dakota county planning commission · the county’s groundwater is vulnerable to surface pollutant...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Recommendation to PDC Q1-Q4
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
Recommendation to PDC Q1-Q3
Park Facilities and Grounds ADA Transition Plan
Prepare inventory and plan to meet/exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements
Recommendation to PDC Q1-Q4
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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
• 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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
Groundwater Use in Dakota County
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
Uniquely vulnerable due to:
– Highly permeable coarse
soils
– Karst topography
Groundwater Vulnerability
1/17/2019
5
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
• 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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
Groundwater Quality in Dakota County: Nitrate
• 27% of wells exceed
the nitrate standard
1/17/2019
6
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
Groundwater Quality in Dakota County:
Nitrate with Depth and Time
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
• 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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
Groundwater Quality in Dakota County: Cyanazine
1/17/2019
9
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
Groundwater Quantity in Dakota County
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
• 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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
• 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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
• 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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
• 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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
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?
Question 2 - Discussion
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
• 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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
• 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
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
Groundwater Plan: Draft Schedule
1/17/2019
15
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
If the Planning Commission is the Groundwater Plan
Advisory Committee, what additional information/data
does the Planning Commission need to assist in the
process?
Question 3 - Discussion
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
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
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
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 2 of 20
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
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 3 of 20
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.
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 4 of 20
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.
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 5 of 20
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
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 6 of 20
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)
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 7 of 20
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
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 8 of 20
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.
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 9 of 20
• 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.
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 10 of 20
• 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.
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 11 of 20
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
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 12 of 20
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 Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 13 of 20
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?
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 14 of 20
Stakeholder Interests/Issues of Focus (Presumed priorities in bold)
What we want to learn from them
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?
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 15 of 20
Stakeholder Interests/Issues of Focus (Presumed priorities in bold)
What we want to learn from them
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?
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 16 of 20
Stakeholder Interests/Issues of Focus (Presumed priorities in bold)
What we want to learn from them
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?
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 17 of 20
Stakeholder Interests/Issues of Focus (Presumed priorities in bold)
What we want to learn from them
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?
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 18 of 20
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
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 19 of 20
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.
Stakeholder Engagement Plan – Dakota County Groundwater Plan Revision Page 20 of 20
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.