Study Incorporate ped/bike study findings into Transportation Plan Recommendation to PDC as part of Transportation Plan

Q3-Q4

* Indicates that project will extend into 2020 work plan.

Dakota County Parks and Greenways Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Summary

January 2019

2018 CIP Accomplishments Planning Lake Byllesby Regional Park Master Plan & Natural Resource Management Plan Natural Resource Management Plan Update Park Development and Enhancements Thompson County Park Water Quality Improvement Whitetail Woods Regional Park Empire Lake Dam Improvements Lebanon Hills Regional Park Holland Lake Pavement Reconstruction Greenway Development and Enhancements Minnesota River Greenway Regional Trail Eagan Segment and Lone Oak Neighborhood Gateway Mississippi River Regional Trail Rosemount West Segment Simons Ravine Segment Pavement Reconstruction South St. Paul Segment Pavement Reconstruction Natural Resource Management Systemwide Various restoration and monitoring projects 2019 Adopted CIP and Carryover Projects Planning Thompson County Park Master Plan & Natural Resource Management Plan Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan & Natural Resource Management Plan Systemwide Accessibility Assessment & ADA Transition Plan Park Development and Enhancements Lake Byllesby Regional Park Master Plan Improvements Whitetail Woods Regional Park Master Plan Improvements Thompson County Park Master Plan Improvements (design) Lebanon Hills Regional Park Visitor Center Enhancements Campground Improvement Study Greenway Development and Enhancements Minnesota River Greenway Regional Trail Cedar Nicols Trailhead Fort Snelling Segment (design) Big Rivers Regional Trail Mendota Heights Trailhead River to River Regional Trail Robert Street Crossing (design) Lake Marion Greenway Regional Trail Burnsville Segment Mississippi River Regional Trail Pine Bend Bluff Historical Marker Rosemount East Segment (design) River Access Enhancements Natural Resource Management Systemwide Various restoration and monitoring projects

DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Dakota County Groundwater Plan (information) PURPOSE Provide Planning Commission an introduction to Groundwater Plan. Introduction has two purposes:

1. Provide an overview of the Dakota County Groundwater Plan process. 2. Receive Commissioners’ initial thoughts on plan concepts and stakeholder engagement process.

BACKGROUND Dakota County is uniquely reliant on groundwater compared to the other Metropolitan Area counties. Ninety percent of residents use groundwater as their primary drinking water source, whether from municipal or private wells. Dakota County residents also use more groundwater per capita compared to other metro counties. The County’s groundwater is vulnerable to surface pollutant contamination because of highly permeable, coarse soils. Dakota County has conducted some of the most thorough groundwater research in the state. The Ambient Groundwater Quality Study (AGQS), Targeted Townships Nitrate Studies, and the Wells and Increased Infant Sensitive and Exposure (WIISE) study show groundwater contamination with nitrates and pesticides, and unhealthy levels of naturally occurring minerals (manganese and arsenic) in tested areas. Private well testing shows that:

• 30 percent of 1,224 private wells that WIISE tested for manganese exceeded the standard of 100 ug/L • 27 percent of 1,391 private wells tested in the Targeted Township Nitrate Studies exceeded the health

standard of 10 ug/L, and indicating nitrate contamination is worsening and reaching deeper aquifers over time

• 88 percent of the 73 AGQS-tested wells had pesticides; 14 exceeded the health standard for cyanazine • 34 percent of 957 wells tested showed the presence of arsenic

With forecast growth and increased groundwater usage in the County, aquifer drawdown projections show 50% or more of the available groundwater in the Prairie due Chien and Jordan aquifers being depleted by 2040.

Groundwater protection is essential to maintain the quality of life in Dakota County, by reducing risks to public health and the environment. The Groundwater Plan will build a framework to safeguard the groundwater supply by evaluating existing and potential problems and identifying opportunities for protection, management, and development of groundwater resources.

ATTACHMENTS A. Overview of Dakota County Groundwater and Intro to the Groundwater Plan (Presentation) - Summary of

Dakota County groundwater and protection programs, and the Groundwater Plan update process

B. Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Summary of objectives, approaches, groups, methods, and actions

C. Groundwater Plan Draft Schedule – Summary of key task completion timeframes

QUESTIONS The following questions are intended to help assist in review of the packet materials. 1) What is the Commission’s initial thought on what the County’s Role should be in groundwater protection?

2) Based on Attachment B, what other stakeholders should be engaged? How would the Planning Commission like to be involved in the stakeholder/public engagement process?

3) If the Planning Commission is the Groundwater Plan Advisory Committee, what information/data does the Planning Commission need to assist in the process?

1/17/2019

1

Efficient, Effective, Responsive

Overview of Dakota County

Groundwater and

Intro to the Groundwater Plan

Valerie A. Grover

Groundwater Protection Unit

Environmental Resources Department

Physical Development Division

24 January 2018


• Groundwater in Dakota County

– Use

– Vulnerability

– Quality

– Quantity

• County Groundwater Protection Programs

• Groundwater Plan

– Purpose

– Requirements

– DC2040 Baseline Objectives

– Draft Schedule

Overview

1/17/2019

2


Protecting rural drinking water supplies was rated

as important by 91% of respondents to the

Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Residential Survey

Groundwater in Dakota County

“Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Residential Survey: Results and Technical Report”, June 5, 2017


Groundwater Use in the Metro Area

Dakota County Uses More Groundwater Per Capita than all the other Metro Counties

32,760

35,924

59,648

23,798

14,460

35,116

44,988

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington

2017 Metro Counties Groundwater

Use (Gal/Capita)

Source: MN Department of Natural Resources, MN State Demographic Center

1/17/2019

3


Groundwater Use in the Metro Area

Dakota County Groundwater Appropriations: 64% Agricultural Irrigation 19% Water Supply 7% Non-crop Irrigation 5% Industrial Processing 3% Special Categories 2% Water Level Maintenance

294

103

725

538

200

125

265

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington

# o

f A

ctiv

e P

erm

its

2017 Metro Counties Active Groundwater

Appropriation Permits

Source: MN Department of Natural Resources


Groundwater Use in Dakota County

• 24,989 MG/yr-does not include private wells

• Private Wells estimated at 745 MG/yr

6,873, 28%

1, 0%

3,084, 12%

362, 2%

24, 0%

209, 1% 580, 2%

13,856, 55%

Agricultural Irrigation

Heating/Cooling

Industrial Processing

Non-Crop Irrigation

Power Generation

Special Categories

Water Level Maintenance

Water Supply

2017 Dakota County Groundwater Use (MG)

Source: MN Department of Natural Resources

1/17/2019

4


Groundwater Use in Dakota County


Uniquely vulnerable due to:

– Highly permeable coarse

soils

– Karst topography

Groundwater Vulnerability

1/17/2019

5


• Manganese: Exceeded the

health standard (100 ug/L for

infants) in 31% of tests

• Arsenic: Detected in 34%

of tests

Groundwater Quality in Dakota County: Naturally Occurring Pollutants

498

207

113

138

239

Manganese (ug/L)

<0.5 ug/L

0.51 ug/L to 49 ug/L

50 ug/L to 99 ug/L

100 ug/L to 300 ug/L

300 ug/L & above

327

630

Arsenic

Detection

No Detection


Groundwater Quality in Dakota County: Nitrate

• 27% of wells exceed

the nitrate standard

1/17/2019

6


Groundwater Quality in Dakota County:

Nitrate with Depth and Time


Groundwater Quality in Dakota County: Nitrate in Municipal Wells

Source: Dakota County OPA

Untreated Water Supply Quality

Max Nitrate Concentration (2016)

1/17/2019

7


Groundwater Quality in Dakota County: Nitrate in Hastings Municipal Wells

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Nit

rate

(mg/

L)

Year

Mean NO3 (mg/L) Max NO3 (mg/L)

Hastings Municipal Untreated Water Supply Quality:

1998 – 2015 Nitrate Trends Health Standard = 10 mg/L

Source: https://data.web.health.state.mn.us/drinkingwater_query


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Nit

rate

(mg/

L)

Year Mean NO3 (mg/L) Max NO3 (mg/L)

Groundwater Quality in Dakota County: Nitrate in Rosemount Municipal Wells

Rosemount Municipal Untreated Water Supply Quality:

1998 – 2015 Nitrate Trends Health Standard = 10 mg/L

Source: https://data.web.health.state.mn.us/drinkingwater_query

1/17/2019

8


• Detected in 88% of Ambient Groundwater Quality Study (AGQS) wells

• 14 wells (19%) exceeded the health standard for Cyanazine

• 85% of detections were for corn or soybean herbicides

• Median of 4 or more pesticides detected per sample

• Pesticide detections are more likely with higher concentrations of nitrate

Groundwater Quality in Dakota County: Pesticides


Groundwater Quality in Dakota County: Cyanazine

1/17/2019

9


Groundwater Quantity in Dakota County


• Manage Delegated Well Program (Ordinance 114) • Promote Well Sealing through cost-share grants

• Conduct Groundwater Quality Research and Outreach

• Provide Drinking Water Testing, Education, and Outreach

• Assist with Wellhead Protection and Water Supply Planning

• Coordinate with Other Entities

• Regulate Hazardous and Solid Waste

• Regulate Septic Systems (Ordinance 113)

• Provide Environmental Assessment and Remediation Assistance

Current County Groundwater Protection Programs

1/17/2019

10


• Supported need for a Groundwater Plan

• Identified the following needs:

Coordinate with agencies involved in groundwater to

improve processes

Evaluate rules and processes to ensure they support the

intended result

Work with State agencies to address Dakota County’s

unique conditions

Explore opportunities to take on regulatory roles the

County could administer more efficiently

County Groundwater Protection Programs – Initial Board Remarks


What is the Planning Commission’s initial thought

on what the County’s Role should be in

groundwater protection?

Question 1 - Discussion

1/17/2019

11


The Groundwater Plan provides a framework to

safeguard the County’s groundwater supply

through identifying existing and potential problems

and opportunities for protection, management, and

development.

Groundwater Plan: Purpose


Establishes eligibility for potential future funding

Groundwater Plan: Requirements

MN Stat 103B.255 - Requirements for Groundwater Plan Current Compliance

Establish and consult advisory committee during development Partial

Specify period covered by plan (must extend 5-10 years) Partial

Cover entire area within the county Yes

Describe existing and expected changes to physical environment, land use and development in the County

Yes

Summarize available info about groundwater in the county Partial

State goals, objectives, scope and priorities Partial

Contain standards, criteria and guidelines for protection No

Describe relationships to other plans Partial

Set standards, guidelines and official controls for implementation No

Include procedures and timelines for amending the plan No

1/17/2019

12


• Use the Dakota County Comprehensive Plan DC2040 Water

Supply Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Policies as a baseline

Groundwater Plan: Process Objectives

• Engage Planning Commission as

the required “Advisory Committee” for

Groundwater Plan development

• Provide routine updates to the

Physical Development Committee


• Understand public interests through Stakeholder Engagement

• Develop required elements for a compliant Groundwater Plan

• Develop potential groundwater protection strategies

Better understand groundwater characteristics and data needs

Clarify Dakota County’s roles and authority in groundwater protection

Identify opportunities to impact local, state, and/or federal policies

Use Groundwater Plan as a means to connect with new collaborators

Groundwater Plan: Process Objectives (Cont.)

1/17/2019

13


Based on Attachment B (Stakeholder Engagement Plan):

What other stakeholders should be engaged?

How would the Planning Commission like to be

involved in the stakeholder/public engagement

process?



• Maintain good quality and quantity of drinking water

• Protect a sustainable and sufficient water supply

• Prevent groundwater and surface water degradation

• Avoid, minimize, mitigate impacts to groundwater and surface water

• Increase community awareness

• Work with state, regional, and local partners

• Update groundwater protection tools

• Identify high quality infiltration areas to be protected

Groundwater Plan: Baseline DC 2040 – Draft Water Objectives

1/17/2019

14


• Monitor water resource quality and quantity

• Protect a safe and adequate drinking water supply

• Encourage all communities to adopt water conservation and

pollution prevention measures

• Ensure that new wells are constructed and unused wells are

sealed according to requirements

Groundwater Plan: Baseline DC 2040 – Draft Water Policies


Groundwater Plan: Draft Schedule

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjM8fDz_-_fAhUH5oMKHXeCCcwQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http://www.simcoemuskokahealth.org/Topics/SafeWater/drinkingwater/SourceWaterProtection.aspx&psig=AOvVaw23VQxryt5oIW85nk4Ojmtx&ust=1547648968828559

1/17/2019

15


If the Planning Commission is the Groundwater Plan

Advisory Committee, what additional information/data

does the Planning Commission need to assist in the

process?



Questions?

Groundwater Plan Draft Schedule Task Q1 2019 Q2 2019 Q3 2019 Q4 2019 Q1 2020 Q2 2020

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Introduce project to PLANC Award contract for Stakeholder Engagement facilitation

Complete Stakeholder Engagement Plan Conduct Technical Research Conduct first round of Stakeholder Engagement – determine perceived issues, concerns, ideas, etc.

Provide summary to PLANC and Board of technical research, stakeholder engagement findings, and preliminary program directions goals, and priorities

Develop program objectives, goals, and strategies based on feedback from PLANC and Board

Conduct second round of Stakeholder Engagement – obtain feedback on objectives, goals, strategies

Provide summary to PLANC on stakeholder engagement findings on the objectives, goals, and strategies

Complete Draft Groundwater Plan Present draft plan summary to PLANC and Board, seek recommendation on plan submittal to BWSR and public review and comment

60 day public review and comment period

Compile and summarize comments Present comment summary to PLANC and Board and seek recommendation for adoption

2018

Dakota County Groundwater Plan Update:

Stakeholder Engagement

Plan

Table of Contents

1. Acronyms and Abbreviations.......................................................................................................... 1 2. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 3. Background .................................................................................................................................... 4 4. Stakeholder Engagement Objectives and Approaches ................................................................. 5 5. Major Groups to Engage ................................................................................................................ 6 • County Government ................................................................................................................... 6 • County Departments and SWCD. .............................................................................................. 6 • State Agencies and Metropolitan Council. ................................................................................. 7 • Watershed Organizations. (high) ................................................................................................ 7 • Municipal Water Suppliers. (high) .............................................................................................. 7 • Communities that rely on wells and septics. (high) .................................................................... 7 • Other Public Entities (not municipal water suppliers). (low) ....................................................... 8 • Residents (public water supply customers) ................................................................................ 8 • Residents (private drinking water wells) ..................................................................................... 8 • Well and Water Businesses. ...................................................................................................... 8 • Business and Industry ................................................................................................................ 8 • Agriculture ................................................................................................................................... 9 • Research institutions .................................................................................................................. 9 • Nonprofits, advocacy and special interest groups.(low)............................................................. 9

6. Engagement Methods .................................................................................................................... 9 • County Board and Planning Commission Meetings ................................................................... 9 • Workshop(s) ............................................................................................................................. 10 • Working Meetings ..................................................................................................................... 10 • Combined Well Water Testing Events/Working Meetings ....................................................... 10 • Surveys ..................................................................................................................................... 10 • Open House(s)/Meeting(s) ....................................................................................................... 10 • Public/Stakeholder Communications: ...................................................................................... 10 o Use existing communications methods and channels. ............................................................ 10 o Engage existing partnerships. .................................................................................................. 10 o Speaking engagements or presentations. ................................................................................ 11

7. Key Questions to Ask ................................................................................................................... 12 8. Action Plan by Project Phases ..................................................................................................... 18

Phase 1: Start-Up and Project Organization (by end of December 2018) ...................................... 18 Phase 2: Research on Groundwater Issues and Stakeholder Needs (by mid-July 2019) .............. 18 Phase 3: Draft Goals and Strategies for Plan (by end of December 2019)..................................... 19 Phase 4: Draft Plan Review and Adoption (by end of May 2020) ................................................... 19

9. Available Resources and Budget ................................................................................................. 20

Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 1 of 20

1. Acronyms and Abbreviations AGQS: Dakota County Ambient Groundwater Quality Study

BALMM: Basin Alliance of the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota

BWSR: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources

CFANS: University of Minnesota College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resources Sciences

County: Dakota County, Minnesota

DNR: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

ERD: Environmental Resources Department, Dakota County

Groundwater Plan: Dakota County Groundwater Plan

MDA: Minnesota Department of Agriculture

MDH: Minnesota Department of Health

mg/L: Milligrams per liter

MGS: Minnesota Geological Survey

MPCA: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

NCRWMO: North Cannon River Watershed Management Organization

Planning: Dakota County Office of Planning

SSTS: Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (septic system)

SWCD: Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District

µg/L Micrograms per liter

USDA-NRCS: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service

USEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS: United States Geological Survey

VRWJPO: Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization

WD: Watershed District

WMO: Watershed Management Organization

WIISE: Dakota County/MDH Wells and Increased Infant Sensitivity and Exposure Study


2. Introduction The Dakota County Groundwater Plan (Groundwater Plan) is a framework to safeguard the County’s groundwater supply through identification of existing and potential problems and opportunities for protection, management, and development of its groundwater resources. Groundwater protection is needed to maintain and enhance the quality of life in Dakota County by addressing and reducing concerns to public health and the environment.

In 2019, Dakota County’s (County) Environmental Resources Department (ERD) will be conducting stakeholder engagement while revising the Groundwater Plan. The stakeholder engagement process will provide the County with timely, relevant, and truthful feedback on public concerns about the water supply and about strategies proposed to be included in the Groundwater Plan.

In August 2017, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners adopted Strategic Plan Goals that include:

A great place to live

• Dakota County strives to be a welcoming place where all people are safe, have opportunities to thrive, and enjoy a high lifelong quality of life.

A healthy environment with quality natural areas

• Dakota County protects and maintains natural resources for the health and enjoyment of current and future residents.

A successful place for business and jobs

• Dakota County fosters business and employment success through modern infrastructure, low taxes, and a prepared, connected workforce.

Excellence in public service

• Dakota County demonstrates sound stewardship of human and financial resources, communicates and engages with the public, and innovates and collaborates to provide excellent service.

Groundwater provides 90 percent of the water supply in Dakota County, so groundwater protection is critical for the future of Dakota County as “a great place to live” with “a healthy environment with quality natural areas.” The Groundwater Plan states the goals, objectives, scope, and priorities for groundwater protection in the County. It describes the County’s strategic approach for new and ongoing programs for residents, agricultural interests, businesses, industry, and government to protect and improve groundwater quality and quantity. The current Groundwater Plan, incorporated into the Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC 2030, was adopted by the County Board in May 2009, and outlines numerous near-, mid-, and long-term strategies to meet County and State groundwater protection goals.

Significant changes have occurred since the 2009 Groundwater Plan was approved.

• In 2013, the Minnesota Legislature changed the laws governing water appropriations permits, changing the regulatory processes for the construction and use of large-capacity


wells, impacting both municipal water suppliers and agricultural irrigators in Dakota County. As a result of this change in the law, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conducted a Groundwater Thresholds study, which studied the potential impacts of groundwater appropriations on designated trout stream reaches of the Vermillion River and Trout Brook (a Cannon River tributary).

• The Metropolitan Council adopted its 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan and Master Water Supply Plan in 2015. The Metropolitan Council’s estimates of future groundwater use in Dakota County show possible aquifer drawdowns of as much as 50% of the available groundwater in the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers by 2040.

• The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) revised its Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan in 2015 and, as of December 2018, is in the process of establishing a Groundwater Protection Rule to address nitrate groundwater contamination statewide. In 2013 and 2014, as part of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan implementation, Dakota County partnered with MDA to serve as the pilot region for the “Township Testing” program. More than 5,000 private drinking water well owners in 18 Dakota County communities were given the opportunity to have their wells tested for nitrate for free. Nearly 1,400 residents participated; of these, 27 percent of the wells tested exceeded the drinking water standard for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L).

• The Dakota County Ambient Groundwater Quality study (AGQS) is a long-term program to monitor issues and trends in drinking water quality in private wells located throughout Dakota County. From 1999 through 2018, Dakota County has conducted 15 rounds of sampling. This program has identified widespread issues with human-caused contamination of private wells with nitrate, agricultural herbicides, and chloride; and with naturally-occurring contamination from manganese. Overall, 60 percent of the wells tested were above the drinking water standard for one or more contaminants: 29 percent of the wells had elevated levels of nitrate; 19 percent had high levels of cyanazine breakdown products (an herbicide banned for use since 2002); and 34 percent had levels of manganese exceeding the standard for infants, 100 µg/L (micrograms per liter).

• In 2015 through 2017, Dakota County conducted the Wells and Increased Infant Sensitivity and Exposure Study (WIISE), with funding and technical assistance from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The purpose of the study was to estimate the prevalence of contaminants of particular concern to infants, in a non-agricultural community (Inver Grove Heights), with a primary focus on manganese. Of the 274 private wells sampled as part of this program, 194 (71 percent) exceeded the Minnesota Department of Health’s drinking water guidance for manganese for infants. The study results also raised concerns about detections of arsenic, lead, and coliform bacteria. Unlike other areas of the County, no wells had nitrate above the drinking water guidance.

• In 2017, the Minnesota Legislature changed the definitions of environmental wells (monitoring wells, environmental bore holes, or remedial wells), which shifted specific regulatory responsibilities and authority from MDH to the Dakota County Delegated Well Program.

• Dakota County revised Ordinance 113, Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (Septic Systems), in 2009, 2016, and 2018.


The Groundwater Plan strategies apply to all stakeholders in Dakota County, therefore stakeholder input is important while crafting the revised plan. The County’s Public Engagement Tool assigned this project a Level 3 (Involve) Public Engagement Level. A Level 3 requires the County Board to review a Stakeholder Engagement Plan and recommends the use of an Advisory Committee. The Dakota County Planning Commission will be Dakota County’s primary advisory committee and consulting services will be secured for Groundwater Plan development, including stakeholder engagement, using existing funds approved by the County Board in the 2018 and 2019 ERD budgets. The consultant will work closely with ERD’s Groundwater Plan project team to develop, facilitate, organize, and summarize the stakeholder engagement process to inform the revision of the Groundwater Plan.

This Stakeholder Engagement Plan outlines processes for involving all affected stakeholder groups and creating effective and inclusive engagement methods tailored to each group to motivate and involve stakeholders who may not normally be engaged. A successful Stakeholder Engagement Plan will produce meaningful and pointed feedback to guide the development of proposed Groundwater Plan strategies.

3. Background The Groundwater Plan’s framework and goals are influenced by Minnesota Statute §103H, Groundwater Protection; §103G, Waters of the State; §103I, Wells, Borings, and Underground Uses; and §115.55, Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems. The Groundwater Plan will support the goals of the State expressed in these statutes: that groundwater be maintained in its natural condition, free from any degradation caused by human activities, to the extent practicable (MN Statute §103H.001); and to protect health and general welfare by providing a means for the development and protection of the natural resource of groundwater in an orderly, healthful, and reasonable manner (MN Statute §103I.001). Groundwater use is sustainable if it will supply the needs of future generations and will not harm ecosystems, degrade water, or reduce water levels beyond the reach of public water supply and private domestic wells (MN Statute §103G.287). The Groundwater Plan will be revised in accordance with Minn. Stat. §103B.255, Metropolitan Groundwater Management: Groundwater Plans. Dakota County adopted its first Groundwater Plan in 1993; the current Groundwater Plan was adopted by the County Board in May 2009 as part of the Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC 2030. The revised Groundwater Plan is anticipated to be completed in October, 2019. Upon completion, but before final adoption by the County Board, the County will submit the draft plan for a 60-day review and comment period to the adjoining counties, the Metropolitan Council, the state review agencies, the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), the cities, townships, and watershed organizations within the County, and other interested parties. After the review and comment period and any resulting changes to the document approved by the County Board, the Groundwater Plan will be submitted to the BWSR for final review.


4. Stakeholder Engagement Objectives and Approaches The primary stakeholder engagement objectives are:

1. Learn more about the current perception of the Groundwater Plan and Groundwater Plan strategies.

2. Learn more about stakeholders’ perceptions of groundwater issues and their level of concern.

3. Collect data to best inform the County throughout the Groundwater Plan revision process. 4. Describe and explain the necessity for prospective Groundwater Plan strategies to the

relevant stakeholder groups. 5. Request feedback, ideas, and opinions from the stakeholder groups to:

a. Assess groundwater and drinking water challenges and determine strategies for addressing those challenges.

b. Identify opportunities for and barriers to implementing or following prospective Groundwater Plan strategies.

c. Understand the level of support for prospective Groundwater Plan strategies. 6. Provide accurate, relevant, and timely information to help all of those involved understand

the Groundwater Plan revision process and make informed comments and recommendations.

The County’s Groundwater Plan stakeholder engagement approach is designed to solicit ideas, responses, feedback, and opinions from a varied group of stakeholders. The stakeholder engagement process will bring together multiple points of view to inform Groundwater Plan decisions, establish legitimacy to the Groundwater Plan revision process, identify potential problems and generate solutions, and articulate and clarify key Groundwater Plan strategies. The Groundwater Plan process will connect the County with new collaborators and foster relationships with existing partners to encourage change and raise awareness of the Groundwater Plan revision. The County’s engagement process will include visibility, transparency of the process, appreciation of points-of-view, and will employ multiple communication methods to engage stakeholders.

The stakeholder groups affected by the Groundwater Plan revision are varied with different and occasionally conflicting drivers and desires for outcomes. Therefore, the County will use a broad range of engagement approaches, including:

• Creating an inclusive engagement system that reflects the demographics of the County and its various stakeholder groups

• Establishing, renewing, and maintaining relationships with stakeholders • Providing a variety of opportunities using multiple engagement techniques for all

stakeholders to share diverse ideas and promote information to direct the revision of the Groundwater Plan

• Informing, listening, inviting, and responding to feedback from stakeholders • Incorporating feedback into the revision process or addressing it in other ways • Providing opportunities for ongoing communication with stakeholders • Updating stakeholders throughout the revision process to discuss and provide new

information, ideas, or changes and apply them proactively • Recognizing and thanking stakeholders for the contributions during the revision process


Supportive Work Efforts: The Groundwater Plan will be revised by ERD staff and the Dakota County Office of Planning (Planning), with assistance from the Dakota County Public Health and Communications Departments, in addition to the Dakota County SWCD. A contractor will be hired to advise and facilitate the Stakeholder Engagement process. Additional contractors may be hired for other portions of Groundwater Plan development.

This engagement plan will be implemented hand-in-hand with a timely Project Communications Strategy to ensure that stakeholders and the general public are aware of the project and of opportunities to be engaged. County staff will be responsible for developing and implementing the communications strategy.

5. Major Groups to Engage Because 90% of the County’s water supply is from groundwater, nearly everyone who works and lives in Dakota County will be affected by the Groundwater Plan revision.

Engagement efforts will explore stakeholder ideas, opinions, attitudes, and reactions to existing and potential groundwater issues and strategies; State, County, and local services, programs, and regulations; and opportunities for County innovation in addressing complex groundwater challenges. Stakeholder groups will be engaged depending on the proposed Groundwater Plan strategy and implementation timeline. Specific stakeholder groups, with the priority level of engagement in parenthesis, include:

• County Government. County Government leaders have been involved in previous Groundwater Plan revision processes. ERD and Planning staff will retain responsibility to directly engage these groups. For that reason, County government is not included in the Stakeholder/Method matrix below.

o Dakota County Board of Commissioners (high). The County Board is responsible for approving the Groundwater Plan and the members are held accountable by their constituents.

o Dakota County Manager (high). The County manager is accountable to the County Board and manages day-to-day operations of County employees.

o Physical Development Division Senior Management. o Dakota County Planning Commission (high). The Planning Commission will be used

for committee advice and recommendation of strategies to the Dakota County Board of Commissioners.

• County Departments and SWCD. Selected County departments have been involved in previous Groundwater Plan revisions. ERD and Planning staff will retain responsibility to directly engage these groups. For that reason, County government is not included in the Stakeholder/Method matrix below.

o Water Resources Unit of ERD (high) o Land Conservation Unit of ERD (high) o Parks Department (high) o SWCD (high) o Public Health Department (high) o Transportation (medium)


o Communications (medium) o Operations Management (low)

• State Agencies and Metropolitan Council. (high)

o Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) o Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) o Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) o Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) o Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) o Metropolitan Council

• Watershed Organizations. (high)

o Black Dog WMO o Eagan-Inver Grove Heights WMO o Lower Minnesota River WD o Lower Mississippi River WMO o North Cannon River WMO (NCRWMO) o Vermillion River WJPO (VRWJPO)

• Municipal Water Suppliers. (high)

o City of Apple Valley o City of Burnsville o City of Cannon Falls o City of Eagan o Empire Township o City of Farmington o City of Hampton o City of Hastings o City of Inver Grove Heights o City of Lakeville o City of New Trier (public water supply but uses septic systems) o City of Northfield o City of Randolph (public water supply but uses septic systems) o City of Rosemount o City of South St. Paul o City of Vermillion o Southeast Metro Water Supply Work Group o Southwest Metro Water Supply Work Group o American Water Works Assn.

• Communities that rely on wells and septics. (high) o Castle Rock Township o City of Coates o Douglas Township o Eureka Township o Greenvale Township o Hampton Township


o Marshan Township o City of Miesville o Nininger Township o Randolph Township o Ravenna Township o Sciota Township o City of Sunfish Lake o Vermillion Township o Waterford Township

• Other Public Entities (not municipal water suppliers). (low)

o Communities that get water from St. Paul Regional Water Services: City of Lilydale City of Mendota City of Mendota Heights City of West St. Paul

o School districts o U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) o U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-

NRCS) o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) o Adjoining counties o Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota (BALMM)

• Residents (public water supply customers). Dakota County has roughly 400,000 residents, of

whom about 95% use public water supplies. (medium) o Single-unit residences. o Multi-unit residents. o Under-represented/underserved residents, including older adults, non-native English

speakers, low income households, racial-ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities.

• Residents (private drinking water wells). Dakota County has approximately 8,000 residences that rely on private drinking water wells. Half of these are in rural Dakota County and half are in the developed part of the County. (high)

• Well and Water Businesses. o Well contractors (high) o Retail water treatment suppliers (i.e., Culligan, Commers, etc.) (medium)

• Business and Industry. (low) o High volume users with their own wells (e.g., Flint Hills Resources, Great Lakes

Coca-Cola in Eagan). o Chambers of commerce. o Real estate developers and homeowners associations. o Construction. o Golf course operators and other landscape irrigators.


• Agriculture. (high)

o Farmers (agricultural irrigators) (high) o Irrigation equipment sellers (high) o S.E. Irrigators Association o Commodities Groups, e.g., MN Corn Growers Assn. o MN Agricultural Water Resources Center o Farmers Union o Farm Bureau o Irrigators Association of MN o Crop advisors o Co-ops and other ag retailers and service providers

• Research institutions. (low)

o Minnesota Geological Survey o University of Minnesota College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences

(CFANS), including Extension

• Nonprofits, advocacy and special interest groups.(low) o MN Rural Water Association o Friends of the Mississippi River o Nature Conservancy o Izaak Walton League o Freshwater Society o MN Environmental Partnership o Cannon River Watershed Partnership o Hastings Environmental Protectors o Trout Unlimited o Ducks Unlimited o Pheasants Forever o Conservation Minnesota o Sierra Club

It is important to note that not all of these groups will be impacted to the same degree or have the same level of interest in the Groundwater Plan revision process.

6. Engagement Methods Anticipated engagement methods, described more specifically:

• County Board and Planning Commission Meetings: ERD and Planning staff will develop and distribute materials to explain the Groundwater Plan revision process and potential strategies. This includes materials directed to county government, including Requests for Board Action at regular County Board meetings and information and questions for the County Planning Commission at regular Planning Commission meetings. Not included in Stakeholder/Method matrix.


• County Board and/or Planning Commission Workshop(s): One or more workshops may be

conducted and consist of interactive sessions to fully inform the County Board and Planning Commission, and for staff to gather input on the Groundwater Plan revision process, iterative proposed strategies, and the draft Groundwater Plan. Not included in Stakeholder/Method matrix.

• Working Meetings: Separate working meetings will fully engage state agency staff, watershed organization staff, municipal water suppliers, other public entities, well contractors, water treatment suppliers, and agricultural interests in the revision process by inviting participation by all contributors while the Groundwater Plan strategies are still being formed.

• Combined Well Water Testing Events/Working Meetings: ERD will hold water testing events (nitrate) for private well owners. The events will be used to survey private well owners for their opinions and ideas regarding the Groundwater Plan.

• Surveys: Electronic and paper surveys will be provided for residents and businesses. The surveys will ask a myriad of questions to solicit opinions and ideas about drinking water issues in Dakota County and the direction in which residents and businesses would like the County to move in, providing a framework for Groundwater Plan strategies. Surveys will be distributed through libraries, township halls, nitrate clinics, County service centers, and other physical locations.

• Open House(s)/Meeting(s): Stakeholders will be invited to attend open houses or meetings to browse information on the Groundwater Plan and provide comments on the proposed issues and strategies.

• Public/Stakeholder Communications: Effectively promoting and advertising the engagement opportunities will be crucial to their success. County staff will develop and distribute materials to explain the Groundwater Plan revision process and potential strategies as part of the Project Communications Strategy. The Strategy will make use of County communications channels, as well as leveraging other outreach networks: o Use existing communications methods and channels. The County will assist the stakeholder

engagement contractor in using existing communications methods and channels such as the County’s website, business and resident e-news, and newsletter; municipal websites and newsletters; and through social media. The website will be dedicated to updating all external stakeholders on the revision process, upcoming meetings, and outcomes of meetings. County e-news will be used for strategically-timed information. The County will create resources such as mailers and postcards for residents and a web page dedicated to the Groundwater Plan revision process. Not included in Stakeholder/Method matrix.

o Engage existing partnerships. County staff will engage existing partners through existing interaction methods, such as: meetings of the SE and SW Metro Water Supply Work Groups, city council or township supervisor meetings, SWCD board meetings, and watershed organization meetings. County staff will also use existing materials to generate feedback from stakeholders such as Metro municipal/county/state residential surveys and focus groups. Not included in Stakeholder/Method matrix.


o Speaking engagements or presentations. County staff will promote the Groundwater Plan revision process and proposed strategies by accepting invitations for speaking engagements and/or presentations. These are likely to be presentations in front of public entity administrators, business trade organizations, and internal presentations to management.

The table below lists engagement methods for each stakeholder group throughout the entire project. Methods that are expected to be in-person meetings are in bold.

ENGAGEMENT METHODS

Wor

king

Mee

tings

Wat

er T

estin

g C

linic

s

Sur

veys

Ope

n ho

use(

s)/m

eetin

g(s)

Spea

king

eng

agem

ents

(C

ount

y st

aff)

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

State Agencies and Met Council X X X Watershed Organizations X X Municipal Water Suppliers X X Communities on wells & septics X X Other public entities X X Residents (public water supply customers) X X X Residents (private drinking water wells) X X X X Well and Water Businesses X Businesses X X X Agriculture X X X X X Research Institutions X X Nonprofits, advocacy, and special interest groups X X


7. Key Questions to Ask Key questions for stakeholder engagement will be refined through the stakeholder engagement consulting contract to ensure a continuous improvement process. Key questions being considered for each stakeholder group are listed below. Priority issues are in bold. Stakeholder Interests/Issues of Focus (Presumed

priorities in bold) What we want to learn from them

County government --Clean, safe, plentiful drinking water --Meet statutory requirements --Reasonable costs --Permitting authority and process --Potential new regulations or regulatory roles -- A successful place for business and jobs

--What are the overall goals they have for the Groundwater Plan? --What roles should Dakota County maintain, expand, or reconsider? --What financial, regulatory, and educational approaches should be considered to reach the Plan objectives? --Are there any barriers to implementation of proposed Groundwater Plan strategies, and if so, what are potential strategies to overcome these barriers? --What strategies and implementation timeline are most effective in achieving Plan goals?

County departments & SWCD

--Improved communications and coordination between departments --Maintain healthy and quality natural areas --Protect groundwater quality and quantity to protect groundwater-dependent ecosystems. --Understand surface water-groundwater interactions --Potential new regulations or regulatory roles --Community communication and education

-How do potential Groundwater Plan strategies impact day-to-day operations of County departments? --How can ERD close communication loops between departments to protect groundwater? --What is the timing and level of involvement County departments envision for implementing Groundwater Planning needs? --Are there any barriers to implementation of proposed Groundwater Plan strategies, and if so, what are potential strategies to overcome these barriers?


Stakeholder Interests/Issues of Focus (Presumed priorities in bold)

What we want to learn from them

State agencies & Met Council --MN Agriculture (regulator) --MN Health (regulator) --MN DNR (regulator) --MN BWSR --Metropolitan Council

--Clean, safe drinking water --Adequate volume/supply --Reasonable costs --Efficient permitting processes --Potential new regulations --Growth pressures on supply --Water infrastructure financing --Public outreach and education --Land use implications --Wetland restoration --Protect groundwater quality and quantity to protect groundwater-dependent ecosystems --Understand surface water-groundwater interactions

--What policy and legal opportunities and barriers exist to improving quality and supply? --How can agencies streamline processes for end-users? --What perceptions and misperceptions should be addressed? --How to improve collaboration and coordination? --What knowledge gaps do we have, as agencies or collectively, and how to address these gaps? --What financial, regulatory, and educational approaches should be considered to reach the Plan objectives?

Watershed organizations

--Water quality --Wetland restoration --Protect groundwater quality and quantity to protect groundwater-dependent ecosystems --Understand surface water-groundwater interactions

--How can the Groundwater Plan support the objectives of each watershed organization? -- Are there objectives, goals, or strategies of the plan that are in conflict with those of a watershed organization? How can such differences, if any, be resolved? --What financial, regulatory, and educational approaches should be considered to reach the Plan objectives?

Municipal water suppliers

--Clean, safe drinking water --Adequate volume/supply --Reasonable costs --Efficient permitting processes --Potential new regulations --Acceptable landscape quality --Growth pressures on supply --Water infrastructure financing --Public outreach and education --Land use implications --Wetland restoration

--What opportunities and barriers exist for their operations to improve quality and supply? --What perceptions and misperceptions should be addressed? --How to improve collaboration and coordination? --What financial, regulatory, and educational approaches should be considered to reach the Plan objectives?




Communities on wells & septics

--Clean, safe drinking water --Reasonable costs --Potential new regulations

--What financial, regulatory, and educational approaches should be considered to reach the Plan objectives? --Are there any barriers to implementation of proposed Groundwater Plan strategies, and if so, what are potential strategies to overcome these barriers?

Other public entities

--Clean, safe drinking water --Adequate volume/supply --Growth pressures on supply --Public outreach and education --Wetland restoration --Protect groundwater quality and quantity to protect groundwater-dependent ecosystems --Understand surface water-groundwater interactions

--What policy and legal opportunities and barriers exist to improve quality and supply? --What perceptions and misperceptions should be addressed? --How to improve collaboration and coordination? --What knowledge gaps do we have, as agencies or collectively, and how to address these gaps? --Are there any barriers to implementation of proposed Groundwater Plan strategies, and if so, what are potential strategies to overcome these barriers?

Residents (public supply water users)

--Clean, safe drinking water --Adequate volume/supply --Reasonable costs --Maintaining residential landscapes

--How much do they know about water issues? --What changes and tradeoffs are they willing to make to protect water quality and supply? --What financial, regulatory, and educational approaches should be considered to reach the Plan objectives? --Are there any barriers to implementation of proposed Groundwater Plan strategies, and if so, what are potential strategies to overcome these barriers?




Residents (private drinking water wells)

--Clean, safe drinking water --Adequate volume/supply --Reasonable costs --Groundwater contamination --Water treatment options and costs

-How much do they know about water issues? -What changes and tradeoffs are they willing to make to protect water quality and supply? -What financial, regulatory, and educational approaches should be considered to reach the Plan objectives? --Are there any barriers to implementation of proposed Groundwater Plan strategies, and if so, what are potential strategies to overcome these barriers?

Well and Water Businesses

--County regulations stricter than State’s --Changes to well regulation --Clean, safe drinking water --Adequate volume/supply --Reasonable costs --Efficient permitting processes -Business opportunities

--Policy and legal opportunities and barriers to improve quality and supply? --How can agencies streamline processes for end-users? --What perceptions and misperceptions should be addressed? --What financial, regulatory, and educational approaches should be considered to reach the Plan objectives? --Are there any barriers to implementation of proposed Groundwater Plan strategies, and if so, what are potential strategies to overcome these barriers?




Businesses --Businesses with wells --Chambers of commerce. --Golf course operators and landscape irrigators --Real estate developers and homeowners associations. --Construction.

--Clean, safe drinking water --Reasonable costs --Efficient permitting processes --Potential new regulations --Acceptable landscape quality --Adequate water quality and supply for operations --Business profitability

--How much do they know about water issues? --What changes and tradeoffs are they willing to make to protect water quality and supply? --What opportunities and barriers exist for their operations to improve quality and supply? --What financial, regulatory, and educational approaches should be considered to reach the Plan objectives? --Are there any barriers to implementation of proposed Groundwater Plan strategies, and if so, what are potential strategies to overcome these barriers?

Agriculture --Clean, safe drinking water --Adequate volume/supply --Reasonable costs --Efficient permitting processes --Potential new regulations --Growth pressures on supply --Farm profitability

--How much do they know about water issues? --What changes and tradeoffs are they willing to make to protect water quality and supply? --What opportunities and barriers exist for their operations to improve quality and supply? --What financial, regulatory, and educational approaches should be considered to reach the Plan objectives? --What should Dakota County’s role be in addressing issues of water quality and quantity? --What are the barriers to collecting accurate data?




Research Institutions

--Clean, safe drinking water --Adequate volume/supply --Public outreach and education

--How to improve collaboration and coordination? --What knowledge gaps do we have, as agencies or collectively, and how to address these gaps? --What financial, regulatory, and educational approaches should be considered to reach the Plan objectives? --Are there any barriers to implementation of proposed Groundwater Plan strategies, and if so, what are potential strategies to overcome these barriers?

Non-Profit Organizations

--Clean, safe drinking water --Adequate volume/supply --Potential new regulations --Growth pressures on supply --Public outreach and education --Protect groundwater quality and quantity to protect groundwater-dependent ecosystems --Understand surface water/groundwater interactions --Landscape restoration for water quality

--Policy and legal opportunities and barriers to improve quality and supply? --What perceptions and misperceptions should be addressed? --Improving collaboration and coordination --What knowledge gaps do we have, as agencies or collectively, and how to address these gaps? --What financial, regulatory, and educational approaches should be considered to reach the Plan objectives? --Are there any barriers to implementation of proposed Groundwater Plan strategies, and if so, what are potential strategies to overcome these barriers?


8. Action Plan by Project Phases See the “Project Phases and Milestones” document for more detailed information.

Phase 1: Start-Up and Project Organization (by end of December 2018) – no public engagement

• Develop Stakeholder Engagement Plan. • Draft and post Request for Proposals (RFP) for public engagement consultant.

Phase 2: Research on Groundwater Issues and Stakeholder Needs (by mid-July 2019) • Select and contract preferred consultant to support public engagement. • Meet with consultant and finalize Stakeholder Engagement Plan, and the implementation

structure/schedule. • Develop engagement meeting materials, including survey(s) of residents, businesses, and

other stakeholders. • Conduct survey; compile and review results throughout planning process. • Update Planning Commission on public engagement process. • Conduct stakeholder engagement sessions to answer the key questions described in Section

7, above. • Analyze and summarize engagement sessions to inform the development of the draft

Groundwater Plan objectives, goals, and strategies • Review findings and content for Planning Commission and Board with PDD leadership. • Consider workshop with Planning Commission and/or Board.

PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SESSONS (Estimated)

Wor

king

Mee

tings

Wat

er T

estin

g C

linic

s

Sur

veys

Ope

n ho

use(

s)

Spea

king

eng

agem

ents

(C

ount

y st

aff)

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

State Agencies and Met Council 2 X Watershed Organizations 1 X Municipal Water Suppliers 1 X Communities on wells & septics X Other public entities X Residents (public supply customers) X 1 X Residents (private drinking water wells) 3 X X Well and Water Businesses 1 Businesses 1 X X Agriculture 2 X X Research Institutions X Nonprofits, advocacy, interest groups X

Number of sessions, this phase 8 3 1


Phase 3: Draft Goals and Strategies for Plan (by end of December 2019) • Conduct additional stakeholder engagement to discuss draft Groundwater Plan objectives

and goals, and to determine interest/disinterest in potential Groundwater Plan strategies.

PHASE 3 ENGAGEMENT SESSONS (Estimated)

Wor

king

Mee

tings

Wat

er T

estin

g C

linic

s

Sur

veys

Ope

n ho

use(

s)/m

eetin

g(s)

Spea

king

eng

agem

ents

(C

ount

y st

aff)

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

State Agencies and Met Council 1 X Watershed Organizations 1 X Municipal Water Suppliers 1 X Communities on wells & septics X Other public entities X Residents (public water supply customers) 1 X Residents (private drinking water wells) X Well and Water Businesses 1 Businesses X Agriculture 1 X Research Institutions X Nonprofits, advocacy, and special interest groups X

Number of sessions, this phase 5 1

Phase 4: Draft Plan Review and Adoption (by end of May 2020) • Present draft plan summary to Planning Commission, seek recommendation on plan

submittal to BWSR and plan release for public review and comment (60 day period) – suggested simultaneous review by BWSR and public.

• Present draft plan summary to Board, seek recommendation on plan submittal to BWSR and plan release for public review and comment (60 day period).

• Conduct 60-day review with notification and engagement of all required stakeholder interests • Compile and summarize comments. Identify any needed changes to the document. • Present the comment summary to the Planning Commission and seek recommendation on

plan adoption. • Present the comment summary to the Board and seek recommendation on plan adoption.


9. Available Resources and Budget ERD plans to use the existing 2018 funds allocated by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners for the Ambient Groundwater Monitoring and Groundwater Projection projects. Approximately $35,000 to $49,990 is remaining in the 2018 budget for Groundwater Plan revision consulting services. Planning staff has experience with stakeholder engagement in previous county plans. ERD staff created this proposed stakeholder engagement plan and will contract with a consultant who specializes in stakeholder engagement to enhance and implement this plan. The ERD project team and consultant will be primarily responsible for the stakeholder engagement process. The Dakota County Planning Commission, Dakota County Board of Commissioners, Senior Management, Communications Department, and County Manager will also be informed of the engagement process and involved with it.

Date post:	25-Aug-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhngoc
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION · The County’s groundwater is vulnerable to surface pollutant...

Documents